Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Energy

Why Cheap Solar May Not Depend on Cheap Panels Anymore

A conversation about perovskite, scale, and “soft costs” with Tandem PV CEO Scott Wharton.

•
Solar panels.
Heatmap Illustration/Tandem PV, Getty Images

What happens after solar modules get cheap? The relentless cost declines for solar technology driven by mass production and steady innovation — largely in China — has resulted in a commercial ecosystem where pricing is dominated by everything but the solar panels themselves.

In this world, a more efficient panel is not necessarily one that costs less to buy from a supplier, but rather one that can optimize on these “soft costs,” getting more energy out of the given time and money spent on installing the panel. This will come to matter more and more as solar costs inevitably plateau — and especially if Congress decides to eliminate clean energy incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act, which, combined with high tariffs on solar imports from Asia, could take away solar’s cost advantage over new natural gas-fired power.

At least that’s the thesis of Tandem PV, which uses so-called perovskite technology to build solar panels that, the company says, are already more efficient than existing silicon panels, and could become almost twice as efficient as existing panels as the technology improves. Perovskite refers to a group of minerals that share a similar structure and which, when stacked with silicon, can absorb a broad range of light, maximizing the efficiency of converting light to electricity.

I spoke with Tandem PV chief executive Scott Wharton about why he thinks that even in this era of rock bottom costs, greater performance will still win the day. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Why does it not matter so much that your solar panels are a little more expensive than other ones?

Well, I would say, for the whole history of solar panels, the cost of it was really high. There was this move to get the cost down, reduce the green premium, etc. We’re now in a world where that view is, I would say, antiquated.

And by cost, you mean the cost of the physical module.

The cost of the panel itself, yeah. The reason why is that for utility scale, which is where we’re focused on, only 20% of the cost is the panel. So 80% of the actual cost of a solar deployment — which is what matters, right? The cost of deploying it — labor, land, the balance of systems, the construction loans. It’s typical, I would say, of engineers — everything’s about the commodity. Whereas from my experience, it depends on the total cost. What we’re doing is, we’re saving the cost where it matters: on the labor.

So I guess the argument you’re trying to make is that even if the upfront cost of the panel is higher, the higher efficiency actually does make the kind of physical cost over time go down — and then all the soft costs, I imagine, are basically the same. Or is there any argument why the soft costs would be different, too?

First of all, I’m not sure that we will charge a premium. We want to be the same or cheaper. But even if we did, the point is that most of the cost is in those other things: labor, land, and installation. So if our panel has 30% more power in a single panel — a 28% [efficient] panel is about [third] more [efficient] than a 21% panel — then you need 30% fewer panels.

The other thing I learned recently is that people think that, oh, you just have this huge parcel of land and everything is equal. But a lot of times, when you’re deploying solar, you can’t actually fit everything on one parcel. So there’s a savings from having more density.

There’s also an issue where a lot of the best solar locations are taken, or you don’t have a ton of choice, necessarily, about where you put your panels because co-location matters so much. So it’s even more important to have efficiency in how you use that land.

Where is Tandem PV on the trajectory from lab to mass deployment?

We just announced a $50 million [Series A funding round], and we’re building out the first significant commercial perovskite factory in the United States. Conventional wisdom for manufacturing is, you put it as far away as possible. I think when you’re trying to do something really new, it’s probably the same story: It seems cheaper, but it’s not. Because if it takes you six more months because you’re flying back and forth and people don’t understand each other, then that actually costs you money and time and delay. We’re going to emphasize quality and speed over cost.

If we do this right, then the theory is, we’ve become the next First Solar — that’s our intention. We want to take back solar leadership from China, which is a bold statement, but I think we’re on the journey. I tell the team, it’s like a bicycle race, where you go slowly, slowly, slowly, and then there’s a point where you need to break out. Well, I think we’ve broken out. Whether we fall flat on our face because we’re exhausted or we jump out ahead, we’ll see what history writes.

Obviously a big story in the solar industry is cost declining so much, and that’s tied to, a very specific technological stack. What do you guys have to do besides demonstrating results to tell the story that a different technology might be necessary?

So number one, there’s a reason why people are interested in perovskites. It’s 200 times thinner than traditional silicon panels — no rare earth minerals or metals, no mining.

What people don’t know about silicon solar is, you’ve got to heat this up to, like, 2,000 degrees Celsius to purify it, and it’s very, very expensive. We’re using the same glass and basically putting on a 1 micron-thick layer of ink. So we’re adding a little bit of cost, but you get a lot more energy for it than what you add.

The second thing is, we’re not actually competing with silicon so much as we’re building on top of it. As silicon technology gets better and cheaper, our product gets better and cheaper. And then the third thing is, see point number one, where we started. If you have a 28% or 30% [efficient] panel — by the way, silicon hits its physics limits at 26%. It can never get better than that. So we’re already better than where silicon is. And as labor and land become more expensive in the United States and around the world, it actually is cheaper to make something that focuses on where all the costs are.

I know you’re not in mass production yet, but are you going out to utility scale developers? Do they want a more efficient panel, or are they just comfortable working with the stuff they normally work with?

It’s both. They like what they have, but their feedback is — especially given all the supply chain risks that are going on around the world — if you can build it, we’ll buy it. We’re basically building something that is the same thing they already have, for a market that we already know. And is there a market for electricity? Yeah, there’s going to be a huge shortage of it with the AI boom. So we feel pretty confident that if we can build this, they will come.

Putting aside public policy issues, what’s to stop one of the big Chinese solar manufacturers from using this technology? People have been talking about it for decades.

It’s like any hard thing. It’s not a secret that people want to have rockets and go to space, it’s just a very, very hard technology. It’s the same thing as, why did Google and Apple win back the mobile phone war from the Japanese and the Germans and others? It’s a leapfrogging thing. I think the market’s up for grabs.

Green

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe to access Heatmap's exclusive climate and energy polling, award-winning journalism, and subscriber-only events. Save $57 on an annual subscription, just $156 $99/year.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Daily Briefing

Think Congress Is Slow? Meet the Power Sector.

BAAJA would likely help speed up the U.S. transmission buildout, but there’s a chance we’re undercounting the benefits.

Power lines.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.

As you may have seen, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo and I got the first look at the Rhodium Group’s analysis of what the bipartisan permitting bill will do to emissions.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
AM Briefing

Neutral, at Worst

On Chinese hydrogen, Fermi upheaval, and British offshore wind

Smokestacks.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: The Pineapple Express, an atmospheric river originating in the Pacific near Hawaii, is arriving in the Southwest laden with heavy rain that’s set to flood the region • Indonesia has the worst air quality in the world as forest fires rage along Sumatra’s southern coast • A cross-country storm will soak much of the United States on Tuesday’s Election Day.


THE TOP FIVE

1. Permitting bill’s worst-case climate scenario is still carbon neutral

The Senate’s grand compromise to simplify federal permitting on energy projects would likely drop emissions slightly as the benefits to accelerating deployments of clean energy infrastructure outweigh the boost the legislation could give to fossil fuels. Even under the worst-case scenario, emissions remain on the same trajectory as today. That’s according to a hotly anticipated new analysis by the Rhodium Group, the consultancy whose U.S. emissions estimates are among the most widely cited in American politics. The report, shared first with my colleague Emily Pontecorvo, found that provisions in the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act largely counteract each other on climate. The bill makes building transmission lines much easier, a key step to patching more renewables onto the grid. But it also makes new gas pipelines simpler to permit, clearing the way for a buildout of the infrastructure for the fossil fuel already dominating U.S. electricity and heating systems. Still, under the best-case scenario, the legislation could cut U.S. economy-wide emissions by 5% below where they would otherwise go in 2040. The bill could also slash energy bills by $78 per year and support construction of more than 200 gigawatts of clean energy capacity, as compared to a world where it didn’t pass. The Rhodium report is at least the second analysis yet to find that the bill could modestly lower emissions. The first, as I reported last week, came from the think tank Resources for the Future, which saw a slight drop in power-sector emissions relative to a world without BAAJA.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Energy

Exclusive: New Modeling Finds Permitting Bill Would Likely Cut Emissions

Even in the worst-case scenario, BAAJA wouldn’t increase emissions, an analysis by the Rhodium Group concludes.

Pollution and the Capitol.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The bipartisan permitting reform bill is likely to slightly cut greenhouse gas emissions and lower electricity bills by 2040 — or at worst leave emissions on the same trajectory that they are on today — as compared to the status quo, according to a new analysis of many of its provisions by the Rhodium Group, an independent research firm.

The analysis examines the policies in the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, or BAAJA, that would have the most-clear cut effects on climate pollution and the energy system. It is the most comprehensive account of the bill’s effects on emissions so far, although it does not examine all of its provisions.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue