Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Solyndra's Thin-Film Solar Cells Draw $1.2 Billion In Orders

Posted by timothy on from the beaming-down-upon-them dept.

SolarSells writes "Solyndra makes funky-looking cylindrical solar cells that resemble compact fluorescent lightbulbs. Their products are meant for office buildings, and are made from a thin coating of copper indium gallium diselenide on glass tubes. Although they might not be able to fill them till 2012, the company has already received $1.2 billion in orders. Their manufacturing tricks make the cells so cheap that they may be competitive with other forms of power even after solar subsidies are phased out."

17 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Glass tubes? by bdenton42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So a good hailstorm will demolish your solar array?

    1. Re:Glass tubes? by Erioll · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Very true, but there are also a lot of places in the world (and even in the USA) where hail is virtually unknown, so for those markets it'd work.

      But yes, that definitely wouldn't be where I live, as we get hail multiple times per year. Those things would get massacred up here.

    2. Re:Glass tubes? by bdenton42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If those tubes are as thick as my cars windshield that would be fine... but I'm guessing they are not.

      As far as my home's windows they would certainly be a lot more vulnerable to hail if they were also mounted horizontally.

    3. Re:Glass tubes? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Up to what size hail?
      Not an issue where I live since we don't have a lot of big hail.
      Asking the question is not bogosity giving an answer with out facts is.
      Since it looks like you are the only one here that has any facts thank you for the answer.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Glass tubes? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually nope your wrong again.
      someone from the company posted that they did test it for hail. They didn't give any real info about the hail size that they tested too but since this guy says they used a paint ball gun it is not very large.
      So nope they do attend to mount them naked from what the guy from the company posted.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  2. Who bought em? by Gertlex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Aside from hype about "competing with other power sources" (it's old hype... I can't quite give a damn if it's for real or not this time), I wonder what the distribution of their clients is... (mainly by nationality)

    And I'd bet this number predates the economic crisis... I do wonder how many of these orders will be withdrawn; though I'm sure it won't be enough to slow Solyndra's production at peak capacity.

  3. Nanosolar by scorp1us · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While were slashvertising, let's not forget Nanodsolar which also does thin-film copper indium gallium diselenide trick. But it seems that instead of tubes, you can just get a sheet (on what appears to be a Mylar substrate).

    I wonder about the cylindrical shape, this would seem to block 50% of the surface area, where the sides and underside would produce less electricity than a flat sheet of the same area.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:Nanosolar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I wonder about the cylindrical shape, this would seem to block 50% of the surface area, where the sides and underside would produce less electricity than a flat sheet of the same area.

      Well it means that part of each cylinder is always more-or-less directly facing the sun without being moved/rotated in some way, plus you could always put a white or reflective material underneath the cylinder racks to reflect a a good portion of the missed light onto the underside of the cylinders.

    2. Re:Nanosolar by Jeanius · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This link says the cylindrical shape contributes to better solar absorption throughout the day, and offer less wind resistance. Looking at the picture in the article, they seem to be more like half-cylinders. That'd make sense, that while geometrically they don't have their face optimally pointed towards the sun at some optimal point during the day, they're continually pointed at the sun with some constant exposed amount of surface area.

    3. Re:Nanosolar by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder about the cylindrical shape, this would seem to block 50% of the surface area, where the sides and underside would produce less electricity than a flat sheet of the same area.

      It seems counterintuitive, but if you do the calculus, it ends up being equivalent. You get more surface area, but with less direct angle of incidence (assuming the plane is perfectly aligned), so that it exactly balances out. And you have to do less repositioning.

      There's a name for the principle that states it generally, but I forgot it. I just remember having to walk my friend through the math two years ago when it came up in their physics class.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:Nanosolar by idontgno · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which, by some miracle, don't need to be steered. They are magical half-cylinders which always point at any available light source. And, for whatever reason, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the value of reflecting light back from beneath the cylinders. So, effectively, they looks like self-steering half-cylinders plus the other half cylinder gathering "waste" light.

      Don't underestimate the value of "don't need to be steered". Eliminating those moving parts and the associated control automation shaves a huge amount off of installation and maintenance costs. And the lower profile is also pretty useful (wind resistance, aesthetics, clear lines of sight for other things like satellite dishes).

      Remember: the intended application of this technology is rooftop static PV systems, a retrofit application. Steerability is not a factor; the panels are going to just lie on the roofing. The cylindrical design means that a portion of their surface is always almost tangential to the incoming sunlight, maximizing conversion there. A flat panel has less local peak efficiency unless it's steered and sun-tracking, which is not the application in question.

      Really, this sounds like a good compromise for moderately effective PV generation in rooftop retrofit applications.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  4. I don't get it by wonkavader · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They're letting valuable light past. They're getting a little of it back on the rebound. The round design means some of the cell is always straight on to the sun, but it's a VERY small part.

    Wouldn't a flat roof of the same material be much more efficient?

  5. Is this for real? by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Solyndra tubes have me puzzled.

    First, they're round, with the active surface uniform around the tube. So only a fraction of the active surface is doing much. Unless they can make active surface far cheaper than anybody else, this is a lose.

    The claimed advantage of this approach is supposed to be that the units can be mounted flat to the roof. But you can do that with flat solar panels; it just costs you about 30% of the output because you're not getting max sun input per unit area. Solyndra is paying a bigger oblique penalty than that; they're probably losing 60% over a flat panel pointed roughly at the sun.

    Their web site has no numbers on prices, costs, efficiency, output per unit area, or third party test results. That's a bad sign.

    1. Re:Is this for real? by Mr._Galt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The claim on the site is that the cylinders can harvest indirect and reflected light as well. Conventional panels only use direct light. Therefore a horizontal mount is optimum for these cylinders since they will receive some direct light any time of day while still receiving reflected and indirect light. They also show how you can cover vastly larger areas with their cells because of the way they are mounted and designed to handle wind loads. The increase in coverage should more than make up for any loss of direct light. Of course, all this assumes that they are not big fat liars.

    2. Re:Is this for real? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Since mirrors are cheap compared to solar cells, wouldn't it make more sense to mount these tubes at the focal point of a linear/parabolic mirror? That really seems exactly what these were designed for, not just harvesting off-axis light.
      What am I missing here? Doesn't it seem like this is the perfect answer to a question they don't seem to have asked?

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  6. Some companies do this already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I don't know if it supplies all the power needed, but some big-box type places do have solar setups - like Kohl's:

    http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/621/
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_n27971502

    disclaimer: I work in Kohl's IS dept.

  7. Re: Not if it's made using ALON by Moodie-1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ALON (otherwise known as aluminum oxynitride) is an aluminum ceramic that has the curious property of being transparent while also being almost as strong as steel. It's being tested by the military for use as transparent armor. Check out http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=481 for more info.

    Seems Scotty knew what he was talking about after all!