I am not at liberty to share some of the details, but I’ve seen 3rd party accelerated testing data showing perovskites from some companies stable with expected 20+ yr module lifetimes, and real world multi-year testing data with very little efficiency loss. In addition, while the nameplate efficiencies are definitely lower, they have much more stable output curves under a wider range of weather conditions, on a curve which in many climates would result in greater total kWh output per day/week/year, and spread more evenly throughout the day, compared to Si.
And yes, CdTe works fine at scale, but it’s not something we’re ever going to scale to TWp/year, there just aren’t enough cadmium and tellurium we can readily mine. And to get to an actually decarbonized world, we’re going to need to increase total electricity production several fold, and a few times more as more countries become more developed, so multiple TWp/yr is where we’re going to need to be. We’re already above 1 TWp/yr silicon pv production capacity, mostly in China.
As for batteries, it sounds like you’re talking about prices, but I’m talking about costs. I really don’t care what Tesla charges, I care what it’s going to cost them and the next dozen manufacturers to make batteries as they scale production. And yes, I’m aware of the NMC/LFP differences. I still think we’re going to see more and more shifting towards LFP, and those problems continuing to get less severe.
I should also add: I know residential scale solar tends to be extremely inefficient from a balance-of-plant and installation labor cost perspective, but I just don’t see a way to maintain a 10x difference between production cost and retail price in a place with net metering laws, a planned ban on ICE vehicles, lots of sunshine and stable weather through the year in many regions, and very high overall housing costs that make financing home improvements seem much less onerous proportionally. Not for the long term, anyway.
while the nameplate efficiencies are definitely lower, they have much more stable output curves under a wider range of weather conditions, on a curve which in many climates would result in greater total kWh output per day/week/year, and spread more evenly throughout the day, compared to Si
Hmm, I don’t see how that could be the case unless you’re talking about a greater total area, and as you probably know, support structures + land costs more than the actual solar panels these days, so lower efficiency for lower panel cost is a bad deal. (If it even actually would be lower per output, and I have some doubts.)
there just aren’t enough cadmium and tellurium we can readily mine
Oh, that’s what you meant? Yeah.
really don’t care what Tesla charges, I care what it’s going to cost them and the next dozen manufacturers to make batteries as they scale production
You can look at the economics of some Li-ion battery producers. The margins aren’t huge.
yes, I’m aware of the NMC/LFP differences. I still think we’re going to see more and more shifting towards LFP, and those problems continuing to get less severe
I said LiFePO4, which is LFP.
I know residential scale solar tends to be extremely inefficient from a balance-of-plant and installation labor cost perspective, but I just don’t see a way to maintain a 10x difference between production cost and retail price in a place with net metering laws, a planned ban on ICE vehicles, lots of sunshine and stable weather through the year in many regions, and very high overall housing costs that make financing home improvements seem much less onerous proportionally. Not for the long term, anyway.
Heh, I agree—which is why I don’t think the net metering will stay.
Hmm, I don’t see how that could be the case unless you’re talking about a greater total area
Whether or not it checks out in the real world, it’s possible because PV conversion efficiencies are not constant. They’re a function of things including temperature, light level, direct vs indirect light, and incident light angle (even with antireflective coatings).
The power output from Si PV falls off quite a bit at high temperature, partial shade, or less direct light. Some semiconductors have much lower efficiency penalties under these conditions. So your Si might be, say, 22% efficient on a clear but temperate summer day at noon, and get you 220 W/m2. But it’s less than 22% efficient outside of the ~5 peak hours of daylight, or when the temperature of the panels rises above ~25C, or in winter.
So, an idealized panel that had a constant 16% efficiency all day, in all weather and all seasons, could make up for producing less power at noon by producing more power at 7am-10am and 5pm-8pm, and when there are some clouds, and when it’s very hot out, and in winter.
(Every time I think about this it reminds me of how in the 90s we compared CPUs on their clock speeds, and then the metric stopped making sense as we got better and more varied architectures and multi-core systems and such. The headline efficiency number just isn’t the only relevant point on a very multidimensional graph).
Also to add:
I am not at liberty to share some of the details, but I’ve seen 3rd party accelerated testing data showing perovskites from some companies stable with expected 20+ yr module lifetimes, and real world multi-year testing data with very little efficiency loss. In addition, while the nameplate efficiencies are definitely lower, they have much more stable output curves under a wider range of weather conditions, on a curve which in many climates would result in greater total kWh output per day/week/year, and spread more evenly throughout the day, compared to Si.
And yes, CdTe works fine at scale, but it’s not something we’re ever going to scale to TWp/year, there just aren’t enough cadmium and tellurium we can readily mine. And to get to an actually decarbonized world, we’re going to need to increase total electricity production several fold, and a few times more as more countries become more developed, so multiple TWp/yr is where we’re going to need to be. We’re already above 1 TWp/yr silicon pv production capacity, mostly in China.
As for batteries, it sounds like you’re talking about prices, but I’m talking about costs. I really don’t care what Tesla charges, I care what it’s going to cost them and the next dozen manufacturers to make batteries as they scale production. And yes, I’m aware of the NMC/LFP differences. I still think we’re going to see more and more shifting towards LFP, and those problems continuing to get less severe.
I should also add: I know residential scale solar tends to be extremely inefficient from a balance-of-plant and installation labor cost perspective, but I just don’t see a way to maintain a 10x difference between production cost and retail price in a place with net metering laws, a planned ban on ICE vehicles, lots of sunshine and stable weather through the year in many regions, and very high overall housing costs that make financing home improvements seem much less onerous proportionally. Not for the long term, anyway.
Hmm, I don’t see how that could be the case unless you’re talking about a greater total area, and as you probably know, support structures + land costs more than the actual solar panels these days, so lower efficiency for lower panel cost is a bad deal. (If it even actually would be lower per output, and I have some doubts.)
Oh, that’s what you meant? Yeah.
You can look at the economics of some Li-ion battery producers. The margins aren’t huge.
I said LiFePO4, which is LFP.
Heh, I agree—which is why I don’t think the net metering will stay.
Whether or not it checks out in the real world, it’s possible because PV conversion efficiencies are not constant. They’re a function of things including temperature, light level, direct vs indirect light, and incident light angle (even with antireflective coatings).
The power output from Si PV falls off quite a bit at high temperature, partial shade, or less direct light. Some semiconductors have much lower efficiency penalties under these conditions. So your Si might be, say, 22% efficient on a clear but temperate summer day at noon, and get you 220 W/m2. But it’s less than 22% efficient outside of the ~5 peak hours of daylight, or when the temperature of the panels rises above ~25C, or in winter.
So, an idealized panel that had a constant 16% efficiency all day, in all weather and all seasons, could make up for producing less power at noon by producing more power at 7am-10am and 5pm-8pm, and when there are some clouds, and when it’s very hot out, and in winter.
(Every time I think about this it reminds me of how in the 90s we compared CPUs on their clock speeds, and then the metric stopped making sense as we got better and more varied architectures and multi-core systems and such. The headline efficiency number just isn’t the only relevant point on a very multidimensional graph).