High Volume Photovoltaic Cell Costs depend on production technique.   Large cost reductions are possible within physical laws.                                                                 

 

A cost breakdown and suggestion for reducing costs.

 

M. Robert Showalter

                                                                                                January 5, 2004

 

 

A manageable task is one in which the expected results can be easily identified; success, failure, or completion of the task can be easily ascertained; the time to complete the task can be easily estimated; and the resource requirements of the task can be easily determined.

 

 from "A Professional's Guide to Systems Analysis", Martin E. Modell, 2nd. Ed. McGraw Hill, 1996.

 

The task of removing energy as a fundamental constraint on human welfare isn’t manageable without much more specification.      But sub-tasks that could contribute to that objective are manageable tasks.     

 

Defining the high volume mass production cost of a basic Si photocell on the basis of clear assumptions  – and how that cost depends on component costs – is a manageable task.

 

Here is the basic structure of a generic silicon photovoltaic cell

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suppose we assume that 20% efficiency, now available in the best low volume production silicon photocells,  is achievable in high volume production.    Let “high volume” be defined as a billion square meters per unit time (day, month, year).  

 

(To match fossil fuel energy with PV would take about 100 billion square meters of 20% efficient PV material – about 20,000 gigawatts of capacity.   At a billion square meters/year, that would take a century to produce – at a billion square meters/month – 8.3 years – at a billion square meters/week – 2 years.  )   

 

It would be a manageable task for glass and automotive engineers to define the cost of assembling layers A, B, F, and an additional glass sealing layer below F at high volume.    With ordinary high quality production engineering, that cost, for a 2 mm thickness assembly, would probably be around 1-2 $/square meter  (  .5 - 1 cents/watt for a 20% efficient photocell. )  

 

It would be a manageable task for glass,  automotive, wire, and textile engineers to design a contact grid layer C with total losses (shadow losses plus N-Si layer conduction losses) under 2% for a high volume cost under .5 $/square meter  (under .25 cents/watt for a 20% efficient photocell. )  

 

If the N-type and P-type Si layers are a total of 10 microns thick, silicon cost per meter squared will be the cost of  23.3 grams of purified silicon.   ( .117 grams/watt ).    At the price of metallurgical Si, that would be about 2.5 cents/meter squared ( about .0125 cents/watt ).   Silicon purification costs, and shaping costs, are now many tens of dollars per square meter.     The key to reducing photocell costs is reducing these costs.

 

 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Summarizing assembly costs in high volume –

 

            Layers A, B, C, F -   1-1.5 $/meter squared   -   .5-.75 cents/watt.

 

Cost of Si, at metallurgical rates –  2.5 cents/meter squared -  less than .02 cents/watt.

 

PLUS the costs of purifying, doping, and shaping the Silicon – which are now the dominant costs.  

 

The electronics industry depends on the mass production of ultra-pure, enormously uniform, very large silicon crystals.   The science involved with silicon crystal formation has been well understood for at least seventy years, and production systems for making ultra-pure crystalline silicon have been evolving for half a century.    Currently, the microphysical conditions for producing very pure crystalline silicon occur routinely and reliably in production systems with high unit costs.   These costs are relatively small parts of the total cost of the semiconductors for which the silicon is made.   

 

It is a technical question whether these same microphysical conditions can be produced in systems adapted for high volume mass production of crystalline silicon in the thin sheet form that photocell production needs.    The costs associated with that high volume mass production will depend on technical details that are partly dictated by the physical facts of silicon crystallization – but mostly depend on other technical facts.   

 

Purification of Silicon to very high purities is done by crystallization.   Impurities are left behind in the melt.   Impurities are discarded in the melt.   Impurity reductions of 1000 fold and more per crystallization stage are standard.      Si purification to semiconductor purity could be accomplished in 3-5 recrystallization stages.   90% or more of the silicon input feed can be in the high purity crystalline output.    

 

Processing the silicon has energy costs – but these energy costs are small – the energy cost of 10 stages of melting and recrystallization of Si (at 20 cents/kWh energy cost) would be an additional 2.5 cents/meter squared of photocell – less than .02 cents/watt .  There is no scientific or engineering reason that these recrystallization stages cannot be made to occur  in a steady-state, steady flow automated process with energy costs not much higher than theoretical energy costs. 

 

Processing the silicon into the form needed for photocells has other costs associated with producing the microphysical conditions needed to produce the thin, doped crystalline layers of silicon that high efficiency photocell production needs.   These costs depend on the production system used.   Different production systems can produce identical products at very different costs.  

 

I believe that following production engineering questions will determine these costs in high volume production:   

 

1. Is it possible to produce a steady state, steady flow multistage recrystallization process for silicon with good cleanliness, very well controlled heat transfer and precisely controlled material flows so that silicon of semiconductor purity ( impurities of parts per billion or less) can be produced from metallurgical silicon at an energy cost not much higher than the theoretical energy cost ?    Or a batch recrystallization process meeting the same criteria? 

 

2. Is it possible to pull thin, planar crystalline silicon ( the geometry needed for  photocells ) directly off of a pool of liquid silicon on an automated high volume basis?    It seems certain that if this be done with pure silicon, it can also be done for N-doped silicon, and P-doped silicon.      

 

( Alternatively, is it possible to pull the planar crystals on another automated basis, for example, by a modified Czochralski process, or by an extrusion and recrysallization process? )

 

3. Can jobs 1 and 2 be done, and done at high throughputs – with low capital and operating charges per unit output?   These processes would have to operate just below the temperatures at which iron is poured and cast, but with microphysical and microchemical conditions controlled with much more precision than that typical of cast iron foundry practice.    

 

I believe that the answers to questions 1-3 are all affirmative – and the jobs can be done well enough so that the high volume mass production capital charges involved would be less than a cent per watt ( less than $2.00 per square meter.) 

 

If these tasks can be done – and done at that price – it is reasonable to estimate that high volume photocell production costs could be less than $3.50/meter squared – less than 1.75 cents/watt.   At that low price, photovoltaic energy might compete strongly with fossil fuel energy on a wholesale basis.

 

Answering questions 1-3 to perfect reliability would require actually building units that actually produced at full high volume production and testing them over time.   That would cost many billions of dollars.     But a great deal of the uncertainty involved can be addressed by design calculation – and much more could be addressed by building prototypes.      Feasibility of tasks 1-2 could be demonstrated by actually prototyping and testing units that did jobs 1 and 2 above.    Full scale costs could be estimated reasonably well after this prototyping was done.   

 

The task of removing energy as a fundamental constraint on human welfare isn’t manageable.  That task is too broad and too ill defined.      But the tasks involved in design and prototyping to answer the key questions about jobs 1 and 2 above are manageable tasks.     Expected results of these tasks can be clearly identified; success, failure, or completion of the tasks can be clearly ascertained; the time to complete the tasks can be estimated; and the resource requirements of the task can be determined.

 

I believe that these design and prototyping jobs could be completed – or great progress could be made toward their accomplishment – for less than a million dollars.   

 

 

Note:  The subject matter discussed here involves matters that will be the subject of several patent applications by me.