| 作者 |
 加州理工学院研发理论吸光率达100%的硅线阵列太阳能电池 |
 |
| 所跟贴 |
谁说的? -- wiser56 - (17 Byte) 2010-3-04 周四, 02:14 (374 reads) |
乐闻德
[博客]
声望: 院士
性别:  年龄: 48
加入时间: 2009/08/02
文章: 6342
来自: Den Vereinigten Staaten
海归分: 47
|
|
|
作者：乐闻德 在 海归商务 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium_Telluride_Photovoltaics
Cadmium telluride (CdTe) photovoltaics describes a photovoltaic (PV) technology that is based on the use of cadmium telluride thin film, a semiconductor layer designed to absorb and convert sunlight into electricity.[1] Cadmium telluride PV is the first and only thin film photovoltaic technology to surpass crystalline silicon PV in cheapness for a significant portion of the PV market, namely in multi-kilowatt systems.[1][2][3]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 History
2.1 SCI and First Solar
3 Issues
3.1 Cell efficiency
3.2 Process optimization
3.3 Tellurium supply
3.4 Other issues
3.4.1 Cadmium
3.4.2 Price vulnerability
3.4.3 Solar tracking
4 Market viability
4.1 Notable systems
5 See also
6 References and notes
7 Further reading
[edit] Background
Cross-section of a CdTe thin film solar cell.Since inception, the dominant solar cell technology in the marketplace has been based on wafers of crystalline silicon. During the same period, the idea of developing alternative, lower cost PV technologies led to the consideration of thin films and concentrators. Thin films are based on using thinner semiconductor layers to absorb and convert sunlight; concentrators, on the idea of replacing expensive semiconductors with lenses or mirrors. Both reduce cost, in theory, by reducing the use of semiconductor material. However, both faced critical challenges.
The first thin film technology to be extensively developed and manufactured was amorphous silicon. However, this technology suffers from low efficiencies and slow deposition rates (leading to high capital costs) and has not become a market leader. Instead, the PV market has grown to almost 4 gigawatts with wafer-based crystalline silicon comprising almost 90% of sales.[4] Installation trails production by a slight time lag, and the same source estimates about 3 gigawatts were installed in 2007.
During this period, two other thin films continued in development (cadmium telluride, and copper indium diselenide or CIS-alloys). The latter is beginning to be produced in start-up volumes of 1–30 megawatts per year by individual companies and remains an unproven, but promising market competitor due to very high, small-area cell efficiencies approaching 20%.[5]
[edit] History
40-MW CdTe PV Array, Waldpolenz, GermanyResearch in CdTe dates back to the 1950s,[6][7][8][9][10][11] because it was quickly identified as having a band gap (about 1.5 eV) almost perfectly matched to the distribution of photons in the solar spectrum in terms of optimal conversion to electricity. A simple heterojunction design evolved in which p-type CdTe was matched with n-type cadmium sulfide (CdS). The cell was completed by adding top and bottom contacts. Early leaders in CdS/CdTe cell efficiencies were GE in the 1960s,[12] and then Kodak, Monosolar, Matsushita, and AMETEK.
By 1981, Kodak used close spaced sublimation (CSS) and made the first 10% cells and first multi-cell devices (12 cells, 8% efficiency, 30 cm2).[13] Monosolar[14] and AMETEK[15] used electrodeposition, a popular early method. Matsushita started with screen printing but shifted in the 1990s to CSS. Cells of about 10% sunlight-to-electricity efficiency were being made by the early 1980s at Kodak, Matsushita, Monosolar, and Ametek.[16]
An important step forward occurred when cells were being scaled-up in size to make larger area products called modules. These products require higher currents than small cells and it was found that an additional layer, called a transparent conductive oxide (TCO), could facilitate the movement of current across the top of the cell (instead of a metal grid). One such TCO, tin oxide, was already being applied to glass for other uses (thermally reflective windows). Made more conductive for PV, tin oxide became and remains the norm in CdTe PV modules.
Professor Ting L. Chu of Southern Methodist University and subsequently of University of South Florida, Tampa, made significant contributions to moving the efficiency of CdTe cells to above 15% in 1992, a critical level of success in terms of potential commercial competitiveness.[16] This was done when he added an intervening or buffer layer to the TCO/CdS/CdTe stack and then thinned the CdS to allow more light through. Chu used resistive tin oxide as the buffer layer and then thinned the CdS from several micrometres to under half a micrometre in thickness. Thick CdS, as it was used in prior devices, blocked about 5 mA/cm2 of light, or about 20% of the light usable by a CdTe device. By removing this loss while maintaining the other properties of the device, Chu reached 15% efficiency in 1991, the first thin film to do so, as verified at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory(NREL).[16] Chu used CSS for depositing the CdTe. For his achievements in taking CdTe from its status as “also-ran” to a primary candidate for commercialization, some think of Ting L. Chu as the key technologist in the history of CdTe development.
In the early 1990s, another set of entrants were active in CdTe commercial development, but with mixed results.[16] A short-lived company, Golden Photon replaced Photon Energy, when it was bought by the Coors Company in 1992. Golden Photon, led by Scot Albright and John Jordan, actually held the record for a short period for the best CdTe module measured at NREL at 7.7% using a spray deposition technique. Meanwhile Matsushita, BP Solar, and Solar Cells Inc. were active. Matsushita claimed an 11% module efficiency using CSS and then dropped out of the technology, perhaps due to internal corporate pressures over cadmium. A similar efficiency and fate eventually occurred at BP Solar. BP used electrodeposition inherited from Monosolar by a circuitous route when it purchased SOHIO. SOHIO had previously bought Monosolar. BP Solar however never made a complete commitment to their CdTe technology despite its achievements and dropped it in the early 2000s. Another ineffective corporate evolution occurred at a European entrant, Antec. Founded by CdTe pioneer Dieter Bonnet (who made cells in the 1960s), Antec was able to make about 7%-efficient modules, but went bankrupt when it started producing commercially during a short, sharp downturn in the market in 2002. Purchased from bankruptcy, it never regained the technical traction needed to make further progress. However, as of 2008 Antec does make and sell CdTe PV modules.
There are a number of start-ups in CdTe today: Q-Cells' Calyxo (Germany), GE’s PrimeStar Solar (Golden, Colorado), Arendi (Italy), and Abound Solar (Fort Collins, Colorado). Including Antec, their total production represents less than 70 megawatts per year.[17] In February 2009, Roth & Rau announced to develop turnkey CdTe production lines and launch the business before end of 2009.[18]
[edit] SCI and First Solar
The major commercial success to emerge from the turmoil of the 1990s was Solar Cells Incorporated (SCI). Founded in 1990 as an outgrowth of a prior company, Glasstech Solar (founded 1984), led by inventor/entrepreneur Harold McMaster,[19] it switched from amorphous silicon to CdTe as a better solution to the higher-cost crystalline silicon PV. McMaster championed CdTe for its high-rate, high-throughput processing. Technical leadership came from a team that included Jim Nolan, Rick Powell, Jim Foote, and Peter Meyers, with consulting help from Ting Chu and Al Compaan (U. Toledo). SCI started with an adaptation of the CSS method then shifted to a vapor transport approach, inspired by Powell.[20] In February 1999, McMaster sold the company to True North Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, owners of Wal-Mart.[21] John T. Walton joined the Board of the new company, and Mike Ahearn of True North became the CEO of the newly minted First Solar.
In its early years First Solar suffered setbacks, and initial module efficiencies were modest, about 7%. Commercial product became available in 2002. But production did not reach 25 megawatts until 2005.[22] The company built an additional line in Perrysburg, Ohio, then four lines in Germany, supported by the then substantial German production incentives (about 50% of capital costs)[23]. In 2006 First Solar reached 75 MW of annual production[22] and announced a further 16 lines in Malaysia. The more recently announced lines have been operational ahead of schedule[24]. As of 2008, First Solar is producing at nearly half a gigawatt annual rate,[22] and in 2006 and 2007 was among the largest PV module manufacturers in the world.[25]
[edit] Issues
[edit] Cell efficiency
Solar Cell EfficienciesBest cell efficiency has plateaued at 16.5% since 2001.[26] The opportunity to increase current has been almost fully exploited, but more difficult challenges associated with junction quality, with properties of CdTe and with contacting have not been as successful. However, until recently the number of active scientists in CdTe PV was small.[27] Improved doping of CdTe and increased understanding of key processing steps (e.g., cadmium chloride recrystallization and contacting) are key to progress. Since CdTe has the optimal band gap for single-junction devices, it may be expected that efficiencies close to exceeding 20% (such as already shown in CIS alloys) should be achievable in practical CdTe cells. Modules of 15% would then be possible.
[edit] Process optimization
Process optimization allows greater throughput at smaller cost. Typical improvements are broader substrates (since capital costs scale sublinearly, and installation costs can be reduced), thinner layers (to save material, electricity, and throughput time), and better material utilization (to save material and cleaning costs). Making components rather than buying them is also a traditional way for great manufacturers to shave costs. Today’s CdTe module costs are about $110/m2 (normalized to a square meter).[28] Costs are expected to reduce to $75/m2.
Thus a practical, long-term (10–20 year) goal for CdTe modules resulting from combining cost and efficiency goals would be $75 per 150 watts, or about $0.5 per watt.[29] With commodity-like margins and combined with balance-of-system (BOS) costs, installed systems near $1.5/W seem achievable. With Southern California sunlight, this would be in the 6 to 8 US cents per kWh range (e.g., based on economic and other assumptions used in algorithms such as in the United States Department of Energy and NREL's Solar Advisory Model).[30]
[edit] Tellurium supply
Perhaps the most subtle and least understood problem with CdTe PV is the supply of tellurium. Tellurium (Te) is an element not currently used for many applications. Only a small amount, estimated to be about 800 metric tons [31] per year, is available. According to USGS, global tellurium production in 2007 was 135 metric tons[32]. Most of it comes as a by-product of copper, with smaller byproduct amounts from lead and gold. One gigawatt (GW) of CdTe PV modules would require about 93 metric tons (at current efficiencies and thicknesses),[33] so this seems like a limiting factor. However, because tellurium has had so few uses, it has not been the focus of geologic exploration. In the last decade, new supplies of tellurium-rich ores have been located, e.g., in Xinju, China.[34] Since CdTe is now regarded as an important technology in terms of PV’s future impact on global energy and environment, the issue of tellurium availability is significant. Recently, researchers have added an unusual twist – astrophysicists identify tellurium as the most abundant element in the universe with an atomic number over 40.[35][36] This surpasses, e.g., heavier materials like tin, bismuth, and lead, which are common. Researchers have shown that well-known undersea ridges (which are now being evaluated for their economic recoverability) are rich in tellurium and by themselves could supply more tellurium than we could ever use for all of our global energy.[36][37] It is not yet known whether this undersea tellurium is recoverable, nor whether there is much more tellurium elsewhere that can be recovered.
[edit] Other issues
[edit] Cadmium
Another issue frequently mentioned, is the use and recycling of the extremely toxic metal cadmium, one of the six most toxic materials banned by European Union's RoHS regulation. According to First Solar's annual report[38], the CdTe solar panel is not in RoHS compliance, not listed in the exemption product list, but not currently listed in the restricted product list either. So the product's future RoHS compliance status is uncertain[39]. First Solar has a self-imposed recycling regimen that provides a deposited amount (<$0.05 a watt) that covers the costs of transport and recycling of the module at the end of its useful life.[40][41] Recycling has been fully demonstrated on scrap modules. In a validating test, Vasilis Fthenakis of the Brookhaven National Laboratory showed that the glass plates surrounding CdTe material sandwiched between them (as they are in all commercial modules) seal during a fire and do not allow any cadmium release.[42] All other uses and exposures related to cadmium are minor and similar in kind and magnitude to exposures from other materials in the broader PV value chain, e.g., to toxic gases, lead solder, or solvents (most of which are not used in CdTe manufacturing).[43]
[edit] Price vulnerability
A subtle issue with CdTe and with all thin films in relation to greater efficiency PV module technologies is the potential impact of commodity inflation. Greater efficiency modules incur a better balance of system commodity cost per unit output. Thus such inflation can have a greater percentage impact on system cost. This is another reason that continued efficiency improvements are important.
[edit] Solar tracking
Almost all thin film photovoltaic module systems to-date have been non-solar tracking, because the output of modules has been too low to offset tracker capital and operating costs. But relatively inexpensive single-axis tracking systems can add 25% output per installed watt.[30] This is climate-dependent. Tracking also produces a smoother output plateau around midday, allowing afternoon peaks to be met.
[edit] Market viability
Success of cadmium telluride PV has been due to the low cost achievable with the CdTe technology, made possible by combining adequate efficiency with lower module area costs.[25] Direct manufacturing cost for CdTe PV modules has reached $1.12 per watt,[44] and capital cost per new watt of capacity is near $0.9 per watt (including land and buildings).[45] However, module cost alone is not enough to assure the lowest installed system price. Thin films, including CdTe, are less efficient than most wafer silicon modules. Typical wafer silicon modules are 13% to 20% efficient, while the best CdTe modules were about 10.7% efficient; recent modules produced at First Solar and measured by NREL have shown CdTe modules with efficiencies at 12.5% or greater. Many components of an installed PV system (e.g., support structures, installation labor, land) scale with system area; and less-efficient modules require more area to produce the same output (all other things being equal). The impact of area-related costs on CdTe systems is about $0.5 per watt of extra cost.
[edit] Notable systems
Recent installations of large CdTe PV systems by First Solar confirm the competitiveness of CdTe PV with other forms of solar energy and how close it is to being competitive with conventional natural gas peakers:
A 40MW system being installed by juwi group in Waldpolenz Solar Park, Germany: at the time of its announcement, it was both the largest planned and lowest cost PV system in the world. The price of 3.25 euros translated then (when the euro was equal to US$1.3) to $4.2/watt, much lower than any other known system.[46]
A 7.5-megawatt system to be installed in Blythe, CA, where the California Public Utilities Commission has accepted a 12 US cent per kWh power purchase agreement with First Solar (after the application of all incentives).[47] Defined in California as the "Market Referent Price," this is the price the PUC will pay for any daytime peaking power source, e.g., natural gas. Although PV systems are intermittent and not dispatchable the way natural gas is, natural gas generators have an ongoing fuel price risk that PV does not have.
A contract for two megawatts of rooftop installations with Southern California Edison, where the SCE program is designed to install 250 megawatts at a total cost of $875M (averaging $3.5/watt), after incentives.[48]
作者：乐闻德 在 海归商务 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
|
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题, 不能回复主题, 不能编辑自己的文章, 不能删除自己的文章, 不能发表投票, 您 不可以 发表活动帖子在本论坛, 不能添加附件不能下载文件, |
|
|
