Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on August 12, 2013
A Material That Could Make Solar Power “Dirt Cheap”
Technology Review has an article on solar power research at UNSW – A Material That Could Make Solar Power “Dirt Cheap”.
A new type of solar cell, made from a material that is dramatically cheaper to obtain and use than silicon, could generate as much power as today’s commodity solar cells.Researchers developing the technology say that it could lead to solar panels that cost just 10 to 20 cents per watt. Solar panels now typically cost about 75 cents a watt, and the U.S. Department of Energy says 50 cents per watt will allow solar power to compete with fossil fuel.
In the past, solar researchers have been divided into two camps in their pursuit of cheaper solar power. Some have sought solar cells that can be made very cheaply but that have the downside of being relatively inefficient. Lately, more researchers have focused on developing very high efficiency cells, even if they require more expensive manufacturing techniques.
The new material may make it possible to get the best of both worlds—solar cells that are highly efficient but also cheap to make.
One of the world’s top solar researchers, Martin Green of the University of New South Wales, Australia, says the rapid progress has been surprising. Solar cells that use the material “can be made with very simple and potentially very cheap technology, and the efficiency is rising very dramatically,” he says.
Perovskites have been known for over a century, but no one thought to try them in solar cells until relatively recently. The particular material the researchers are using is very good at absorbing light. While conventional silicon solar panels use materials that are about 180 micrometers thick, the new solar cells use less than one micrometer of material to capture the same amount of sunlight. The pigment is a semiconductor that is also good at transporting the electric charge created when light hits it.
“The material is dirt cheap,” says Michael Grätzel, who is famous within the solar industry for inventing a type of solar cell that bears his name. His group has produced the most efficient perovskite solar cells so far—they convert 15 percent of the energy in sunlight into electricity, far more than other cheap-to-make solar cells. Based on its performance so far, and on its known light-conversion properties, researchers say its efficiency could easily rise as high as 20 to 25 percent, which is as good as the record efficiencies (typically achieved in labs) of the most common types of solar cells today. The efficiencies of mass-produced solar cells may be lower. But it makes sense to compare the lab efficiencies of the perovskite cells with the lab records for other materials. Grätzel says that perovskite in solar cells will likely prove to be a “forgiving” material that retains high efficiencies in mass production, since the manufacturing processes are simple.
30 Comments on "A Material That Could Make Solar Power “Dirt Cheap”"
BillT on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 12:46 pm
“…The efficiencies of mass-produced solar cells may be lower…”
Bingo!
Kenz300 on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 1:04 pm
Solar and wind energy gets more productive and cheaper every year………..
The fossil fuel industry will do all they can to limit the competition…and the profits.
Arthur on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 1:18 pm
“Bingo!”
Bill, as always, is scanning the text for something that alledgedly verifies his collapse world view, but ignores the central message, namely that the price of solar is expected to drop to 10-20 cent per peakwatt. That’s all what counts. The lower efficiency’s effect is only that you need more surface for the same amount of power. But again, solar is going to be as cheap as card board, which is good news for countries like Egypt or other African countries with excess sunny desert territory and ultra cheap labour to operate turnkey solar panel factories from Europe. Egypt could very well compete with electricity as an export product based on these two ingredients: sunny desert + cheap labour.
Jerry McManus on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 1:45 pm
BillT is right on the money. Seems like every year we hear about another solar “breakthrough” that never has a chance of working at scale, and that’s if it even makes it out of the lab.
Arthur, as always, is scanning the text for something, anything, that allegedly verifies his techno-fantasy world view, but ignores the central problem, namely that the predicament of our global ecological overshoot will not be “solved” by injecting the comatose corpse of industrial civilization with one last heroin fix of electricity.
That’s all what counts.
Beery on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 2:15 pm
“A new type of solar cell, made from a material that is dramatically cheaper to obtain and use than silicon…”
LOL. Yeah, right. Silicon is the second most abundant material in the Earth’s crust after Oxygen. Unless it’s oxygen, how on Earth could this ‘material’ be cheaper to obtain than silicon?
I detect marketing shenanigans.
Arthur on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 2:33 pm
“namely that the predicament of our global ecological overshoot will not be “solved” by injecting the comatose corpse of industrial civilization with one last heroin fix of electricity.”
The original subject of this site is peak-oil and the consequences of resource depletion for the continuation of society as we know it.
It should be noted though that substituting fossil with electricity from solar will combat to a large extent your ‘global ecological overshoot’.
But I slowly start to detect that even suggesting here that there are some lights at the end of the tunnel, is like ‘swearing in collapse church’.
“Unless it’s oxygen, how on Earth could this ‘material’ be cheaper to obtain than silicon?”
The cost of solar to a large extent is manufacturing cost; material cost is neglegible. The material perovskite is CaTiO3, that is Calcium, Tin and Oxigen, not exactly the Kohinoor diamond. Oh, and most important, you only need 1 micron of it.
Arthur on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 2:34 pm
Correction: Ti = Titanium.
GregT on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 3:10 pm
Fossil fuels are what gave us the ability to generate, distribute, and utilize electricity. Not the other way around.
Without cheap and abundant fossil fuels, all of our electronic gadgets, transformers, transmission lines, cables, plastics, wires, components, etc., would be too cost prohibitive, or energy intensive to produce. Without cheap and abundant fossil fuels, I doubt very much that most people will be concerned whether the internet is ‘up’ or not. They will have much more important things to do, like staying alive.
We have lived as a species on this planet for tens of thousands of years, and have survived quite well without modern industrialism. Modern industrial society is destroying the only planet that we currently have. We either continue to pursue what is destroying the Earth, until it can no longer support us, or we return back to living in harmony with nature. That is our dilemma, and there is no middle ground. The Earth will not negotiate with us, and really doesn’t care whether we exist as a species or not. That is our choice to make.
mike on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 3:37 pm
“But I slowly start to detect that even suggesting here that there are some lights at the end of the tunnel, is like ‘swearing in collapse church’”
If you really feel like that Arthur you know where the door is. Some of here actually come to learn about what we can do to live better lives in the future and help other people. You just come here to tell us that someone else has supposedly fixed all the problems for you. You’re a flipper, a very common occurrence among people who hold a belief (doomer collapse) which then doesn’t arrive by your schedule. To remain sane when your world view doesn’t pan out you totally flip it and treat it as some kind of revelation. I wouldn’t have believed you when you were a doomer and I wont believe you now you are a technofixer. I’ve already pointed you in the direction of a local church for you to pray at but here it is again
http://www.kurzweilai.net/
LT on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 4:11 pm
Back to the basics:
– Electrical energy – in essence – is an artificially man-made product, just like thousands of other man-made gadgets . It does not come as a natural resource. And as a product, it takes energy resources and other material resources to make. In this case, it takes fossil fuels, coppers, aluminum, irons,…, and dozens more other materials to produce it.
Solar panels, in essence, are just gadgets. Yes, it will collect some electricity, but it takes so much to do the job: banks of battery, electronic converters/inverters to change direct current into alternating current for TV and refrigerators, etc…
And the key thing is: People, who can affords it, is just a small percentage of the mass population.
Until solar panels/batteries/conveters are as cheap as potatoes, and no hassles from HOAs, it won’t be as much of a help as one wishes to see.
DC on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 4:31 pm
Yet another ‘breakthrough’ that will make solar what….too cheap to meter?
This must about the 50,001st breakthrough now since 1980, in some field or another. Ive lost track of how all these breakthroughs would make EVs, Hydrogen cars, jet packs, and mining the moon cheap and practical, not to mention all the awesome breakthroughs that were going to ‘solve’ the energy crisis. Which btw, the ‘crisis’ is always framed of one as ‘not enough energy’ rather than a crisis of energy waste and over-consumption-its true nature.
For all these endless breakthroughs, all I can buy locally here in 2013 in a store for PV, are those goofy little kits designed mainly, for RVers that are sufficient enough to power a few lights and maybe an electric cooker. Anything larger(ie useful) is a long distance special order.
Arthur on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 5:00 pm
“This must about the 50,001st breakthrough now since 1980, in some field or another.”
Lol. Here the solar price development since 1980, the cumulative result of ‘50,000 breakthroughs’:
http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/05/price-of-solar-power-drop-graph.jpg
Price decay factor 100 or so in 35 years. No reason to assume this development will stop in the next 30 years. These 10-20 cents/watt could very wel be met in the coming years with thin film technology. Meanwhile I can see with my own eyes that in my middle class neighbourhood in not so sunny Netherlands, panels are installed on roofs one after the other. But if Canada can generate a whopping 55 kwh electricity per capita, with ca 60% from hydro, I am not surprised Canada is not very interested in solar yet and maybe never will. Provided you can keep the hydro-electricity to yourself.
Arthur on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 5:08 pm
“And the key thing is: People, who can affords it, is just a small percentage of the mass population. ”
A middle class family can afford these panels:
http://www.zonnepanelen.nl/panelen.html
Now 1 euro per watt, including panel and VAT. Will be much lower soon.
blacknail on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 5:32 pm
Looks promising, but it is lead based, along with lead-acid batteries. The cost has just been pushed to the end of the lifecycle in lead disposal.
Arthur on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 6:29 pm
To add insult to injury, the prices for US wind power have come down to 4 dollar cents per kwh:
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/11/us-wind-power-prices-down-to-0-04-per-kwh/
These are days a doomer would want to jump of a cliff. 😉
LT on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 7:04 pm
“Meanwhile I can see with my own eyes that in my middle class neighbourhood in not so sunny Netherlands, panels are installed on roofs one after the other.”
>> You can see it, but we can’t!
A picture worth a thousand words. Can you either go up onto your rooftop or a skyline near-by with a camera and film it, then show us.
And finally, how big is the “middle class” in Europe now a day? I heard unemployment rate over there is over the roof, from Portugal in the west all the way to Ukraine in the east!
Arthur on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 7:25 pm
http://deepresource.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/solar-rush-in-holland/
1 in 69 roofs are now covered, but this number is increasing rapidly. Holland is lagging far behind compared to the rest of Europe, wind energy is more our thing. Germany and Italy are much more advanced in this respect.
“And finally, how big is the “middle class” in Europe now a day?”
In Holland we have just middle class and little else, not counting 1 million muslims.
“I heard unemployment rate over there is over the roof, from Portugal in the west all the way to Ukraine in the east!”
Not really. Here an Israeli site with recent figures:
stratfor . com / sites/default/files/main/images/Unemployment-Europe.jpg
Spain is bad, always have been. Greece, well Greece…
The rest is OK, Germany is booming, European youth unemployment could be lower though.
GregT on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 8:19 pm
“1 in 69 roofs are now covered”
So that would mean that 98.5% of rooves are not covered. That is hardly what I would consider to be a lot of solar panels.
Solar is a nicety, nothing more. I have 2 systems, one on a small house, and one on an RV. They are great for LED lights , a radio, recharging batteries, or for a small refrigerator, providing you also have a battery bank for when the sun isn’t shining.
The system on my RV cost me $1800, and will power a 12 volt stereo, LED lights, and a laptop, provided that the panels receive at least 3 hours of direct sunlight during the day. The system on my cabin cost $5000, and will power a small 12 volt refrigerator, led lights and a TV. If the sun doesn’t shine for 5 consecutive days, the fridge alone will drain the batteries.
To install a complete off grid system on my home, it would cost me over $30,000 for panels, cabling, inverters, batteries, breakers and installation. I know, because I have already received 2 quotes to have a system installed. It is not worth it for me to even pursue at this time, because it would take 23 years to pay for itself at current electricity rates. The battery bank would also most likely need to be replaced twice during this same time period, at a further cost of over 7000 dollars. A backup generator running off of fossil fuels, is also required, to ensure a completely uninterrupted supply of electricity.
Arthur on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 8:43 pm
Greg, you probably bought these systems a few years ago, when prices were much higher?
Have a look at these figures:
http://www.china-aircon.com/upload/cleantechnica9/FraunhoferISE_2012-May-500×385.jpg
And just to preempt mike, it does not make a difference if it is sunday or not. These are not ‘niceties’, but real dents in the conventional electricity production and expanding with every passing year.
Arthur on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 8:49 pm
If I look at US prices for solar then they are even lower than in Europe. It seems that 1 $ = 1 euro:
http://www.simpleray.com/Canadian-Solar-Solar-Panels-s/137.htm
$214,- for 250 watt. That’s 161 euro!
What do you mean 30k$?
You want to start a chickenfarm?
actioncjackson on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 8:49 pm
If it can’t power transportation, then it won’t stop the collapse. It may help to get through the transition, however only for a short time because things will start breaking and will need replacement. You need corporations and factories and stuff like that to do that.
dsula on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 9:01 pm
Arthur. Solar prices in the USA (installed system) are higher than Europe. It’s in the order of $4 or $5 per W, which is reduced to maybe $2.5/W counting incentives.
GregT on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 9:19 pm
Arthur,
I have 3 of those panels on my RV, plus a 1500 watt sine wave converter, a charging panel, a controller and four 6 volt golf cart batteries.
Please look up the prices of these items to understand how the system cost me $1800.
If we are camped in an area of full sun, the system will keep our lights, stereo, ceiling fan, and laptop powered indefinitely. (Until the system batteries wear out of course) We can also run a small LED TV and an 800 watt microwave, but not for long.
It is not, however, normal to receive full sun every day in the Pacific Northwest. Especially in the spring, fall, and winter, where it can be overcast and raining for weeks at a time. That is why I also have propane, a 120 volt charging system for the batteries, and a gasoline powered generator. The fridge, stove, oven, and heater, all run on propane.
Arthur on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 11:04 pm
dsula, that is not what the simpleray . com link says. Unless of course installation cost are way higher in the US than in Europe, but the panel prices seems to be the same.
Greg, so 3 panels that would be 3 * 200 = 600 peak Watt? Yes, that would amount to 100 Watt average, which explains your experiences with laptop and fridge. What I see on the roofs in my neighbourhood is 12 panels, not 3. That means 12 * 220 = 2600 euro or 2600 $ (if bought at simpleray). Plus installation and converters makes 6016,- euro for high quality European panels:
http://www.eon.nl/zonnepanelen
The difference of course is that in Holland there is a feed-in tariff, so no need for batteries and non-used kwhs are being paid for by the gridoperator.
dsula on Mon, 12th Aug 2013 11:36 pm
Arthur: That’s correct. Installation cost in the USA is way higher (where are those Mexicans, when you need them?). There’s studies out there that go thru all the calculations. And I have proof in my hands, quotes for 10kW rooftop. Costs $45k. One problem is (at least in my state VT) that you cannot install it yourself. You have to hire a certified installer company or otherwise you won’t get the incentive cash money.
BillT on Tue, 13th Aug 2013 12:32 am
Ah, the debate goes on… Wake me when PV is priced at a cost we ALL can afford. Otherwise it is just another toy for the techies to play with until they are not available anymore.
BTW: A PV panel here in the Philippines costs P16,560 or about $5 per watt. Plus all of the accessories to make it useful.
GregT on Tue, 13th Aug 2013 12:42 am
Arthur,
The panels aren’t running directly to the load. They are charging the batteries through a charge controller. It is the batteries that supply power to the load. Both the microwave, and the TV are AC and are supplied from the battery through the DC to AC inverter. The fridge that I have at the cabin is 12 volts DC, and does not require an inverter. It is much more efficient, as the inverter generates a lot of heat. It is also very small.
In BC we cannot grid tie yet, although there are some commercial and larger scale projects that do so. Like I said before, hydro power is relatively cheap. It is not worth the money to install solar, unless you are in a remote location, or are planning to stay somewhere for a very long time, which I am not.
SilentRunning on Tue, 13th Aug 2013 2:58 am
If I had a dollar for every time I’ve read that a new solar/battery/engine/etc breakthrough was just discovered in a lab, I would have enough money to retire.
There’s a whole lot of “tenative talk” in these puff pieces: Lots of “may”, “might”, “could”, “perhaps”…
Between the theorist’s whiteboard, and the lab curiosity and mass production there is a land mine of things that go wrong. The theory turns out not to work as expected. Or the raw materials turn out to be more expensive. Or the thing only works at room temperature. Or it explodes if it gets too hot. Or dramatically deteriorates when exposed to moisture. Or prolonged sunlight. Or dust. or……..
Arthur on Tue, 13th Aug 2013 9:31 am
“There’s a whole lot of “tenative talk” in these puff pieces: Lots of “may”, “might”, “could”, “perhaps”…
Between the theorist’s whiteboard, and the lab curiosity and mass production there is a land mine of things that go wrong.”
Not really. Here is an average Bavarian village, no millionairs that produces three times more energy than can be consumed locally. Use google maps link to zero in on the roofs of the buildings in the village. And this was done over a period of 14 years, when prices for hardware were much higher than today:
http://deepresource.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/wilpoldsried-makes-millions-from-renewables/
Today achieving the same thing is much easier then ever. All it takes is a determined mayor.
joshua on Sun, 18th Aug 2013 11:49 pm
There are some intriguing points in time in this post but I don’t know if I see these center for you to heart. There’s some validity but I is going to take hold viewpoint until I look into the idea further. Good article , thanks and we want a lot more! Added to FeedBurner too