Page 4
www.us-tech.com
Tech-Op-ed June, 2021 SOUNDING OFF
By Michael Skinner Editor
Solar Power’s Time to Shine
Global Change Data Lab, the cost of solar power has fallen by nearly 90 percent over the last 10 years. In 2009, utility-scale photovoltaics cost $359 per MWh, roughly
O
225 percent more than coal. From its first uses in the late 1950s to power satellites, the groundwork for solar technology production was laid, which allowed more solar modules to be created, and more satel- lites to be launched. This created a sort of virtuous cycle: more deployment resulted
in falling prices, leading to more favorable competition in new mar- kets, thus increasing demand, which resulted in still more deploy- ment, and so on. As prices fell, so did applications, from outer space to the surface
of Earth. Some of the first solar power installations were in tricky lo- cations — places where connecting to the broader energy grid is al- ready costly — like lighthouses, rural railroad crossings, and even for the refrigeration of medicines. By the late 70s, and adjusted for inflation, the cost of solar pow-
er was about $100 per watt. At this point, the technology was already twice as cheap as the early space-faring solar modules. As the decades have progressed, with each doubling of the installed capaci- ty of solar energy, the price has decreased by about 20 percent. This is known as its “learning rate.” The learning rate varies slightly from study to study, but over-
all, it is remarkable how consistent this ratio has been. Since its ear- ly days, solar power has decreased in cost per watt by 99.6 percent. This consistency is in large part due to the widespread improve-
ment of solar power generation across the entire production process. Factories get more efficient, R&D efforts increase, innovations result- ing from research increase the panels’ efficiency and improve produc- tion of silicon ingots and wafers, mining scales up and materials be- come cheaper — all surrounded by constant competitive pressure to keep prices low. This stands in sharp contrast to the stagnation of the cost of coal
power. Over the last 10 years, while the cost of solar has fallen by 90 percent and wind power by 70 percent, the price of electricity from burning coal has declined by just 2 percent. Unfortunately for coal, and fossil fuels in general, there is little
room for improving the efficiency of these types of power plants. Your average coal-burning plant is about 33 percent efficient, while the best among them still fall short of even 50 percent efficiency. Renewable energy, and solar power in particular, is a win-win in-
vestment. Scaling up solar production and installation both improve the environmental toll of generating electricity, and have an added, in- direct benefit to every consumer —cheaper energy. The coal that a typ- ical power plant burns makes up about 40 percent of its total operating costs. Radiated solar energy, on the other hand, is free, every day. r
nly a decade ago, solar power was the most expensive form of energy. Now, along with onshore wind power, it is one of the cheapest. In fact according to a recent report by Max Roser of
PUBLISHER’S NOTE
By Jacob Fattal Publisher
Restoring the Balance of Supply and Demand
N
early every industry, domestic and international, requires electronic components. The speed by which electronics have become ubiquitous in such broad-ranging markets, from cloth-
ing and consumer devices to automotive electronics, is staggering to comprehend. This edition of U.S. Tech highlights some of the challenges our
industry currently faces in component manufacturing, distribution and procurement. The demand for electronics is nothing new — and is welcome in most cases — but what the industry did not expect was the sort of one-two punch it received over the last year and a half. A global pandemic essentially reduced the global economy to bare min- imum, from which we are now just beginning to emerge. The reduction in manufacturing capacity due to the lockdowns
was immediate, problematic and not entirely unexpected. But, anoth- er side effect was that many people suddenly found themselves at home, under strict orders to remain away from others, and had an enormous amount of free time each day. Demand for electronics was high before the pandemic struck, but as soon as it hit, demand sim- ply shot higher, due to the need for remote working, schooling, com- munication, and entertainment. This was a recipe for an electronics supply chain meltdown. Lead
times for even simple components reached 20 or more weeks. Also, es- sential manufacturing capacity that was still able to operate was shifted from typical projects to absolutely necessary medical support products. Over the next year or two, with the brunt of the pandemic weath-
ered and the infrastructure in place to deal with flare ups of the virus in whatever form it takes, supply will recover to levels adequate to meet the majority of day-to-day demand. However, with recent announcements from global semiconductor
manufacturers about expansion and fab capacity increases, notably TSMC, expect the world to take greater interest in the industry. If we could invest in conversations, it would be wise to put stock in the fu- ture of “domestic vs. international semiconductor manufacturing.” r
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
