New Solar Panel Technology
I know Joel had Solar Panels on his home in St. Louis. He was pretty happy with them. If I remember correctly, he had them for a number of years. Since I am in AZ, it makes sense to install them. Maybe when we sit down and consider the return we will consider such. They are not low in cost.
Japan’s new solar panel technology (perovskite solar panel) might forever alter the renewables market, The Week, Devika Rao
For a long time, the solar panel market was dominated by China because of that country’s control of the silicon supply chain. But the solar-panel tides may be turning, as Japan has created a solar panel that does not use silicon and instead uses a mineral-created material called perovskite. The new panels have caught up to the efficiency of traditional solar panels and are opening the door for a upheaval in the global renewables market.
A new solar system
Solar panels have traditionally been made with silicon, over which China has had majority market control. Eager to limit China’s stranglehold over the solar market, countries have been searching for a different way to harness the sun. Now, Japanese engineers “believe they have found one in a type of solar cell that looks and feels like camera film,” according to The Wall Street Journal. The new cell uses perovskite, a crystalline structure formed by minerals that convert sunlight into electricity. The perovskite cell was invented by Japanese scientist and Toin University of Yokohama professor Tsutomu Miyasaka. Iodine is the key element used to manufacture the solar film, of which Japan is the world’s second largest producer.
Research into using perovskite for solar power has been happening during the past decade, however, the structure was less efficient than the typical silicone panels and would degrade under humid conditions. “Silicon solar cells are great because they are very efficient and can last for a very long time, but the high efficiency comes with a high cost,” Xiwen Gong, assistant professor of chemical engineering at the University of Michigan, who studies perovskite semiconductors, said in a statement.
“To make high-purity silicon, temperatures over 1,000 degrees Celsius are needed. Otherwise, the efficiency won’t be as good.”
To boost efficiency, perovskite was previously used in tandem cells inside glass-covered silicon panels. But now, technology has allowed silicon-free perovskite cells to match traditional silicon-panel efficiency. While humidity remains an issue, the perovskite panels have the potential to be more widely applied. The panels themselves are thin, light and flexible, unlike their silicon counterparts. Miyasaka . . .
“Let’s say you live in an apartment and don’t have your own roof. You can still put the perovskite cells on your balcony,”
Miyasaka told the Journal.
“Think of [them] as a household appliance.”
Shifting the scales
Renewable energy has become “a geopolitical football,” as described by The Wall Street Journal, with countries trying to shift China’s dominance in the solar energy market. Currently, Chinese companies control more than 80% of the global supply chain for silicon solar panels, and “the world will almost completely rely on China for the supply of key building blocks for solar panel production through 2025,” according to the International Energy Agency.
Miyasaka remarking to the Journal . . .
“Look at what China is doing with semiconductors. That’s bullying,”
Referring to China’s export restrictions on important components used to create solar panels.
“With perovskite cells, the components can be made domestically.”
Japan has had to import 90% of its energy since the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster caused the country to close down most of its nuclear plants. Japanese engineers believe that their craftsmanship will allow the country to hold on to its competitive edge because of how difficult it is to manufacture uniform super-thin perovskite layers. Miyasaka said
“The more difficult it is, the harder it will be for the Chinese to copy it.”
Should we be more positive about tackling climate change? The Week, Chas Newkey-Burden
Indeed. The answer is ‘Perovskites’.
Perovskites, a ‘dirt cheap’ alternative to silicon, just got a lot more efficient
Leaders in perovskite solar technology | Oxford PV
“Our low-cost, highly efficient solar photovoltaic technology integrates with standard silicon solar cells to dramatically improve their performance. Built into solar panels, our tandem solar cells deliver more power per square metre – critical for enabling more affordable clean energy, accelerating the adoption of solar, and addressing the climate crisis.”
Yes, we had rooftop solar for eight years before we moved out east. 22 panels, with microinverters for each. Saved about $600/year in electric bills, which didn’t cover the cost of the panels even in nominal dollars, even though Ameren paid half and we got a 30% tax rebate on the balance. At the time of installation, 80% of electric came from coal in Missouri, so I consider the balance to be our investment in the environment.
The proponents of perovskites always point to the efficiency gains and softpeddle the stability issue. PV can only be useful if it is stable over decades not months and years. My feeling based on working with Gretzel cells is that the instability is integral to the mechanism that makes them work in the first place. I’ve been out of that game for a long time now so my opinion doesn’t mean all that much. A lot of money indeed most of the funds available for PV research has been dumped into this area over the past ten years or so. Maybe they are close to resolving this issue. I am however very skeptical.
Two broad aspects of a product in use:
Effective; delivers the performance what you wanted it to “do”
Suitable can you afford life cost of operating, safe and reliable (safe and reliable big overlap with effective).
Functions/testable attributes to deliver effective and suitable are included in the design/product specification.
I put them on my rooftop last year. The cost before the rebate was $30,000 for an annual production of 9,000 kw-hrs. With electricity costs here in the northeast at about 28 cents per kilowatt hour that’s a savings of about $2500 per year. Before the rebate that’s a return of about 8.5% on the investment. After the 30% rebate the return is about 12.5%. When considering the opportunity cost the 8.5% return would have put the payback beyond the life of the system. It is clear to me the inflation reduction act has made these worth the investment.
For those who think the taxpayer is on the hook for my rebate, my spending generates the taxes to cover the rebate. My spending is the income of the suppliers and installers which is taxed. Assuming a 20% tax rate and demand leakage of 30% (a very conservative estimate), the $9000 rebate is paid for after a few generations of subsequent spending.
When I was studying physics back in the late 60’s, lasers were a cutting-edge idea (figuratively). But then, in my one-semester ‘circuit theory’ course, the first 3/4 was one how to deal with vacuum tubes.
No one seemed to have much of an idea what lasers might be good for. Same could be said of the amorphous solids that were said to be ‘photo-electric’, also cutting-edge physics.
A lot changed in fifty or so years.
How to convert your home into a small power plant, and make your money back doing it
Boston Globe – January 30
(A metro-Boston homeowner who is) a senior account executive at CPower Energy (which) provides energy expertise to companies, was motivated to cut his bills and his carbon footprint to combat climate change.
Solar panels (33 total)
Upfront cost: $39,000
Savings: 30 percent, or $11,700, from federal incentives, plus an additional $1,000 state tax credit.
Final cost: $26,300
Payback: $4,500 annually
Battery – to store energy to run home in the event of a power outage
Upfront cost: $23,000
Estimated system payoff: 3.5 years
Insulation
Upfront cost: $3,300
Utility company picked up 75 percent.
Final cost: $740.
Last move, ditching the gas furnace and replacing it with two geothermal heat pumps, which use warmer temperatures underground, between 45 and 75 degrees Fahrenheit depending on the location, to transfer heat to the home in winter.
Heat pumps (2)
Upfront cost: $50,000
Savings: $15,000 from utility company then a 30 percent tax credit from Washington DC, knocking off an additional $10,500
Final cost: $24,500
Estimated system payoff: Between 7-8 years
The total price tag for the entire home project was roughly $75,000, after rebates.
(If you install all of this stuff, instead of paying utility bills heating & electricity use, you will be earning – hopefully – an annual amount equal to what you used to spend.)