SILVER-LESS SOLAR

D

Dieraserkkcaj

New Member
Hey all,

I was reading on goldsilver.com that an engineering company called Natcore have created PV cells without silver, using aluminium instead. Considering the globe is headed toward cleaner energy and solar panel outlook is up. An apparent four solar companies have expressed serious interest.
With all this in mind I was hoping someone with more knowledge than me could clear a few things and post a few number, if there were any.

Cheers
 
Aluminium is cheaper as are many other things, but silver quality is superior.
A bit like comparing a vauxhall viva to a Porsche.
They are both cars but quality is a factor.
 
This will have everything to do with the efficiency lost by using aluminium instead of silver.

The average polycrystaline 250w panel on top of a house these days has an efficiency of around 15%. If by using Al instead of Ag and you lose a further 30%, then the efficiency is then 10.5% and the output wattage is more like 175w. Now, if you can save enough money to make the Aluminium 175w panels cheaper on a per-Watt generated basis, and by enough to offset the higher number of panels required AND the larger inverter required then it might fly.

As I see it, most people putting in Solar like to have some extra capacity in inverter (and roof space) to add 4-8 extra panels and increase their system later on as money permits. By reducing the efficiency then you will take this away.
 
What Monsta said - Plus, the average Joe understands cost for a panel better than efficiency of a panel. Using aluminum, making panels cheaper will probably sell more of them. With panels come batteries, inverters and other ancillary equipment.
 
Monsta said:
This will have everything to do with the efficiency lost by using aluminium instead of silver.
The average polycrystaline 250w panel on top of a house these days has an efficiency of around 15%. If by using Al instead of Ag and you lose a further 30%, then the efficiency is then 10.5% and the output wattage is more like 175w. Now, if you can save enough money to make the Aluminium 175w panels cheaper on a per-Watt generated basis, and by enough to offset the higher number of panels required AND the larger inverter required then it might fly.
As I see it, most people putting in Solar like to have some extra capacity in inverter (and roof space) to add 4-8 extra panels and increase their system later on as money permits. By reducing the efficiency then you will take this away.
Click to expand...

Yes, efficiency and output per sqm is everything. high efficiency panels using silver are already "cheap enough" to create massive demand for them, and a market that doesn't look like slowing down. People are happy to amortise cost.
I don't think cheaper but less efficient panels will have a huge impact, unless using aluminium magically makes them and order of magnitude cheaper, but that doesn't seem to be the case:
http://www.natcoresolar.com/news/na...ops-solar-cell-that-eliminates-use-of-silver/

Silver is only about 1/10th the cost of a raw materials in a panel (presumably not including assembly and testing):
Silver represents >48% of the metallization cost of a solar cell, or about 11% of the total raw material cost of a solar module.
Click to expand...
So at best you can only knock of 10% off the manufacture price.

And the manufacturing tech is not proven yet. With manufacturers providing 20 year warranties on these things, they will tread very carefully with any changes.
 
Electrical or thermal condutivity, resistivity, density and melting point
TIBTECH Electrical conductivity (10.E6 Siemens/m) Electrical resistivity (10.E-8 Ohm.m)
Silver -------62,1---------------------------------------------------------- 1,6
copper -------58,5---------------------------------------------------------- 1,7
Gold -------44,2---------------------------------------------------------- 2,3
Aluminium 36,9----------------------------------------------------------- 2,7
 
One of their press releases says there is no loss of performance vs. silver (does that mean efficiency?). I am not saying I believe that in any way, but that is what they say. If they are correct, I would imagine their company/technology would be bought out by some large international company in the not too distant future since such an "invention" would be revolutionary. But the way silver is going it might be as cheap as aluminum soon (only halfway joking).

This company is on what I call the pink sheets in the US market (this one is actually OTC but to me they are about the same thing). I would not worry about them really taking off and being successful in eliminating silver, but I am just speculating. Many OTC/pink sheet companies wind up disappearing after a relative short time in terms of business' life spans (but not all of course).

There was some company a few years ago that claimed they could eliminate most of the need for Pd and Pt from emission control systems and those on the blogs who liked to invest in Pd and Pt were concerned. I don't think that company accomplished their goal, but I am not a science guy maybe someone else here knows about that one.

Here is a press release where they say no loss of performance.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/natcore-technology-develops-solar-cell-120000619.html

Just my opinion.

Jim
 
Dieraserkkcaj said:
Hey all,

I was reading on goldsilver.com that an engineering company called Natcore have created PV cells without silver, using aluminium instead. Considering the globe is headed toward cleaner energy and solar panel outlook is up. An apparent four solar companies have expressed serious interest.
With all this in mind I was hoping someone with more knowledge than me could clear a few things and post a few number, if there were any.

Cheers
Click to expand...
It's not the world that is geared towards "cleaner" energy, it's governments that are, and it's bogus because they still need the tax on the "dirty" whatever to make the "cleaner" price competable. "Cleaner" energy is a government caused boom and it will bust as soon as governments face the choice stop sponsor it or less in own pocket.

Then, what importance does it have for those that chose as savings method silver?
Photovoltaic [DEMAND] (added WSS2015) in Moz
2005 -7.3
2006 -8.9
2007 -12.5
2008 -25.0
2009 -30.1
2010 -50.7
2011 -69.1
2012 -60.5
2013 -55.8
2014 -59.9
The demand isn't older than a decade, the last half of the decade the Moz hung around 60.
A plausible next is a drop back to 10. Rather due to lack of demand for solar panels than due to aluminium instead of silver.
The figures also show that the increase 7>70 Moz happened during the price increase US $5>35. Apparently the silver price wasn't a factor when producing solar panels with silver so why would it be a factor to stop producing solar panels with silver?
Plenty roofs got solar panels during the past 5-7 years. To maintain the silver demand increase, it needs a continuation of this level of roof decoration. Without sponsoring it 'll be over equally quickly as it came.
 
sterling-nz said:
Aluminium is cheaper as are many other things, but silver quality is superior.
A bit like comparing a vauxhall viva to a Porsche.
They are both cars but quality is a factor.
Click to expand...

"So I am interested in buying your property, but are those old solar panels silver backed? Or the crappy Aluminium kind that is less efficient/oxidised/needs more supporting hardware?"
 
TingTing said:
sterling-nz said:
Aluminium is cheaper as are many other things, but silver quality is superior.
A bit like comparing a vauxhall viva to a Porsche.
They are both cars but quality is a factor.
Click to expand...

"So I am interested in buying your property, but are those old solar panels silver backed? Or the crappy Aluminium kind that is less efficient/oxidised/needs more supporting hardware?"
Click to expand...
Future news headline: Thieves Target Solar Panels

followed by:

Homeowner Charged After Solar Panel Thief Falls From Roof




_
 
It just illustrates the difference between cost and price.

Year 1: purchase of product A, price $10
Year 11: replacement of product A, price $10
Cost product A after a decade: $20

Year 1: purchase of product B, price $5
Year 4: replacement of product B, price $5
Year 7: replacement of product B, price $5
Year 11: replacement of product B, price $5
Cost product B after a decade: $20

Product B's price is half product A's price, yet it's cost is the same.
Ex I know is a bicycle cogwheel, a "common", "standard" one costs 10 euro, each year a new one is needed. Trouble: it's less (or not at all) sealed, inferior quality material, so water seaps in it in winter, freezes, or water makes the grease sticky so that pallets hang and freewheel in both directions, all trouble, and wears faster.
A "professional" one costs 55 euro. Judgement still to be made. But I doubt it will last, let alone over, 5.5 years. Whatever you chose, you're screwed in a same degree. Only that you're saved the hassle of 5.5 trouble events, but again, at an extra cost.
Sometimes one can play abit McGyver and seal a "common" one abit along silicone and so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top