The pioneer manufacturers of lamination film in China.

thin film solar companies raise hundreds of millions in financing

by:Top-In     2020-08-04
UPDATED 7:24 p. m.
Correct solar cost data. UPDATED 4:44 p. m.
Link the news to VentureWire.
Companies that produce thin-film solar cells continue to raise huge amounts of money from risk investors.
According to VentureWire, the latest film company to announce a massive adventure is SoloPower, which raised nearly $0. 2 billion.
In August, Nano Solar announced an investment of $0. 3 billion.
A round of raising, AVA Solar raising an undisclosed 9-
According to VentureBeat, the sum of numbers.
According to VentureWire, Miasole raised about $0. 2 billion in July.
Thin film solar cells are made of a material called copper indium gallium selenium, which is cheaper and thinner than crystalline silicon batteries used in the vast majority of solar panels on the roof.
The installation cost of the film panel is $6.
45 watts per watt compared to $6.
Michael Holman, research director at Lux research, said the power of the silicon panel was 63 watts.
However, the efficiency of the film panel is also low.
Sir, the efficiency of the silicon panel is 15% to 20%, while the efficiency of the film panel is 5% to 13%Holman said.
This is one of the reasons why Silicon panels continue to be used on small surfaces such as home roofs, while thin film panels are more attractive to large areas such as solar farms operated by utilities. Mr.
Holman predicts that as the production of thin film solar cells increases, the cost will decrease and the efficiency will increase.
Film panels now account for 21% of the solar market.
Lux Research predicts that by 2013, they will have a market share of 26% and a market share of $25.
Sales of 8 billion.
According to Lux Research, venture capitalists have already made big bets on thin films, investing $0. 671 billion in these technologies until July.
They invested $2 in the period.
9 billion of the entire solar company.
Investors are very interested in thin film technology, in part because the film is different from crystalline silicon, it is so new that the company is still trying to innovate new methods.
\"The film has the potential to be extremely disruptive.
It will steal market share because of its cost . \"Holman said.
Comments are no longer accepted.
There are several types of thin-film photovoltaic, not just copper indium gallium (di)
Selenium, straight hair.
Thin Type-
The thin film PV manufactured by SoloPower uses CIGS, as well as photovoltaic films manufactured by Nano solar and Misaole, but this is by no means the only type.
First Solar, a leading thin-film photovoltaic company, uses tellur-based cadmium as an absorption material, while Uni-
Solar, another successful film company, uses amorphous-silicon.
AVA, who has just received the funds, also uses CD3.
However, the core principle remains that thin-film photovoltaic will certainly subvert the photovoltaic industry and will continue to subvert the photovoltaic industry and replace silicon (
At least a bit)
In the years to come
CIGS is not the only thin one.
Film technology, not the biggest, is at least the cheapest at the moment.
This will be the tellur-based cadmium, the largest producer of First Solar Energy, and the current production price is about $1. 50 per watt. Amorphous-silicon (a-Si)
Technology has been around for many years and is expected to be the fastest.
Part of the thinnerfilm market.
The current price per watt is less than $3.
Is this a type, or is it only 18 cents difference between two watts per Watt?
Is it normal for more than 30 years before \"disruptive technology\" is successfully commercialized?
\"That\'s how long it\'s been thin --
The movie PV has been explored and funded by a significant injection of government and private R & D funding, hoping to make a meaningful contribution to people\'s wallets, not to mention the availability of energy.
The cost per watt is an estimate of a study that may use only two current examples from the industry.
Both prices are moving the target: Silicon photovoltaic is thinner by manufacturing (
Below 100 microns)
While thin photovoltaic cells are still developing, the volume may be much cheaper.
Finally, the ability to deposit thin film PV (
• Amorphous SI, CIGS, D5 or hybrid batteries)
Manufactured on a polymer substrate by Reel to Reel (
High tech version of Myra potato chip bag or flexible pi computer peripheral cable)
The cost per watt is expected to be much lower than silicon, but neither technology is static.
I think most people have a view of large expensive roof arrays.
This may prevent them from buying solar systems.
Smaller investments can be made in a reduced system to meet energy needs to some extent.
If you can\'t afford a big house power supply system, consider what you can afford to supplement your needs or as a backup system.
I don\'t know how the solar market works, but if you search for a 45 watt solar array on ebay, the price is $179.
Now, there\'s something extra to this array, adding the price, but it\'s about $3 if you separate it. 90 a watt.
Unless there is a federal subsidy for solar panels on ebay, I believe this is much better than the price quoted in this article.
I read that the production cost of nano solar is less than $1/watt, although this figure may not take into account their start-up cost.
Nevertheless, I would like a more thorough review of the price per watt. The costs (not price)
The offer is $6.
45 films per watt, $6.
63 watts per Watt of the silicon panel, which is wrong and not even close.
Close to $1. 20 to $2.
The film is 20/W and the crystal silicon is about 2 times.
As others have said, there are several types of film.
It is clear that the film is beginning to revolutionize the PV market.
Civilization requires a lot of power, and once we get the battery storage technology to where it\'s actually priced, solar will be a deal.
Impact on the world economy
The wide conversion of solar energy will be huge. (
Who would have predicted the wealth created by the PC industry 30 years ago? )
However, if oil prices fall sharply (
Remember after 80? )
Then all the bets were canceled.
That is, unless the government, like the rest of the world, keeps oil expensive by taxing it.
I agree with Dennis.
The cost figure seems wrong.
That must be a typo.
A lot of this thin
The film company is calling for $1. 00/watt.
The production cost of $6/W is incorrect.
FSLR is close to $1. 15 today.
Customers applying materials and other turnkey lines are about $1. 50 today.
$6/W must be the cost of installation.
However, the leaders here have installed equipment close to $4/watt.
As more and more companies begin to produce, 20% of the market share of the film is also the expected market share in 2010.
It is impossible for AMAT\'s customers to approach $1.
Since AMAT has not yet tested the complete SunFab installation, not to mention the delivery of the production plant to the customer.
Any of their statements are purely hype and PR.
FSLR is the real deal.
But they also don\'t really get close to $1 per watt once you consider installing.
They also have some efficiency caps, which will be a challenge.
The people at CIGS are there.
Gossip in the Valley of Sicily suggests that solindera, Nano solar and soloball are the leaders in the field.
However, it is hard to say if they are close to $1/watt.
There is still much hope for solar energy.
Wind and nuclear power as biofuels.
However, the signal-to-noise ratio is too low to really know when they can replace fossil fuels without incentives.
Black Rock Solar, my NGO, is doing a complete system installation (
Design, Engineering, panels, shelves, BOS, etc)for about $6. 00 per watt AC.
In my opinion, there is no 30-year investment in R & D;
Energy prices have been extremely low since major research was conducted 70 years ago, which has hindered investment.
Oil companies have also bought a number of technology patents that can be seen as a smart investment and can also keep alternative energy out of the market.
Despite verbal and photo manipulation, the federal government\'s Funding for this has been cut.
President Bush\'s visit to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 600
Scientists re-
He was hired on the eve of his visit to support the idea of raising energy efficiency funds, but the opposite is true.
On the other hand solar cost ($/kW-h)
Still not competitive compared to coal or natural gas, but with current installation and depreciation charges, the running speed is about 2 times higher.
At present, only wind power is less than 20% of the market energy cost.
If you think that \"The market is always right\" then that is the main reason for not adopting alternative energy methods. (
The cost of war, asthma, tax cuts, and environmental remediation has never been included in this equation).
As a country, we are capitalists, not idealists.
Guaranteed solar installation in Germany
The market incentives for installed photovoltaic systems have promoted the development of the required power management systems, enabling families-and farm-
Add the generated power to the grid.
Therefore, Germany has completely stopped using nuclear energy, and its motivation is to avoid climate change.
If the United States is serious about alternative energy, the current cost per kilowatt
H. higher than the market price of fossil fuels and government incentives (
Installation subsidy, above-
Market price for solar power generation or coal/natural gas carbon emissions cap)
Will have to implement.
The free market will naturally not move in that direction, and quarterly profit statements may be less concerned that Vanuatu will go into the water, that the Alpine glaciers will melt and that Texas will get hotter.
Efficiency figures are also out of date, at least for tellur cadmium. Efficiencies (thin film)
The laboratory has reached more than 15% and is now selling more than 12%.
The first solar company promised to conduct large-scale purchases in 2009 at a price consistent with production costs below $1 per watt.
It is likely to be grid parity (
Solar cost similar to retail electricity price)
It will be achieved in many regions by 2010.
The New York Times again failed to check the technical details of their article.
The cost of the film is much cheaper than the current silicon production. Future (2 -3 years)
When the roll-to-roll technology is implemented, the manufacture of the film will be more effective.
Paul wrote: \"Oil companies have also bought a number of technical patents that can be seen as both an informed investment and an alternative source of energy that can be held out of the market.
\". . . At the time the Department of Energy funded 60 and 70 years of age, many more promising technologies were studied, but no follow-up was taken.
For example, at the age of 70, some new, perhaps now practical Nano
The idea of studying solar energy (
Commitment to installation efficiency> 35%)
But they never did.
What is not mentioned in the cost is the additional cost that burning hydrocarbons bring to us through global warming, polluting air and cleaning efforts.
If you add all of this, then do a bigger economy of scale.
Then there is no solar energy.
What\'s smarter is that given the large amount of desert land that was otherwise useless, it can be used effectively to generate electricity.
What solar energy has always needed is money to lobby for change, which seems to be going on. Ajay//www. decisionstats.
ComI does not think the article correctly cites the installation cost between the two solar methods, as this is just a 2. 8% difference.
It seems to be a press release to attract investors.
Not real innovation.
There are other players in the market and are currently producing viable commercial products. //www. powerfilmsolar.
One of the biggest problems with silicon-based PV is that it can\'t meet a large part of the US power demand.
Extraction of silicon crystals from fused Silicon (
Requires a lot of energy and time)
, Saw into a wafer with diffusion of impurities (
In a stove that requires energy and time).
With the exception of a small portion of utility demand, it is impossible for all silicon wafers in the world to be close to meeting any demand.
But other technologies are scalable.
The film shows hope-especially the one that doesn\'t need to spread under heat. Solar-
Heat already exists, twice the efficiency of photovoltaic.
A piece of 92x92 miles of land will meet 100% of the current U. S. grid load, a manufacturer claims.
This is confirmed by napkin arithmetic.
Wind is also scalable.
So if we can get 130 pending solar thermal power plant license applications at BLM, we will make progress.
The Justice Department\'s current investigation into corruption in the department
Inside (
Dear oil company
May help explain why the license is on hold.
The price of more than $5 usually reflects the cost of installation; the $1-
2 figures are the cost of the panel alone.
Keep in mind that panels must be installed and installed, and then the DC output of the wall plug needs to be converted to AC output.
There are several material technologies with an efficiency of over 30%.
Most (if not all) orbital satellites use more
Knot technology, because they are lighter, produces more power. Multi-
Knots can do this because they absorb infrared photons that CIGS and silicon cannot absorb.
The reason you can\'t see more is the cost.
By the way, if anyone knows how to make more
CIGS and Si will not be able to compete cheaply.
Their maximum theoretical efficiency is much lower than what is available.
Venture Capital Group basically bet $700 on $20 billion pie and no one is smart enough to come up with something better.
The $6 figure in the article is the installation cost, not the production cost.
Custom message
Chat Online 编辑模式下无法使用
Leave Your Message inputting...