Globalization, Manufacturing, and Solar Technology

[nerdgirl 0]

Even if one doesn’t accept anthropogenic climate change, fossil fuels are finite and the world has a growing energy demand that is unlikely to be met even with tremendous increases in nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, coal, and other energy sources. The globally requirement for power is ~13 trillion watts (or terawatts/TW) currently. By 2050, the world’s energy needs are estimated to be ~28 TW. If every acre of arable land on the planet was converted to biofuel production, only 7 TW would be generated. (Nevermind, no food to eat, no crops to feed livestock, no natural fibers {sans silk}.) Even with the addition of 5,000 new nuclear power plants, thousands of additional wind turbines, and using every available flowing water source for hydroelectric power, it still will not approach 28 TW.

Interesting lil’ story, imo, w/r/t manufacturing of solar cells and manufacturing from NPR: “The Green Rush Is On In China”

Excerpts “A new gold rush in China is actually a green rush — an urgent drive to develop green technologies. One group of Western companies, the Cleantech Initiative, suggests China's market for renewable energy could eventually be worth as much as $500 billion to $1 trillion a year.

“Now, Obama administration officials are warning that the U.S. could risk losing the race in green technologies.

“‘The future of sustainable energy is here.’ The words are emblazoned on a wall at the world's largest nongovernmental solar research center. It was built by an American [South SF Bay – headquartered – nerdgirl] company, Applied Materials, in the central Chinese city of Xian.

“At Applied Materials' $250 million research center in Xian, Elizabeth Mayo, a process engineer from Santa Clara, Calif., is …. impressed by the facilities in Xian. ‘We don't have facilities like this in the U.S. We don't have anything of this magnitude,’ Mayo says.

“And the biggest draw is the eternal lure of China's fabled market. Gang Zhou, general manager of Applied Materials Xian facility, says the company has decided to put its money where its customer base is. ‘China is No. 1 producer of solar panels. That's where our market is. The China new R&D center, that's where we validate a lot of R&D work that is being carried out in U.S. and in Europe,’ he says

“While the Xian lab is testing, it is notable that the cutting-edge innovation is still taking place in the U.S. and Europe because of Chinese problems, according to Charlie McElwee, an energy and environment lawyer in Shanghai. ‘The future of clean-tech manufacturing is in China,’ he emphasizes. ‘The jury is still out on whether the future of clean-tech innovation is in China.’

“Meanwhile, American green technology companies are flocking to China: First Solar is building the world's largest solar plant in Inner Mongolia, while Duke Energy is sharing solar, clean coal and smart-grid technology.”

From an economics/investor perspective, until a few years ago it was a largely untapped market. Investment in basic and applied research in photovoltaics is paltry and should be increased substantially. To quote Steve Forbes from Dec07’s Forbes/Wolfe Nanotechnology Forum: w/r/t dealing with energy and climate change - “technology is the critical piece.” One of his prime concerns is that America’s declining investment in science and decline in training of new scientists and engineers is creating a situation in which America will be “buying” new ideas and innovation from foreign sources (like China) and becoming clients rather than selling them on the global marketplace. That’s one view of the market.

What is discussed in the NPR story is old-school silicon-based solar cells. The big opportunity for US, as I’m unapologetically American-focused, is in new research (not development) but the discovery of the “next big thing.” I’m not as sanguine as Mr. McElwee w/r/t prospects for Chinese in the future to develop technology indigenously.

Is the capacity to manufacture solar technology moving eastward?
Can we rely on domestic innovation?
Does anyone care? Should we care?

/Marg ... on a personal level, one of the folks interviewed, Libby Mayo, is a very good friend of mine. Already teased her at how her PhD in chemistry became “process engineer.”

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[SpeedRacer 1]

Photovoltaic cells have been around a long time, but the problem is making it affordable to the average homeowner. Solar power won't take off until that happens.

Very few people are willing to blow 20 grand just to save $40 or $50 a month on electric bills.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Photovoltaic cells have been around a long time, but the problem is making it affordable to the average homeowner. Solar power won't take off until that happens.

Very few people are willing to blow 20 grand just to save $40 or $50 a month on electric bills.

Is cheap manufacturing via China the way to overcome that, if it's the major bottleneck? Is that the short-term answer?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Misternatural 0]

hi

yes- the future of solar technology is very promising. I have been following and investing in companies which deal in fuel cells, wind and solar tech and battery technology-which is required to buffer the flow of wind and solar electricity,and also geothemal. Nuclear is interesting if they can figure out a way to safely contain and dispose of or utilize waste and minimize mining destruction- or develop cold fusion.

Harnessing tidal and wave power is also interesting.

Back to the solar question....thin film technology which is not silicon based is the new rage. China mostly has cornered the polysilicon market so if the U.S. has any shot it is going to be with the more innovative thin film research- see First Solar

I visualize a more globalized model of trade and Green energy production but that is only because I am a reformed hippie.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[VTmotoMike08 0]

It's such a complex, inter-dependent issue. I spend a lot of my time reading about the solar industry, as I would like to make a career change into solar design when the economy turns around (I'm currently a civil/ environmental engineer in another industry). I'm currently learning everything I can and trying to find a specific area to focus on. I obviously care. I don't know about anyone else. I don't know about the first two.

Quote

Is the capacity to manufacture solar technology moving eastward?
Can we rely on domestic innovation?
Does anyone care? Should we care?

It seems to me like we need to find a way to make people care more. A carbon tax would do it, but it would have some undesirable consequences. It would raise the price per KW/HR for all customers but then we could create a credit for residents/ business to install smart meters and smart black boxes and throw some more rebates in to motivate efficiency improvements. Along the way, some of our best scientist can work on improving the technology (think super efficient solar film built into your roof's shingles that can power your whole house, and look identical to regular roofs). Then about 10-15 years later we have a totally retooled energy economy, a ton more jobs, and a few less greenhouse gases floating around in our atmosphere.

But no one will take the first step. It could be resistance to change, it could be the currently long pay back time, it could be the entrenched interests and lobbies of the fossil fuel industries, or a combination of that and others. If you find out how to make it happen... you could make a ton of cash. I obviously don't have all the answers...

[billvon 3,070]

>Very few people are willing to blow 20 grand just to save $40 or $50 a
>month on electric bills.

Let's take San Diego.

Cost of a 2.4kW DC STC system (enough for an efficient home) - $14,800
CA buydown: $3100
Federal tax credit: $3500
Total cost to homeowner: $8200

Average reduction in monthly power bill: $52

Time to pay off: 13 years

After that it's free. And this assumes power rates don't go up; if they do, payoff happens sooner.

[VTmotoMike08 0]

Of course, not everywhere gets as much sun as San Diego. (not trying to insult your intelligence, I'm sure you know this).

I've been trying to gather all the info to do a hypothetical off grid design for my house from this site: http://www.solarpowerforum.net/forumVB/showthread.php?t=1793. I need a lot more info, and I know I will have to go with a grid-tie anyway. I'm not sure my system could ever pay for itself in south east Virginia.

So while solar is great... it's not for everywhere and we need a little of all renewable energy forms, and will continue to need fossil fuels for a long while longer.

[billvon 3,070]

Quote

So while solar is great... it's not for everywhere and we need a little of all renewable energy forms, and will continue to need fossil fuels for a long while longer.

Of course! Solar makes sense in some places, wind in others, tidal and wave in others. And fossil fuels will have to play some role in any future power balance. But it will have to play a lesser and lesser role, one way or the other.

[tonyhays 86]

Solar makes sense in all places. Too bad there isn't a Manhattan-like project on this technology!

El clicko

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[billvon 3,070]

>Solar makes sense in all places.

Solar _works_ in all places (with perhaps the exception of Antarctica in the summer.) But its economic value is proportional to how many hours of sun you get. In Arizona, Nevada, Socal etc you can see six equivalent hours of direct sun a year; in Seattle it's closer to three. So it's basically twice as expensive to generate a kilowatt-hour over the course of a year.

That doesn't mean that it will never make sense in Seattle, but with limited amounts of money and time, it would seem to make sense to start in the Southwest.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Solar _works_ in all places (with perhaps the exception of Antarctica in the summer.)

You are a 'solar guy', explain this to me. Antarctica has 24hr a day sunlight in summer.

Or were you referring to the 'USA' summer?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[tonyhays 86]

I was referring to the article I linked. Solar makes sense in all places if they can get it working.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[billvon 3,070]

>Or were you referring to the 'USA' summer?

Yes. From a northern hemisphere perspective, the north pole gets 24 hour sun and the south pole gets 24 hour darkness.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Yes. From a northern hemisphere perspective, the north pole gets 24 hour sun and the south pole gets 24 hour darkness.

You said "solar panels would be usless in antarctica in summer", you are a moderator on a 'global' website, please try to consider that there is life below the equator when you are making references to subject matter.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

After that it's free. And this assumes power rates don't go up; if they do, payoff happens sooner.

You assume a $0 depreciation?

[billvon 3,070]

>You assume a $0 depreciation?

Depreciation is generally used when an asset has a fixed lifetime. That's not really the case with solar systems; they have no inherent wearout mechanism. Systems put up in the 80's are still producing rated power.

However, I do assume a zero 'cost of money' i.e. that there is no cost incurred by borrowing that money/not investing that money, which is not the case. That will tend to increase payback times. I also assume that power rates do not go up. If they do, that will tend to decrease payback times. Whether that's a net positive or negative depends on inflation and power cost trends.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I realize San Diego is a pretty benign environment but there must be some allowance for storm damage. Certainly there will be in most other locations. A few years ago Neal Houston picked up a system for his brother in Grand Prairie Alberta. This is an area that can expect several 40-60mph wind events per year as well as severe Hailstorms. I think the value of Solar in many places is limited by expected weather events as well as limitations of effective sunlight.

[tkhayes 348]

solar will become more cost effective as electricity costs and oil costs rise.

Energy costs money. As we run out of oil over the next 100 years or so, we will rely on burning coal more and more to generate needed electricity. That demand will be driven up of course as transportation needs and technology will increase as they have for a hundred years or more now.

Electric cars are great but we need to then generate the power to charge their batteries. But electric generation and electric consumption in electric cars for example, is 4 or 5 times more efficient use of energy than burning fossil fuels inside a gasoline engine.

And while citizens will invest slowly because the overhead is high and the savings are a long payback, but the real driver (at least in the USA) of solar technology will come from the corporations, not the citizens.

When the corporations figure out how to control it and make a dollar from it, then they will invest in it.

However, the government should still be investing in that technology. Just what we want - switching our energy needs from Middle Eastern Oil to Chinese Solar panels.

comprehensive plans of al sorts of alternative energy is needed. wind turbines where it is windy, solar where it is sunny.etc. Electricity is fairly easy to transport - we already have an infrastructure in place to do it.

The only thing that is going to make us stop using MORE of it, is by driving the price up to make people aware of its 'real cost' to society, but that is a whole separate debate in itself.

[FreeflyChile 0]

My impression is that this country has a lack of focus with this unless the general population feels threatened. Maybe it's my perspective that didn't really live through this first-hand, but it seems like the American drive to be the first and leaders in everything tech-related from WW2 through the cold war has dissipated somewhat.

As an engineer (degree only, no practice) and now a patent lawyer - I think this stuff is really cool and hope that more attention goes to the development of these technologies. It also seems to be a no-brainer long-term, but with everything going on economically, it's tough to convince people to take any additional hits shorter-term to make it happen.

[billvon 3,070]

>I realize San Diego is a pretty benign environment but there must be
>some allowance for storm damage.

Storm damage falls into several categories.

Rain. No problems.

Wind. Most mount systems are rated to 120mph; considerably higher than most roofing systems.

Hail. Panels are generally rated to 4 pound hail (i.e. hail that weighs 4 pounds will not break them.) There are plenty of stories around of hailstorms damaging roofs and cars but not damaging the panels themselves.

(If you are in a very hail-prone area, and regularly lose cars to hail, then amorphous panels might be a better option. They are absolutely indestructible; basically a plastic coating on top of stainless steel sheets.)

Lightning. Lightning will generally fry the inverter due to transients as the result of a direct hit, but modern PV systems grounded to NEC standards generally survive.

That's not to say that they cannot be damaged, of course. A system I installed at Otay lost a panel when someone dropped a ripcord on it from 5000 feet. It was from an MT1XS; about the size and weight of a tandem reserve ripcord. But for 99.9% of solar installations out there, the greatest hazard is bird poop.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

But for 99.9% of solar installations out there, the greatest hazard is bird poop.

What kind of regular cleaning do these require to stay at peak efficiency?

[billvon 3,070]

>What kind of regular cleaning do these require to stay at peak efficiency?

Depends. Here in Socal you'd have to clean them every week or so to keep them at 100% efficiency since it never rains in the summer. To keep them at 95% you'd have to do it once a month. If 90% is good enough you never really have to do it - the rains once a year are sufficient.

In an area where it rains you'd have to do it far less, if ever. In an area where it snows you have to clear them at least a little after any significant accumulation. Since they're designed to absorb as much energy as possible they clear themselves pretty rapidly once the sun hits them, but that process won't start until there's an opening.

I generally go up on the roof about once a year to look at the system, look at the roof and hose them off. I immediately get a 20% increase in power - 10% from the cleaning and 10% from cooling the panels off (cool panels = more power.)

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

My impression is that this country has a lack of focus with this unless the general population feels threatened. ....

That is the reason that China has now overtaken the USA in "green" technology.

Yet another area pioneered here and allowed to go elsewhere. We (generic "we") just want to keep driving the big SUV's and pretend there's no issue. We see that attitude expressed right here in SC.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

… And was out of town most of the weekend>

Quote

It's such a complex, inter-dependent issue.

Concur. That’s one factor that makes it interesting to me. Easy issues w/easy explanations just aren’t as interesting to me.

Quote

I spend a lot of my time reading about the solar industry, as I would like to make a career change into solar design when the economy turns around (I'm currently a civil/ environmental engineer in another industry). I'm currently learning everything I can and trying to find a specific area to focus on.

I’d be happy to put you in touch with the some folks at Applied Materials if you’d like?

Quote

Quote

Is the capacity to manufacture solar technology moving eastward?
Can we rely on domestic innovation?
Does anyone care? Should we care?

It seems to me like we need to find a way to make people care more. A carbon tax would do it, but it would have some undesirable consequences. It would raise the price per KW/HR for all customers but then we could create a credit for residents/ business to install smart meters and smart black boxes and throw some more rebates in to motivate efficiency improvements. Along the way, some of our best scientist can work on improving the technology (think super efficient solar film built into your roof's shingles that can power your whole house, and look identical to regular roofs). Then about 10-15 years later we have a totally retooled energy economy, a ton more jobs, and a few less greenhouse gases floating around in our atmosphere.

I like the latter part of your scenario – incorporate nanotechnology in the scenario & it’ll hit my buttons. W/r/t your first statement … how do we do that? And does that ultimately matter? I.e., does “caring” drive markets and economics? A lot of folks will argue it should … that’s a normative argument, and what consumers should care about is often variable across different people, eh? In the history of new innovations, how many have been driven by the consumer cares (not wants and not fears)? And not ultimate, if unexpected, success … but the underlying business level motivation? Ben-n-Jerry’s and organic foods aren’t really new innovations; it’s old stuff done differently. And some might argue that there’s just as much ‘fear’ as ‘care’ on the part of the consumers who make those purchases. As you point out, taxes can be used as incentives/disincentives to change behavior of consumers and influence operational choices. I’m more of a proponent of inducements, like tax breaks for R&D.

The ultimate solar energy conundrum really isn’t cost of cells or efficiency, imo; if there was market, prices would come down. Prices may come down as China increases manufacturing capacity. Imo, the problem with solar energy is the fact that it’s really hard to make money selling sunlight. Selling something that’s free. It's hard to build a business plan selling something that's free. With water, we made it a public utility and sell the service to clean it and deliver it. Imo, once someone figures out a way to make money off of selling sunlight, it will be a gold mine. It’s not a knock on capitalism; it’s tragedy of commons.

Quote

If you find out how to make it happen... you could make a ton of cash. I obviously don't have all the answers...

Concur. And me neither. If I did I would be writing up the business plan.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,070]

> Along the way, some of our best scientist can work on improving the
>technology (think super efficient solar film built into your roof's shingles
>that can power your whole house, and look identical to regular roofs).

There are several products that do that. You can go efficient http://www.solarhome.org/62wattshinglepanel.aspx or indestructible [url]http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/dow-unveils-solar-shingles/[/url.] Problem there is that there are a LOT of shingle/roofing styles that people like, so the economies of scale won't kick in for a long time. OTOH, rectangular panels can go in any installation, so you can get big economies of scale there - and the airspace beneath them both improves panel efficiencies and helps keep roofs cooler in summer. There are a few companies that make panels in different colors/transparencies to match a given decor.

>But no one will take the first step.

I think we've taken a lot of small first steps. We generate 12% of our power from renewable resources, and that's growing rapidly. Solar and wind are very clean but not good baseline sources; hydro is relatively clean and is great for baseline. We'll still need another baseline power source (like nuclear) to fill in in areas where hydro is not practical.

But you're right, it will take a lot of effort to get to the point where we can replace most coal and oil sources. (And natural gas, but as the cleanest, lowest CO2 fuel we have, it should probably be the last to go. Plus which it's a great motor fuel, and we can make it from garbage and manure.)