New Thin Film Process Takes Solar Another Step to Affordability
A new piece of thin film manufacturing equipment with the unlikely name of Viper (TM) could help bring solar energy to the masses. Viper (TM) was developed by Sencera, a North Carolina company that got its start supplying thin film hardware for manufacturing transistors and integrated circuits.
Thin Film Works for Solar Cells, Too
Sencera started developing equipment to make solar cells a few years ago, and the company never looked back. It is now focused on developing more efficient ways to boost solar cell conversion efficiency through thin film technology.
The Thin Film Difference
Thin film has been replacing conventional silicon wafers as a low-cost way to manufacture solar cells. Thin film solar cells don’t need a silicon wafer, so they involve less cost for materials.
The Viper (TM) Thin Film Difference
Amorphous silicon is the material of choice in most thin film solar cells. However, its instability over large areas limits the conversion efficiency of thin film solar cells to about 8%. By using it in tandem with nanocrystalline silicon, Sencera hopes to achieve a greater conversion efficiency, with a goal of 11%.
Thin Film Efficiency vs. Cost of Manufacture
Conversion efficiency is one key to an affordable solar cell. The other is cost of manufacturing, which depends partly on production efficiency. In addition to bringing the cost of materials down, the high-speed performance of the Viper (TM) promises an efficient manufacturing process, too.
In other words, though silicon wafer solar cells currently have a much higher conversion efficiency than thin film, the Viper (TM) enables thin film to compensate with speedier, cheaper delivery.
Thin Film Solar Panels for You and Me
Another enhancement of the Viper (TM) is improved handling of the blue and red sections of the solar spectrum. The process yields a solar cell that can function in a variety of light conditions including shade and angled light. While applicable to large scale products, the process could also lead to more portable, consumer-friendly “plug-n-play” products. With new solar thermal technology putting night-time solar power within reach, we could all be one step closer to cleaning the coal out of our closets.
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Our Latest EVObsession Video
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
One problem with thin-film solar that is never mentioned in articles about its promise is how much more space it requires to generate the same amount of power as old-school silicon wafers solar cells.
You need almost twice as much space to generate the same power.
There is only so much unshaded, south-facing room on your roof, and only so much unused land that would be wise to dedicate to ground-mounted solar panels. (The land might be better used for growing crops, as wildlife habitat, or simply to avoid public backlash against the impact of renewable energy technologies in their communities.)
Also, the mounting hardware and wiring costs of hooking up panels is a significant portion of total installed system cost.
Using thin-film on consumer items to replace or supplement batteries is a nice idea for price and durability reasons. But having to dedicate twice as much space to the solar panels does not pan out in almost all applications. Consumer electronics – people want small, not large. Think about panels on the roof of a hybrid car — there are very few square feet of space there to use.
So there is a hidden cost to thin-film that folks should consider.
(I have three thin-film panels on my house or in my yard. I was worried about durability in case of hail. In hindsight I should have bought polycrystalline or single crystal panels.)
One problem with thin-film solar that is never mentioned in articles about its promise is how much more space it requires to generate the same amount of power as old-school silicon wafers solar cells.
You need almost twice as much space to generate the same power.
There is only so much unshaded, south-facing room on your roof, and only so much unused land that would be wise to dedicate to ground-mounted solar panels. (The land might be better used for growing crops, as wildlife habitat, or simply to avoid public backlash against the impact of renewable energy technologies in their communities.)
Also, the mounting hardware and wiring costs of hooking up panels is a significant portion of total installed system cost.
Using thin-film on consumer items to replace or supplement batteries is a nice idea for price and durability reasons. But having to dedicate twice as much space to the solar panels does not pan out in almost all applications. Consumer electronics – people want small, not large. Think about panels on the roof of a hybrid car — there are very few square feet of space there to use.
So there is a hidden cost to thin-film that folks should consider.
(I have three thin-film panels on my house or in my yard. I was worried about durability in case of hail. In hindsight I should have bought polycrystalline or single crystal panels.)