PV Technology for Today and Tomorrow

Sarah Kurtz
Principal Scientist;
Reliability Group Manager

8.13.2010

Solar Instructor
Training Network
Webinar

NREL/PR-520-49176

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.
 Outline

• Winning technology or many technologies?

• Some history to put today and tomorrow in
perspective
• Three primary approaches
- Silicon
- Thin film
- Concentrator
• Comparison of the three and looking at
tomorrow

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 One “winner” or many technologies?

Alkaline Nickel cadmium Nickel metal hydride

Lead acid
Lithium ion
Different technologies for different applications
Expect this for both PV and batteries Lithium
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 3 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 A little history

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 4 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Growth of photovoltaic (PV) industry

Tons of Si pass
microelectronics

Area of Si passes
microelectronics

The PV industry has been doubling every ~2 years

Sources: Prometheus/Navigant
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 5 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 Growth of PV industry

Annual replacement of electricity capacity for 20 yr cycle

GW of PV shipped worldwide annually

100 Annual new electricity capacity 1996-2006*

10

If we can maintain the

1 current growth rate, PV
will reach major
milestones in < 10 yrs

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Year
*www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/electricitycapacity.html (4012-2981 GW)/10 yr

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 6 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 PV prices have decreased

3.0
Crystalline silicon Contributors to lower costs:
2.5
• Thinner wafers
Module price ($/Watt)

2.0 • Automation
• Standard equipment
1.5
• Optimized processes
1.0 Cadmium Telluride (First Solar)

0.5

0.0
February June October February
2009 2010

Key to sustaining growth of the industry is price reduction

Source: PHOTON International
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 7 Innovation for Our Energy Future
Three approaches to PV (and lower cost)

Front
Solar cell
2. Thin film

Back 1. Silicon

Reduce semiconductor
material
3. Concentrator

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 8 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Higher efficiency can reduce cost
Upfront costs:
1. Semiconductor material
2. Area-related costs (glass, installation, real estate, wiring)
3. Power-related costs (inverter)

Two strategies for reducing cost:

Front
Solar cell
2. Thin film

Back 1. Silicon

Reduce semiconductor 3. Concentrator

Reduce area by
material increasing efficiency
Increasing efficiency may be a key path to reduced cost
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 9 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 Types of PV – currently available

• Crystalline silicon
• Mono-crystalline
• Multi-crystalline
• Ribbon
• Thin film
• CdTe (Cadmium telluride)
• CIGS (Copper Indium (Gallium) Selenide)
• Amorphous silicon – usually combined with microcrystalline
silicon layers in a multijunction stack; may contain Ge
• Organic
• Concentrator (may be classified in many ways)
• Refractive/reflective
• Multijunction III-V or silicon

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 10 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Historic PV Technology Mix
Calculators

Source:
PHOTON
• Historically, crystalline silicon has dominated the market International
• Technology mix is becoming more diverse
• CdTe is primary new entrant; CIS may be 5-7 yr behind; CPV ~ 10 yr
• Long-term trends may take decades to establish
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 11 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 Historic PV Technology Mix

What does this mean for you?

PV will become increasingly complex

Source:
PHOTON
• Historically, crystalline silicon has dominated the market International
• Technology mix is becoming more diverse
• CdTe is primary new entrant; CIS may be 5-7 yr behind; CPV ~ 10 yr
• Long-term trends may take decades to establish
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 12 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 A key factor affecting technology mix: Distributed vs Central
Residential Commercial Utility

Modern Wind
Solar Thermal
PV

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Installation size (MW)

Recently PV has seen increases in:
Maximum PV Plant Size (MW)

200
• Maximum system size
150 • Average system size
Planned
100
• Ground mount (instead of roof mount)
• Connection at transmission instead of
50 at distribution voltages
• Utility ownership
0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Year These changes may affect the technology mix

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 13 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 Within US, predictions are for large utility growth
8

Rogol

6
Projected Installed US Utility-Scale Capacity
GW

2 Lorenz

All US installations in 2009

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year Source: PHOTON International

If utility growth is this large, it will change the technology mix

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 14 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 Three approaches to PV – 1. Silicon

Front
Solar cell
2. Thin film

Back 1. Silicon
•Mono-crystalline
•Multi-crystalline
•Ribbon
3. Concentrator

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 15 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Silicon modules
Si module cross section
(not to scale)

SiliconS
Glass

.Backsheet .

Silicon cell Tab EVA

Common packaging materials
EVA - Ethylene vinyl acetate
PET - Polyethylene terephthalate
PVF - Poly vinyl fluoride
ETFE – Ethylene tetrafluoroethylene

Construction of silicon modules is simple in concept

 Crystalline Silicon - history
• Predictions of the demise of silicon PV have been
voiced for decades:
• Silicon cells must be fairly thick, increasing material cost
• Shortage of silicon feedstock – in 2007, 2008 we saw this
(fast-growing industries tend to develop shortages)

Tons of Si pass
microelectronics

Area of Si passes
microelectronics

Despite the predictions, silicon PV is alive and well

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 17 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 Crystalline silicon

Advantages:
• Builds on strong industry
• Silicon is abundant and non toxic
• Efficiencies of 15%-20% are achievable
• Demonstrated > 20 years performance in field
• Warranties typically < 1% degradation/y
• Potential for further cost reduction

Disadvantages:
• Costs are higher than desired

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 18 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Three approaches to PV – 2. Thin film

Front
Solar cell
2. Thin film
•CdTe
•CIGS
•Amorphous Si
1. Silicon •Organic
Back

Reduce semiconductor
material
3. Concentrator

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 19 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Thin-film approaches on the market

CuIn(Ga)Se CdTe Amorphous silicon

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 20 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Monolithic module integration

5 x 120 µm

Conductor
Device
Conductor

Contact Active Cell Contact

Cell Cell
(Inactive) (Inactive)
w
+ –

Glass

Thin-film modules have a different construction than Si modules

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 21 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 Thin film products vary in their construction

CdTe uses superstrate CuInGaSe uses substrate

Glass Glass for protection

ITO or TCO EVA

CdS ZnO or TCO
Not to CdS
CdTe scale
CuInGaSe
Metal
EVA Molybdenum

Glass for strength Glass

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 22 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Is glass/glass construction required?
• Moisture sensitive?
• No: use ETFE or ?
• Yes: use glass/glass construction with edge seal
• Strategies:
• Reduce moisture sensitivity (change cell design)
• Develop flexible moisture barrier

• If successful, opens many markets:

• Awnings
• Shingles
• Car roofs, etc.

If moisture problem is solved, flexible packages can open new markets

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 23 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 Thin film vision – looking to the future
Vision (advantages)
• ~1-µm-thick film on inexpensive substrate
• Materials requirement is small: reduced cost
• Organic PV Vision: a PV plastic wrap
• Dye-sensitized Vision: PV spray-on paint
• Low CapEx enables easy ramp up
• Can be integrated into building façade

Challenges (disadvantages)
• Growth on inexpensive substrates limits efficiency
• Sensitivity to moisture leads to glass/glass laminate
• Infrastructure is not as well developed as for silicon
• Building integration increases operating temperature
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 24 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 First Solar demonstrated thin-film concept
2000
First Solar Production Capacity

Projected
1500
Capacity (MW/y)

#1 in world
1000

500

0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

First Solar grew to be #1 in world in just four years, demonstrating

the benefit of using less semiconductor material
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 25 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 Historic PV Technology Mix
First
Solar

Source:
PHOTON
International
• First Solar has put CdTe on the map
• Dozens of other thin-film companies hope to be the next “First Solar”

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 26 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Comparison of efficiencies

Si

Thin Film

Source: DOE EERE 2008 Solar

Technologies Market Report

In general, silicon outperforms thin film in terms of efficiency

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 27 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Comparison of degradation rates

Statistically, observed Degradation rates of recent

degradation rates are about thin-film products are smaller
0.5%/y than for pre-2000 products

Source: Jordan, et al. PVSC 2010

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 28 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 Three approaches to PV

Front
Solar cell
2. Thin film

Back 1. Silicon

Reduce semiconductor
material
3. Concentrator

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 29 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Two primary concentrator approaches

Amonix JX Crystals

High concentration Low concentration

• 35% - 40% III-V cells • 15% - 25% Silicon cells
• 400X – 1500 X • 2X – 100 X
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 30 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 Concentrator technology

Maturity is
similar to that
of airplanes
100 years ago

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 31 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 CPV
Advantages:
• CapEx is typically smaller than for silicon
• Reduces use of semiconductor material, potentially
enabling low cost
• Allows use of very high efficiency solar cells
• Module efficiency up to ~ 30% (verified)
• Is mostly an engineering project

Disadvantages:
• Only uses direct beam (no output on cloudy days)
• Not yet well established
• Difficult to integrate into buildings (was rejected in ‘90s)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 32 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 CPV

Current status
• Dozens of companies exploring CPV
• A handful of companies are setting up automated
production
• These companies are likely to each install > 1 MW in
2010
• Amonix just announced 30 MW project in Colorado
• Once bugs are worked out, could ramp quickly
• Not yet clear whether applications will be limited to
utility-scale

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 33 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Future of PV

• Today’s technologies have lots of room for

improvement – this is the near future of PV
• Other concepts have been studied for
decades – need breakthrough:
- Intermediate band
- Multiple exciton
- Hot carrier

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 34 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Sorting the hype from reality

Questions to ask:
• What efficiency has been achieved? (Most
concepts have high theoretical efficiencies
but ‘real’ technologies present achieved
efficiencies rather than theoretical)
• If high efficiencies are reported, are these
for small/large cell/module?
• If high efficiencies have not been achieved,
how much will it cost to install, etc?

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 35 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 ‘Breakthrough’ or ‘Revolution through Evolution’?

Two camps predicting future of PV:

- Need revolutionary breakthrough
- Achieve revolution through evolution

PV cost is already competitive for peaking

power in locations with high electricity
prices (Hawaii, California, etc.)
What fraction of penetration is achievable?

Today’s technologies will contribute several % to energy supply

Will we need a breakthrough to achieve tens of %?

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 36 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Which technology for which application?

Efficiency: important for area-constrained applications

Form factor: e.g. building integrated vs conventional

racks

Weather: direct/diffuse; temperature; wind; stresses

Tracking: affects energy yield, packing density, dual use

of land

Many factors contribute to deciding which technology is best

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 37 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Efficiency is key driver

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 38 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Temperature coefficients affect output

Estimated temperature coefficients 110

Amorphous silicon: -0.2%/°C (variable)

Output of 100 W module (W)

100
CdTe: -0.2 to -0.25%/°C
Rated
CIGS (CIS): -0.4%/°C Temperature
90
aSi
Crystalline silicon: -0.4% to -0.5%/°C
CdTe
80

If the temperature varies by 30°C, CIGS

these translate to relative change in 70
performance of ~6% to 15% cSi

0 20 40 60 80 100

Module temperature (°C)

Temperature coefficient can affect the choice of product in a

small (~10%) way

Note: many of the thin-film products show changes in efficiency

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 39 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 Off-axis and diffuse light

Tracked module
follows angle of sun;
especially useful late
in the day
Fixed module receives
light at variable angle

Solyndra: unusual
approach to collecting
light from all angles

Tracking has > 20% effect; off-axis collection effect is smaller

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 40 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 To frame or not to frame

• Frames are useful to prevent damage to edges of

modules
• Frames can provide mechanism for easy attachment
• Frames can collect dirt
• Frames may be damaged by snow and ice
• Framed modules may require ground wires

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 41 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Differentiation of technologies
• Area constrained = higher efficiency
• Peak shaving = use tracking
• BIPV = consider aesthetics

CPV
Sunny 

c-Si

CdTe, a-Si
CIGS

Increasing temperature 
Technologies may show up to 10% advantage under these conditions
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 42 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 Summary

• As the PV industry grows, the technology

mix will be increasingly diverse
• Silicon, thin-film, and concentrator
approaches are all making progress
• When choosing between these:
• Cost is #1 driver
• Higher efficiency technologies have edge in area-
constrained applications
• Form factor can drive building integration
• Efficient conversion of diffuse light gives edge in
cloudy/hazy regions
• Tracking can help meet peak loads late in the day

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 43 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Questions
1) With the recent flooding of the market with Chinese modules, what
are the trends in materials or processes that we can look for in a
module manufacturer that gives us a better idea of the durability and
life of the product they are producing.
See Solar ABCs Recommendation to require qualification testing:
www.solarabcs.com/recommended_standards/Policy_recommondations_A
BCS-12B_1page-1.pdf
Ask company about their quality assurance program (if modules are
manually assembled, how do you know they’re all the same?)
How have they assessed robustness to UV?

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 44 Innovation for Our Energy Future