GE: Solar business is our 'next wind'

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--General Electric plans to give its solar business a charge within two years by introducing panels with the same solar cell material used by industry cost leader First Solar.

In 2011, the energy giant expects to produce solar panels made with cadmium telluride, a thin-film solar cell material, Michael Idelchik, vice president of advanced technologies at GE Global Research, said here Wednesday at the EmTech conference. The company now sells solar panels that use silicon solar cells, but its long-term bet is on thin-film--and specifically cadmium telluride--because it offers the cheapest cost per watt, he said.

Cadmium telluride solar panels from First Solar installed in Berkeley, Calif.

(Credit: SolarCity)

Last year, GE's energy division took a majority stake in Golden, Colo.-based PrimeStar Solar, for its cadmium telluride cell technology. GE is now developing a product around that aimed at utility and commercial customers.

Solar at GE is a relatively small part of its sprawling energy portfolio, which covers everything from nuclear power plants to natural gas turbines. But GE expects that solar has the potential to grow rapidly, as its multibillion-dollar wind business has done over the past five years.

"Solar is definitely the next wind for us. It's not there yet, but it's moving very rapidly," Idelchik said. Solar is more expensive than wind right now, but he said that GE expects renewable energy mandates to help drive growth and bring costs down.

Thin-film solar cells offer lower production costs than the incumbent silicon because thin-film cells use far less material. Over the past five years, several solar companies have formed to make thin-film cells from a combination copper, indium, gallium, and selenide (CIGS), which are still not in the market in high volumes. GE's cells will be made from a compound of cadmium and tellurium.

Silicon cells are durable and more efficient at converting sunlight to electricity than thin-film solar cells. The most efficient commercial silicon cells can convert over 20 percent of sunlight to electricity. But GE Research projects that it can boost the efficiency of cadmium telluride to 12 percent efficiency and potentially higher, Idelchik said.

"We are excited about it because it can produce in diffuse light," he said. "The module (panel) life is 20 years--that's what the customer wants. It has the right production costs and right efficiency target."

Asked how its cadmium telluride products will differ from First Solar's, Idelchik answered only briefly that GE's device would be more "flexible for customers" in terms of installation and operation.

During his presentation, Idelchik said that GE is looking at ways of managing an entire solar array in a large installation built by a utility or commercial customer.

After his talk, he said that GE is developing technology to recycle solar cell material, as cadmium is a very toxic if it enters the environment.

[NervClaX]

"Solar is more expensive than wind right now, but GE expects that renewable energy mandates will help drive growth and bring costs down, he said." <br /> <br />Translation: "We will spend millions to lobby congress until they subsidize our solar technology with taxpayer dollars, punnish more efficient fossil fuel companies, and force it down people's throats." <br /> <br />I'm glad the article at least acknowledges how toxic cadmium can be. I'm sorry, but I don't want that stuff all over my home. Does anyone factor in the cost of recycling and disposing of these solar cells into their projections?

[wangbang]

Uh, you do realize that eventually we're going to run out of fossil fuels, right? Every industry starts out with high cost. It's pathetic that we've wasted so much time getting solar off the ground.

[Random_Walk]

Agreed on the cadmium - at least silicon is inert and can be recycled.

[vietvet7]

agreed: Also<br />Wind or Solar require large amounts of copper. The copper industry in the US has been destroyed by the democrats in the name of the environment. The closing of the largest, cleanest copper smelters in the world, here in the US, has made us a net importer of copper smelted in Peru, Chile, Etc., resulting in an increase of greenhouse emissions of over 500%. Ironic, is it not?<br /><br />Liberals, got to love them!

[iamarcin]

With fear of sounding like a nut job from the other side of the spectrum....<br /><br />"Does anyone factor in the cost of recycling and disposing of these solar cells into their projections?"<br />Who factors in the costs of recycling and disposing of CO2?<br /><br />"I'm glad the article at least acknowledges how toxic cadmium can be."<br />Do you plan on licking this stuff?<br /><br />I believe that the only reason that government has to subsidize things like this is because of short sighted pessimists like you.

[aubskibob]

You obviously know little about which you are speaking of. What do you mean by fossil fuels?<br /><br />If you mean coal, solar will do very little to displace coal. America has enough to supply itself with electricity for 350 years. Wind has grabbed about 3% of the market with subsidies. Solar will not do much better. Hydro is 18%. Coal is 67%. Gas is 3%. Coal will still be cheaper in most areas, even with subsidies. That is why it will retain the majority of the market. Also, solar and wind cannot supply energy all the time. You need coal and water to supply 24-hour on demand energy. They are not going away anytime soon. Also, the energy demands of this country are constantly increasing. The coal energy production industry could continue to grow even with a larger solar industry<br /><br />If you mean liquid fuel for transportation, AKA gasoline, this will not affect that in any way. Electricity production is mutually exclusive from liquid fuels for transportation in the US. Flex-fuel cars will outsell electric cars (both plug-in and hybrid) by at least a factor of 100. Methanol will do more in the next 50 years than electricity will. Once again, coal is the winner, because it can easily be converted into methanol, and we have 350 years worth.

[jlaustill]

Your right aubskibob, since we don't have the technology to replace coal efficiently now we should just give up because 350 years is the end of the world. Besides if it isn't, the technology to replace coal when we run out will magically appear, we don't need to work towards it now, that's just idiotic to waste money on. Instead, we should spend money on making coal work for us, since we have enough to last until the end of time and all.<br /><br />I sincerely hope everyone notices my sarcasm!

[ltnoconsp]

What's to protect the environment from a strong wind, hail storm, earth quake, etc, and this toxic cadmium leaks into the environment, or worse, onto a family? Why not stick with a not-as-toxic material that's more efficient like silicon.<br /><br />This is the same moronic thinking and half-assed effort as using nuclear power which creates toxic waste that's around and still toxic for our grandchildren's children's children.

[henryhayne]

The toxic waste of nuclear power is concentrated and easily isolated. Furthermore it can be recycled and reused. Solar panels require huge tracks of land and regular cleaning. Since solar power is most efficient in desert areas, where is the water to clean it going to come from. The slag piles of coal power plants actual emit far more radiation into the environment than any nuclear power plant, (Chernobyl excepted). The land use problems of wind, solar, and biomass cause far more environmental damage than even coal. Geothermal and nuclear are the only possible replacements that won't cause more problems than they solve.

[Winniroo]

I have a fair bit of Cadmium lying around in old paints...Cadmium blue, I think it is. The Cadmium came from Africa and I remember and art teacher's telling me it was quite toxic. I wonder if they can reclaim the Cadmium for use in energy production--every home in America probably has a least a little bit in a tube.

[artistjoh]

You have so much cadmium lying around that you haven't noticed that there is no such thing as Cadmium Blue :-) That's okay - it is an easy mistake to make especially since paint manufacturers are often dishonest about correctly labeling paint colors and before the adoption of the ASTM standards in recent decades fraudulent practices were common and labeling was either confusing for the consumer or outright dishonest.<br /><br />Cadmium produces yellow and red colors only although there is a rare color called Cadmium Green which was made with a mixture of Cadmium Yellow and Prussian Blue. If it is made at all anymore it is made in tiny quantities and is hard to find, although some manufacturers do make a green color from other ingredients then confusingly label it "Cadmium Green" even when it probably contains no cadmium at all. This practice is dishonest and allowable under ASTM only if the name includes the word (hue) to indicate a non-genuine pigment is used.<br /><br />Originally just because of the high cost of cadmium, and since 1960 due to toxicity concerns and government regulation cadmium has not been used in children's and students paints, crayons, pencils, etc. Many manufacturers continue to use the name but the actual pigments used are lower cost and less toxic alternatives, usually organic dyes. Only professional artists paints use genuine Cadmium Yellows, Oranges, and Reds. They continue to be used by professional artists due to their combination of opacity and high lightfastness.<br /><br />You certainly do not have any old tubes of "Cadmium Blue" lying around and if you have tubes labeled Cadmium Yellow or Red they most likely do not contain any cadmium at all. The same goes for the majority of people who might have done art at high school but did not attend college level art schools.<br /><br />You will have to look elsewhere for a source of cadmium. For further information on the use of cadmium in artist's paints go to http://paintmaking.com which is the premier source of data on the subject on the web linked to by Wikipedia, About, and major universities and libraries around the world. I just so happen to be the author.

[baconstang]

Gotta wonder what would happen to those Cd panels in a fire.

[BGXterra]

This is all a big fuss, in 50 years we should have a viable fusion reactor that will produce cheap, clean, virtually unlimited energy. then people will look back at this and laugh. on the mean time we should look at nuclear energy

[USDecliningDollar]

Nice to see that the word is getting out about cadmium. I asked the NREL folks on their CdTe solar page last year about toxicity and received no reply. I am friends with a quality engineer who worked at a CdTe solar manufacturer in northern Colorado who started asking questions about CdTe in meetings - he was shown the door. <br /> <br />Another point - tellurium is very rare, amongs the most rare crustal elements. The yearly supply of tellurium could fit inside a small warehouse. Tellurium is a byproduct of copper and lead refining - since the U.S. does little metal refining these days, there isn't much tellurium lying around. The world market of tellurium could easily be cornered by a few individuals with deep pockets. <br /> <br />So GE/Primestar Solar have a technology based on one component that is highly toxic and one component that is in limited supply. With this in mind, I pose the question "what is the viability of a business model based on these two shaky pillars? " <br /> <br />As for coal ... the 350 year supply is based on US consumption. Coal will be sold on the world market to India and China, who are building new coal fired plants like there is no tomorrow. Coal mining companies will be great investments in the coming decades.

[ablazev]

Discussions about CdTe thin film panels are ignored for now, and soon will be banned in the US. Big Business rules the solar fields now, making lots of money, and it all that matters in the Capitalist system. With the blind support of the misguided US Government, it is spreading millions of Cadmium containing panels around the country and the world--on top of San Andreas Fault, in Storm Valley, and many other soon to be hazmat dumps places--In the name of "green" energy. <br /><br />Soon we'll wake up to another Asbestos-like mass disaster. And the familiar scenario of law suits and Congress hearings will be replayed once again. Let's hope that Big Business makes enough money by then, so they can afford the clean-up and the legal battles.

[KnowledgeableOne]

For those of you silly people afraid of Cadmium, have you banned from your life and home NiCd batteries? You know, nickel-cadmium, hmmm? Perhaps you are afraid of fluoride and Dihydrogen Oxide too?

[ablazev]

Lots of us silly people -- especially those of us who are familiar with Cadmium and its properties -- are actually afraid simply because it will be spread over thousands of acres US land and we don't know what this toxic, carcenogenic heavy metal will do during 20-25 years open air operation. And / or what consequences to expect in case of a serious natural disaster in the CdTe panels field. <br /><br /> Let me know when you see NiCd batteries spread over 10,000 acres, so I can start getting afraid of them too.

[ablazev]

BTW, excess Di-Hydrogen Oxide also could bring detrimental results when spread over large land areas. Just ask the people in the Mid-West flood zone--another good example of unregulated and semi-controlled excess with disastrous consequences. <br /><br />Unfortunately for them, this natural phenomena cannot be regulated, but we still have a chance to regulate and control the spread of toxic, carcinogenic Cd in man-made CdTe PV panels over thousands of acres US land.