Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Silicon Valley Startup Prints $1/watt Solar Panels

Posted by Zonk on from the printing-money-and-energy dept.

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.

24 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. Consumer offerings? by phrostie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i was reading their webpage the other day and they only seemed to sell to large corporations or utilitiy companies. when will they start offering a consumer version.

    1. Re:Consumer offerings? by MrLogic17 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      $1/watt? Cheaper than coal? I'm confused.

      Coal you burn once, and you're done. Easy price calculation.

      With solar, you buy the solar cells. And the regulators (Sunlight's variable ya know). And the battery packs, assuming you're not going directly back into the grid. And maint of said batteries.

      And the solar cells aren't producing 100% output for 12 hours/day. And the lifespan of these solar cells are an estimate.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm all for this. I'm just very suspcious of an apples to oranges comparison used in marketing speak.

    2. Re:Consumer offerings? by smilindog2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a huge milestone. However, the summary gets a couple things wrong: First, $1/watt panels aren't "cheaper than coal". Large coal consumers buy 2,000 pounds of coal for $50. Burn that in a crappy Bush-endorsed power station, and utilities can print money at $0.07/KWh. That's why coal is the #1 enemy in the global warming battle - not oil. The $1/watt goal makes solar utility power feasible in areas that currently have excellent sunshine (say southern CA), and expensive fuel (say natural gas). It's a huge step, but not the last step.

      The second error in the summary is the current price. The company claims they could sell $1/watt panels, but with 100% of their production for 2008 already purchased, what are the odds they're selling their stuff 4X below market value? Not a chance. The revolution's happening, but it will take a while.

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    3. Re:Consumer offerings? by DaleGlass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I imagine though that the $1/Watt isn't a $1/Watt in the panel's lifetime, but $1 for a panel that will generate 1 Wh, when used at full capacity.

      Assuming a lifetime of 20 years, a $50 panel producing 50Wh will produce 8760 kW at $.005/KWh, assuming it runs at full capacity 24/7. An actual real world figure would be several times worse, but that still comes out looking very good.

    4. Re:Consumer offerings? by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's $1/Watt, not $1/Watt-hour. $1/watt is $1000/kW divided by... say 8 hours of full sun per day... time 20 years. That will get you the kWhr price, or about 1.7 cents per kWhr, a fifth the price you mention for coal. Of course, you won't always get 8 hours of full sun per day in all locations, so the numbers are highly variable by location and time of year, but if your numbers are correct, that is significantly cheaper than coal in many cases.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:Consumer offerings? by Pascoea · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Burn that in a crappy Bush-endorsed power station, and utilities can print money at $0.07/KWh.

      They wouldn't burn the shit if you didn't use the product. Next time you want to bitch about coal power, try doing it in the dark without your electricity consuming computer. I'm not saying that there isn't a market for alternative energy sources, but why don't you coal bashers take some time out of your busy granola eating life to do some research into what has been done, or is being pursued in the coal-burning plants so you piss-ants can quit whining about pollution?

      Do me a favor, pull you head out of (the sand) and be realistic.

      BTW, Bush does suck, there is no contention to that on my part.

      -A

    6. Re:Consumer offerings? by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's tricky to convert between watts and kWh, they sound the same but one is a unit of power and one is a unit of energy. Power is energy per second, so it's like comparing the cost of a gallon of water with the cost of a spring.

      A kWh is like a glass of water, and a watt is like a trickle of water from a leaky tap. A 1 watt panel would take 1000 hours to make one kWh.
      If a panel lasts 1000 hours then you're paying $1/kWh, which doesn't compete with $0.07/kWh. If it lasts forever you're basically paying $0/kWh in the long run, so you might as well buy ~10^12 panels and forget about energy problems.
      This is why hydroelectric power is appealing: Once built they stay there generating power for only the cost of maintenance, the problem is there are only so many places where a dam can be built.

      In a nutshell more info is needed to know if this even counts as progress. What about the materials? Can you get lots of whatever semiconductor they're using cheaply? Does the $1/Watt panel become $1/ 0.01 Watts when it's not facing directly at the sun on a bright day in California?

      I'm not looking for any "revolution" from a small start up energy company.


      By the way this is an area where nuclear power could become an even better alternative: The big cost of nuclear power is building the plant and decommissioning it afterwards, the uranium is dirt cheap. The price of a kWh from a nuclear plant is made up mostly of the price of building and decommissioning the plant. If a nuclear plant's design can be made so the life is doubled the cost will halve. If a plant that lasts as long as a hydroelectric plant could be designed we could have power too cheap to meter.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    7. Re:Consumer offerings? by flaming-opus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're forgetting two very important things. In your math you're forgetting to amortize your capital costs. Basically you're assuming that you can get a 0% loan. In reality, paying for solar up-front, instead of coal as you need it, you need to tripple the cost of the solar, because of the interest you will have to pay over the 25-year life of that "loan".

      Secondly, solar provides great energy during the middle of the day. However, most residential electrical demand happens in the early evening, when people get home from work and turn everything on. Most industrial users of electricity need a constant supply, around the clock. Commercial users need electricity throughout the day, with a spike in the late afternoon as air conditioning demand increases. Solar-electricity provides for some, but not all of these needs. Storing solar energy in batteries, thermal storage systems, or mechanical storage systems doubles or tripples the cost again.

      Thus, even with $1/W panels, general-purpose solar power is still 8-10X the cost of coal. I'm terribly doubtful that solar power will ever be economically competitive with coal, UNLESS you factor in the ecological costs. Unless we start taxing utilities for the carbon that they emit, we will not see solar become competitive, beyond little feel-good projects, and home-hobbyists.

    8. Re:Consumer offerings? by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you'll find that Clinto's administration was headed towards tighten restrictions on coal plants. There were reasonable, scheduled improvements. Bush took us off the path to improvement, so basically yes - this is all Bush's fault. remember, a stronger presidency means more blame. Clinton shared power, and thus responsibility.
      AIK

    9. Re:Consumer offerings? by bodrell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're forgetting two very important things. In your math you're forgetting to amortize your capital costs. Basically you're assuming that you can get a 0% loan. In reality, paying for solar up-front, instead of coal as you need it, you need to tripple the cost of the solar, because of the interest you will have to pay over the 25-year life of that "loan".
      Ah, assumptions. Will coal prices stay constant? What about inflation, even if coal supply remains constant? And the 25 year figure was only for $4/W. At the $1/W figure cited, it's less than 7 years (assuming the 25% capacity, and I don't know how reasonable that is). What about if I buy more than my capacity, and actually am able to sell electricity back to power company when I produce excess?

      Secondly, solar provides great energy during the middle of the day. However, most residential electrical demand happens in the early evening, when people get home from work and turn everything on. Most industrial users of electricity need a constant supply, around the clock. Commercial users need electricity throughout the day, with a spike in the late afternoon as air conditioning demand increases. Solar-electricity provides for some, but not all of these needs. Storing solar energy in batteries, thermal storage systems, or mechanical storage systems doubles or tripples the cost again.
      Batteries? Huh? First, solar electricity in California (not where I live, btw, but it is a state with very expensive electricity) can be sold back to the utility company; if you produce more than is required, it causes the meter to run backwards. And since the highest electricity demand is during the middle of the day, especially when people run air conditioning, that is when the rates are highest. If you sell energy back to the utility company when the rates are highest, then use electricity in the evenings when rates are lower, it's a win-win. And storage? Use the grid! Besides the advantage of selling excess energy, being connected to the grid eliminates battery and storage costs (not to mention inverters and other equipment).

      Thus, even with $1/W panels, general-purpose solar power is still 8-10X the cost of coal.
      Except that your math is incorrect, the panels in question are very inefficient, and a bunch of other people are working on this problem to drive the prices down. Not to mention you used the 25 year figure, which applies to $4/W panels, not $1/W. Also, I checked the price of energy on the DOE website, and California electricity costs $0.125/kWh, not $0.07/kWh. In sunny Hawaii, the electricity cost is $0.207/kWh! http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/rep/ In Hawaii, with rates 3X above what I used in my calculations, $1/W panels would pay for themselves in only 2-3 years. That's assuming you don't lose too much money getting them shipped to Hawaii, and that the panels are still only 25% efficient even so close to the equator.
      --
      Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
    10. Re:Consumer offerings? by MBraynard · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So more than 1000 scientists are wrong? What's your education and training that has you knowing more than those who have their degrees in climatology or related fields?

      Because I have carefully listened to the arguments on both sides, know the ideologies of those involved (scientists are some of the worst in terms of ethics). So I am bold enough to cite the works of these 400 scientists who went on record in 2007.

      1000s of scientists got DDT banned - needlessly - and killed millions of people as a result from malaria. Scientists cannot accurately predict a storm season season. Scientists allow themselves to be used by politicians to enrich themselves.

      Regarding bottles water (and I meant pure) still gives greater economic value to a prestine - regardess of the sustainability. Eventually the replenish rate will meet the usage rate. So drink up.

      Regarding MTR, that is not a reason to limit coal use. Greater demand for coal creates greater incentives to find alternatives to MTM since the amount of problems (if there are really any long term MTM problems - it doesn't seem like it).

      Further, a strong economy - fueled inescapably by greater energy needs - is what is required to reach the technical and economic thresholds necessary to find fully sustainable, totally clean alternatives. Limiting access to coal also limits mankinds ability to reach that threshold and will bottleneck further progress.

      You are really long on whining about problems and short on practicle solutions, aren't you? Can't use coal, can't drink bottled water, and, btw, the sky is falling. What else can we add to the list?

  2. Eventually. by xlsior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article: Roscheisen said the manufacturing process the company has developed will enable it to eventually deliver solar electricity for less than a dollar per watt

  3. Yahoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't really know whether global warming is real and dangerous. Now just maybe I don't have to care.

    Can we conver Arizona with these (and use ultracapacitors for night power)? Please?

  4. Are they fire resistant? Toxic when burning? by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will they last, are they durable, is it flexible or rigid? Lot of questions left to answer on the solar front. However, if I can shingle my roof with these things, all the better!

    If you are going to shingle your roof then "are they fire resistant" and "do they release toxic fumes when burning" should be two more explicit first questions.

    1. Re:Are they fire resistant? Toxic when burning? by rucs_hack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      sooo.

      I can has my tin foil hat and be environmentally friendly at the same time?

  5. Units Please! What's the cost per watt hour by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not just the cost of the panel that matters, but the anticipated life of the panel. Traditionally, it has taken more energy to make a panel than that panel will return to the grid. That's not as big a deal if you're truly off grid - say in the boonies, or in space - but it matters if you want to make it viable in a business sense. And it can't just be equal, it's got to be a significantly low fraction. Otherwise you're creating an energy storage medium (and a very limited one in the case of a solar panel) instead of a power generator.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Units Please! What's the cost per watt hour by Alioth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The current generation solar panels have an energy payback time of 6 years in the real world, and typically last for at least 25 years.

      Presumably, what makes this technology potentially less expensive is it requires less resources to make than silicon solar cells, so it's fairly likely that they have a faster energy payback than silicon cells.

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
  6. Indium by RikF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This stuff is already hard to come by. We won't all be covering our houses in this stuff!

    --
    In Soviet Russia you own your cat
  7. CdTe vs CIGS by savuporo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anyone followed First Solar ( FSLR ) IPO ?
    They were the first to bring CdTe cells to market, and guess what happened ..

    Now, several companies have been working furiously to get the competing CIGS cells going. Miasole, Nanosolar, HelioVolt, just to name a few. FSLR of course beat them to market, and is already a winner, but i am waiting for IPOs for the CIGS companies too ..
    Anything that doesnt use crystalline silicon is going to be huge, and in some instances, already is.

    --
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
  8. Watt, Watt Hour? by WPIDalamar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm confused by the $1 per watt and "cheaper than coal"...

    Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought a watt was a measure of capacity whereas a watt-hour was what we actually paid for from our electric company as a measure of (what? power? energy?)... So a watt-hour is something like "continuously using one watt for one hour".

    For solar, there's no fuel cost. So the $1 gets you a "perpetual" 1 watt. If it lasted forever (which it won't), that'd be an infinite amount of watt-hours.

    But coal plants have a fuel cost. So $1 only gets them so much coal, and only so many watt-hours.

    Or is that comparing the cost of building a coal plant to building solar panels? Or is it some kind of TCO figure?

  9. Re:Hopefully this will just be the start... by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Indeed. Rules of thumb are awful for solar installations because the power production, geometry, and needs vary so much. You really need to calculate it for your given setup. Offgrid is a huge premium to pay, and with panels this cheap, it's now going to be an even bigger premium. Not only do you have to pay for the batteries, but also their maintenance, replacement, and the charge controller, which at $5.80/amp, isn't negligable either. For on-grid, panels are typically the overwhelming portion of the costs. With panels this cheap, you'll spend almost as much on the inverter and installation as you will on the panels ;)

    --
    We should start dealing in those black-market beagles.
  10. Re:"Charity" by Bryansix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't donate to people who advertise on TV. They waste way too much money. I use http://www.charitynavigator.org/ to find charities that operate effeciently. In addition I never said to send all your money to Africa. I prefer Americares which helps people here in the USA and abroad. They also operate with some 98% effeciency or something close to that.

  11. Re:Why the govt is helping more by harmanjd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this was subsidized for the average household, it would be a bane for california.

    Fixed your spelling for you.

    People would be better of with less taxes so that they could buy these things rather than giving the money to the gov't to get it back as subsidies.

  12. Re:Hopefully this will just be the start... by leet · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Whoa there partner! Slow down a bit! As I moused over the links they all seemed to be pointing to the same web site. So I only went here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/global-cooling-again/ Pardon me for not following what appeared to be dupes. Next time you want to debate something, just list the references for the simple folk like myself. The next paragraphs are in regard to this link. The point you missed was the hysteria this illustrates. Even if the data was found not to be true, people still ran with it and lobbied for certain things because of it. They expected everyone to do something with the information, even if it was bad information. I was making a case for social implications. So you did illustrate that point well. I'm not arguing data the all. It is what it is. I don't think I've indicated it was anything but. We do disagree on the results of this data and what will be caused if certain trends continue.

    we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate?" somehow supports your argument. This thoroughly supports my stance. A correllary to this is we can't predict it because we can't model it. We can't model it because we don't understand it. But we sure as hell can conclude that man is changing what we can't model and don't understand. I rest my case. You lose. Thanks for playing. Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.