Although solar PV is a recent technology for the wider public, it has a long history. This chapter discusses the main technical and economic aspects of the different stages in the history of PV generation.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
The price of a kWh of electricity was around 1 and 2 $cents in the USA in 1955, whereas the costs of a solar PV device were around $144 (Perlin
1999: 38). In 1956, Chapin calculated that a 5-kW equipment would cost around $1.5 million.
The aerospace authorities initially distrusted solar PV generation. However, the disintegration in the atmosphere of a satellite fed by plutonium in 1964 became a driver of the use of solar energy in spatial applications (Johnstone
2011: 33).
Feeding transmission points far from the grid was another relevant use of PV modules. The first aerial fed by solar PV was inaugurated in 1976 in Utah, although Australia was the country where the use of solar PV to supply energy to the telecommunication grid became more prominent (Perlin
1999: 95).
The US National Science Foundation dedicated $2 million in 1972 for solar research. Six years later, solar PV received $105 million (Johnstone
2011: 77).
Other experts, however, including Allen Barnett, founder of AstroPower, considered that only CdTe and Si multicrystalline cells could be commercialized (Perlin
1999: 176–179).
The new president retired the panels to heat water that Carter had installed in the White House. George W. Bush was the first president to install PV panels in the White House, although these had already been installed in an auxiliary building since 2002 (Williams
2014: 273).
After having invested $200 million without generating any benefits, ARCO Solar was sold to Siemens in 1989. It would then be transferred to Shell which, in turn, sold it to the German firm SolarWorld in 2006 (Johnstone
2011: 53–55).
Since Amoco merged in 1989 with BP, which had entered the solar business in 1983, the resulting division BP Solar would be the first world module manufacturer in 1991.
Power for remote areas, written by Harry Tabor in 1967, was one of the first contributions highlighting the pros of solar PV electrification for Third World countries (Williams
2014: 91).
Cabraal (
2011: 172–174) and Williams (
2014: 70) state that the World Bank has been the main source of financing of solar PV projects in the Third World. It had contributed to the installation of 2.6 million SHS between 1980 and 2009, with a total capacity of 138 MW. The accumulated budget was $1405 million with more than 30 contributing to it.
Things have not changed. For example, the capacity installed worldwide in 2009 was relatively high. However, less than 1 % of this capacity was installed in Third World countries (Palz
2011: 95). The solar PV capacity installed in poor countries amounted to only 370 MW in 2010 (EUPVTP
2011: 16).
In the case of Japan, the concern on the dependence on oil imports never disappeared. The promotion of renewable energy sources did not slow down. In parallel, the construction of nuclear plants was encouraged through an ambitious plan.
In those years, there were proposals to use solar PV to obtain hydrogen, which is a key energy vector in order to reduce emissions in the transport sector (NRC
2004: 103–105 and 235–239).
In 2005, the different alternatives of the thin-film technology accounted for different shares: 64 % for amorphous silicon, 26 % for CdTe cells and 10 % for CIGS.
In these years, the arrival of the CdTe modules to the market challenged the argument that thin-film modules would never achieve a satisfactory performance level.
Around 7 m
2 of mono-crystalline Si panels (8 m
2 if it is Si poly-crystalline) are currently required for a rated power of 1 kW. This value increases to 10 m
2 in the case of CdTe and 15 m
2 for a-Si modules. The greater the surface per unit of rated power, the higher the investment costs.
It has not been possible to find homogenous data on the historical evolution of the efficiency of modules. Unfortunately, there has been a wide diversity of rated power modules, and this has been changing. For example, modules up to 75 W currently have a residual share in the market. The share of 75 W to <200 W is 1/3, and the rest is covered by modules of up to 350 W. Obviously, the rated power and the size affect the price. Therefore, the figures being presented are indicative.
The costs of these modules during these years were €3-€4/W
p for mono-crystalline silicon modules and between €2.9 and €3.95/W
p for poly-crystalline modules. This cost was lower for a-Si modules: €2.5-€4/W
p.
Drury et al. (
2012:10–22s) provide values for 2010 ($
2009): the cost of a utility-scale PV farm in the USA was $4.02/W
p, the cost of a commercial one reached $4.82/W
p, and the cost of a residential installation was $6.01/W
p. This is a considerable reduction in only three years. The predictions for 2030 ($
2009) are the following: $1.9/W
p, $2/W
p and $2.25/W
p, respectively. Another source, MIT (
2015: 96–97), states that the average price in 2013 for residential plants was $2.05/W
p in the USA and $1.2/W
p in Germany. The reason behind those differences is to be found in the “soft” costs and the high retail prices of solar PV equipment.
Own elaboration from data on average prices for ≥125 W
p panels published in
www.solarbuzz.com. The North American prices are expressed in dollars and the European prices are expressed in euros. It should be taken into account that in 2010 there was a change in methodology (with effects since 2007). The data source also indicates that the prices published refer to unitary purchases. If a large amount of modules is bought, then the sale price could be considerably lower.
Additional information is provided in IRENA (
2015: 80). This document shows the reduction in the price of the modules (different technologies) sold in Europe from 2009 to 2014. The trajectories are parallel to each other throughout the period, although the trend is flat since the end of 2012.
However, in the case of CdTe modules, the gate prices went down by 37 %, whereas the costs were only reduced by 16 %. Thus, the reductions of the margins would have been more pronounced than in the case of c-Si.
Such crisis should not make us forget the long tradition of joint ventures existing in the solar PV sector, especially regarding pilot plants installed with the aim to open a new market segment. The leading role can be played by start-ups, but also by large firms of the solar PV sector.
During these months, there was a curious paradox: whereas the crisis led many governments to slow down support for renewable electricity (given its more expensive kWh in a context of lower electricity consumption and lower disposable income in the pockets of families), some stated that the emerging renewable energy sector was key as a way out of the crisis (Barlett et al.
2009: 11).