Slashdot Mirror
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."
Eetimes.com.
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
The mythical solar-powered flashlight becomes achievable!
Daniel
Carpe Diem
3 laptops and the other essentials (TV, etc) run me a quick $100/month bill in electricity. Must... get... solar..
--------
Free your mind.
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
Excited.
Reading the article leaves you with a lot of "will, should, could" and no prototype.
And the $0.20 is a target to be reached, not an acheived goal.
What's Slashdot becoming, a free way to secure prior art against when companies actually has a patentable working model?
Grell
...when it gets down to fundamentals, do what you have to do and shed no tears. Dr. Matson in Tunnel in the Sky
See this company: http://www.spheralsolar.com/ their technology makes very cheap, very efficient, very flexible solar-cells... they are building a massive manufacturing facitliy as-we-type, they do small(er) runs currently in their original test/research facility.
this is one to watch.
This is not an announcement of any new solar cells. It's a press release detailing an advanced research program that STMicroelectronics hopes will eventually lead to cheap solar cells. RTFA whover posted this.
If you really want an ecologicly friendly source of power look into electric eels. Sure they're a bit slimey and would get you weird looks from airport customs, but for anyone looking for a macho ego boost, "Is that an eel in your pocket or are you just happy too see me?"
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.
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.
Bush commented "We didn't just have a war for oil to have folks stop using it. Switching to Solar means the terrorists have won."
I don't believe this story for a second. Not a bit.
For decades I have been folowing solar cell technology, absolutely salivating at the promises that efficiency rating would soon rise above 15%, or that costs would no longer be prohibitively expensive or damaging to the environment (moreso than more conventional, polluting alternatives).
Well, I've given up. I've read shitty pie-in-the-sky stories like this almost every year for the last 25-years.
Now, if someone on Slashdot tells me that they bought these +50% efficient solar cells in Home Depot, that's when I'll get excited. Like I'll get excited when Chevrolet markets a flying car or my city puts a nuclear fusion power plant into service.
Well, they've not actually developed these cells yet, but here's why the need exists:
:) We'll call that the average because it won't usually put out 1W and yet it'll always produce at least some power. Therefore, said solar cell produces 8 Watt-hour's of energy each day.
Lets do the math.. We have $4 / watt for current generation solar cells which last 20 years..
Suppose that a "1 watt" solar cell can produce that 1 watt from 10am to 6pm each day (8 hours) in the average installation (unless you live in Pittsburgh or Seattle!
8Wh x 365 days x 20 years / (1000W / 1kW) = 58.4 kilowatt-hours during the lifespan of the cell.
$4 / 58.4 = $0.0685 / kWh
My local electric utility costs about $0.10 / kWh, making solar sound cheaper. However, the cost of the individual cells is only half the cost of a solar installation. Once you add in the cost of storage batteries, a charge controller, a high-efficiency DC->AC inverter, etc. now your solar installation is typically MORE expensive than the utility! And it's worse for the environment too with the silicon production chemicals, lead-acid batteries, etc. Yuck!
In contrast, if ST can even reach half their goal and produce $0.40 / watt cells, now we're looking at $0.00685 / kWh for the cells themselves. Even if battery storage technology is not improved by then, at least you can supplement your utility needs during the day at very minimal cost!
so what does a watt of electricy cost delivered these days, like from the power company?
A watt is a unit of power (energy per time). A watt-hour or kilowatt-hour (power times time) is a unit of energy. One kWh currently runs at around 8 cents, plus around roughly another 30% for taxes and equipment charges (depending on usage).
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.
To quote the CNN Article:
So, the question is, did Reuters screw up, or is there an announcement that didn't make it to the STMicroelectronics page that was linked to in the body?
I made the same mistake at first,
but if you read the article carefully,
you'll see they aren't amortizing the price.
If STMicroelectronics can reach their target,
that 75 watt panel would cost fifteen bucks.
(But probably $115 with the mounting hardware.)
When you amortize the cost,
they're hoping to produce electricy for 1/4 cent per kilowatt hour.
Even at five times the price it's cost competitive with fossile fuel generation (unlike current solar panels.)
-- this is not a
I've worked in the Conductive Polymers area for about a year and I can tell you that this article seems more of wishful thinking than any. Conductive polymers are exceedingly difficult to work with, have a very narrow range of pH under which they work, their properties have not been sufficiently characterized and so on. The replacement of liquid electrolytes sounds exceedingly difficult if not impossible to me, atleast from my experience.
All that aside, $.20 per peak watt is freaking incredible. At that price you can probably make electric awnings out of the stuff. Let's just hope that this doesn't turn out to be vaporware like so many other stunning "advances" in energy have turned out to be (coughcold fusioncough)
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist