4.8 Article

A technoeconomic analysis of perovskite solar module manufacturing with low-cost materials and techniques

期刊

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 1297-1305

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c7ee00757d

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wright Center Endowment for Photovoltaics Innovation and Commercialization
  2. National Science Foundation [CHE-1230246]
  3. U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Space Vehicles Directorate [FA9453-11-C-0253]
  4. Ohio Federal Research Network (Center for Materials and Manufacturing)
  5. Office of Naval Research [N00014-17-I-2223]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

After rapid progress in the past few years, emerging solar cells based on metal halide perovskites have become a potential candidate to rival and even outperform crystalline silicon photovoltaics (PV) in the marketplace. With high material utilization, easy manufacturing processes, and high power conversion efficiencies 420%, many experts anticipate that perovskite solar cells (PSCs) will be one of the cheapest PV technologies in the future. Here we evaluate the economic potential of PSCs by developing a bottom-up cost model for perovskite PV modules fabricated using feasible low-cost materials and processes. We calculate the direct manufacturing cost ($31.7 per m(2)) and the minimum sustainable price (MSP, $0.41 per W-p) for a standard perovskite module manufactured in the United States. Such modules, operating at 16% photoconversion efficiency in a 30-year, unsubsidized, utility-level power plant, would produce electricity at levelized cost of energy (LCOE) values ranging from 4.93 to 7.90 (c) over bar per kW per h. We discuss limitations in comparing calculated MSPs to actual market prices, determine the effect of module lifetime, examine the effects of alternative materials and constructions, and indicate avenues to further reduce the MSP and LCOE values. The analysis shows that PSCs can emerge as a cost leader in PV power generation if critical remaining issues can be resolved.

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