The growth of the solar industry has been limited by the supply of the polysilicon material used to make solar panels. In 2006, more than half of the world’s supply of polysilicon was used for production of renewable electricity. In 2008, only twelve factories produced solar-grade polysilicon. In 2011, the industry produced an excess of polysilicon. And now, another shift — the creation of a plastic solar cell.
Researchers at Georgia Tech‘s Center for Organic Photonics and Electronics, (COPE) have discovered a new technique to reduce the work function of a conductor and by doing so, created the worlds’ first plastic solar cell. And, the creation of that plastic solar cell could change the requirements for the manufacturing of organic printed electronics.
Printed electronics allows manufacturers to print or roll materials onto surfaces to produce an electronically functional device. This printing process is already used in organic solar cells and organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) that form the displays of mobile phones.
Experts predict that in 2012 alone, the printable electronics market will reach $9.4 b. But manufacturing at low cost in ambient conditions is not so easy. Printed electronics require conductors to create light or energy and that usually happens with calcium, magnesium or lithium. The problem is that calcium, magnesium and lithium are a bit fussy and chemically quite reactive and will oxidize or stop working if they are exposed to oxygen and moisture. This is why electronics in solar cells and TVs are covered with a rigid, thick barrier such as glass or expensive encapsulation layers.
The total thickness of a completely plastic solar cell is in the range of one micrometer, which is 100 times thinner than a human hair.
How did they do it? The team used inexpensive, environmentally friendly, easy to access materials- a commercially available polymer that can be easily processed from dilute solutions in solvents like water. After processing the polymer, they spread a very thin layer, approximately one to 10 nanometers thick, on the conductor’s surface. The interaction turns air-stable conductors into efficient, low-work function electrodes.
“These polymers are compatible with existent roll-to-roll mass production techniques,” said Bernard Kippelen, Professor, College of Engineering and Director, COPE. “Replacing reactive metals like lithium and calcium with stable conductors, including conducting polymers, completely changes the requirements of how electronics are manufactured and protected and paves the way for lower cost and more flexible devices.”
“This technique is based on the printing of organic inks that have semiconducting properties that can be processed at temperatures below 200 C,” added Kippelen. “This allows for the fabrication of electronics devices onto plastic or even paper substrates.”
Kippelen says the functionality of these devices covers organic light-emitting diodes for active-matrix displays (AMOLED), energy-efficient light sources for solid-state lighting to sensors for environmental monitoring and organic solar cells for power generation.
Some of these organic semiconductors are already in use in the latest mobile phone displays, including the Samsung Galaxy, but they are integrated with thick glass substrates to protect them from oxygen and moisture.
The advantage of a plastic solar cell over other solar cells is that they could potentially be manufactured at a cost that is lower than what could be achieved with crystalline silicon solar cells.
“The goal is to reach a price point for a photovoltaic module that is below the cost of the raw silicon that is used to fabricate conventional silicon solar cells,” adds Kippelen. “But the road to get there is still long and the new printable electrodes and the demonstration of a completely plastic solar cell are only a small step in the right direction towards this challenging objective.”
A simmering trade dispute is highlighting a debate about the kinds of jobs America can sustain in a greening economy.
The Obama administration's recent decision to slap import tariffs on Chinese solar cells was hailed by some domestic solar manufacturers as a victory for job creation, leveling the field while also sending a powerful message to Beijing about monopolistic behavior in crucial industries.
But a close look at the U.S. solar industry suggests that the tariffs may actually be a job killer because the vast majority of positions in the sector aren't on the assembly line. Instead, upward of 70% of U.S. solar employment is in installation, sales and distribution — and companies that hire those workers argue solar cells must get significantly cheaper to remain competitive with other energy sources.
"What China is doing to boost its manufacturers is unfair, but tariffs could actually reduce jobs," said Gordon Johnson, a green tech analyst at Axiom Capital Management. "The price of solar panels goes up and looks unaffordable compared to alternatives."
Although the U.S. pioneered photovoltaic solar cells decades ago, it has fallen increasingly behind lower-cost manufacturers of the technology, including China, South Korea and Malaysia. But the U.S. is among the world's fastest-growing solar consumers, opening vast opportunities for service-sector jobs in the sunlight-extraction business.
The matter comes to a head next month, when the Commerce Department will announce a determination on a possible second round of tariffs on Chinese-made silicon-based photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight into electricity and are by far the most popular solar technology.
While tariff advocates say that protecting a solar manufacturing base is crucial to the nation's energy security, others argue the U.S. has already lost that footrace. Instead of swooping in to rescue remaining plants, they say, the focus should be on reducing the cost of solar to speed liberation from fossil fuels, which dovetails with the goal of reducing unemployment.
"Installation is where all the jobs are," said John Smirnow, vice president of trade and competitiveness at the Solar Energy Industry Assn. "There are 5,600 companies in the healthy, vibrant and growing solar-services sector."
The Commerce Department's May 17 ruling, in response to allegations of dumping by the U.S. unit of a German solar panel maker, could fundamentally alter the solar landscape in the U.S. Dumping is when a company or industry sells its products below cost to capture the market. If additional tariffs are applied, they will probably be much higher than the relatively light first round announced in March, which ran from 2.6% to 4.7%.
The smaller tariffs — designed to balance out Chinese subsidies of its solar factories — could squeeze margins for installers, but most experts agree they aren't enough to radically reduce consumption. Anti-dumping duties, however, could run above 20%, dramatically increasing the cost of switching to solar.
Cost is a key factor in getting businesses and homeowners to convert to solar power. A typical residential roof setup costs about $25,000, which federal, state and local rebates and tax incentives can cut to about $13,000 in the city of Los Angeles. At that price, it still could take about a dozen years for the systems to pay back the upfront costs through lower electricity bills.
If tariffs on Chinese cells come in as high as many predict, they could raise the out-of-pocket cost of such an installation by $1,250 — and commercial projects by far more.
Such an increase could be a deal breaker for many would-be customers, especially with a 30% federal tax credit set to expire after 2016, said Lyndon Rive, chief executive of SolarCity, the nation's largest solar installer.
SolarCity has 1,600 employees in 14 states and is hiring three new employees a day. The San Mateo, Calif., company puts solar panels onWal-Martstores, government offices and university campuses, as well as thousands of houses.
"The No. 1 decision for our customers in terms of going solar is whether they can save money," said Rive, who worries that higher prices could offset government subsidies. Several European countries are already curtailing solar incentives, he said. "We have to be competitive with whatever the local power company is charging, or we're in trouble."
According to a study by the Solar Foundation, 52,503 Americans worked in the solar installation business last year, and 17,722 worked in sales and distribution, compared with 24,064 in manufacturing. And although almost 10,000 new installation jobs were created in 2010 and 2011, manufacturing actually lost 1,000 positions while seeing several domestic makers go out of business, including Solyndra, which failed despite government loan guarantees.
The growth in service jobs has tracked closely to the falling costs of photovoltaic cells, often the most expensive item in any installation. Thanks largely to aggressive pricing by Chinese manufacturers, the cost of solar panels has fallen 28% in the last 12 months, according to data from research firm Solarbuzz.
Walter Ellard, installation director of SunFusion, a San Diego company with 25 employees, said he pays about 40% more for U.S.-made solar cells than Chinese ones. "Some customers prefer American made, but otherwise it's not even close," he said.
A simmering trade dispute is highlighting a debate about the kinds of jobs America can sustain in a greening economy.
The Obama administration's recent decision to slap import tariffs on Chinese solar cells was hailed by some domestic solar manufacturers as a victory for job creation, leveling the field while also sending a powerful message to Beijing about monopolistic behavior in crucial industries.
But a close look at the U.S. solar industry suggests that the tariffs may actually be a job killer because the vast majority of positions in the sector aren't on the assembly line. Instead, upward of 70% of U.S. solar employment is in installation, sales and distribution — and companies that hire those workers argue solar cells must get significantly cheaper to remain competitive with other energy sources.
"What China is doing to boost its manufacturers is unfair, but tariffs could actually reduce jobs," said Gordon Johnson, a green tech analyst at Axiom Capital Management. "The price of solar panels goes up and looks unaffordable compared to alternatives."
Although the U.S. pioneered photovoltaic solar cells decades ago, it has fallen increasingly behind lower-cost manufacturers of the technology, including China, South Korea and Malaysia. But the U.S. is among the world's fastest-growing solar consumers, opening vast opportunities for service-sector jobs in the sunlight-extraction business.
The matter comes to a head next month, when the Commerce Department will announce a determination on a possible second round of tariffs on Chinese-made silicon-based photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight into electricity and are by far the most popular solar technology.
While tariff advocates say that protecting a solar manufacturing base is crucial to the nation's energy security, others argue the U.S. has already lost that footrace. Instead of swooping in to rescue remaining plants, they say, the focus should be on reducing the cost of solar to speed liberation from fossil fuels, which dovetails with the goal of reducing unemployment.
"Installation is where all the jobs are," said John Smirnow, vice president of trade and competitiveness at the Solar Energy Industry Assn. "There are 5,600 companies in the healthy, vibrant and growing solar-services sector."
The Commerce Department's May 17 ruling, in response to allegations of dumping by the U.S. unit of a German solar panel maker, could fundamentally alter the solar landscape in the U.S. Dumping is when a company or industry sells its products below cost to capture the market. If additional tariffs are applied, they will probably be much higher than the relatively light first round announced in March, which ran from 2.6% to 4.7%.
The smaller tariffs — designed to balance out Chinese subsidies of its solar factories — could squeeze margins for installers, but most experts agree they aren't enough to radically reduce consumption. Anti-dumping duties, however, could run above 20%, dramatically increasing the cost of switching to solar.
Cost is a key factor in getting businesses and homeowners to convert to solar power. A typical residential roof setup costs about $25,000, which federal, state and local rebates and tax incentives can cut to about $13,000 in the city of Los Angeles. At that price, it still could take about a dozen years for the systems to pay back the upfront costs through lower electricity bills.
If tariffs on Chinese cells come in as high as many predict, they could raise the out-of-pocket cost of such an installation by $1,250 — and commercial projects by far more.
Such an increase could be a deal breaker for many would-be customers, especially with a 30% federal tax credit set to expire after 2016, said Lyndon Rive, chief executive of SolarCity, the nation's largest solar installer.
SolarCity has 1,600 employees in 14 states and is hiring three new employees a day. The San Mateo, Calif., company puts solar panels onWal-Martstores, government offices and university campuses, as well as thousands of houses.
"The No. 1 decision for our customers in terms of going solar is whether they can save money," said Rive, who worries that higher prices could offset government subsidies. Several European countries are already curtailing solar incentives, he said. "We have to be competitive with whatever the local power company is charging, or we're in trouble."
According to a study by the Solar Foundation, 52,503 Americans worked in the solar installation business last year, and 17,722 worked in sales and distribution, compared with 24,064 in manufacturing. And although almost 10,000 new installation jobs were created in 2010 and 2011, manufacturing actually lost 1,000 positions while seeing several domestic makers go out of business, including Solyndra, which failed despite government loan guarantees.
The growth in service jobs has tracked closely to the falling costs of photovoltaic cells, often the most expensive item in any installation. Thanks largely to aggressive pricing by Chinese manufacturers, the cost of solar panels has fallen 28% in the last 12 months, according to data from research firm Solarbuzz.
Walter Ellard, installation director of SunFusion, a San Diego company with 25 employees, said he pays about 40% more for U.S.-made solar cells than Chinese ones. "Some customers prefer American made, but otherwise it's not even close," he said.
A GREEN battle was won on behalf of listed building homeowners last week when permission was granted for ten solar panels to stay on a roof in the conservation area.
The retrospective planning application, which was recommended for refusal by Warwick District Council planning officers, was submitted by Anthony Butcher to retain ten solar panels on the rear roof slope of his Grade II listed house in West Street in Warwick.
At the planning meeting, held at Leamington Town Hall last Tuesday, Mr Butcher said: “I apologise for not gaining listed building consent before having this work done. I have always gained planning permission before starting work on my house, but this time the Government suddenly brought forward the cut-off date for solar panels by three months.
“I know this authority places considerable value on the listed buildings and conservation areas in our district.
“I share those values and have always tried to do the right thing when working to improve my house during the 48 years I have lived there, but maintaining and heating old buildings is always more costly.
“The income from these panels will be a help for me and future owners towards these costs for the next 25 years.
“There are great environmental and economical benefits from these panels and people living in listed buildings shouldn’t be denied their right to help with this.”
There was one objection to the application from owners of a neighbouring property and planning officers recommended the application to be refused as they said the solar panels are seriously detrimental to the character and appearance of both the building itself and the conservation area as a whole.
But while the planning committee did not condone applying for the permission retrospectively, they said they did not want to isolate a part of the community by not allowing them to have solar panels just because they owned a listed building, especially as in this case, when the panels cause no architectural damage to the property.
Cllr Ann Blacklock, (Lib Dem) from the committee, said: “We can excuse him for the retrospective application as he acted sensibly in the situation he was in.
“These panels do not, significantly, adversely affect the appearance of the area and it doesn’t harm the building, so we should be applauding him for doing this.”
Like any moment of truth, the recent announcement by the U.S. Department of Commerce to set unexpectedly low tariffs on solar cells and panels imported from China, may be a precursor for its next decision on May 17 in a trade case brought by SolarWorld, the German-owned solar cell manufacturer.
Since filing a petition seeking tariffs as high as 250 percent, SolarWorld has made repeated claims that the Chinese government provides huge subsidies to Chinese solar cell manufacturers with the goal of undercutting U.S. manufacturers.
In his November 8 testimony to the International Trade Commission, which is conducting the investigation into SolarWorld’s allegations, Gordon Brinser, president of SolarWorld’s U.S. subsidiary, asserted, “But for the massive amounts of support from the Chinese Government, China's solar industry has no production cost advantage to warrant its exceedingly low-priced product.” Clearly, the Department of Commerce decision on March 19 took the wind from SolarWorld’s sails when they announced tariffs of just 3 to 5 percent on imported Chinese cells and panels.
Most participants in the solar industry, here and throughout the world, recognize that subsidies are not exclusive to China. Every nation seeking to accelerate the development of solar has sought by various measures to provide support. From tax credits, grants and loans to loan guarantees, access to land and other benefits, these nations have committed public resources to the expansion of solar. As the International Energy Agency pointed out in its June 2011 Clean Energy Progress Report, “In 2010, almost all major economies had some form of support scheme for renewable electricity.”
The intensity of SolarWorld’s attack on the government of China’s support for solar development is exceeded only by the extent of subsidies in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere from which SolarWorld itself has benefited. In Europe, for example, between 2003 and 2011 SolarWorld received about $130 million for their solar wafer and module plants; in the U.S. SolarWorld received tens of millions of dollars in tax credits from both Oregon and the federal government as well as a $61 loan guarantee from the U.S. Export-Import bank.
SolarWorld’s effort to raise the price of solar energy to America’s consumers and businesses is selfish, short-sighted and senseless. The best thing that has happened to the solar industry is the sharp decline in the price of solar panels. Have the Chinese invested heavily in the expansion of their solar industry? Yes. Have they helped to drive down the costs of solar cells? Again, yes. Has this effort hurt the U.S. solar industry? Absolutely not.
The sharp drop in the cost of solar cells and panels has led to the greatest expansion of solar installations that the U.S. has ever seen. Thousands of workers who lost jobs when the housing market collapsed are now gainfully employed in jobs -- that can’t be outsourced -- installing solar systems on homes, box stores, office buildings and at sites for utility-scale generation. Further, the price drop has also spurred more innovation in the material and equipment used in manufacturing solar cells and solar systems. For example, one of the world’s innovative manufacturers of polysilicon -- REC Silicon -- employs 500 at a manufacturing plant in the State of Washington and is a major exporter to China and Asia. So too is Silicon Valley based Twin Creek Technologies which produces a tool to make thinner, better, and cheaper silicon solar cells.
