New Solar Cells 20 Times Cheaper

handy_vandal writes "STMicroelectronics has announced a new generation of photocells made from organic plastics. Over a typical 20-year life span of a solar cell, a single produced watt should cost as little as $0.20, compared with the current $4. See also article @ cnn.com. On a related note, this article @ IEEE discusses new improved LED technology by the same team."

Comments

no wonder

[happyfrogcow]

Consequently, although the "fuel" for a solar-powered generator is free sunlight, the overall cost of solar-generated electricity (amortized over the lifetime of the solar cell, typically 20 years) is around ten times higher than the cost of electricity generated by burning fossil fuels.


No wonder we still don't have widespread solar use. I had no idea it was this much more expensive to "buy" initially.

Re:no wonder

[homebrewmike]

The System Admin geeks should understand the following: is Linux really free for use in a production environment?

Resounding answer: no. There is a cost to do anything in the enterprise. You know, the TCO - total cost of ownership. You need backup media, you need power, you need people to make it run right.

So, let's talk about Gas. Is it really $1.36 a gallon, as advertised?

Most folks, again, would answer nope. There are those annoying little hard to calculate costs. For instance - if we weren't dependent on foreign engery - would we need a military the size we do?

How about the environment? Oil-n-Coal aren't doing it a hell of a lot of good. Doubt me? Move to LA - from what I've heard, it kind of sucks there.

So, while we in the US pay $1.36, we really are paying more - it's just not reflected at the pump.

It's only a matter of time before we move to Solar.

I heard Solar was going to get cheaper in 1976

[AppyPappy]

Every year, it was going to put the power companies out of business. The last time I priced it in 1999, it was still too expensive. I hate to sound conspiritorial, but it sounds to me like someone is jiggling the switch. It is 2003. Why don't we have affordable solar power for home use?

Re:I heard Solar was going to get cheaper in 1976

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

Well there may be a more complex answer found in the book..
"The Hydrogen Economy", Jeremy Rifkin, Tarcher/Penguin 2002

Not to mention the running out of oil very soon.

Re:I heard Solar was going to get cheaper in 1976

[ThosLives]

I echo this one. The big issue is not cost of solar, but area. After all, the average home uses about 5kW . A typical estimate of solar load is 1 kW/m2. That means, even with 100% efficient cells, you'd need 5 square meters (~53 ft2) to power your house. Not to mention you'd need more than that to store power for night, cloudy weather, etc. That's going to eat up a lot of roof space... and need to be protected and cleaned as well.

Yeah, we have lots of "empty" space here and there, and I've heard of people wanting to put solar power stations on the moon. I don't know about you, but I don't want to look up at the moon and see piles of man-made crap instead of its current beautiful state. Power stations on the moon makes me want to vomit.

That said, though, I will embrace the day when I don't have to be connected to any utilities at all...

"All terrestrial energy sources are really solar anyway; this means we've had a nuclear power industry all along!" - me

Potential Importance

[randall_burns]

I've lived off the grid for over 6 years now.

Even with existing prices, it is about as cheap to buy cheaper land in outlying areas and generate your own power as it is to pay a power company _and_ pay higher prices for land. The main problem is you have to have a fair degree of mechanical aptitude to keep one of these systems running reliably.

Cheap solar cells would open up quite a bit of land for human use that is accessible by road but has no power access. When you combine that with WiFi/sattellite access the infrastructure advantages of cities become far less pronounced.

Environmentally friendly

[Kandel]

"The new solar cells would even be able to compete with electricity generated by burning fossil fuels such as oil and gas, which costs about $0.40 per watt"

This is certainly excellent news. With oil reserves slowly running down and with countries that require 'liberation' slowly dwindling, we certainly need new cheap energy sources. It's great to see a product has been created that harnesses solar energy to the point that it could one day replace all need for fossil fuels. This is also have many positive ramifacations on the environment, making a lot of people happy.
Another large source of energy that has been largely untapped is geothermal energy, which is obtained through convering heat from the Earth into usable energy.
It really demonstrates the effect that these large oil corporations have on our world, when there are much better cleaner alternatives to fossil fuels, yet these are being ignored for the sake of the oil companies.

Re:exoskelton

[astar]

so what does a watt of electricy cost delivered these days, like from the power company? And one traditional silliness about solar power is that by the time you actual install it, the energy cost of the materials exceeds the expected lifetime output of the solar cells. So the green types who install solar are really pretty brown.

Just bought a solar powered watch

[redcup]

Darn... I just bought a solar powered watch (Citizen Eco-drive) - which requires a few hours of office level light, several minutes under a bright lamp, or just a few minutes of direct sunlight, to recharge each day.

This article makes me wonder if a substantial amount of the price was because of the power cells (no silver or gold). I'm sure a watch doesn't need the best efficiency (15-20%) of the current pricy solar cells - 10% efficiency would mean my new watch needs about 30 minutes under a lamp rather than 15-20. Big deal. Of if I'm lazy, I'll stand in the sun for 5 minutes instead of 3. :-)

Making solar power affordable, attractive and practical is the first step in converting to environmentally friendly sources of power. Cost effectiveness is a primary obstacle for new technologies, especially for the environmentally friendly. I guess the other would be defeating the entrenched monopolies that currently rely on oil and other natural resources.

Here's to a cleaner planet!

Cheers,

RC

Re:Sign Me Up!

[zCyl]

Well, with a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation... If you roughly assume an average of 5 hours of good sunlight per day and roughly assume a house consumes 500KWh per month, then you need 3,333W of generated power (before taking storage into account). In previous price ranges, you're talking $15,000 for that many solar cells (not counting power storage cost or a multiple for storage efficiency). If they can successfully bring solar cells of 20 cents per Watt to market, then you're talking about enough solar cells to cover a house's usage for possibly around $2000.

Assuming no major error in the calculation, that makes it accessible to anyone who can afford a house. A year's electricity at that rate of consumption would be about $720.

Hopefully they will succeed in delivering this, and the usage of the words "organic", "nanotechnology", and "renewable energy" are more than just buzzwords in search of funding.

Re:Sign Me Up!

[Niddix]

I'd love to do this. Unfortunately I live in Florida. Its up to the power company to allow you to put power back onto the grid, which they don't want to allow here. So I either need to store the extra power I don't use, or I have to discharge the excess if there is any.