With the recent crashes in the prices of polysilicon ( from $450 per Kg to $50 per Kg!), there were a number of questions whether the cost advantage that thin film solar panels had over crystalline solar panels would erode. Possibly not.
Well, lesser material requirement is certainly one of the key advantages that thin film cells have. As this post on thin film solar from the EAI Blog says, "All of the thin-film technologies have the advantage of requiring much less semiconductor material. It can be less than 1 percent of silicone used in crystalline cells. And they can be manufactured using high-speed techniques such as roll-to-roll printing. Their disadvantage is their lower efficiency. Even so, many new manufacturers in each three types are coming online every month."
However, lesser cost of silicon is not the only thing that makes thin film less costly. In fact, many thin film technologies do not even use Si and instead use CIGS or CdTe etc. It is the entire process by which the thin films are made that result in the significant cost differences.
However, it should be admitted that crystalline solar has advantages over thin films when it comes to utility scale power plants. For one, the cost of power production is almost the same for both. Two, crystalline solar is a tried and tested technology, while thin film is not.
On the other hand, thin films have significant advantages when it comes to non-utility power plants - especially in flexible applications such as BIPV. So, this is what I expect for the next ten years: Thin film adoption will grow dramatically, but its adoption for grid connected power plants will remain a small percentage of the total. For other flexible and emerging applications of solar PV however, thin film will have a significant dominance over crystalline solar.
What are your thoughts on this?
Well, lesser material requirement is certainly one of the key advantages that thin film cells have. As this post on thin film solar from the EAI Blog says, "All of the thin-film technologies have the advantage of requiring much less semiconductor material. It can be less than 1 percent of silicone used in crystalline cells. And they can be manufactured using high-speed techniques such as roll-to-roll printing. Their disadvantage is their lower efficiency. Even so, many new manufacturers in each three types are coming online every month."
However, lesser cost of silicon is not the only thing that makes thin film less costly. In fact, many thin film technologies do not even use Si and instead use CIGS or CdTe etc. It is the entire process by which the thin films are made that result in the significant cost differences.
However, it should be admitted that crystalline solar has advantages over thin films when it comes to utility scale power plants. For one, the cost of power production is almost the same for both. Two, crystalline solar is a tried and tested technology, while thin film is not.
On the other hand, thin films have significant advantages when it comes to non-utility power plants - especially in flexible applications such as BIPV. So, this is what I expect for the next ten years: Thin film adoption will grow dramatically, but its adoption for grid connected power plants will remain a small percentage of the total. For other flexible and emerging applications of solar PV however, thin film will have a significant dominance over crystalline solar.
What are your thoughts on this?
