BMS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT

AVALAHALLI, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING

8TH SEMESTER TECHNICAL SEMINAR
PRESENTED BY
AAFAQ ALTAF WANI
(USN: 1BY16EE001)
Based on the Following Technical
Paper
From Laboratory to Production: Learning Models of Efficiency and Manufacturing Cost of Industrial
Crystalline Silicon and Thin-Film Photovoltaic Technologies

Authors: Yifeng Chen , Pietro P. Altermatt, Daming Chen , Xueling Zhang,

Source: IEEE journal of photovoltaics

Under the Guidance of:

Prof.KATTIMANI H.D
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, BMSIT&M
 INTRODUCTION
 Efficiency and manufacturing cost are two key elements for the photovoltaic (PV)
industry. In this paper, we look at the time-dependent evolution of efficiency and
manufacturing cost for PV devices.

 The photovoltaic (PV) industry has achieved an impressive growth at an average annual
growth rate of 40% from 2000 to 2011. Over the past 40 years, the cumulative capacity
and annual production have both doubled every three years on average.

 The learning curve of average sale price of modules has been updated for many years to
predict the possible price reduction of crystalline silicon (c-Si) modules in the near future.

 However, module price has been affected not only by the price of raw materials like
silicon feedstock, but by market forces as well

 An accelerating learning curve was detected for c-Si technology in 2014 in this work.
 APPROACH

1) Recent Development of Photovoltaic Industry

 Fig. 1 plots the general picture of annual production capacity (curves) and cumulative
installation (symbols) over time, with the data sources listed in the figure caption. In 2017,
the annual production of c-Si exceeded 98GW, and the production of CdTe was 4 GW.

 However, it is shown in Fig. 1 that the cumulative capacity of PV would reach terawatt
levels between 2025 and 2030, according to several sources of the data.
Fig. 1
 2) Efficiency Model

 The efficiency model of solar cells as a function of year was introduced into PV by
Goetzberger et al. in 2002 . This model describes the growth of efficiency for champion
laboratory cells

where η(t) denotes the best efficiency that can be achieved over time,

ηL is the practical limit in efficiency,

t0 is the virtual starting year of the technology at 0% efficiency t is the calendar year, and

c is a parameter, which is related to the development speed.

 The proposal of this empirical equation is based on the observation that a PV technology
would:

1) develop quickly at the early phase; and

2) gradually approach the practical limit, with the rate of improvements slowing down due to
cost and process limitations.
3. Photovoltaic Learning Curve
 The equation of the learning curve model can be expressed with the power function as
follows:

where Ct is the time-dependent cost, C0 the cost at a reference time, and qt and q0 represent
the time-dependent cumulative production at time t and at a reference time, respectively.

 The central parameter is the slope b, called learning coefficient: the higher b, the stronger
is the cost decay.

 However, a more direct indicator is the percentage of change in the cost during a doubling
of experience, called the learning rate (LR) = 1–2−b.

 For various industries, the LR ranges from 10% to 25%.

 EFFICIENCY TREND

 Fig. 2 plots the laboratory champion silicon solar cell efficiencies (square symbols) without
hetero-junction as a function of time and the champion module efficiencies for both mono
(light green folding line) and multi (dark green folding line) crystalline Si with the module
area bigger than 5000 cm², taken from the records in the efficiency tables .

 The first Si solar cell dates back to the 1940s with an efficiency of about 1%, and after
almost 80 years of development, today’s best laboratory silicon solar cell already achieves
26.7%.

 In the 1980s, the main improvement comes from a deeper understanding of physical
recombination and other power loss mechanisms
 In the early step, the improvements were mainly coming from the limiting loss in the emitter
diffusion and its optimization, mainly done in the Bell Labs and later with emitter passivation.

 As high-efficiency cells are independently developed in laboratories around the world, it is

hard to describe the entire improvement with a single Goetzberger efficiency learning model.

 Therefore, we applied the fitting to a specific technology for a better understanding, as shown
by the gray dashed curve in Fig. 2.

 As shown in this figure, the fitting agrees quite well with the reported efficiency data. The
efficiency learning factor c indicates the speed of efficiency improvements.
Fig. 2
 The elements that impact the learning factor c for a single technology are generally not
very clear. We guess the following items include the main reasons.

1) The technology background or similar experience from other fields helps improve the
learning, and vice versa. For instance, the first>10% silicon cell was quickly fabricated in
Bell Labs after the implementation of the p-n junction by phosphorus diffusion from the
semiconductor.

2) The complexity of the technology will make the learning become longer (bigger c value).

3) The learning will be quicker if the total amount of resources increases, which includes
manpower, information exchange, and financial support.
 As shown in Fig. 3, the efficiency of modules containing standard c-Si cells increases
faster than that of mc-Si, while c-Si PERC(passivated Emitter Rear Cell) module efficiency
increases faster than modules containing n-type cells.

 It represents only the main trend, and advanced manufacturers may offer module
efficiencies well above our data collection.

 The speed of efficiency improvements can be explained with the help of the learning factor
c, similar to the cases of laboratory cells.

 In general, the learning factor of industrial modules is one order of magnitude larger than
that of the laboratory champion cells.

 Practically speaking, many other aspects, such as process control, material supply
stability, tool stability, and operation training should be taken into account.
Fig. 3
 PRODUCTION COST AND SELLING PRICE
 The module selling price and manufacturing cost as a function of cumulative production are
shown in Fig. 4.
 Data from the various sources were collected or extracted from the financial reports. At a
very low cumulative production of 1 MW, the cost of c-Si (blue dash line) was ten times
higher than that of CdTe (red dashed line) and 30 times higher than that of CIGS (yellow
dashed line).
 At a cumulative production of 100 GW in 2013, the real manufacturing cost of c-Si was about
0.5 $/W, while the cost of CdTe and CIGS(Copper indium gallium selenide) was about 0.6
and 0.7 $/W, respectively.
 The reasons why the LR of c-Si is higher than of thin-film modules are manifold and not
completely clear.
1) Manufacturing tools were standardized across the entire c-Si cell industry, with a fast growing
number of those being made in China, partly due to strong price pressures.

2) A very large number of PV manufacturing companies aggressively compete to increase their

market share.

3) The manufacturing process and cell and module design have been standardized, with limited
variation among the players.

4) The material supply chain was standardized for Si materials partly due to a strong
consolidation after the end of Si feedstock shortage and for module materials partly due to
intensive research to improve module reliability.

5) A larger than 60% staff turnover per year in Chinese PV manufacturers has fostered exchange
of skills and knowledge.
 The fact that CdTe technology, with modules originating from a single leading manufacturer,
has done so well in reducing the cost may indicate the high capabilities that thin-film
approaches actually have.

 The accelerating LR reflects that new factors came into play in the cost structure.

 There are some reasons that may cause the slowing down or accelerating of the learning
curve.

 It could be a change in collaboration between manufacturers and a change in the number of

players to produce the same product, the number of suppliers of tools and materials,
introduction of innovative technology, innovation, etc.
Fig. 4
 FUTURE PROJECTIONS
 Fig. 5 extrapolates the module efficiencies for CdTe, c-Si with top/bottom contacts, as well as
IBC cells as dashed curves, in comparison with the best laboratory cell efficiencies.

 For silicon, the theoretical Auger limit with the present Auger coefficients is currently at 29.28%

 Driven by the technologies developed from R&D laboratories, efficiency over 22% is expected
for CdTe and top/bottom contact c-Si cells by 2030.

 By assuming that the LR is constant in the next decade, a projection of cost among c-Si,
CdTe, and CIGS can be plotted in Fig. 6.

 The solid symbols represent the cost in 2018, while the open symbols are projections to 2020
and 2030, assuming that the average growing rate is 5%, and the upper and bottom error bars
in cumulative production represent the annual growth of –10% and 20%, respectively.
Fig. 5 Fig. 6
 CONCLUSION

 Si wafer-based technology still holds its advantage in the module efficiency in 2017, which
is on average 18.2% for mono- PERC, 17.3% for conventional mono-Si, and 16.5% for
conventional mc-Si, compared with 15.1% and 16.0% for CIGS and CdTe, respectively.

 However, thin-film technologies improve at a faster speed (0.7–0.8%-abs per year) than
conventional c-Si (0.3–0.4%-abs per year) and PERC (0.5%-abs per year).

 It is projected that 19%, 20%, and 22% module efficiency could be reached by CdTe, p-type
PERC mono, and n-type IBC technologies, respectively.
 The trend in manufacturing cost of PV modules agrees well with the learning curve theory.
The LR of Si (24.2%) is greater than that of CdTe (19.1%) and of CIGS (8.1%).

 Our learning curve fitting enables us to project the manufacturing cost in 2030 by assuming
constant LRs.

 Manufacturing cost of <0.2 $/W could be possible by c-Si and CdTe by 2030. The continuous
improvement in the conversion efficiency and reduction in the manufacturing cost cause PV
to continue to improve its competitiveness against fossil energy.
 REFERENCES
[1] P. J. Verlinden, “Moving to Terawatt levels of annual solar cell production: Aligning
research, technology & production roadmaps,” in Proc. PV CellTech 2018, Penang, Malaysia,
Mar. 13–14, 2018.

[2] B. H. Wang, “The review of PV industry in 2017 and market forecast in 2018,” China
Photovolt. Ind. Assoc., Beijing, China, 2018.

[3] P. J. Verlinden et al., “Cost analysis of current PV production and strategy for future silicon
PV modules,” in Proc. 28th Eur. Photovolt. Sol. Energy Conf. Exhib., Paris, France, 2013.

[4] Y. Chen et al., “Assessment of module efficiency and manufacturing cost for industrial
crystalline silicon and thin film technologies,” in Proc. 6th World Conf. Photovolt. Energy
Convers., Paper no. 9WeO.5.5, 2014, pp. 1319–1320.

[5] A. Goetzberger, J. Luther, and G. Willeke, “Solar cells: Past, present, future,” Sol. Energy
Mater. Sol. Cells, vol. 74, pp. 1–11, 2002.

[6] C. Breyer, “The TW role of solar PV for an energy system matching the Paris Agreement
and sustainability requirements,” presented at the 2nd Terawatt Workshop Global Alliance Sol.
Energy Res. Inst., Golden, CO,
THANK YOU !