April 3, 2007 2:00 PM PDT

Getting the price right for solar

The solar industry is finding that size matters.

Suppliers of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels are in the midst of a multiyear investment boom, with an eye toward producing electricity as cheaply as the entrenched standard: fossil-fuel power generation.

Electricity from PV panels now costs substantially more than power from conventional fossil-fuel sources. Industry executives say, however, that ramping up the volume of panel production--regardless of any solar cell technology improvements--will bring solar closer in line with today's power rates.

"We have to cut the cost in half of where we are today, and we can do that with a lot of the technologies and solutions available to us today," said Charlie Gay, vice president and general manager of Applied Material's solar business group, while speaking at Massachusetts Institute of Technology's

Solar makers stand to benefit from a global push to increase the production of polysilicon, the primary solar cell material, which at times has zoomed from $20 a kilo to $60 amid a worldwide shortage.

Many solar manufacturers make their products out of silicon and use machines similar to those used in the chip industry, but solar panel makers won't be benefiting from Moore's Law, a phenomenon in the chip industry where power increases as cost go down. Moore's Law works because reducing the size of microprocessors simultaneously makes them less expensive (a manufacturer gets more chips out of each wafer) and more powerful. But shrinking the size of solar cells doesn't help performance because cells rely on maximum surface area to harvest energy.

Instead, the solar industry expects to see prices decline the old-fashion way: larger economies of scale mean suppliers can produce more materials at a lower cost. Improved manufacturing processes also mean that suppliers can create panels with thinner solar cells, which will lower material costs.

"These kinds of tools are what are going to help us get to much lower cost," Gay said. He predicted that when there are plants capable of making a gigawatt worth of capacity, the cost of solar power will reach "grid parity," or equal to the current cost of producing power for the power grid.

By contrast, about 125 megawatts of solar power capacity were installed in the United States last year--the equivalent of roughly 40,000 residential installations.

Going down cost curve
Even with the investment boom, the industry still remains dependent on government incentives, from a cost perspective, for the foreseeable future, said Alex Klein, a senior analyst at Emerging Energy Research.

"It's sort of a race against time to drop down costs so that when subsidies (go away), the market will sustain itself," Klein said. "Ultimately, if you talk about the viability of solar PV, it has to become close to competitive with other forms of electricity, at least at peak power."

Generating electricity from photovoltaics costs between 18 and 23 cents a kilowatt hour. It is projected to go down to 11 to 18 cents by 2010 and then to 5 to 10 cents by 2015, according to the National Renewable Energy Labs. By contrast, electricity in the U.S. costs between 5 and 18 cents per kilowatt hour, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Klein agreed that higher manufacturing volume and improvement in the solar industry's supply chain can lower costs. Still, technology to improve cell efficiency or to greatly lower the cost of making solar cells will make a large impact, he said.

Companies are developing so-called thin-film solar cells and other materials such as CIGS (copper indium gallium selenide) to replace high-priced silicon as the dominant photovoltaic material. Nanosolar, for example, raised $100 million to take on incumbent suppliers with a plan to produce 430 megawatts of solar cells a year by using thin polymer films. Shell Solar, the solar division of the petroleum giant, has also become a big advocate of CIGS.

Established silicon-based panel manufacturers are hedging their bets by investing in alternative materials as well.

German company Q-Cells, for example, has invested in several smaller firms working with a range of materials and manufacturing techniques. Sharp, the world's largest silicon panel maker, is also tinkering with alternatives, including concentrators, which increase output by increasing the amount of sunlight that strikes a solar cell.

CONTINUED: Meeting the demand for solar…
Page 1 | 2

See more CNET content tagged:
photovoltaics, solar energy, electricity, cell, manufacturing

5 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Solar isn't always available
I very much want to invest in solar power for my home (I have a large, south-facing roof) but I cannot find a dealer in my area (near St. Louis). I have been told that suppliers are concentrating on customers in the sunbelt where electricity costs are relatively high. I understand the financial and marketing logic but it is disappointing for those of us who like the idea of "free" energy.
Posted by kmne68 (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Try findsolar .com to locate an installer
This site will list all of the available solar contractors in your area, if there are any.

CW
Posted by hindmost (1 comment )
Link Flag
Initial price is only part of the problem
The dirty little secret of this technology is the efficiency degrades over time and eventually requires replacement, so do an install today and expect to do it again in 20 years.

So, spend $24K (An estimate given to me last year) and then spread that expense over 20 years which means you have a basic annual cost of $1200 or around $100/month, which is not much less than my average monthly power bill and this assumes that the solar solution will supplant my regular electrical source 100% of the time (In my area, it will be more like 65-70%).

And then there is the environmental factor. First, solar cells are made in a manner similar to computer chips which requires a fair amount of energy and generates a lot of chemical waste.
Second, after twenty years you have to dispose of these things and there are only a few companies that are doing recycling for these products.

I know a lot of things can change in 20 years, but the core technology used in today's cells is pretty much the same as it was 20 years ago and improvements in efficiency, and cost have only been incremental.

I think I will wait a little longer.
Posted by adlyb1 (123 comments )
Reply Link Flag
A good point, but...
You make a good point that the article seems to completely miss.

The quote $$ per kilowatt hour, but over how long is that amortized? Five years? 10 years? 20 years? The true unit of measure of solar arrays is kilowatts, NOT kilowatt hours. A more accurate measure would be a quote of $$ per kilowatt -- or even more precisely $$ per kilowatt hour and a period over which this is amortized.

However, you are wrong that you must completely replace your array every 20 years or so. The degradation rate -- even in Earth orbit with none of the protection from adverse solar radiation that we here on the surface are afforded is a componded rate of just 3% a year and the newest cells have a degradation rate of about 2% a year.

Thus after 20 years your array will still output more than 66% of what you had on day one.

Sure there are mechanical and electrical maintenance you will have to do over 20 years (and that cost in NOT trivial). However, you don't have to completely replace your array 20 years from now.
Posted by shadowself (202 comments )
Link Flag
Solar
The cost per KW is constantly going higher as it is locked into fossil fuel cost in most areas that do not have Hydro electric. you might want to look into this company that rents you the panels and locks you at your current rate. Your state must have approved regulations that require the Utility company to buy back excess power that you generate and you must be on the grid.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://renu.citizenre.com/" target="_newWindow">http://renu.citizenre.com/</a>
Posted by honky (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.