Talk:Cadmium telluride photovoltaics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Energy (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


  • Moved from Cadmium telluride photovoltaics to Cadmium telluride solar cell, as most of the article is about progress in the technology and a number of photovoltaic articles are tagged for merging, i think it fits better in the solar cell section.
  • Removed duplicate text with history and list of photovoltaic installations.
  • Wikify/layout
  • What links here-done
  • Trimming, First Solar count from 30 to current 12, (goal is 1) in progress

Some issues left for next week, Mion (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


  • This article is improperly titled. Cadmium telluride, as with other thin-films, is not produced in cells. It is produced in long ovens that lays down a thin layers of semiconductor on panes of glass, hence, photovoltaics.SolarUSA (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Opposed the title Cadmium telluride solar cell was correct, a photovoltaic module is composed of individual solar cells, this article contains a section about the Cdte cell efficiency, everything mentioned about photovoltaics can be merged into photovoltaics, photovoltaic module or photovoltaic array. Mion (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
And yes, Cadmium telluride photovoltaics is used in the NREL link, but :Cadmium telluride solar cell is also used in the scientific world [1].

It is important to make the distinction between cells and modules. Thin films are made as large area films and then separated into cells afterward, then interconnected to make modules. Crystalline silicon is made as distinct smaller area devices called cells. Making large area films is one of the main characteristics of thin film PV. Calling them cells is anachronistic, hearkening back to crystalline silicon. Further, cells denotes small area devices in thin films, not products. Cells are made as experimental verification of innovations (which is why cell efficiencies are quoted in the text), then scaled up to large area films, which become products - PV modules. Modules are always less efficient than cells, and typical commercial modules are less efficient than one-of-a-kind modules - these are important distinctions, because otherwise less knowledgeable people will attribute too much success to one-of-a-kind results instead of commercial products (modules). Delbmarcs (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The above comment seems to support the title of cadmium telluride photovoltaics. I hope that we can settle on this as the article title because the article discusses the history and economics of the technology, not just on the science of CdTe. SolarUSA (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really, "and then separated into cells afterward", that you build a module with these cells is logical, however, the article itself lacks a proper section explaining this, could you ..... ? Mion (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The separation of thin films into cells occurs either on a single large substrate (like glass) or it involves cutting them apart and reconnecting them. A very small percentage of thin films use the latter (e.g., UniSolar on stainless steel). The use of the term Photovoltaics includes the research done on cells and the economic implications of products, i.e., modules. It would be just as narrow to call the article "CdTe Modules" as to call it "CdTe Solar Cells." The entire spectrum of solar cell articles should be integrated under the term photovoltaics, not cells. Delbmarcs (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is also ongoing, see Talk:Solar_cell#Merger_discussion and Talk:Photovoltaic_module#Merge_discussion. Mion (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic Order[edit]

  • Was there any reason to move the Issues section above the history? It seems logical that one would come to the article to learn about the subject and after gaining an understanding of the subject, learn about unresolved issues. (This seems to be the standard in other Wikipedia articles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SolarUSA (talkcontribs) 13:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a WP:Manual of style, and i think it would say, history section after the lead, but this history section looks like advertising, so to prevent WP:AFD on first sight, i moved it down a little, but feel free to move it up again. Cheers Mion (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think the Manual supports "History" before "Issues" "If the order in which sections should appear is unclear, use alphabetical or chronological order."

I would like to introduce a new topic, "Market Viability," in order to have a unique section where the economics of CdTe can be discussed. Thoughts? SolarUSA (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes good idea, please move it from the intro into a section, and please include a comparision with CIGS [2]

Of course, little comparison can be made with CIS alloys given the sparsity of their manufactured modules and the preliminary nature of the economic data. In fact, it would be unfair to CIS since until some level of production is reached - for First Solar it was 100 MW per year - economies of scale are rudimentary. It is a peculiar fact that except for First Solar, few or no other PV module makers actually release their cost per watt. This is a hardship when it comes to making a societal-level evaluation of e.g., research or incentive priorities.Delbmarcs (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Solar tracking section[edit]

Solar tracking is not an issue but an option. And maybe Process optimization is not an issue as well. Cheers Mion (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is the tradeoff between cost and output, and that below some level - 10%? 12%?? - modules are not efficient enough to allow for tracking. But they may still provide the lowest cost cents/kWh from a nontracking system. They just won't have a flat plateau around noontime for output. In many cases, "issues" are also opportunities, and in this case, it is certainly ambiguous - and perhaps not worth splitting a hair about. The article would be neater if this 2 sentence paragraph was placed within "other issues" or even removed.Delbmarcs (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Negative Statements atop Article[edit]

Mion - can you remove the various negative banners throughout the article? I don't believe they are accurate. Some effort has been made to respond the more germane ones, and the rest are open to discussion and different view points.Delbmarcs (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes i could, but as an involved editor somebody else should do it who is not involved, and in its current state I would list it on WP:AFD myself, it needs a bit more rewriting. Cheers Mion (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Best approach first is to address the named issues in the banner and then ask the user who placed them to remove them, in this case User:RHaworth. Mion (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Mion - bear in mind, Wikipedia has no adequate article on CdTe PV, which (1) has gone from negligible market presence to about 10% in 3 years; (2) is now the lowest cost solar in two large segments of the market (ground and flat roof mounted systems over 30 kW); and (3) is the first technology in thirty years to seriously challenge the dominance of traditional wafer-based silicon modules. As a key, disruptive technology, knowledge about it is in very short supply (witness even its absence on Wikipedia), but is much needed. This is not a new "celebrity sports figure" article but an essential part of the new energy and environmental landscape.Delbmarcs (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

RHayworth - could you tell us how we can qualify for removing the pejorative banners within the article. Just FYI - the authors are not employees of First Solar. First Solar dominates CdTe - there is only one other producing company (Antec) and about 1/20th their annual production, and no one else. Is it perhaps the perception that this is their article driving your concern? It is not.Delbmarcs (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


"Notable systems
Recent installations of large CdTe PV systems confirm its competitiveness"

Forgive me but all 3 figures given plainly demonstrate its uncompetitiveness. $4.2 per watt and $3.5 per watt are much more than an order of magnitude higher than more popular power generation options. "12 ¢/kWh power purchase agreement" may sound nice if you comparre it to retail price, but in reality thats a wholesale price, which again is well above all the usual power gen options.

This section need clarifying. Prices might or might not compare well to silicon cells, but the figures still don't come anywhere near making the technology competitive. (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the intent was to talk about competitiveness with other forms of solar energy. But on the separate topic of competitiveness with conventional energy, I wonder where your "order of magnitude" number comes from. Indeed, going rates for new natural gas peakers are 12 c/kWh wholesale; and for new coal, it's about 9 c/kWh wholesale. Where's the order of magnitude? However, solar is not as competitive if it is made outside the US Southwest, since it is inversely proportional with sunlight, and sunlight is best in the Southwest. So CdTe is not quite at "grid parity" in that sense. I will correct the statements.Delbmarcs (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Link to french article[edit]


I've never edited a wiki article and I can't find how to edit the links to different languages. So here is the link to the french one : If somebody is kind enough...

Have a good day (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)