Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Solar @ 30 cents/watt

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Solar @ 30 cents/watt

    30 cents per watt?

    Material: Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide

    Funding is over $100,000,000 USD including Benchmark Capital (a huge venture capital firm), Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google.

    It won PopSci's "Innovation of the Year" award.

    Popular Science article....



    Nanosolar Powersheet

    The New Dawn of Solar


    Imagine a solar panel without the panel. Just a coating, thin as a layer of paint, that takes light and converts it to electricity. From there, you can picture roof shingles with solar cells built inside and window coatings that seem to suck power from the air. Consider solar-powered buildings stretching not just across sunny Southern California, but through China and India and Kenya as well, because even in those countries, going solar will be cheaper than burning coal. That’s the promise of thin-film solar cells: solar power that’s ubiquitous because it’s cheap. The basic technology has been around for decades, but this year, Silicon Valley–based Nanosolar created the manufacturing technology that could make that promise a reality.

    The company produces its PowerSheet solar cells with printing-press-style machines that set down a layer of solar-absorbing nano-ink onto metal sheets as thin as aluminum foil, so the panels can be made for about a tenth of what current panels cost and at a rate of several hundred feet per minute. With backing from Google’s founders and $20 million from the U.S. Department of Energy, Nanosolar’s first commercial cells rolled off the presses this year.

    Cost has always been one of solar’s biggest problems. Traditional solar cells require silicon, and silicon is an expensive commodity (exacerbated currently by a global silicon shortage). What’s more, says Peter Harrop, chairman of electronics consulting firm IDTechEx, “it has to be put on glass, so it’s heavy, dangerous, expensive to ship and expensive to install because it has to be mounted.” And up to 70 percent of the silicon gets wasted in the manufacturing process. That means even the cheapest solar panels cost about $3 per watt of energy they go on to produce. To compete with coal, that figure has to shrink to just $1 per watt.

    Nanosolar’s cells use no silicon, and the company’s manufacturing process allows it to create cells that are as efficient as most commercial cells for as little as 30 cents a watt. “You’re talking about printing rolls of the stuff—printing it on the roofs of 18-wheeler trailers, printing it on garages, printing it wherever you want it,” says Dan Kammen, founding director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California at Berkeley. “It really is quite a big deal in terms of altering the way we think about solar and in inherently altering the economics of solar.”


    In San Jose, Nanosolar has built what will soon be the world’s largest solar-panel manufacturing facility. CEO Martin Roscheisen claims that once full production starts early next year, it will create 430 megawatts’ worth of solar cells a year—more than the combined total of every other solar plant in the U.S. The first 100,000 cells will be shipped to Europe, where a consortium will be building a 1.4-megawatt power plant next year.

    Right now, the biggest question for Nanosolar is not if its products can work, but rather if it can make enough of them. California, for instance, recently launched the Million Solar Roofs initiative, which will provide tax breaks and rebates to encourage the installation of 100,000 solar roofs per year, every year, for 10 consecutive years (the state currently has 30,000 solar roofs). The company is ready for the solar boom. “Most important,” Harrop says, “Nanosolar is putting down factories instead of blathering to the press and doing endless experiments. These guys are getting on with it, and that is impressive.”
    Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 10 November 2007, 08:40.
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

  • #2
    No mention of the W/m² efficiency in the company website, that I could find.

    Indium and gallium are both very expensive metals whose supply and demand are currently unbalanced. An increased demand of either could send the prices well into the $1000s/kg. Selenium is less expensive (~$150/kg) but it is in very short supply, as are the others. If this technique is viable, the costs will become much higher as the full-scale production gets under way. By how much is difficult to forecast because there is no clue given by the company of the quantities used per m² or per W.

    Selenium has another problem: it and its compounds are highly toxic, worse than lead, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, mercury and arsenic. Damaged panels and end-of-life could create grave problems, unless strict measures are taken. Cattle have been killed by grazing on selenium-rich soil.

    An interesting development, but I'll reserve an opinion until when I know more and they are in full production. I nevertheless feel a slight scepticism over too-optimistic forecasts.
    Brian (the devil incarnate)

    Comment


    • #3
      "create cells that are as efficient as most commercial cells" - so I guess somewhere along the lines of old panels in terms of W/m^2.
      Q9450 + TRUE, G.Skill 2x2GB DDR2, GTX 560, ASUS X48, 1TB WD Black, Windows 7 64-bit, LG M2762D-PM 27" + 17" LG 1752TX, Corsair HX620, Antec P182, Logitech G5 (Blue)
      Laptop: MSI Wind - Black

      Comment


      • #4
        As the devil incarnate is his own advocate, please forgive him for a modicum of scepticism, especially when the manufacturer's web site does not mention it, only a Popular Science journalist.
        Brian (the devil incarnate)

        Comment


        • #5
          There have been other quotes in the media from company interviews that the film is so thin that costs could go as low as $0.10/watt with mass production.
          Dr. Mordrid
          ----------------------------
          An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

          I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

          Comment


          • #6
            It's not the $/W that is my concern but the W/m². Why? When I was doing the calculations for my project, based on 150 W/m², I found my unshaded S-facing roof was good for a max theoretical capacity of ~3500 W @ 25°C, dropping to ~2800 W @ 40°C (usual in summer). I could live with that. But, IF the efficiency of a cheaper system were only, say, half that, 1400 W @ 40° C would not be sufficient for more than one aircon unit and I could never amortise the cost of the legal side (permissions for connection to the grid, planning, ministerial approval, fire approval, safety approval etc.), installation, metering, inverter, maintenance etc. With subsidies and grid payback, I could theoretically amortise a conventional system in 8¾ years but, to do so, I would need every ounce of that efficiency because it would depend on the payback of CYP 0.12/kWh (USD 0.275) generated. My system would have cost me CYP 16,000 ($36,800) of which only 9,500 (60%) was for the panels themselves; the other 40% was for the legalities, installation, meter, inverter etc., which would remain constant, no matter the efficiency.

            In the end, I renounced on a PV installation, mainly because my application was getting nowhere after 2½ years of battling with the three ministries involved, but also realising my probable lifetime was shorter than the amortisation period, if not shorter than the time by which I would be paid back the subsidy. The experience of others has proved my decision wise (the first installations have never received payback or subsidy, because of the bureaucracy involved!).
            Brian (the devil incarnate)

            Comment


            • #7
              Its not all about saving money ya know. And you can't spend it when you are dead.
              FT.

              Comment


              • #8
                And besides, you'll need all the aircon you can get where you are going
                FT.

                Comment


                • #9
                  great topic

                  Great )))))))))))))
                  WBR,
                  Alex

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X