IBM’s New Solar Cell: It’s a CTZSS!

Talk about your common-as-dirt materials.

IBM’s New Solar Cell: It’s a CTZSS!

CTZSS. It doesn't really roll off the tongue as easily as CIGS, but IBM says that its new solar cell could potentially lower the price of solar power in the future.

The solar cell is made from copper, tin, zinc, sulfur and selenium, all of which are somewhat earth-abundant, according to IBM. The test cell achieves a 9.6 percent efficiency, or around 40 percent higher than the 6.7 percent ceiling achieved by other, earlier cells made from the same materials. (That's a cross-section of IBM's Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4  compound and not a dental X-ray.)

Big Blue did not use vacuum chamber processes (the sort of equipment used for chip-making) to produce it. Instead, it deployed a solution-based approach. In mass production, that could mean producing cells through printing or dip and spray coating.

The cell, in many ways, could be considered CIGS: The Sequel. CIGS stands for copper, indium, gallium, selenide. Some companies have also produced CIS cells, which stands for copper, indium sulfur. Overlap in materials exist, but note the absence of indium in IBM's process. Indium prices and availability have been an occasional source of criticism of the CIGS and CIS industry. Some analysts have also worried about commodity price spikes for the cadmium telluride solar cell industry. Zinc, by contrast, is extremely abundant.

Bringing such a cell to market, however, won't be easy. Investors have become nervous about championing new types of solar cells. Various CIGS companies also employ printing (Nanosolar) and other roll-to-roll manufacturing processes to produce thin film solar cells. It has taken most quite a while to iron out the kinks in the manufacturing process.

"In a given hour, more energy from sunlight strikes the earth than the entire planet consumes in a year, but solar cells currently contribute less than 0.1 percent of electricity supply -- primarily as a result of cost," said Dr. David Mitzi, who leads the team at IBM Research that developed the solar cell. "The quest to develop a solar technology that can compare on a cost-per-watt basis with the conventional electricity generation, and also offers the ability to deploy at the terawatt level, has become a major challenge that our research is moving us closer to overcoming."

How cheap? Well, we have calls into IBM. Stay tuned.

IBM, or its potential licensees, will benefit from the CIGS learning experience but will invariably have to grapple with technology issues to scale up to mass production.

Will IBM make solar cells? I'd guess not. IBM has for the past several years combed its vast research laboratories for technologies that could be used to advance solar, water, batteries and other clean markets. An IBM polymer devised originally for immersion lithography, the technique likely exploited to produce some of the chips inside your computer, is now being promoted as a material for producing membranes for desalination or producing power from osmotic pressure gradients.

 

18 Comments

  • Kees van der Leun 02/10/10 1:32 AM

    I’m afraid solar did pass the mark of 0.1% of global electricity supply recently. Over 20 GW produce something like 25 TWh/a, at a global electricity consumption of 20,000 TWh/a. And with the growth rate to be fueled by the spectacular drop in the cost of a solar kWh, this fraction is set to grow quickly over the coming years.

    Reply
      • ECD Fan 02/10/10 9:43 AM

        True, but wasn’t the growth rate fueled by misguided subsidies that steal from the ratepayer/taxpayer rather than by the drop in solar kWh?

  • not me 02/10/10 3:38 PM

    Prices are coming down, ECD fan - successful subsidies! I bet you hate it.

    Reply
      • SLR 02/10/10 7:02 PM

        The prices are indeed coming down, but the subsidies are still misguided. The Utilities companies are asking their customers to pay for it, while they get the credit for generating “green” power. If they do care about their green credentials, then they should pay for this renewable energy from the money they are saving by not building more oil-fired power generating plants.

  • Bo Varga 02/10/10 6:44 PM

    Wondering what the gotcha’s are, lots of great gold cells, materials may need to be very pure, dispersion may be an issue for spin coating or roll coating (would be surprised if this was not an issue), what annealing is required (energy input), etc. etc. my most optimistic guess is minimum 5 years away from 30MW production line with 90% yield at quote efficiency, realistic is 10 years (assuming only normal gotchas).  Notice that Heliovolt (i) changed technologies once funded for scale up and (ii) are at least a year behind schedule and counting.  And these chaps have been talking and trying for the past 7 years if my memory is correct.

    Reply
  • Kees van der Leun 02/11/10 2:46 AM

    @SLR. In Germany, world’s largest solar market, government prescribes the grid company to levy a charge covering the ‘feed-in tariff’ for those investing in and operating solar power. Utilities do not get credits for that. It’s in the interest of society as a whole (energy supply security, climate change), and I wouldn’t advise to wait for utilities to divert company money to pay out subsidies for solar!

    Reply
  • JayM 02/11/10 5:44 AM

    Good to see another contender in the race towards cheap PV. Seems to have some good features, such as cheap and abundant inputs and potentially simple (non vacuum) processing. We’ll see whether they can catch up with the technologies that are already reaching large scale.

    If you want to understand the thinking behind the German Feed-In Law I can recommend this IEA report on Experience Curves: http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2000/curve2000.pdf

    The principle is simple, society invests early on to support growth. Growth leads to scale-up and learning, which leads to cost reductions, which leads to more growth, which leads to more cost reductions, ... . At some point the new technology becomes cheaper than conventional alternatives and society starts to reap the benefits. Total Net Present Value to Germany is (expected to be) positive. Besides the economic picture you have fringe benefits such as reduced emissions, reduced dependence on energy imports, job creation and preparing the economy for the next generation of important export technologies.

    Needs a long breath which commercial companies and (fortunately for Germany) many countries with less foresight do not have.

    best regards
    J

    Reply
      • ECD Fan 02/11/10 9:47 AM

        Nice theory.  But, in the real world, the beneficiaries of the “incentives” use a portion of their windfall profits to lobby for delays in the tariff reductions, as doing is easier than actually lowering cost of manufacturing/installation.  The tariffs last longer than they should have, which leads to further misallocation of resources and a decline in national wealth overall.  The so-called “fringe benefits” are swamped by inefficiencies and the increased energy costs.

  • Adrian Miller 02/11/10 6:37 AM

    I’m an editor for Advanced Materials, and although I think I’m going to shy away from trying to answer all the questions raised here (I’m just editorial!), we have set the original research paper free to access; if anyone’s interested in more of the science behind this story, you can find it here: http://www.materialsviews.com/matview/display/en/1412/TEXT

    Thanks,
    Adrian

    Reply
  • Michael B 02/11/10 2:32 PM

    Thw subsidy hogs are the Oil Industry, the Nuclear Power Industries.  Take away their subsidies they have nothing to offier.  Solar, Wind and Advanaced Green Energy Technologies will over take the market place, if for no other reason that they are abundant, inexpensive, can’t be regulated by the Fossil Fuel Industries,  The two aforementioned leave a toxic legacy for may generations to come. Clean energy is a way to save what is left of our planet, and possibly our misguided society.  I would like to see clean power production the first choice for industry, and it will be soon.

    Best
    Michael

    Reply
  • Duda 02/13/10 9:49 PM

    I don’t think solar should be a focus for electricity. It’s difficult to convert heat into electricity at this time. It’s best to utilize the heat in other ways, such as water heating:
    http://www.dudadiesel.com/solar.php

    Reply
  • Sam Jaffe 02/14/10 5:12 PM

    Adrian,
    Kudos to freeing up this article. By increasing the flow of information, the scientists who authored the paper, the journal that published the paper and the entire solar community all benefit. Thank you.

    Reply
      • Adrian Miller 02/15/10 11:17 AM

        Thank you, I’m glad it’s proving useful!

  • Dietrich Seaman 02/18/10 3:54 PM

    “It’s difficult to convert heat into electricity at this time”?  How do you think oil, coal, gas, and nuclear power plants do it? 

    Co-generation is a useful strategy for getting the maximum value from the “waste” heat in fossil fuel power plants.  And solar hot water and residential heating make sense in Northern latitudes.  But utility-scale solar thermal plants are located in hot deserts.  Conserving heat is not a problem there.  In fact, since they actually remove a fraction of the energy for use elsewhere, so they must be actually lowering the temperature to some degree.

    Reply
  • Nu Guy 05/12/10 6:04 PM

    @Bo Varga: Sure it will take a long time to deploy (First Solar & Sunpower were not overnight successes either), that’s why it will take a company like IBM or extremely patient investors with very deep pockets to make this work.  Doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying.

    Reply
Need an avatar? Get one here: Gravatar