China has a huge trade surplus with the United States in many segments of the economy but not, surprisingly, in the sale of solar panels, according to GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association.
A recent report from the two organizations indicates US shipments of solar products to China far exceed imports from the Asian rival by a range of $247 million to $539 million. The estimated figure for 2010 imports to the US is $1.4 billion, and the figure for exports ranges from $1.7 billion to $2 billion. That means that the US has emerged as "a net exporter of solar goods to China," the report said. The net export figure represents a $1 billion increase from the previous year -- an unprecedented growth rate of more than 100 percent.
Before this report, the conventional view was that American efforts were failing in the solar market. This was illustrated by the recent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing of the Massachusetts company Evergreen Solar, despite its announcing plans to shift production to China. But it seems that solar panel production is actually thriving in the US and is likely to grow even more.
A Reuters report noted that worldwide "demand for solar panels has grown more than 30 percent annually in recent years, topping 15 gigawatts in 2010." And that number could go even higher this year. A Bloomberg News report said installation of solar panels may "increase by as much as 50 percent in 2011, worth about $140 billion, as cheaper panels and thin film make developers less dependent on government subsidies."
One of the companies that sees a bright future in solar power in the US is General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE) with its focus on thin film solar panels. Most solar panels use silicon-based photovoltaic cells; thin film panels make up about "15 percent of the $28 billion in worldwide solar-panel sales," according to the Bloomberg report. Thin film panels offer advantages over PV solar modules. Their light weight and resilience make them more flexible, convenient, and amenable to maintenance than other solar modules. The disadvantage associated with them is the comparatively lower efficiency, which GE has sought to remedy in its development.
In April, GE succeeded in attaining 12.8 percent efficiency on its thin film solar panels -- better than any other such panels on the market. The company also announced plans to invest $600 million in a 400MW US plant that would employ 400 people and open in 2013. The plan is for the plant to produce enough power to supply 80,000 homes at a cost comparable to or even lower than traditional sources.
"We are addressing the biggest barrier for the mainstream adoption of solar technology: cost. We are on track to deliver the most affordable solutions for our customers," Victor Abate, vice president of GE’s renewable energy unit, told reporters. Looking beyond the domestic market, "our plan to open a US solar manufacturing facility further demonstrates our confidence in this technology and is just the first phase in a global, multigigawatt roadmap."
This indeed is quite informative topic. Authors of these topics are not expert with decades of experience, but well informed EE. Data may not be very accurate like that of IEEE Transaction, but contents gives direction of new develeopment and they are very interesting. This is true for lot of content on web. So, if you have better data, you may correct autor, but it should be in very mild voice. One day you may be worng, and do not expect all other EE to reprimand you for the same.
It is in fact a very big deal who and which technology has the highest efficiency for mass-produced thin films. Just because other two-bit blogs made the same mistake does not give this blog any excuse for printing inaccurate information.
Also, as to your "larger point": GE's market share will most certainly go up... because they start from zero. But there is no guarantee that GE will grab a significant share of the PV panel market, particularly as First Solar has been recently lost market share to Chinese crystalline silicon with the same technology and the lowest cost per watt in the industry.
There is also the significant factor of competition within the thin film space from CIGS (or CIS), particularly CIS coming from Solar Frontier's new 900 MW factory in Japan. Because of that factor, it is very important which thin film technology has the highest efficiencies, the lowest costs, and other market factors.
The U.S. market share of solar panel manufacturing IS NOT going up. The U.S. maintains a overall PV industry trade surplus due to sales of manufacturing equipment and polysilicon exports, which is the point of the GTM/SEIA report. The U.S. share of PV panel (module) manufacturing IS GOING DOWN.
You would not know any of that from reading this article. And this is growing tiresome. Read the report, it's free.
>>>I am unsure whether GE is claiming to have the highest efficiency mass-produced cadmium telluride modules on the market, or the highest efficiency mass-produced thin-film modules.
The problem is GE worded their press release as claiming, "world's most efficient thin film solar panel." Just+ google that phrase (add the word GE) and you will get hundreds of hits all with the title "GE Builds the Most Efficient Thin-Film Solar Module Ever" from pretty impressive news sources and trade journals. It looks like GE meant to claim the record only for CdTe panels, but it's not only EBN which reported their claim at face value as stated. Unless you are going to start e-mailing hundreds of publications, the (mis)information is already out there.
I thought the focus of the post here was the potential increase in market share that the solar panel industry, particularly GE, may grab in the near future. To split hairs over whether there should be a qualifier that GE holds the record only for cdTE cells and not all cells is a quibble that does not change the main idea that GE's market share and the US market share in general is going up.
There are multiple thin-film PV technologies. Two of them are cadmium telluride and CIGS.
I am unsure whether GE is claiming to have the highest efficiency mass-produced cadmium telluride modules on the market, or the highest efficiency mass-produced thin-film modules. It is also possible that they are being intentionally vague, as 12.8% is, again, simply not the highest efficiency thin-film module. In the article Ariella cites it is clear that they are talking about cadmium telluride. Ariella is not - and thus misinformation is born.
CIGS modules have achieved higher efficiencies in mass production, and both technologies have acheived higher efficiencies under lab settings. GE may well have the highest efficiency for mass-produced cadmium telluride - the highest I have heard from First Solar is 12.6%.
As for Q-Cells and their 13.4% efficient mass produced thin film modules, the release is here, with efficiencies verified by Fraunhofer ISE: http://www.q-cells.com/en/company/investor_relations/corporate_news/29032011_qcells_achieves_with_134_new_efficiency_world_record_for_cigs_thin_film_solar_module_out_of/index.html?pr=594
As for the excuse about not having access to the site, Ariella: Citation or no citation, the statement you wrote is inaccurate. If you insert the words "cadmium telluride", then I have no argument against its accuracy. Have your editor fix it. It is not in anyone's interest to have false or misleading information floating around the internet.
Also, I find it terrifying that you have taught on the subject of journalism, as you did not do a minimum of research to assure that you had written an accurate article - like actually reading the SEIA/GTM report.
For those seeking accurate information about the solar industry, I recommend my publication, Solar Server: http://www.solarserver.com.
A company heavily touted by the Obama administration and a recipient of plenty of our tax $, it looks like greeen energy is a long way off from being an economically feasible alternative in the US.
>>>GE's modules are not the highest efficiency thin film modules on the market
I think it's pretty clear that the post is based on GE's press release, which stated:
"GE (NYSE: GE) today announced that a full-size, thin film solar panel developed by the company has been independently certified as the most efficient ever publicly reported milestone for the technology."
So in a nutshell, C. Roselund, just to clarify, you are saying that GE pulled one over on everyone and this is not true?
@electronics862 You mention on particular incident, but there are also other reasons why the US is looking to get less dependant on fossil fuels for energy. One is not to be so affected by the fluctuations in price of oil, but another is also concern for the effects on the environment, particularly in certain areas of the country.
I cannot edit what went up because I do not have adminstrative access to the site. I concede to you on the first point for one word that should be changed in the body, but what I wrote about the status of GE thin film panels is an accurate representation of the sources cited for that information. The embedded link makes it clear that it is based on other authorities, not my own opinion. Now that is something I am an expert on -- the difference between properly cited material and -- a subject I've taught for years. The difference in convention online that you may not be used to is using the link instead of a footnote. BTW I contacted the lab to ask about their findings. But really the point of this blog was not whether or not GE broke a record but to look at its plans to do more with solar power in the US.
OK, so let me see if I have this right. Your article contains inaccurate statements, which you know now are inaccurate, and are refusing to change, or issue a correction because it's only a couple of lines?
The first line you admit is incorrect. Second, your article states that "In April, GE succeeded in attaining 12.8 percent efficiency on its thin film solar panels -- better than any other such panels on the market." You say thin film, and then "any other such panels". GE's modules are not the highest efficiency thin film modules on the market, so this is a second inaccurate statement.
But also you have done no original research, did not even read the report that you are "reporting" on, and admit that you cribbed other articles as your defense for these inaccurate statements - instead of doing what a journalist would do, and going to the source NREL materials.
I am afraid this is a stunning example of why so much of what is on the internet posing as journalism is not journalism at all.
US really investing resources in solar energy as they realized oil resources will be gone in next few years. After the BP spill over incident US invested billions of dollars in both university research and industries to come up efficient way of storing solar energy.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This