Slashdot Mirror
Bigger, Cheaper Solar Cells
Phenombecile800 writes "First Solar, a start-up from Arizona, is making photovoltaic cells at a fraction of the usual cost. Their secret: increasing the light-catching area 'from postage-stamp to traffic-sign dimensions,' reducing the manufacturing time to 1/10th of the competition's, and thinning the active element to 1/100th the usual thickness over a glass substrate, which enables the production of large panels. IEEE Spectrum provides some technical details about the production process. 'Glass is placed on rollers and fed into the first chamber, where it is heated to 600 C. Then it is transferred into the second chamber, which is full of cadmium sulfide vapor, formed by heating solid CdS to 700 C. The vapor forms a submicrometer deposit on the glass as it moves through this cloud, after which a similar process in a third chamber adds a layer of micrometers-thick CdTe in about 40 seconds. Then a gust of nitrogen gas rapidly cools the panels to 300 C in a fourth chamber, strengthening the material so that it can withstand hail and high winds.'"
On the other hand, that's not the only criteria for using solar power. The upfront cost of the physical plant is significant of course, as are maintenance costs and the payback period. However, if widespread use of solar reduces overall environmental impact and lowers petroleum consumption it might still be worth it, even if the cells themselves are expensive.
What everyone seems to be waiting for is a cost-per-watt that is low enough so that ordinary people will decide to start buying them in large quantities without government subsidization. Suppose you're having a new house built: if you could install a ten or fifteen kilowatt solar plant and inverter for ten grand, you might figure it's worth it to borrow a little more money from the bank. I think we'll see more of that as our distribution grid continues to deteriorate and utility power becomes less and less reliable.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
So how much cadmium is needed, and how much leaks during the manufacturing process? Given that the opposition to nuclear power worries about toxic materials that decay with time, one would imagine there would be some concern about carcinogens that remain a danger forever, and cannot be destroyed.
It's probably unanswerable, but I wonder how much energy it takes to make these cells, and how long it takes for them to offset that?
From my understanding, current systems (with tax rebate) pay for itself in 10 years at current prices from the end users standpoint.
However, if say conventional energy prices double again in the next 5 years, then solar panels will have payed for themselves in a much less of a time frame even without the rebate.
I think its a misnomer about how much any energy it takes to make something because the price of energy itself fluctuates with time. Lets say it might take 10 barrels of oil to create one solar panel that produces 1 barrel of energy a year saving which will pay itself off in 10 years but if oil costs $100 last year and $200 in the next 5, then your $1,000 system now is worth $2,000 and your system is creating the equivalent of $200 worth of energy saved a year therefore paying itself off in 5 years.
Hope that made sense. I'm sure the numbers are no where like that though.
Seeing that the price of sunlight is less volatile than the price oil or coal, one could really gamble that peak oil will make any investments into solar pay for itself in short order in the next decade.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
WE just had a spill caused by human stupidity and penny pinching [oil tanker in the Mississippi that leaked all that heavy oil after a barge hit it] and so I have no faith in the Prince-William-Sound fouling oil industry to not have major accidents and ruin our common coastlines and all the wildlife and environments that live there. You're missing the point entirely. Oil is not a long-term solution. Why waste another dime on trying to extend the supply. We have clearly had something change in our weather patterns. We know oil is a fossil fuel that is destined to run out. Look at them flailing in China to clean up their air in time for the Olympics. Oil is just bad all around. So, according to your view, it is the best choice to direct our attention towards squeezing out those last few drops of oil, which--according to the 80-20 rule--will be the hardest, most expensive and lease safe of all? You're short sighted. To use an analogy that would be understood by all the slashdotters, you're the guy whose advocating that we rebuild our company's systems in COBOL rather than Java/.NET/ or whatever newer. Coal and oil do not need time or attention wasted on them. They are dirty, and only enrich a few people at the top of coal companies. We need diverse and varied sources of energy that are renewable. We need to try several things and let the marketplace choose which ones are the best. The real problem is that the oil industry is allowed to dump a byproduct of their commodity into the atmosphere and the waterways without accounting for that damage. If you accounted for the damage oil is doing to our environment, and made oil companies sell their product while paying for that damage, we would all see that the current petroleum-oriented economy is terrible. Anybody who roots for more oil drilling is just some deluded troglodyte who really doesn't care what happens to this world as long as they can get rich in it, and "have theirs". Well, we've had enough of people who are willing to get theirs even if it means they have to go out late Saturday nights and tip over a 50-gallon-drum of toxic waste into the local creek. If it saves them some money, they're all for it. We've had enough of that type of bastard.
Currently you can expect a home solar panel installation to pay for itself within 7 years (here in southern Ontario). If you combine it with wind turbines you can get your money back sooner, and if you spend the extra to be able to sell electricity back to the grid, you can get a payback much sooner because Ontario hydro (the power company here) pays you more than it would charge for the electricity (no distribution fee).
Ideally you want the installation to last for 10 years or more without significant failures, though.
Often "thinner and cheaper" translates to "more easily broken" and "less reliable" - for example, when the units flex in high winds. So my main worry would be about the expected (and achievable) lifetime of the units. Maybe if they gave a five or ten year warranty I'd be OK with it.
Live barefoot!
free engravings/woodcuts
How much energy does it take to maintain an oil platform in the North Sea? How much energy did it take to build Hoover Dam? We're not going to get a magic machine that gives us energy and costs none to build. Even if the answer is "years and years," the point is that we're trading dirty energy for clean energy, so it's worth doing.
I piss off bigots.
The reason none of these things have gone on line is because of the attitudes of people like you. There has been no concerted investment, ala the Manhattan Project. In lieu of any concentrated, directed effort to achieve a goal, nothing gets accomplished.
The sun shines reliably for a large fraction of the day--why not invest in that?
I find it curious how your standards of acceptability change: in the case of the alternatives available: switch grass, solar, wind, you play the pessimist. In the case of oil available off the coasts, suddenly you're an optimist. The US Department of Energy [you know, the one with all the Bush appointees in it] has said that 1.) offshore oil will not enter the supply chain for ten years minimum, not "a couple years" [implying 2], as you allege.
Next you toss out the red-herring [meaning irrelevant] point of the Chinese drilling in Cuba--a claim which has been shown to be false so clearly that former GOP Candidate Rudy Guilliani himself uses future tense to describe this alleged problem, which is still a red herring. Do two wrongs make a right? [China allegedly drilling around Cuba and the US drilling off Florida?]
Again, when you address the oil industry, it's all solid to you. When it comes to alternatives, it's "pie-in-the-sky". What are you, an oil-industry flack? You reluctant to learn new things or something?
Though Nuclear does have the benefit of no greenhouse gases, it still has the same fundamental problem that oil does: it's business model is predicated on NOT dealing with its wastes! We STILL doe not have a solution to the incredibly toxic wastes we've been generating for decades. The only solution is to hide the waste. You think this is a viable alternative? Or, are you a Nuclear Energy devotee who has some business interest in that industry. When you advocate dirty technologies, how can we take you seriously?
By the way, I lived in Houston and there is mass transit which I used while working for HP
. And the solution is not--duh--biking 30 miles, it's moving closer to your work and downsizing your stuff.
As I can re-iterate: I have lived all over the United States and this model in NYC is the only one I see as being viable. I've lived and commuted in Omaha, Phoenix, Houston, Cincinnati and Salt Lake City. I always chose to live as close as possible to work.
Such name calling as labeling environmentalism "psychobabble" is convincing fewer and fewer people, my friend. The babble is coming from you fools who seem to prefer fouling your own nests.
That's to be expected, selling to commercial or retail buyers allows them to sell in much higher quantities, plus those buyers are more likely to need larger ones as well.
Ultimately, whomever they sell to, if you're living in an area where the panels are being installed you're still going to be getting benefits from the advance, even if it's a small reduction in the price of electricity and pollution.
There isn't likely any reason why somebody couldn't buy in bulk to provide to home owners, it looks to me far more like a disinterest in direct marketing than a wish to not allow small scale sales.
And that is exactly what you need in countries that don't have a subsidization program. In the USA, I can see some of the more "green" states like California providing subsidies, but the current federal government seems more inclined to support the petroleum industry. How much change Obama would bring remains to be seen.
So a cost-per-watt that doesn't need subsidies will be an important step forward in making solar power widespread. A deteriorating distribution grid will also do its part, especially if the cost-per-watt-hour of batteries decreases. Here I guess that new Li-Ion chemistries will do their part when more manufacturers make them and competition kicks in.
C - the footgun of programming languages
> Given that glass beer bottles cost a few cents each, a square meter of glass probably takes no more than a few dozen kWh....
This isn't beer bottle glass though. Beer bottles are generally blown out of recycled glass, while panel glass is produced by floating clear glass (generally not recycled) floated on molten zinc. Point being that the process is considerably more energy intensive than an equivalent number of beer bottles.
Now, they probably could get away with cheap recycled glass (i.e. brown, like beer bottles) and use a low power continuous vapor deposition system if/when these get mass produced, but in their current state I'd wouldn't be surprised if the break-even point is around 1.5 years.
Why is that? I mean once you have high temp water and you need it to be low temp water, and you have more water that needs to be high temp water why not transfer the energy from the now distilled water to the needs to be distilled water. Energy requirements in that case are equal to energy lost to transfer efficiency constraints.
The principle is well known and called "regeneration" - you pass the incoming fluid through a heat exchanger with the outgoing fluid. For instance it's mentioned here in connection with the important Haber-Bosch ammonia process. It's also used by penguins to keep them from losing heat from the bloodstream through their feet! If the engineers are not doing it, they are really really poorly educated, or they have some decent reason. I suspect mainly the latter...
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
I would hold that the Exxon Valdez incident argues FOR drilling ANWR. Just about everything that could go wrong did. But today you could wander that area and never realize anything untoward had ever occurred.
You wouldn't notice anything unless you were a fisherman who had his life destroyed by Exxon Valdez. More than 10 years later (this from 1999) the fishing industry still hadn't recovered. People in Alaska are still (wrote this February) waiting for compensation, 20 years later. So far the fishermen haven't seen a dime from Exxon. Even today studies are finding wildlife is still adversely effected.
If you think everything is the same for those who had to live through Exxon Valdez you're obviously living in your own fantasy world.
Oil is not a long-term solution.
Agreed. But it IS the only short term solution anyone is proposing.
Drilling for oil off shore is a short term solution? Yea, while people are talking about it, not one of them has said anything about how long it will take before the first drop of oil pumped will end up in someone's gas tank. I surely doubt that will happen one year, forget one month, after exploration starts. The "Wall Street Journal", which is not an environmentalist group, says offshore drilling "won't affect physical supplies of oil." Here's an iteresting quote from Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. Equity Capital Markets Division: "If we were to drill today, realistically speaking, we should not expect a barrel of oil coming out of this new resource for three years, maybe even five years, so let's not kid ourselves". Oh, and don't blame Democrats for the offshore drilling ban, as president George H.W. Bush imposed an executive ban in 1990.
Why waste another dime on trying to extend the supply.
Because we need energy NOW.
Yea, right, if we start drilling now we can pump oil now. HAHA!!! See above quotes.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Is the solar cell industry more "bloated" than the oil industry? The US government gives somewhere between $15B and $35B in subsidies to the oil industry. That doesn't include indirect benefits like our half-trillion-dollar-per-year military guaranteeing shipping, keeping some countries oil off the market for years, and then paving the way for American oil companies to break into distorted markets. Is it any wonder that solar "can't compete" with fossil fuels?
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain