Skip to main content

Goodish News For the Solar Folk

sun The good news is First Solar has hit a milestone:

A long-sought solar milestone was eclipsed on Tuesday, when Tempe, Ariz.–based First Solar Inc. announced that the manufacturing costs for its thin-film photovoltaic panels had dipped below $1 per watt for the first time.

This isn’t quite where it needs to be to be cost competitive, but it’s an important barrier to crash through. However:

The question, though, is whether First Solar or any other solar manufacturer would be able to handle the flood of orders that would ensue if they reached competitive cost. At that point, it comes down to a matter of having enough of raw materials.

Scalability, our old friend. Apparently, the materials most in use in solar panels throw up roadblocks of their own when produced in bulk. For example:

While silicon is the second-most abundant element in the Earth's crust, it requires enormous amounts of energy to convert into a usable crystalline form.

The article points out that usable items such as copper sulfide, copper oxide and even iron pyrite – fool’s gold – might be plausible, but explains that they are less efficient in converting sunlight into electricity.

All of this might lead to comment about an immature technology versus a mature one (guess which?), but we come not to bury First Solar. Instead, while we note that First Solar is having a rough time in the current economic environment – its stock dropped 20% on word that some of its customers may default – this seems exactly the technology that will be looked at closely in any energy policy.

A bail out? – well, no, we don’t know if the government would directly issue grants to First Solar or simply make it more attractive for businesses and homes to install solar panels, though we suspect the latter is more likely. First Solar can certainly do the work.

Here’s another story by Popular Mechanics’ Alex Hutchinson on the perils and potential of solar power. Good stuff.

Comments

perdajz said…
NEI certainly doesn't mean to suggest that solar power is "immature" and nuclear power is "mature"? Methinks that this is backwards, and confuses utility with maturity. The discovery of the photovoltaic effect predates the discovery of nuclear fission by about a century. The "modern" era of PV came in 1954, which corresponds roughly to the initial peaceful uses of nuclear power. And yet, 55 years later, fission is vastly more productive.

I think it's the other way around. PV is mature, meaning that it can't grow much beyond its current state. Oh sure, collection efficiency in pristine laboratory conditions might creep upwards, but this doesn't mean we can look to PV to end the era of the fossil fuel.

It's nuclear power that is immature, meaning that room for growth is practically limitless. We can't say that nuclear power is mature, just because of the spectactular operational and safety record of the LWR. New reactors. New fuels and new fuel cycles. It's nuclear power that hasn't grown up yet, and that's a great thing.
Bill said…
Badish news for solar in Scientific American, though that's not the point of the story.
Anonymous said…
"The "modern" era of PV came in 1954, which corresponds roughly to the initial peaceful uses of nuclear power. And yet, 55 years later, fission is vastly more productive."

If there had been hundreds of billions of dollars spent developing the basic technologies of solar PV during World War II and the cold war, as was the case with nuclear, that situation might be very different.
Anonymous said…
The technologies for solar cells and windmills emerged out of hundreds of billions of dollars spent on defense and civil aerospace RD&D. As did microelectronics and the Internet.

There are credible projections that improved fuel cycle technologies could cut nuclear waste production and uranium/thorium mining requirements by a factor of 100.

The commodity costs needed to build current light water reactors are $36 per kW of capacity, and could drop in half as reactors move to operate with higher temperatures and efficiency, meaning that as modern technology improves the supply chain for constructing new nuclear plants, construction costs well below $1000 per kW are entirely credible, resulting in long-term nuclear electricity, process heat, and hydrogen generation costs below 2 cents per kilowatt hour.
Finrod said…
"If there had been hundreds of billions of dollars spent developing the basic technologies of solar PV during World War II and the cold war, as was the case with nuclear, that situation might be very different."

What weight of gold bullion does it take to strain the laws of physics past breaking point?

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…