080414: Energy Costs mean externalities matter
Ed’s Threads 080414 Musings by Ed Korczynski on April 14, 2008
Energy Costs mean externalities matterWhat do the words “Energy” and “Costs” have to do with materials considerations in 2008? The most recent issue of the Materials Research Society (MRS) Bulletin has just been released and it’s a special issue devoted to exploring all aspects—including costs—of materials science and engineering for energy. Many fine companies like Applied Materials sponsored the issue being made free to the public at the MRS website, and at minimum all adults should read “The Economics of Energy Options” by Lester B. Lave of Carnegie-Mellon University. “ Energy” is an amazing word. Normally defined as the “ability to do work,” we might define “work” as the “ability of use energy”…so the more you study it the more you find circular logic. To further confuse things, we talk about “potential” energy and “kinetic” energy and “random” energy and “surface” energy and “renewable” energy too. Because the term has vague and overlapping definitions, people tend to use the term as they see fit without considering how other people might be using the term. “Costs” seems like a simple word until you consider “my” cost versus “our” cost…which is the simple way of framing the discussion of economic “externality” wherein I profit by making you pay for some of my cost. ROHS is an example of a topic that is clearly foolish or clearly wise depending upon where you draw the line for the limits of your system: if you only consider your system to be electronics design, manufacturing, distribution, and sales then eliminating lead from PCBs just adds cost and risk. If, however, you consider your system to be society as a whole and include electronics recycling, landfill maintenance, and human health care expenses then eliminating hazardous substances from electronics should reduce overall costs. “Many of the energy decisions that U.S. residents currently make are conditioned by the subsidies that energy has enjoyed. Until the 1970s, there were few rules requiring companies to abate the air pollution emissions from burning fossil fuels. Fuel was sufficiently abundant that prices were extremely low. Coal and oil were extracted with little thought or care for environmental quality,” says Lave. “As a result, huge social costs were incurred through environmental degradation and the resulting ill health.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in a study titled “The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990,” estimated that abating air pollution had benefits of $22 trillion compared to abatement costs of $523 billion; thus, benefits were more than 40 times greater than costs. “The costs of U.S. foreign and defense policies to secure large amounts of inexpensive petroleum have not been charged to the imported energy. Consumers made decisions on what car to buy, what size residence to buy, and what temperature to set the thermostat on the basis of artificially lowered prices. Subsidizing a product encourages its use. Thus, the energy policy of the United States has encouraged energy use beyond what it would have been if the price had reflected full social cost,” concluded Lave. I was born in Detroit (“Motor City”) and still enjoy motor sports, and I’m more than willing to pay $5/gal for gasoline to fuel my fun machines. From first principles of power-to-weight, electric motors should out-torque and out-fun internal combustion engines, but historic batteries had limited life and range and so for 100 years we have been waiting for convenient electric cars to arrive… Philips in The Netherlands is leading research into new storage technologies for electricity, using 3D trenches in silicon to massively increase the surface area of solid-state rechargeable batteries. This technology derived from silicon IC STI etching could be used in small 3D integrated electronics systems, or potentially even in automobiles. Lave’s article mentions the need for improved battery technology as part of our desired energy future. “A battery that could power a vehicle for 30–40 miles (48–64 km) and be recharged from an electricity outlet would save about two-thirds of gasoline use. Because only about 2% of electricity is generated from petroleum, if all automobiles and light trucks were plug-in hybrids, more than one-half of oil imports could be eliminated." The whole debate over the “true” costs of energy centers on where we draw the line on our system, and this is clearly seen in the debate over “solar subsidies.” What is the grid cost of electricity where you live? How much is subsidized directly or indirectly by your government? Do you have to pay a huge upfront cost for your home or are major infrastructure investments absorbed by someone else and you just pay per month? All of these questions relate to the issue of government subsidies to encourage private investment in photovoltaic solar panels. Meanwhile, Southern California Edison (SCE) announced that recent advances in solar technology combined with a new five-year mega-scale investments allows for costs to drop by one-half. “This project will turn two square miles of unused commercial rooftops into advanced solar generating stations,” said John E. Bryson, Edison International chairman and CEO. “We hope to have the first solar rooftops in service by August. The sunlight power will be available to meet our largest challenge – peak load demands on the hottest days.” You can put it in my backyard. —E.K. Labels: battery, costs, energy, externality, materials research, PV, solar
posted by [email protected]
080414: Energy Costs mean externalities matter
080121: SMC highlights PV, LED, and packaging materials
Ed’s Threads Musings by Ed Korczynski on January 21, 2008[Happy Birthday, Martin Luther King, Jr.!]
SMC highlights PV, LED, and packaging materials
Last week saw hundreds of microelectronics industry executives gather at ISS and SMC. The conventional forecasts for semiconductor manufacturing equipment and materials have been covered by previous WaferNEWS stories. SMC showed truly amazing perspective on new electronic materials markets of gigantic scales like photo-voltaics, high-efficiency lighting, and advanced 3D and WLP packages.
Solar is hotter than the sun these days, and Craig Hunter of Applied Materials provided a great overview of the whole market and his company’s leading position in offering turn-key fabs. The photo shows an Applied Materials’ SunFab PECVD 5.7 and those really are full size people standing next to a multi-chamber deposition system for PV on huge glass panels.
The global market in 2007 for PV panels was reportedly 4.8 GW, up ~50% from 2006. The current approximate cost to install a rooftop solar PV system is US$0.25-0.30/kWhr (absent incentives). However, nearly all PV manufacturers show near-term roadmaps to cut PV fab costs in half, and there are additional innovations possible in installation of modules, so it seems likely that price could drop to US$0.10-0.12/kWhr for large scale installations without any incentives. With demand forecasted to be extremely elastic to price, and with total global energy use growing at 2%/year on the scale of TeraWatts, PV will likely remain <1%> The future of mega-fabs for PV panels includes integrated supply-chain campuses like the classic old Ford Rouge Plant in the 1920s. The thin-film PV fab of the future will be more efficient when if has a dedicated float glass plant for the substrate, a line for the thin-film encapsulant formation, and even packaging of the junction-boxes for the final modules. Each of these may be owned by a different company, but for economies of scale and manufacturing efficiency they’ll be adjacent to each other. Process gases such as hydrogen, silane, etc. account for ~17% of final panel costs, so long-considered innovations such as silane reclamation make be used in manufacturing In general it seems that the main scientific breakthroughs in PV have been made, and now the best engineers will win the race to fab profits. “People ask me all the time where I would locate a PV fab if I had to chose,” opined Hunter. “I think there’s a big opportunity for someone to put a factory in New Mexico, Arizona, or Texas.” George Craford, CTO of Philips Lumileds Lighting Company, discussed the immanent “Revolution in lighting, high power LED technology.” As a demonstration, Buckingham Palace has been externally lit by LEDs at a cost of US$0.45/hr. The theoretical light output limit for an LED is 300 lumens/Watt, but the best in production is ~100 lumens/W, with 150 lumens/W on a roadmap. The plan is for high-power LEDs to be 1-3 per replacement bulb.
From the 1960s through the 1990s the LED brightness evolved at a fairly constant rate, though this was based on driving the same size chips with the same power. Starting ~10 years ago, the industry began to work with new packages to allow driving higher current-densities and resulting higher outputs for applications include automotive, flashlights, and projectors.
Why aren’t white LEDs everywhere? Quite simply the cost has been too high. For the same 1000 lumens output (60-100W incandescent bulb equivalent) the indandescent bulb costs $0.40, fluorescent tube $0.60, compact fluorescent $2, and white LED $10. Lumileds researchers seem confident that they can improve the basic Internal Quantum Efficiency (IQE) from ~45% today to ~90% tomorrow, and with higher drive current (700 mA to 2A) and lower chip and packaging costs the cost could be ~$1.
The energy savings with LEDs is truly impressive: 1000 lumens Input Power Energy cost/yr COO for 5 yrs
Incandescent 60W $48 $240
Fluorescent 20W $18 $90
Comp.Fluor. 14W $13 $85
White LED 6W $5 $26
Control of manufacturing is a concern since the variation in blue wavelength crossed with the yellow phosphor materials distribution creates variation in the color of white. The human eye is sensitive to subtle color variations and tight matching is needed for LEDs in the same room. Off-grid applications can be valuable using a single LED with a solar array or a bicycle generator…for example Light Up The World foundation has been installing LEDs around the world to allow children to be able to study schoolwork at night. China estimates that by changing to LED lighting it will save them as much electricity as the maximum planned output of the Three Gorges Dam. “They are going to dominate conventional illumination, it’s only a matter of time,” said Craford.
Packaging technology for ICs continues a steady evolution, with few examples more telling than the wirebonder. Wirebonders have periodically been considered as limited, but they evolve and now can go to 5 or even 8 levels of silicon useing new materials for dielectrics and interposers. FlipChip—which has been used almost exclusively for MCUs—is finally moving into the mainstream in combination with wirebonding and leadframes to allow for many efficient high-volume packages.. But SIP and SOC will continue to coexist in many possible variations using flipchip and wirebonding. PoP approaches also remain competitive, with variations using thinned silicon, recessed-cavities, and fan-in routing.
—E.K. Labels: electronic, LED, materials research, packaging, photovoltaic, PV, solar
posted by [email protected]
080121: SMC highlights PV, LED, and packaging materials
070420: Solar cheerleading for fun and profit
Ed’s Threads 070420 Musings by Ed Korczynski on April 20, 2007Solar cheerleading for fun and profit
Mike Splinter, president and CEO of Applied Materials (AMAT), is a great solar cheerleader, and he rightly urges us to consider the energy future for our children and grandchildren. In a recent presentation organized by the Commonwealth Club in Silicon Valley, he stumped for US government tax incentives for solar energy investments, and proposed that 25% of new government demand for electricity should be met by renewable sources such as photovoltaic (PV) panels. Splinter is not merely a visionary altruist in these matters, since thin-film PV represents the next major growth opportunity for his company. As the IC manufacturing industry has matured, AMAT’s previous 20% annual growth has slowed to ~10% and new high-growth markets are needed to increase growth forecasts back to historic “outperform” levels. AMAT has made significant investments over the last decade to acquire companies with technologies that support general manufacturing: metrology, gas-effluent abatement, and computer-integrated manufacturing (CIM) software and manufacturing execution systems (MES) for managing lots of substrates and shuttling lithographic reticles around. In addition, AMAT built the “Mayden Technology Center” as a showcase for selling special integrated process recipes in addition to the free general recipes included with all new hardware. Semiconductor manufacturing fabs want to control their own technologies and supply chains, so they’ve paid for processes from other fabs but almost never from an equipment supplier. Solar cell manufacturing lines require relatively less technology but more classic industrial engineering, and buying an integrated and committed process along with a turn-key physical production line makes a lot of sense. In addition to general thin-films manufacturing technology, AMAT has deep experience with handling the largest FPD substrates in the world through its subsidiary Applied-Komatsu Technology (AKT). “The latest generation of our tools can pattern six 50” TVs on a glass substrate,” almost the size of a garage door, Splinter told the Commonwealth Club audience. “With innovation we can provide an inflection point for solar energy, to make solar competitive with all other sources of electricity generation,” he championed, and suggested that his company’s technologies may lead to 2x-4x cost-reductions in thin-film PV manufacturing. Solar sources currently provide <0.1% of the 5 TeraWatts of energy used globally each year. A trillion US$ will be spent on new electricity generation capacity worldwide in 2007, and an average 1GW-capacity coal plant emits as much CO2 as 1 million cars. Today in the US, all renewable energy is only 2% of the total. “The planet’s clock is ticking, and I hope that that ticking is the heartbeat of the planet and not something much worse,” said Splinter. AMAT is working to set up solar panel fabs for customers in China, India, and Spain, which together represent 20% of the world’s new PV manufacturing capacity. In 2006, the solar manufacturing industry added 2GW capacity to bring the world up to 8GW total; by 2010, a $50B forecast annual investment should build total manufacturing capacity to 25GW. If just 5% of the new demand forecast for electricity worldwide would be met by solar, it would require a total $150B investment. All forecasts for future PV demand are “insatiable” for both the near- and long-term. If you're looking to invest a billion dollars somewhere, a turn-key thin-film PV manufacturing line from AMAT seems like it would provide a solid return on investment (ROI). Specific public policy changes to help solar investment include extending the home income-tax credit, establishing a net metering law at the federal level, and mandating that 25% of electricity consumption by governments should be from renewable sources. “America is behind the rest of the world in solar energy adoption, and that’s just not acceptable. What are we waiting for?” asked Splinter, “I think you’ll agree that we have to stop making excuses.” — E.K. Labels: electricity, energy, manufacturing, photovoltaic, PV, solar, thin-film
posted by [email protected]
070420: Solar cheerleading for fun and profit
|
|
Ed's Threads is the weekly web-log of SST Sr. Technical Editor Ed Korczynski's musings on the topics of semiconductor manufacturing technology and business. Ed received a degree in materials science and engineering from MIT in 1984, and after process development and integration work in fabs, he held applications, marketing, and business development roles at OEMs. Ed won editorial awards from ASBPE, including interviews with Gordon Moore and Jim Morgan, and is not lacking for opinions.
|
