Silicon Valley Startup Prints $1/watt Solar Panels 519
GWBasic writes "A Silicon Valley start-up called Nanosolar has shipped its first solar panels — priced at $1 a watt. That's the price at which solar energy gets cheaper than coal. While other companies have been focusing their efforts on increasing the efficiency of solar panels, Nanosolar took a different approach. It focused on manufacturing. 'The company [has developed] a process to print solar cells made out of CIGS, or copper indium gallium selenide, a combination of elements that many companies are pursuing as an alternative to silicon.'" The outfit also happens to be backed by Google, a fact that's getting some attention at tech media sites.
Inaccurate summary (Score:4, Informative)
Nowhere in the article does it mention the price of the first run of panels. I'd imagine they are much more expensive than $1/watt.
Re:How practical (Score:5, Informative)
They are printed on aluminum instead of glass so yes, they are flexible.
Re:Seems good. (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody can "put their money where their mouth is" and "snatch these up", because all of their capacity is currently being eaten up by a 1MW german PV installation. And, one correction to the article: they're not being sold for $0.99. The company has stated that they can turn a profit on them selling them at $0.99. But as long as there's a glut of demand and shortage of cells, it seems unlikely that they'll hit that price. What it *does* mean is that Nanosolar never has to worry about money again. Venture capitalists will be throwing money at them if only Nanosolar lets them. They'll have no problem scaling up production; we just need to be patient.
Re:$1? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:DOH! (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, most designs would require a much smaller up-front investment, because you'll run off the grid when you are using the dryer/stove/ironing/AC, but take advantage of cheaper power for the base load (lights, computer, fridge).
Re:DOH! (Score:5, Informative)
Additionally, they're not actually $1/watt. That's the theoretical cost if they are able to ramp up production as planned. If you had $1 for every startup that failed in that phase, you wouldn't care how much your solar panels cost.
Re:Cost per watt is based on what time frame? (Score:4, Informative)
Watt is a unit of power, not energy. So its watts (presumably, in some specified lighting conditions), not "watt/hour".
Assuming it was average output per 6 hours of usable time a day (which its probably not, its more likely the peak at the best conditions), and presuming also that surface area limits are not an issue (which they may well be), and that $1/watt was the current cost, rather than an estimate of what the technology would eventually provide, yes, $1000 would get you panels that would produce ~$180 kW-h (not kW/h) per month.
Some calculations (Score:5, Informative)
(Up front, I apologize to all the yanks for being an insensitive clod that doesn't use imperial measurements).
Earth's surface is absorbing ~90 petawatts of electricity any give time (Wikipedia), and with 510 million square kilometers of surface area, an incredibly rough generalized calculation says that each square meter absorbs 175 watts (this is a 24-hour average, even though obviously it's all absorbed during daytime). Of course, not all or even most of it can be converted to electricity, but still, that's a huge resource tap. I'd estimate an average home to have a roof surface area of about 50 square meters, which means that on average the sun sends 8kW on your roof. Next, the average American household uses 8900 kWh/year, which produces, again, an average usage of about 1 kilowatt per household. If you tile your entire roof with solar panels, you'd need to be able to convert 12% of heat/light energy to electricity in order to be fully self-sufficient.
An extra bonus is that the more you absorb the sun's energy as electricity, the less of it is converted to heat which dissipates around the planet, and that in and of itself reduces the effect global warming. So you are being twice as productive - not rely on heat-trapping coal, and reduce the amount of heat that saturates on the planet in the first place.
Of course, this would have to be done on a truly massive scale to have any effect, but every bit helps, and if the industry can make it profitable to the consumer (and of course overcome the interests of evil megalomaniac neofascistliberal Big Oil corporations, as any
Re:DOH! (Score:3, Informative)
We have lots of people here in South Park (no, not a joke) that run solar; but none run solar exclusively (that's impossible). In order to do things like laundry or the dishes, most of them have to fire up the generator. And, during the winter, peak solar hours are shorter, and weaker, so the batteries start to sulfate from over-discharge if you don't keep them topped off -- more generator time. During some months we have a regular parade of people bringing their generators in to town for service.
Also understand that this special class of individualist burns wood for heat, and owns no air conditioner. The solar powers the well and the freezer, and not much else. Most of the power they use is delivered in the form of wood and propane.
Corrections (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yahoo! (Score:5, Informative)
For one, I can't picture production capacity catching up with demand enough to lower prices to that level for at least a decade, and even that would take a trenemdous expansion rate. There's no way Nanosolar is going to *sell* at $0.99/W when the current market price if $5.80/W and they don't have enough production capacity to meet supply. They stated that they can *turn a profit* selling at $0.99/W. They'll sell for $5.70/W, $5.60/W, or whatnot -- whatever's the most they can charge and move all their capacity. They're not idiots. They're going to earn every last dollar they can, and pump it into new production facilities. Only as the market becomes saturated will prices drop.
Secondly, global warming is going to happen even if all killed ourselves today. There's too much inertia behind the problem. What we effect today is what things are going to be like in 2050, 2100, not the next decade or two.
Third, this doesn't address vehicles. Still have to take care of that gorilla in the corner. It also doesn't address industry CO2 pollution unrelated to power demand, such as steel production. Still, it's a great start.
Fourth, you don't need to cover a big expanse of desert at all. There's more than enough rooftop space in the world to meet demand. Example: China has 32521 square kilometers [peopledaily.com.cn] of urban area. Assuming 11% efficiency on these cells and 25% of that urban area being able to be coated in cells, and assuming an average insolation of 200W/m^2, we get a total power production of about 180 terrawatts. Current *world* demand is only 10 terrawatts. See where I'm going with this?
Fifth, ultracapacitors are too expensive for power storage currently. We're still going to need baseload power production until a cheaper method of storing power can be found. One concept that I find interesting relates to electric cars. To charge a car quickly in your garage, you're going to need a home charging unit. Your house just can't deliver power nearly fast enough for a five to ten minute charge. The idea I read is to use those for power balancing: have them charge themselves when there's a glut of electricity and discharge into the grid when there's a shortage. In exchange, utilities would give consumers a significant discount on their power bill.
Re:Consumer offerings? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Watts per meter of earth (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's in your stocking? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Consumer offerings? (Score:5, Informative)
1 kWh = 3.61 x 10^6 J
$0.07/kWh = 14.3 kWh/$ = 51.6 x 10^6 J/$
solar panel = $1/W = $1/(J/s)
3600 s/h, 24 h/d, 365 d/year --> 31.5 x 10^6 s
51.6 x 10^6 (J/$) / 31.5 x 10^6 (J/year/$) --> 1.64 years (producing at full capacity) makes it cheaper than coal. Even if you only run at 25% capacity on average, taking into account varying daily solar intensity, the investment pays for itself in 6.5 years.
Of course, your other points are valid; burning coal is bad, at least using the current technology. And that $1/W number is still theoretical, so if they're selling at $4/W, then it would take 26 years to be as cost-effective as coal (given constant energy costs; but that time would be much shorter if we have an energy crunch and prices spike--or another Enron-style price-gouging scam, for that matter).
Re:Units Please! What's the cost per watt hour (Score:3, Informative)
That's actually incorrect. The average till a couple of years ago used to be 1:4, that is, the total production energy was about 1/4 of the energy the panels would generate in their lifetime.
But I guess mods can't be bothered to check facts.
Re:Yahoo! (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, what you said is completely untrue [realclimate.org], but hey, who cares? Like most anti-global warming arguments, they sound good to someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject.
Re:Units Please! What's the cost per watt hour (Score:3, Informative)
However, that is no longer the case. I quote Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Solar_cells_and_energy_payback [wikipedia.org]
So, if you take a solar cell and stick it into an underground cave, it probably won't be producing more energy than it took to manufacture. But for typical uses a solar cell will be a net energy producer.
steveha
Re:Consumer offerings? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Indium (Score:3, Informative)
This according to New Scientist which is quoted in the Wikipedia Article [wikipedia.org] on Indium.
Re:Some calculations (Score:3, Informative)
Allow me to teach you about the laws of thermodynamics.
You may be converting the sunlight into electricity instead of heat directly, but unfortunately when that electricity is used, it eventually will become heat.
It doesn't matter what you use the power for. Run a fan? The moving air will eventually slow down via friction and turn into heat. Run a light bulb? The light is eventually absorbed by surfaces which warm up, becoming heat. Run a computer? Every single watt you put in becomes heat.
This is the way life is, and there's no way around it.
Re:Consumer offerings? (Score:5, Informative)
The reported wattage of a panel is typically the amount of power it will produce when given 1000W/m^2 of sunlight and with the panel maintaining a constant temperature of 25C. 1000W/m^2 is basically your best-case situation here on the surface -- bright, crystal-clear sky on a summer day with the panel facing straight at the sun. Overall, the panel will average produce far less than its rating, but the exact amount is very complex to determine and depends on where you are and what your setup is like, so panels are rated in standard terms. Beyond that, there's also the "derate factor", which is the losses in your system apart from the panels -- wiring, terminals, etc, but most importantly, the losses in your inverter. 0.77 is a good derate factor. The derate factor drops with age. Panels also produce less power with age, but this effect is often overemphasized.
Secondly, you're confusing watts and watt hours. Watts are a unit of power, while watt hours are a unit of energy (a Joule, another common unit of energy, is a watt second). If your panel is producing 1W, then it's producing 1 Wh every hour -- i.e., 8.8 kWh/year. But if it's simply a panel that's rated for 1W, and isn't on a heliostat, you'll probably get something like 0.5 to 1.5kWh/year, depending on where you are.
Re:Why the govt is helping more (Score:3, Informative)
In a way, this is come full-circle hasn't it?
People in california getting government subsidies to buy solar systems that aren't really economical, and the subsidies were based on property tax rates that were based on inflated property values, driven by speculators with bad loans--that were not really economical either.
~
Re:Consumer offerings? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yahoo! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:DOH! (Score:3, Informative)
$3500 syncing inverter + $2000.00 of PV array at those prices = a significant savings and almost ZERO maintaince costs or time. Washing them off twice a year with a hose is plenty. and my array never had to have the snow removed. what idiot leaves the PV array tilted that high in winter?
Re:Consumer offerings? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hopefully this will just be the start... (Score:3, Informative)
If that's your goal then you can pretty much scratch solar off you list. One of the first things people learn when they start to look into solar is that it's much cheaper to reduce your consumption (effecient appliances, better insulation, reduction in phantom loads, cfls etc.) and then buy a smallar solar system then it is to try to buy a system that will meet their current usage. If you don't like doing laundry on weekends when power is cheaper you're really going to hate coming home to do laundry during lunch because that's when the sun is the strongest or putting it off a day or two because it's cloudy. At least weekends are 100% predictable.
Re:Hopefully this will just be the start... (Score:5, Informative)
Not [realclimate.org] really [realclimate.org].
the same alarmists who were warning that everyone would soon burn up because of the ozone hole (which is now smaller, but the hole has always been there) in the 80s
Not [realclimate.org] really [realclimate.org].
But, hey:
Don't try to educate me on the science
Finding the sand comfortable around your head, eh?
Re:How practical or...rather is it some scam? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Consumer offerings? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yahoo! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hopefully this will just be the start... (Score:2, Informative)
You're obviously in the majority here as I get modded flamebait and you're modded informative which is group think for others agree with you and disagree with me. Again, not bothered by this. Neither is science and fortunately it never will be.
Also, your link proves my point. It supports what I'm saying. Why did you link with "Not Really"? Why do you say my head is in the sand?
Let me get this straight. You link to something that supports my points, then you imply that what I say is not true which is not what your links indicate, and then you also think I've got my head in the sand? Only on Slashdot. You get modded up for implying you disagree with me, but you don't. I get modded down because I'm in your face about it.
This is a fun place
Re:Consumer offerings? (Score:4, Informative)
Generation does lose a lot from any heat engine (which is currently a required step for anything that generates electricity by making something hot: coal, oil, nuclear, geothermal, biomass, and natural gas). Wikipedia's combined cycle gas turbine article [wikipedia.org] lists 59% efficiency as state of the art. The theoretical limit is not 100% efficiency - it is the Carnot Limit defined by the ratio of the high and low temperatures (natural gas burns at 1600K, the coldest you'll get the exhaust is 400K, so your absolute max is 75% efficiency).
Mechanical-electrical conversion (hydro, wind) is much more efficient. Electric generators are basically motors, and the large ones are commonly 95% efficient. The Francis turbines in use at hydro plants are upwards of 80% efficient at converting water pressure to rotor power. I don't know what the numbers are like for the wind turbines - probably much worse, since the goal isn't to make the turbine blades stop the air entirely.
Photovoltaic solar generation is the worst of them all. The most expensive cells that they put on space satellites are just over 40% efficient. The more cost-practical silicon-based cells are more like 12% efficient. As a result, a new development in large-scale solar is using a bunch of mirrors to focus the light into heat which can then spin a turbine (which may be 35-40% efficient).