4.8 Review

Materials availability for thin film (TF) PV technologies development: A real concern?

期刊

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
卷 15, 期 9, 页码 4972-4981

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.06.012

关键词

Thin-film; Photovoltaic; Materials scarcity; Indium; Tellurium; Cost reductions

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/F029624/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/G007748/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. EPSRC [EP/F029624/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. NERC [NE/G007748/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decarbonisation goals have triggered photovoltaic (PV) sector expansion and cost reductions in PV technologies. Thin film (IF) PV technologies are currently the cheapest to manufacture and offer the possibility of attaining lower costs. However, scarcity of key component materials has been highlighted as a potential barrier to both large scale deployment and reductions in technology cost. This paper explores this claim for cadmium telluride (CdTe) and copper indium gallium (di)selenide (CIGS) IF technologies and their potentially constraining materials, tellurium and indium. It reviews key literature, highlighting the high uncertainty in the estimates of the resource constrained IF PV potential as well as in data and methodologies used to assess future availability of the targeted materials. The reviewed evidence does not support the contention that the availability of tellurium and indium will necessarily constrain CdTe and CIGS technologies respectively in their ability to supply expected future PV market growth. However, future escalation in indium and tellurium price resulting from demand-supply imbalances could have a negative impact on CdTe and CIGS cost reduction ambitions. Factors influencing indium and tellurium price and their relative contribution to IF PV module production cost need further investigation. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据