Anyone following this solar tech?

[begreen]

I just read about this process today, but know nothing more than the sales pitch. The claim is that they are able to make a much thinner silicon slice for the cells than other technologies. This reduces waste and improves output. Thoughts?
http://www.raytonsolar.com/

 

[blades]

seems to me they are making use of similar tech that the latest round of solidstate mfg have developed as I read something about ultra thin silicon chips a while back and about applications in solar cells - no mention of this company at the time. I think it was related to vapor deposition.

 

[iamlucky13]

I just read about this process today, but know nothing more than the sales pitch. The claim is that they are able to make a much thinner silicon slice for the cells than other technologies. This reduces waste and improves output. Thoughts?
http://www.raytonsolar.com/

It looks to me like their "exfoliation" process for cutting wafers from ingots is their key technology. That lets them use far less silicon, potentially justifying the use of far more expensive silicon, which can allow slightly higher efficiency. I'm curious if the higher purity silicon might also result in lower degradation.

This sounds like university research being commercialized. This is always a risky phase for a startup, because costs are speculative and unexpected technical problems almost always come up. I wish I had time to look up details and maybe papers from the two phd's they list on their staff.

This doesn't look to me like a technology likely to turn them into the next big solar manufacturer, but it could either be licensed to existing manufacturers or they could potentially become an equipment supplier for manufacturers who want to use the process.

 

[begreen]

They are claiming a potential 24% efficiency at a 60% reduced manufacturing cost. If so, that should give the industry a nudge to stand on it's own without subsidies.

 

[peakbagger]

I wasn't aware of it but it sort has the same driver as the printed panels, Nanosolar or even Evergreens where the goal was to reduce wafer thickness by eliminating the sawed waters. At one point the cost of silicon was the big cost for a PV panel but I am curious now how much of the cost is actually silicon wafers versus how much is the balance of the panel? If its 60% reduction in overall panel cost that's one thing but if its 60% reduction in something that only impacts 5% of the overall PV panel delivered cost its less ground breaking given that there will be significant retooling costs. PVs panels are currently less costly than an equivalent square footage of windows for a house so I am not sure how its going to impact substantially the price of an overall solar install. The efficiency gain is of interest to those with limited roof space but for most panel efficiency really doesn't factor in unless you get it for free.

More power to them but I don't plan to chip in. I wonder how many shares Bill Nye gets for standing in the photo with the rest of the gang?

 

[begreen]

Good question. For the buyer though, if the panel ended up being 25% more efficient then less panels would need to be purchased to achieve the desired power generation.

 

[iamlucky13]

They are claiming a potential 24% efficiency at a 60% reduced manufacturing cost. If so, that should give the industry a nudge to stand on it's own without subsidies.

I've seen a lot of technology startups make cost-claims early on in their development, and then seldom actually meet them. I'll have to stick with a wait and see attitude.

At one point the cost of silicon was the big cost for a PV panel but I am curious now how much of the cost is actually silicon wafers versus how much is the balance of the panel? If its 60% reduction in overall panel cost that's one thing but if its 60% reduction in something that only impacts 5% of the overall PV panel delivered cost its less ground breaking given that there will be significant retooling costs.

I had seen some figures on this a while ago, but I don't remember where, and they'd be far outdated by now.

I'm fairly certain the undoped wafer is a large majority of the cell cost, and a dominant, but not necessarily majority of the panel cost. 60% reduction in panel cost is at the bleeding edge of credibility. 60% reduction in cell cost seems credible. 60% reduction in wafer cost based on 10 times the ingot cost but 1/100th the material sounds like no problem, but the processing seems to be more complex.

Of course, the panel cost is now down to something like 1/4 of the installed system cost, so the total system cost effect is obviously much less, but every improvement helps.

PVs panels are currently less costly than an equivalent square footage of windows for a house

Did I point this out on the forum recently, or did you and I just happen to realize the exact same perspective independently of each other within a couple weeks of each other?

 

[peakbagger]

Did I point this out on the forum recently, or did you and I just happen to realize the exact same perspective independently of each other within a couple weeks of each other?

I think I had made a similar observation a few years ago when panels got down near a buck a watt. I will chalk it up to great minds think alike . It probably applied long before that, I think it came to me when ordered a new Anderson window for the house and realized how much per square foot they cost.

I had a brief opportunity to visit the Konarka printed solar panel pilot facility in Massachusetts several years ago, it was another really promising technology that was a spin off from academia. They had a big leg up on other tech in that they had access to the former Polaroid production facilities (which were no expense spared manufacturing plants) so much of the manufacturing equipment was already in place. They could not get the efficiency that silicon panels did and one of their last gasp approaches was to sell transparent films that would go over glass windows in commercial buildings would also act as solar panels. They had some prototypes but at that time the "buzzards" were circling as they had run out of the initial rounds of venture capital. FYI In the press VC folks are shown as quirky incredibly rich folks from California, in realty they aren't much different than a loan shark. Rather than break someone's legs they destroy companies and lot of folks lives when they don't get their cash. I note that this new company is going for crowdfunding type finding but I wouldn't be surprised if some VCs are hiding in the background.