Life Cycle Perspective On California Solar Photovoltaic Supply Chain
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 02.11.08
Most would agree that solar cells fabricated from silicon ingots that were produced with electricity generated primarily by hydroelectric power would be "as good as it gets" from a life cycle standpoint. Thinking about such things as mercury and carbon emissions, that is.
The worst possible source for silicon solar panels would likely be from an SPV supply chain that begins with Chinese coal-fired electricity.
Suntech (NYSE: STP) has come from nowhere to become the third-ranked U.S. supplier in a forthcoming analysis of how the domestic sector fared in 2007, Efird said in an interview. That would put the Chinese outfit just behind Silicon Valley upstart SunPower Corp. (NASDAQ: SPWR) and Japanese stalwart Sharp Electronics.“We were the first Chinese manufacturer to start selling in the United States,” said Efird, who is in the process of moving to the Bay area. “And we’ve achieved our two primary goals in the first 12 months of operations.”
We're listening Suntech. Tell us, won't you please, how you are urging the Chinese government to sign onto the post-Bali deliberations and to impose pollution controls and efficiency boosting design changes on the coal fired utilities that supply your ingot casting plants, and slicers, and so forth.
Actually that wasn't fair, because if you look at the list of solar cell component makers they're all over the map. Nonetheless, not all solar cells are created equal; and; we think California regulators, offering taxpayer-funded incentives for solar installs, ought to take supply chain life cycle impacts into consideration. That and, you know, that whole "Green Jobs" thing that half the US state governors are focused on.
Via::EarthNews, "Chinese company making strong play for Calif. market" Image credit::Suntech press image library
I worry about what will happen to them after their useful life is over as well.
The best price that I can find for solar panels produced in China versus America are like this:
For the American made, I found panels at Beyond Oil Solar for $4.30 per watt.
For the Chinese (American cells shipped to China, assembled & shipped back, according to the seller), I found panels at DM Solar for $3.96 per watt.
So, for about 9% more you can have the panels that are Made in USA, provide a job for an American and help the American economy a little bit more. For my money, I'll buy the American panels.
=== author's response follows ===
Thanks for this.
You also are saving the un-needed emissions from shipping materials all the way to China and back, plus avoiding the large footprint of Chinese coal dominated electricity.
I'm not sure if hydro electric is "As good as it gets" maybe from a strictly LCA stand point, but on the West coast most hydroelectric plants have serious ecosystem concerns that may outweight the LCA.
Teresa
Considering the quite accurate concerns about emissions from shipping and also from the very dirty electricity in China... I'm surprised there are so many environmentalists that speak negatively about the U.S. trying to make the next round of caps apply to the rapidly developing countries.
With global trade the way it is, there simply is no way to effectively curb emissions without including the new manufacturing powerhouses. If we cap ourselves without getting China to sign up... that 10% difference in price would become much larger and before you know it all the solar panel manufacturing and much else would end up in China. Not good for jobs here and undermines the cap and trade system.
=== author's response follows ===
That's an eloquent statement of the dilemma. Thanks.
The way I see it, it is a matter of leadership. Someone has to draw first and show how it is done, establish working metrics, etc.
NanoSolar (the one backed by the Google guys) is made in the US and sells for $1.99/watt but they're sold out 18 months worth of produciton already.
They're building a factory in Germany for the Euro market.