InvestorsHub Logo

StanleyK

04/22/15 11:02 PM

#37059 RE: ih8aloss #37058

Quantum Materials’ subsidiary, Solterra Renewable Technologies Inc. is singularly positioned to lead the development of truly sustainable and cost-effective solar technology as the first company to introduce a new dimension of cost reduction by replacing silicon wafer based solar cells with low cost, highly efficient Quantum Dot based solar cells by proprietary roll-to-roll printing techniques invented by our CSO, Dr. Ghassan Jabbour.

Read More...

trevorbc

04/23/15 12:31 AM

#37060 RE: ih8aloss #37058

Thanks Bill for that great contribution. Solid well thought out post is refreshing.

DDhawk

04/23/15 2:40 AM

#37063 RE: ih8aloss #37058

Good job Bill...lots to consider in determining LCOE... these excerpts, taken from a recent MIT study titled: 'Pathways for Solar Photovoltaics' by the Boluvic group. (Boluvic has academic ties to Nanosys & QDV)
Performance metrics for future PV applications. To understand the challenges facing PV technology adoption, it is instructive to develop performance metrics by which candidate PV technologies can be compared. These metrics may be purely technical or may incorporate both technical and economic factors. Here we consider key metrics driving adoption in two primary classes of PV applications: grid connected and o?-grid. Grid-connected applications employ ground- or roof-mounted PV arrays at the residential (peak power output # 10kWp), commercial (10 kWp to 1 MWp), or utility (>1 MWp)scale. Grid connectivity imposes a single dominant requirement: low levelized cost of energy (LCOE, in $ per kWh). A comparison of LCOE for solar PV and for competing generation sources dictates the economic feasibility of a grid-connected PV system. Recent analysis suggests that the current LCOE for unsubsidized PV in the U.S. ranges from roughly $0.11 per kWh to $0.16 per kWh for utility-scale systems and from $0.19 per kWh to $0.29 per kWh for residential systems. Federal tax subsidies reduce these values by 20–40%, depending on the e?ectiveness of the subsidy, to $0.07 perkWh to $0.13 per kWh for utility-scale systems and $0.12 perkWh to $0.23 per kWh for residential systems.
Absorber thicknesses tend to decrease with increasing complexity, since complex building blocks are often engineered or selected for maximum light absorption. Strong absorption in nanomaterials reduces material use and cell weight and improved defect tolerance. Crystallographic defects, non-stoichiometry, and impurities tend to hinder exciton and carrier transport and limit PV performance. Thinner active layers reduce the distance traveled by photogenerated charges and thus increase defect tolerance. In general, complex nanomaterials may tolerate imperfections more readily than single-crystalline and polycrystalline materials. Flexible substrates and versatile form factors. Commercial thin-film PV technologies are characterized by a one-step formation of the absorber material on a substrate, while emerging thin, they often employ separate active material synthesis and deposition steps. Building blocks such as organic molecules and QDs can be synthesized in a separate chemical reaction at high temperatures and deposited at low temperatures. Flexible and lightweight substrates (e.g.,plastic or paper) and can then be used, potentially enabling high specific power, demand and price. Other important metrics include system cost ($ per Wp), reliability, and where roof loading is crucial. All but the last of these directly a?ect LCOE. It is worth noting the growing importance of non-module costs in grid-connected PV system cost. Since the year 2000, average system prices in the U.S. have decreased by over 50%. Current average system costs in the U.S. are estimated at roughly $3.25 per Wp for residential and $1.80 per Wp for utility-scale systems. But these reductions have been primarily due to falling module prices. BOS costs, which include auxiliary hardware (e.g., inverters, wiring, and racking) as well as installation labor, customer acquisition, permitting, inspection, inter-connection, sales tax, and financing, have remained relatively constant and now constitute up to 80% of residential and 60% of utility-scale system cost in the U.S. In Germany, arguably a more mature market, the ratio between module and BOS is closer to 50/50. An important present R&D theme is in new materials, processes, and designs that can substantially lower BOS costs. O?-grid applications, including portable devices and deployment in developing countries, tend to value system cost along with a variety of non-cost factors, such as specific power, form factor (e.g., flexibility), aesthetics, and durability. One example is the use of small-area solar cells to power mobile phones, small water purification systems, and other portable electronic devices. In many applications, significant value may derive from low module weight. We note that PV technologies with lifetimes too short or e?ciencies too low to power todays high-power mobile devices may be adequate for the low-power lighting and communication requirements of the developing world. Another potential o?-grid application is building-integrated PV (BIPV), the use of PV modules in structural features whose primary purpose is not confined to electricity generation (e.g., windows, skylights, shingles, tiles, curtains, and canopies). Aesthetic concerns often drive module form factor and positioning, which may be sub-optimal for solar energy collection. That said, some BIPV systems may achieve competitive LCOE by piggybacking on the materials, installation, and maintenance costs of the existing building envelope. Other potential application areas for PV are discussed below and compares the technological maturity, power conversion e?ciency, and specific power of todays PV technologies ordered by material complexity. We make several observations: (1) Crystalline silicon and conventional thin films are the only technologies deployed at large scale today. (2) Record module e?ciencies lag behind lab-cell e?ciencies by a significant margin. (3) Thin-film PV technologies use 10 to 1000 times less material than c-Si, reducing cell weight per unit area and increasing power output per unit weight. (4) All deployed PV technologies have been under development for at least three decades.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical “generation”-based classification Solar PV technologies can be ranked by power conversion e?ciency (PCE), module cost, material abundance, or any other performance metrics. The most widely used classification scheme today focuses on two metrics, module e?ciency and area cost, that delineate the three distinct generations listed here: (1) First-generation (G1) technologies consist of wafer-based cells of c-Si and GaAs.(2) Second-generation (G2) technologies consist of thin-film cells, including a-Si:H, CdTe, and CIGS.(3) Third-generation (G3) technologies include novel thin-film devices, such as dye-sensitized, organic, and quantum dot solar cells, along with a variety of “exotic” concepts, including spectral-splitting devices (e.g., multi-junction cells), hot-carrier collection, carrier multiplication, and thermo-photovoltaics. This generational scheme may not adequately describe the modern PV technology landscape. Emerging technologies like QD and perovskite solar cells have largely been lumped together under the third-generation label of “advanced thin ?films”. Furthermore, any chronological classification scheme is likely to treat older technologies pejoratively in favor of new “next-generation” concepts, even as silicon and commercial thin-?film technologies far outperform todays emerging thin-film technologies. Limited utility of generational classi?cation scheme.
Complexity-based classification....We propose an alternative approach to PV technology classification based on material complexity that we have found useful. Material complexity can be [thought of?] roughly as the number of atoms in a unit cell, molecule, or other repeating unit. The repeating units that constitute the active material in modern PV technologies run the gamut in complexity from single silicon atoms to QDs containing thousands of lead and sulfur atoms. In this framework, all PV technologies fall on a spectrum from elemental (lowest) to nanomaterial (highest) complexity. At one end of the material complexity spectrum are wafer-based technologies with relatively simple building blocks, including c-Si and III-V cells. Technologies based on more complex materials fall under the broad umbrella of thin-film solar cells, ranging from polycrystalline thin-films such as CdTe and CIGS to complex nanomaterials such as organics and QDs. We note that higher material complexity is not always equal to “better”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measuring PV module and system performance.....In a deployed PV system, energy output does not depend on the rated efficiency alone. The DC peak power rating of a PV module or system (in Wp) represents its efficiency under standard test conditions (STC): 1000 W m2 irradiance, operating temperature and Air Mass spectrum. But the actual AC energy output depends strongly on local insolation, shading losses (e.g., soiling and snow coverage), module efficiency losses (e.g., due to elevated temperatures, low irradiance, or increased refraction at non-normal incidence), and system losses (e.g., module mismatch, wire resistance, inverter and transformer losses, tracking inaccuracy, and age-related degradation). For example, a PV module that maintains its rated efficiency at low light levels could produce more power over the course of a day than a module with the same power rating but reduced efficiency under low irradiance (e.g., during evening hours. An important performance metric is thus energy yield(kWh/kWp), which is directly related to system-level metrics such as capacity factor and performance ratio. Energy yield quantifies the AC energy output per unit of installed capacity. To reduce LCOE, module and BOS technology development will attempt to increase energy yield, making heat and light management, durability, and reliability more important. An inherent tension exists between improving these technical factors and reducing area costs. Identifying key operating parameters that affect energy yield for different technologies is a critical research priority.

*Note; as-is often the case when trying to copy/paste from a pdf , there were a lot of typos & garbled text, which I did my best to augment within this post, while remaining true to the authors intent. I'm not able to provide a link to original, as it was from a pay-per-view whitepaper.

OJB

04/23/15 9:45 AM

#37066 RE: ih8aloss #37058

Thanks Bill,


That's good stuff.

Regards,
Still Longing for the future!
Old Joe

Rcranga

05/03/15 1:14 AM

#37305 RE: ih8aloss #37058

NOPE, NOT EVER HAPPENING.