Ron WilsonEDN Executive Editor Ron Wilson explores how IC design teams really work: the struggle for power efficiency and performance, wrestling with semiconductor processes and design methodologies, the challenges of global design teams. How do we somehow herd architecture, IP, design and verification into a successful tape-out?


Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

Blog

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

There’s lots of silicon in photovoltaic cells, but is there any gold for the electronics industry?

Feb 12 2008 2:52PM | Permalink | Email this | Comments (15) |
Blog This! using:  Blogger.com | LiveJournal |
Digg This | Slashdot This | add to Del.icio.us


SEMI, always quick with the attractive luncheon topic, came up with a house-packing one today: how electronics companies can make money from the current explosion of investment in solar energy generation. In fact the speakers addressed this question only indirectly, by describing the marketing and fabrication of photovoltaic cells, but none the less the house was packed, and no one wandered away in mid-lecture.

Two speakers kept the audience in their seats. First, Paul Basore, VP technology for the Scandinavian-based Renewable Energy Group, discussed the basic economics and marketing of photovoltaic panels. Then Mark Pinto, CTO, senior VP and GM at Applied Materials, talked about the technology and economics of fabrication. While neither of the talks directly addressed the question of how this would pay off for the electronics industry, both left plenty of room for inferences—and some pretty interesting ones at that.

Basore led off by distinguishing between the two primary kinds of photovoltaic cells used to make up panels: multi-crystalline silicon cells built from polycrystalline silicon wafers, and thin-film cells build by depositing semiconductor films on glass to form PIN diodes. The former, he said, are typically larger and are currently more efficient in energy conversion, with a 156 mm-squared polysilicon cell generating a maximum of about 3.5W. In contrast, a 6 mm by 1.2 meter-long thin-film cell generates about half a Watt.

Basore then launched into the market discussion. The growth of the market for photovoltaics, he said, has been determined by two major factors: sunshine and subsidy. This has led to their deployment first in Japan, then in parts of Europe—especially Germany—and now, in early stages, in California, USA. He defined a single figure of merit, Grid Parity, that will control much of this growth in the future. Grid Parity is the point at which the cost of electric energy in useful form is equal between a bank of solar panels and the electric grid in the area. Basore quickly pointed out that the computation of this figure is complex, depending on everything from weather and politics—the two great discussables—to local power rates, maintenance costs, and the opportunity cost of covering a given space with panels.

But a major factor in the calculation is initial price. This is driven by all the usual suspects, but particularly materials—the cost of which is enhanced by limited capacity at the moment—manufacturing efficiency, and conversion efficiency. Of these, the first two appear to be more dynamic than the third, which seems to be remarkably resistant to major advances.

Looking deeper into the manufacturing question, Pinto took over the podium, talking about how the needs of the display market had created a manufacturing infrastructure—the ability to manufacture huge sheets of highly uniform glass and large, very thin poly wafers—that could be applied to panels. He said that plants coming on line today had capacities in the range of 50 MW/year, and that we would soon be seeing plants capable of producing a GigaWatt in panel capacity per year. The increase in volume is primarily a result of the huge size thin-film panels will soon reach: 5.7 meters-squared. Not only are the huge panels more efficient to build, he said, but they required fewer connections and control boxes when installed, and could be used as architectural elements, not merely as big ugly slabs on the roof.

Pinto said—as many have over the last few years—that photovoltaic panels are an industry on the brink. “We are within factors of two of Grid Parity in Europe today,” he claimed. At this point, he suggested, there were fortunes to be made by finding innovations in the structure of thin-film panels, where there still seem to be great ideas to be found. Basore added that there were also opportunities to innovate in polysilicon cells—finding an alternative for the aluminum film used to create an alloy passivation layer on the back of the wafer, for example.

But for the electronics industry, except for a low-margin business in controllers and power converters, the opportunity may lie elsewhere: not in selling stuff into the solar panel market, but in exploiting the impact this market will have on electronics.

“A 1 GigaWatt polysilicon wafer fab will consume 200 times the silicon area of a production 300 mm IC wafer fab,” Pinto said. A quick back-of-envelope calculation suggests that even with the new polysilicon refining and growing capacity now being built, converted, or planned, the growth plans of the this industry have the potential to greatly increase the cost of silicon for every use, including ICs. So it may be that the big implication here for the electronics industry is not about jumping on the solar bandwagon at all. That is all about poorly-differentiated technology at low margins. The main chance may be in finding ways to shrink die area per system in order to use the increasing intermediate-term scarcity of silicon as a competitive advantage. If that works, it could increase the return on die shrinks and new designs, as well as encouraging process migration and process development. That’s a tonic we could use about now.


Related entries in: Business and Marketing | Power Sources/Controllers | 


Reader Comments


at 2/13/2008 3:23:24 PM, common sense said:
This is absurd. The cost of a blank silicon wafer is about 2% of the total value of finished CMOS wafer. Even if the cost of raw silicon went up by x10 the impact on the CMOS wafer prices would be much less than 20%.

at 2/13/2008 4:02:05 PM, BobT said:
Excuse me for being an ignorant engineer. But I thought the silicon for Integrated circuits was mono-crystalline. Polycrystalline silicone as used in solar cells obviously? comes from different factories. Last time I looked there was no shortage of the the basic silica feed stock on the beach. Maybe there is a limited supply of ultra pure silicon?

at 2/13/2008 4:29:15 PM, Peter Duchon said:
There is a limited supply of both HP/UHP mono- and poly-silicon derived from silica. The PV industry overtook the number one spot for deliveries of silicon in January of 2006. The PV industry uses both mono- and poly-.

at 2/13/2008 5:01:45 PM, Go thin film PV said:
It''s true there is a near term bottleneck for silicon ingot production. The new generation thin film based PV cells will use only 1 - 3 um amorphous silicon material. It will not only relieve the silicon wafer shortage but also reduce the cost of solar PV in terms of dolars per watt.

at 2/14/2008 9:34:33 AM, common sense said:
It does not matter who takes more UHP/HP mono/poly silicon, the CMOS foundry is able to pay much more silicon that goes into a silicon CMOS wafer compared to the PV industry's ability to pay for silicon that goes into relatively cheap solar cells. Even if the price of all types of silicon went up by x10 (which is highly unlikely since 60% of the earth's crust is SiO2), the PV industry demand would probably drop to near zero since that would make solar cell prohibitively expensive while the price of finished CMOS wafers would increase by less than 20%.

at 2/14/2008 11:52:56 AM, Meredith Poor said:
Supposedly the generating capacity of the US is between 500Gw and 1Tw. Fifteen 1GW plants producing a total of 15Gw per year would completely replace all other power genercation capacity in 40 years, presuming no growth in overall demand. I suspect, however, that there are, or will be, more than fifteen plants. Given 50 plants, capacity would be replaced in 10 to 15 years - a far more likely scenario.

at 2/14/2008 11:58:39 AM, Meredith Poor said:
Much of the research being done on PV cells relates to 'multi-junction'. Evidently polycrystalline silicon is too difficult a material to set up multiple layers that each convert a separate part of the spectrum. The Spectrolab company does this with III/V materials in multiple junctions (3 or 4 layers) and has been able to capture as much as 40% of the sunlight.

at 2/15/2008 2:19:56 PM, common sense said:
OMG. No wonder this whole industry is in trouble... How much real electricity generation capacity would you be willing to commit to highly variable sun light? What would you do at night or on a cloudy day? Solar generation will only be a niche contributor to US power generation without some other very basic innovations... such as generating power with PV at night, storing energy, power transmission... PV is most valuable to those who are not on "the grid."

at 2/16/2008 12:16:38 AM, EdwardScissornose said:
Meredith--Don''t forget the other 6 Billion people on the planet... they might like to use electricity as well. And don''t forget that in a few years we will have cars like the Chevy Volt that could replace oil with electricity. And also maybe not right away but eventually there will be a cheap enough way to store the electricity for nighttime or cloudy days, so we might want extra to fill the storage. I think in the end you can expect 1000 Gigawatt size solar plants.

at 2/16/2008 12:29:12 AM, EdwardScissornose said:
common sense - at first we will still have natural gas to back up the solar until storage becomes a cheaper option . That might take a while to happen, but the natural gas plants are already built so it is not a problem. The solar power will not provide capacity due to the internittent nature, but it will provide a replacement to fuel as fossil fuels become more expensive or just unpopular as solar becomes less expensive.

at 2/16/2008 2:58:03 PM, common sense said:
For your information, electric power generation infrastructure is built based on PEAK demand. As a consequence, highly variable solar power generation is just not very useful when you are looking for RELIABLE electric power. Without government support that allows you to sell unreliable solar electric power back to the utilities, solar power would never be on the grid. In the near term, adding any solar power generation that amounts to a significant portion of total power usage is inviting a disaster on the grid. Perhaps it is my own silliness, but I had expected engineers to have a better understanding of "how things work" in the real world. If my fellow engineers are really this clueless, it is little wonder that we get so little respect and are paid so little.

at 2/16/2008 4:24:57 PM, EdwardScissornose said:
As an investor in electric generator companies, I am pretty familiar with the difference between power capacity and total energy delivered. Obviously as you point out, solar will not add to capacity. We will still need to keep around and continue to build natural gas plants, which amount to like 2 cents per kwh. In the future energy storage might be an option, but its not even close now. The thing to watch is how solar electricity becomes price competitive with the fuel itself, or with the perceived external costs of burning fuel. Right now natural gas costs th equivalent of $50 per barrel of oil. Solar energy costs $200. So it will take two halvings, or about 15 years to catch up. But a country like china might be happy to combine solar and natural gas to replace coal. And considering that oil is almost $100 per barrel and plug in vehicles are due to be released in the next few years, you may view solar energy as a fuel replacement for oil.

at 3/12/2008 8:22:27 PM, Jriam1945 said:
Hi: I have solar thermal renewable energy system designs, and am doing POC/ prototyping, which has a $.05/kWh. There are provisos such as scale (mass production), size, and location (e.g., places in AZ,NV, CA deserts, per the DOE have 7.5+kWh/day avg annually, much less in Boston). At the beginning of its development curve, with a novel hi efficiency stirling engine. JRIAM1945@aol.com

at 4/18/2008 9:07:10 AM, PJK said:
The economics of nuclear energy are a lot better than the economics of solar, and nat gas is no longer 2cents/kwh, when used to make electricity. The estimate that we could/should be building 15GW of solar is absurd, as the cost per rated KW is $6,000 or more. we would spend $100 billion/year building capacity that would cost $70 billion/year less if done with coal or nuclear? we simply cannot afford to subsidize solar on that large a scale. subsidies help boost demand for solar today, but those subsidies are not a substitute for cost-competitiveness. In the end, PV is the way to go to save on Si and large solar plants will not be the way to go

at 4/25/2008 9:48:01 PM, Robert Getsla said:
PJK said: "The economics of nuclear energy are a lot better than the economics of solar, and nat gas is no longer 2cents/kwh, when used to make electricity. The estimate that we could/should be building 15GW of solar is absurd, as the cost per rated KW is $6,000 or more. we would spend $100 billion/year building capacity that would cost $70 billion/year less if done with coal or nuclear? we simply cannot afford to subsidize solar on that large a scale." PJK, in comparing PV with nuclear power, I hope you have taken into account the huge subsidies the nuclear industry has already received during the last sixty years. I think if we were to provide the same subsidy level to the PV industry as the nuclear industry has received, you would not be saying nuclear power is cheaper today. Secondly, I think the indemnity shielding the nuclear power industry received from Congress should be included in the cost of nuclear power. Insurance is not a problem for PV systems, but from what I understand, without The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, there would not be ANY nuclear power plants operating in this country. Think for a moment about why the federal government had to "back up" the private insurance industry with Price-Anderson. The storage of the radioactive materials, materials that have been inside an operating nuclear reactor for a while, has yet to be solved. Many of these materials will remain radioactive and toxic to any life form that comes near them for thousands of years. So why are we talking about creating still more of those highly toxic materials? What happens to the plutonium that is a natural byproduct exposing non-fissionable uranium to the neutron flux of running a power reactor? I understand the useful life of a nuclear power plant is about forty years, but even if the useful life of a power reactor were to more than double and become 100 years, the toxic materials generated by operating that reactor will be toxic to all life for hundreds of times the operational life of the reactor. So, while the benefits of a nuclear reactor are short lived, the radioactive material storage and disposal costs will continue long after that power reactor has been decommissioned. Photo Voltaic materials are also toxic, especially in their manufacture, but they are nowhere near as toxic as the fission products of uranium.

Post a comment


Display Name

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above:


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites