Method for $1/Watt Solar Panels Will Soon See Commercial Use

An anonymous reader writes "A method developed at Colorado State University for crafting solar panels has been developed to the point where they are nearly ready for mass production. Professor W.S. Sampath's technique has resulted in a low-cost, high-efficiency process for creating the panels, which will soon be fabricated by a commercial interest. 'Produced at less than $1 per watt, the panels will dramatically reduce the cost of generating solar electricity and could power homes and businesses around the globe with clean energy for roughly the same cost as traditionally generated electricity. Sampath has developed a continuous, automated manufacturing process for solar panels using glass coating with a cadmium telluride thin film instead of the standard high-cost crystalline silicon. Because the process produces high efficiency devices (ranging from 11% to 13%) at a very high rate and yield, it can be done much more cheaply than with existing technologies.'"

Fuck this liberal environmentalist whining...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's be like China and make electricity the man's way - with coal! And let's go back to burning leaded gasoline so we don't have to fuck with this unleaded crap that limits engine compression. Also, catalytic converters suck. I always take mine off after inspection or go to shops that don't care. Also, we need to get rid of welfare and we need George W. Bush for another eight years! And fuck solar cells. Solar cells can't even power calculators properly.

Anonymous Coward Sig 2.0:
--
Write in George W. Bush in 2008!

Re:cadmium telluride thin film on glass...

[damn_registrars]

A 2003 study on French dietary intake showed an average intake of 3.6 micrograms cadmium per day. Multiply that by the us population of around 300 million, and the US population should be able to safely consume at least 9 grams of cadmium per day. Multiply that by 365 days a year, and we (as a nation) should be able to ingest at least 3.2 kilograms over the course of the year.

Therefore, the solution to the cadium waste is obvious. Put it in the water. After all, dilution is the solution to pollution.

Re:13% is considered "high efficiency" now?

[number11]

It doesn't matter if the panels are $0.01/watt if I still need the entire neighborhood covered in them to run the coffee maker

Perhaps making heat is not the best way to use electricity? I have a gas-powered coffee maker, myself.

Re:Fuck this liberal environmentalist whining...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh.

not for my flux capacitor

[devilradish]

1.21 Gigawatts at $1 a watt, no thank you I'm sticking to lightning.

Re:cost benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if exposure to the sun is going to cause them to deteriorate and turn brown, you should probably try to install them in a shady location to prolong their life.

Depending on the investment in the solar panels, I might even consider setting up some sort of permanent awning to protect them from the sun at all times - protecting my investment as it were.

Re:cost benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

But an awning can only offer so much protection ... really the only surefire way to protect your solar panels from sunlight-induced degradation is to install them in some kind of underground environment where they are completely isolated from the environments.

Re:cost benefit analysis

[MrNaz]

You guys are amateurs. I have installed my solar panels in an underground cave with a sealed access point along with my wind turbines. My solar panels never deteriorate due to solar degradation and my turbines never suffer the terrible wear and tear that is caused by constant motion. I figure that they should last 10x as long as an irresponsibly deployed solar/turbine array, which means I'll get 10x the return on my investment!

Re:cadmium telluride thin film on glass...

[damn_registrars]

I think you have just invented a homoeopathic treatment for Cadmium poisoning.

Treatment? Would you be referring therefore to the dilution, or turning people into solar panels?

Re:cost benefit analysis

[irtza]

wow, I was reading this thread and was utterly shocked at how people could get things so backwards. solar panels were meant to be used - degradation is inevitable. There is no need to protect them from the environment; you need to expose them to more environment. With only 11% efficiency you need as much light energy as possible to capture. That is why I poor kerosene on mine and light them ablaze. With all that direct light from the fire, I get unbelievable amounts of power before the unit dies.

Re:cost benefit analysis

[Afecks]

ya but for how long do they last

Re:cost benefit analysis

[Spy der Mann]

I agree. A few obvious questions: what is the actual performance deterioration curve, what is the efficiency after 5-10 kerosene burns and what are the disposal requirements (it has the dirty "C" word in so do not expect them to be accepted at the tip).

Re:cost benefit analysis

[zolaar]

No, no, no!

Gasoline burns much longer and emits more photons per second than kerosene ever could believe. It begins to approach 70% efficiency, no joke! Plus, if you keep pouring more gasoline onto the surface, the fire never runs out of fuel -- if you rigged a automatic pouring mechanism, it could theoretically last for hours, perhaps even days.

Take that, BigPetrol! We're finally on our way towards an oil-free world, everybody! Huzzah!

Re:Back of the envelope

[fireforadrymouth]

I did not make up those numbers. read the 2030 report from the department of energy.

Is that you, John [wikipedia.org]?

Re:13% is considered "high efficiency" now?

[Hal_Porter]

People with lots of stocks will be allowed into a dome with an artificial air supply.