Six types of modules comprise the majority of the solar marketplace. Multi-crystalline silicon (c-Si) modules dominate 60% the market, but monocrystalline panels are picking up steam. Although more efficient than their multi c-Si cousins, monocrystalline are more expensive and therefore not as popular. With increasing demand for higher-efficiency products, experts forecast the monocrystalline share of the market to increase slightly and cut into multi c-Si’s chunk of the pie. Advanced, more efficient multi c-Si modules are expected to gain even more market share to be even with standard solar modules by the end of 2015.
Cadmium telluride (CdTe) thin-film hit a new record conversion efficiency earlier this year at 21.5%. Thin-film’s average is still only around 14%, but this new record means that with continued R&D, thin-film could eclipse the average efficiency of traditional multi c-Si modules (typically around 16%) within the next two years. With a higher efficiency and cheaper price, thin-film could become the preferred module choice in the United States—but not this year. Thin-film’s market share is expected to decline from 8% in 2014 to 7% by the end of 2015, according to IHS.
Basically, it seems the industry is falling out of love with standard multi c-Si panels, turning either to higher efficiency crystalline panels or possibly thin-film in the future.
Ford Eversun says
What is the definition of “advanced” solar cells? I’m reading this like every other cell advancement made since 1977. It is not a “new” type of cell, it is an evolution or improvement of the last cell technology. Crystalline silicon cells will continue to be the mainstay of the solar industry for many years. I am all for continued alternative technology research and thin film tech making advancements, it certainly has it’s place in the market. Mentioning their record 21.5% efficiency and siting it as potentially “eclipsing” is shoddy commentary. Will you mention the 40+% efficiency of c-Si cells that has been reached in R&D? Doesn’t make the 22.5% efficiency of the thin-film technology quite as eclipsing as you mention.
Also, I cringe at the inefficiency of the word efficiency, particularly when it comes to solar. There are so many efficiency points in a solar system, pointing at one, like in the cells ability to turn light energy into electrical energy, and then making broad statements about the technology efficiency is misleading. How efficiently will that cell work with the one next to it? how efficiently is the free electron drawn from the cell? how efficient is the transition to the conducting bus bars? how efficient is the packaged module? how efficient does one module work with the one next to it? how efficient is it in lower light levels? how efficiently does it operate at different dust levels? how about different angles of incidence? how efficiently is it charging or inverting to AC? Technically and generally, a square cm of a multi c-Si cell is likely to be “less efficient” than a square cm Mono c-Si…but if you have a 270W module…does it matter that it is Multi or Mono?…it is (or should be) 250W at STC…period. I have installations the same size Watts with mono and poly (sorry “multi”, old habits) with the same STC watts…and if you put any months energy production of the two systems in front of me, I couldn’t tell which of the systems was mono and which was multi. I only care about system efficiency…to me that is the ratio of what I predict the system to produce for a customer, and what the system actually produces. With this, I can actually achieve solar system efficiency over 100%. ; }
Ford
Kelly Pickerel says
Thanks for the input, Ford! Efficiency is a complicated matter, and we’ll attempt to expand on it in future stories.