A friend sent me an article that a company called Fraunhofer has produced solar panels that can achieve 41.1% efficiency.
Now taking into account the fact that solar do sent work during storms or night and greatly reduced during winters, what % do you think would be needed to supply a “majority” of our power needs as a nation?
5 thoughts on “What Solar Panel Efficiency Would Replace Coal?”
Comments are closed.
I’m with g.aidono. The efficiency of the panel is not the issue, it’s the cost.
I believe photovoltaic panels are hovering at around 14% efficiency right now – when you see high numbers like 41%, that’s an exotic cell, and not in a sturdy glass and metal frame suitable for domestic use. But even at 14%, if they cost $2 / watt, they would be a cost winner in a majority of US homes. Even at $4 / watt today, they are a winner in some places, such as supplying the last few, very expensive kWh’s on someone’s bill. If panels got to $1 / watt, even without any subsidies, people would be clamoring to connect panels – so many, in fact, that it would threaten the stability of the grid, and new architectures would be necessary.
I believe the question should be placed as: What should be the price of solar panels in order to replace coal.
If the price go down enough then there will be no problem with the commercial efficiencies already achieved.
The big challenge for the solar industry is to achieve the famous grid – parity. We should notice however that the grid parity will not come at the same time to all countries in the world since there are several irradiation levels and electricity prices as well.
As so the answer to the modified question is that very soon (2-3 years) if the solar industry continue to expand at today rates we will achieve the grid – parity at many places in the world
current panels have 30% to 35% efficiency, yet in the NE they can only capture about 4 hours of sun at their peak design. Going to say 50% efficient panels, that number will be 4.1 hours of sun. SO even a 100% efficient panel will net 6 hours of sun per day on the average. If you add in a electronic tracking system, then maybe 7 hours is achievable.
So you see, the panel efficiency doesn’t increase the overall efficiency much, what it will do is lower the up front cost, but not enough to make PV panels cheaper than a coal or nuke plant.
If you add in the cost for batteries to allow you to use PV panels all the time, the cost will go up 50% and then there is no way to justify a PV panel.
While I think efficiency is one aspect of the equation I think cost and finding a decent storage medium will be much more important. No matter how efficient solar panels are, they simply cost too much right now. Add to that the need for reliable power at all times of the day and you’ve got some hurdles to overcome. I think as hydrogen energy matures it’ll become a great storage medium for solar energy and we’ll see a lot more wide-scale solar.
Supplying the entire nations power grid by solar could not be accomplished with this centuries technology. Solar power will be a minor energy producer for decades to come and comes with much drawbacks on environmental costs of production, battery systems and many other issues not resolved.