Through the Department of Energy (DOE) the Biden Administration has announced a commitment of $56 million to spur domestic manufacturing and recycling of solar modules, with DOE announcing another $18 million to be directed toward overcoming challenges to commercialization for department-backed technologies.
According to DOE, the manufacturing and recycling funding is split between two initiatives: the FY22 Photovoltaics (PV) Research and Development funding opportunity and the FY22 Solar Manufacturing Incubator funding opportunity.
The Research and Development funding opportunity will make available $29 million to support projects that increase the reuse and recycling of solar technologies, develop PV module designs that reduce manufacturing costs, and advance the manufacturing of PV cells made from perovskites. $10 million of the project’s total financing will come from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, with these funds to be directed toward the recycling aspect of the program.
The remaining $26 million in funding will go toward the Manufacturing Incubator and will support projects aimed at commercializing new technologies that can expand private investment in US solar manufacturing. While any projects that ready new technologies and manufacturing processes for commercialization, DOE places a specific focus on boosting thin-film module manufacturing made from cadmium telluride.
“This administration wants to seize US leadership in solar energy, from manufacturing to recycling, and that means making the right investments to ensure these technologies are made right here at home,” said US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm. “Thanks to President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, DOE is able to invest in our nation’s innovators so they can improve manufacturing and strengthen the domestic solar supply chain—lowering energy bills for Americans and businesses and driving toward an equitable clean energy future.”
Both of these funding avenues take a heavy focus on the commercialization of technology breakthroughs, a considerable hurdle when bringing innovation out of the lab. In additional support of this critical step in product development, DOE is investing $18 million in funding through the Technology Commercialization Fund for seven proposed National Laboratory projects focused on easing commercialization.
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: email@example.com.
DOE better start rethinking our future needs for high capacity factor nuclear energy powered electric generation including fuel reprocessing that Carter terminated in the 1970s along with development of safe breeder reactors that make more fuel than they consume. India is doing that NOW! And Russia has two in operation.
Solar is nuclear when you take time to think about where it comes from just 8-minutes at the speed of light and 93-million miles from our fusion reactor The SUN. It shines 24/7 until earth gets in its own way each for most of each day for everyone, lowering average solar capacity factor to just 24.5% on average, vs nuclear’s 93.5%.
Adverse weather for days or weeks or volcanic events can make things far worse, draining battery capacity until fossil fuel plants get reopenened in such emergencies, and that’s not gonna be fast once many are shut down as Germany just realized.
And “s___” hits the fan…or windmills when you least expect it.
So having ample nuclear power that’s the most carbon free energy source long term makes the best sense in my opinion.
Solar is great, but nuclear is even better! And half of earth’s heat (climate temps be damned) comes from decay of nuclear materials in earth’s mantle and crust, like it or not. Materials with finite half lives that something will have to make up for eventually…before mankind is long gone…or maybe not
Yes, Solar has it’s draw backs but Nuclear is 10 times more expensive to build and 4 times more expensive to maintain than a Tracking single axis array with motors and periodic cleaning. Add batteries for storage then the Nuclear is only 8 times more expensive than solar to build, and 3 times more expensive to maintain with replacement batteries rather than replacement fuel rods, but the batteries make the system 92% effective on totally safe solar energy. I personally believe that both are needed going forward to reduce CO2 emissions and help curb climate change. The only thing about solar, I could build an-off grid solar system with batteries in my back yard in 3 months. I could not do that with nuclear.
By submitting this form you agree to pv magazine using your data for the purposes of publishing your comment.
Your personal data will only be disclosed or otherwise transmitted to third parties for the purposes of spam filtering or if this is necessary for technical maintenance of the website. Any other transfer to third parties will not take place unless this is justified on the basis of applicable data protection regulations or if pv magazine is legally obliged to do so.
You may revoke this consent at any time with effect for the future, in which case your personal data will be deleted immediately. Otherwise, your data will be deleted if pv magazine has processed your request or the purpose of data storage is fulfilled.
Further information on data privacy can be found in our Data Protection Policy.