Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Solar Cells 20 Times Cheaper

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the doesn't-work-in-michigan dept.

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."

7 of 516 comments (clear)

  1. I heard Solar was going to get cheaper in 1976 by AppyPappy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --

    If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem

    1. Re:I heard Solar was going to get cheaper in 1976 by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:I heard Solar was going to get cheaper in 1976 by ThosLives · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
  2. Potential Importance by randall_burns · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:exoskelton by astar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:Sign Me Up! by zCyl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:no wonder by homebrewmike · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.