Silicon Valley Startup Prints $1/watt Solar Panels
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.
So what charity gets the money? Is it the usual suspects--sick kids and Africa? Why not the EFF, or FSF? Why not Wikipedia? It seems that often a charity needs to be identified in order to get rid of money. ThinkOfTheChildren usually results.
While the sun might be strong enough at some locations to provide the headline power output for the price paid, is this only going to be on the equator in high summer?
Considering that (in most countries) more power is consumed during the winter months to keep warm, the power output from solar power is at it's lowest so more cells are needed than would be the case to generate the same amount of power during the summer. Likewise, the industrialised countries tend not to be in the areas of the globe that get the most sunshine.
What we really need to know is the cost (i.e. number of square metres) of cell needed to generate 1W of electricity at a given latitude at a given time of year.
Until you get these numbers, all you have is marketing hype.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons