Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumMaking Solar Power Competitive with Coal
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/39771/?mod=chfeatured[font size=4]A study identifies early-stage technologies that could be combined to cut the cost of solar panels in half.[/font]
Wednesday, February 22, 2012 | By Kevin Bullis
[font size=3]By the end of the decade, manufacturers in the United States could make solar panels that are less than half as expensive as the ones they make now. That would be cheap enough for solar power to compete with electricity from fossil fuels, according to a new study in Energy & Environmental Science. The cost reductions will come via technology that's already being demonstrated in research labs at startups, universities, and major solar manufacturers, and could involve silicon, the material most solar panels are made from today.
The report, from researchers at MIT led by Tonio Buonassisi, a professor of mechanical engineering and manufacturing, identifies early-stage technologies that, if employed together, could reduce the cost of making solar panels to 52 cents per watt. Currently, the cost is over a dollar per watt. At 52 cents per watt, assuming similar cost reductions for installation and equipment such as inverters, solar power would cost six cents per kilowatt-hour in sunny areas of the U.S.less than the average cost of electricity in the U.S. today. Solar power in sunny areas now costs roughly 15 cents per kilowatt-hour, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, although the cost can be sharply higher in small installations or in cloudy areas where solar installations generate less electricity.
The best way to reduce the cost per watt is to make solar cells more efficientas a result, more power can be produced with a given amount of material and factory equipment. Increasing efficiency also decreases installation costs, since fewer solar panels are needed. But efficiency improvements aren't enough to reach 52 cents a watt. Manufacturers will also need to make solar cells from thinner silicon wafers, make wafers in a way that wastes less silicon, and speed up manufacturing. If a high-efficiency solar cell design slows down manufacturing or requires thick wafers, it likely won't lead to the necessary cost reductions.
Some high-efficiency solar cell designs lend themselves to thin wafers. One involves sandwiching a wafer of crystalline silicon between two layers of amorphous silicon, as is done with a type of solar cell now produced by Sanyo. This symmetrical structure reduces stress on the wafer. Such cells can be processed at lower temperatures than conventional solar cells. Other cell designs could also work with thin wafers. One puts all of the electrical contacts on the back of a wafera process that could be well-suited to processing the cells on a sheet of glass. The U.S. company Sunpower uses a version of this cell design.
[/font][/font]
msongs
(67,129 posts)Yavapai
(825 posts)My solar panel system fills my bank of batteries by noon on a sunny day. Since it doesn't hold enough to get me through a couple cloudy days and I have to run the propane generator the next day. The same problem exists for wind power.
There is a very interesting article in the march 2012 edition of Scientific American about the need for better technologies for the storage of energy titled "Gather the wind."
The article describes the problems experienced by Denmark who has some of the world's largest wind farms. Because consumer demand for electricity is often lowest when the winds blow the hardest. Denmark then has to sell it's overflow of electrons to neighboring countries for pennies, only to have to buy energy back when demand rises, at much higher prices. As a result, Danish consumers pay some of the highest electricity rates on the planet.
If we could solve this problem, we could reduce much of the need for dirty power and really help reduce our carbon footprint.
Plant life has solved this problem with photosynthesis and the energy is stored even after the plant has died. We use this energy in the form of burning wood, petroleum and coal. All energy we use is solar power in it's various forms.
The cost of solar panels is substantial, but the problem of storage is even more problematic. But, all that said, I welcome the news of less expensive solar panels, even after I bought the expensive, less efficient ones.
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)And although still a miniscule amount, stored hydro is up 40% in 2011.
Storage systems are behind renewable generation, it needs more R&D.
Yavapai
(825 posts)The issue is that it requires elevation and that can be a problem in places like Kansas. There is a lack of suitable sites.
They mention a project in southern California, where they will use an abandoned open pit iron mine (Eagle Mountain) and use it for that purpose. The Republicans in California wanted to use the mine as a huge landfill that would have very probably leaked into the aquifer was frightening.
The article shows the cons to molten sodium is that it is expensive, and hard to hold energy for long periods, but it can be sited anywhere and is efficient, cost effective and highly reliable.
Renewable energy and its storage technologies hopefully will become much higher on our list of national priorities, replacing "drill baby drill and contraceptive usage..
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You've accurately identified its best use, however, which is something most people miss. Allow me to explain.
There are two different cases to be made for storage and renewables in the context of the grid. The first is to help smooth out grid variability caused by any reason - it might be variability caused by a) fluctuating output demands on the energy system or b) the variability associated with changes in generating inputs such as we see with wind or solar.
The second case for storage is the wasted energy from renewables when they are producing energy in excess of demand.
Due to end users turning power switches on an off, we have had to deal with grid variability long before variable renewables were a factor in any sense; so, the first case is something we already deal with using a variety of strategies and technologies. When we add in wind and solar, we change the profile of the grid a bit, but it is important to recognize the the operating profile of the grid is significantly different than that of any single source of generation. Trust me, when a nuclear plant has a problem and shuts down rapidly and unexpectedly it is much more significant to the grid than when a wave of wind travels between wind farms.
The second case for storage is what is starting to drive storage - it presents a new expanding economic opportunity to 'buy low/sell high'. But again, there are different ways to capitalize on that opportunity to time shift that energy supply, the most notable of which is the impending expansion of battery electric autos for personal transportation.
Off grid use is exactly as your post describes.
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)We dont need storage systems to install solar and wind generation on a significant scale. Like the Atlantic WInd Connection, a 350 mile long HVDC offshore trunkline from NJ to Virginia that can support 1750 4Mw turbines. We can persue the goals of many white papers like the DOE 20% from wind in 20 yrs.
Storage can make renewables deliver 24/7
I call it non traditional baseload, if we build out 20% from solar in 20 years (100 gigs) and 20% from wind, and 25 gigs of storage, we now can cliam 25 gigs of non traditional baseload. We have about 23 older BWR fission reactors in the US, and that non traditional baseload can replace the generation capacity represented by the 23 BWR.
Right now storage is cool, but we need to focus on installing new renewable capacity, later on, storage comes in real handy.
Yavapai
(825 posts)Both of you have given me a lot more to think about.
I had a longer post as a reply, but I realized that it should be better thought out utilizing the information that you have provided. What direction would you point me in to grasp a better understanding? Keep in mind, that I am at a technician level, not an engineer.
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)At least from my point of view.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,933 posts)It is intended for use with Concentrated Solar Thermal, where the molten salt is an integral part of the system.
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Your presumptions are worse than useless since they are always designed to reflect negatively on the competition of the nuclear industry. As is usually the case, your agenda driven speculation is incorrect.
Denmark doesn't have high energy prices because they have to buy expensive power. They have high energy prices because as a matter of national policy they place high taxes on energy to promote energy efficiency. And no, it isn't to pay for renewable subsidies either, that is paid for with a separate revenue stream.
ETA: The energy taxes are rebated to everyone to be used as they wish.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)You inserted your baseless and incorrect speculation.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)Seriously, you want me to pop round and iron your shirt while I'm at it?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)If you want to know now, then look it up.
Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Dead_Parrot
(14,478 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)New Hampshire, U.S.A. -- Prices for crystalline-silicon (c-Si) solar photovoltaic (PV) modules fell below the $1/W mark in January 2012, and in some cases well below even that, marking the first time that global average prices have fallen below this milestone, according to IMS Research.
With the market now stuck in overcapacity and oversaturation with solar PV modules -- so much so (some say tens of gigawatts) that Tier-1 producers and overstocks can fill demand all by themselves -- Chinese Tier-2 suppliers have desperately kept up their pricing one-upsmanship to simply keep themselves in the game at the expense of rivals. As a result, average c-Si PV module prices from this tier of suppliers has declined at double the pace of the total market -- $0.96/Watt in January 2011, though some spot prices were seen as low as $0.80/W, typically for large orders from German distributors, says IMS. (Note that sub-$1/W is largely seen as significantly below actual manufacturing costs -- First Solar is an important exception and thus the benchmark -- and is therefore unsustainable for many if not most manufacturers.)
(Further back up the chain, actions are already being taken to help ease pricing and capacity pressures. Reports suggest that Chinese polysilicon producers have taken up to 30 percent of their capacity offline, in the face of a 60 percent plunge to prices of and below $30/kg, and they may not come back online until prices rebound to nearly $50/kg.)
Annualized price declines slowed to 22 percent in January, ignoring seasonality, after exceeding 50 percent declines in December, thanks to reductions in incentives across several major solar PV markets at the end of 2011. PV modules prices spiked in December, amid the flood to get systems in the ground to qualify for expiring incentives. But the scales flipped in January and distributors' prices fell faster than manufacturers' prices in January, notes IMS research analyst Jessica Jin. Average distributor prices for Chinese Tier-2 c-Si modules, though, were still 20 percent higher than manufacturing pricing, she adds.
Price declines actually slowed down in January compared to previous months, buoyed by strong demand in Europe...
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/02/chinese-tier-2-modules-offered-below-1w?cmpid=WNL-Wednesday-February22-2012