Slashdot Mirror


Solar Panels Reach $1 a Watt

ZosX writes "An article over at Popular Mechanics announces that, for the first time, solar cells have been manufactured for the much sought-after figure of $1/Watt. They also talk about a new study of the cost of the particular raw materials used in different manufacturing processes. The conclusion is that the company that just achieved the $1/W milestone, using cadmium telluride technology, may not prove to be the long-term winner capable of meeting demand when it rises into the terawatt range."

23 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. Wow by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not sure what my peak load is at home, but at $1/Watt I imagine I could generate all my own electricity for less than $10,000. Assuming my roof has sufficient room for it, that's really awesome. My current electric bill is around $65/mo. which means that in 153 months this would be paying for itself, or about 12 years. Of course, figuring in things like maintenance, repairs, and so forth makes this harder to gauge, but that's pretty good. Now the consumer electronics industry just needs to convert everything over to run on DC and I'm all set. How soon can I put in an order?

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:Wow by Delwin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point of these installations isn't to keep going without the grid - it's to generate your power either greener or cheaper depending on what angle you're coming from.

    2. Re:Wow by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not sure what my peak load is at home, but at $1/Watt I imagine I could generate all my own electricity for less than $10,000.

      It doesn't matter what your peak load is. If you're in an area that's on the grid, then you want a grid-tied system, and therefore any power you can't generate on your own will come from the grid. At other times, when you have extra (e.g., a hot sunny day when you're out hiking), the power company buys it from you. There is typically a very strong economic incentive to buy a system that matches your yearly consumption, not your peak load. If it's providing less than your yearly consumption, then you aren't getting the best deal, because you still had to pay for a day's labor by the crew with the crane, etc., and you still had to pay for an inverter. The converse is also true: you probably don't want an oversized system. I have photovoltaics on my roof, and in my area, if I produce more than I use over a 12-month period, the electric company won't pay me for the excess. They'll just say, "Gosh, thanks for all that surplus power."

      It's typically very, very difficult to make a realistic calculation of how long it will take a residential PV system to pay for itself. People always ask me how long mine will take to pay for itself, and I always tell them honestly that I have absolutely no idea. The problem is that energy prices are extremely volatile -- that's why they exclude them from the CPI. Remember just recently when gas was $4 a gallon? Historically, the price of electric power has always tended to go up, but we don't know how much it will go up over the 25-year design lifetime of our system.

      What you can do is to consider all your local factors: latitude, amount of sunny weather, whether you have a south-facing roof, whether there is any shade on your roof, and current local prices for electricity. Every time this topic comes up on slashdot, people will make blanked statements about whether PV is economically viable. That's just nonsense. It depends on all those factors. If it was an utter economic no-go, the industry wouldn't exist. If it was 100% clear that it was economically favorable for everyone in, say, LA, then you'd see PV systems on the roof of every house in LA whose owners had sufficient capital to pay for the system. The fact that the industry exists, but is still fairly small, tells you that there's a lot of uncertainty about it. You're welcome to invest your money in the stock market instead, but it won't help with global warming.

      Now the consumer electronics industry just needs to convert everything over to run on DC and I'm all set.

      Ain't gonna happen. Network effects are one reason. Another reason is that different devices naturally want to work from different voltages, but you can't step voltage up or down if it's DC.

    3. Re:Wow by glwtta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But grid-tie won't help at all when the grid goes down.

      It also won't help if your phone is disconnected or your house catches fire - what's your point?

      The question was whether it makes economic sense, not if it's better than the power grid.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    4. Re:Wow by Zackbass · · Score: 4, Informative

      First Solar has a 25 year warranty on the power output of their panels. As far as I've seen this is pretty common for panels intended for large installations.

      Here's a couple random links to back that up:
      https://energy.wesrch.com/User_images/Pdf/L02_1221963706.pdf
      http://www.evergreensolar.com/upload/pdf/us/Warranty_Cedar_Spruce_v1.5-060329_US.pdf

      --
      You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
    5. Re:Wow by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To plug into the grid you need a Synchronous Inverter.

      You are not suppose to dump square wave on the grid either.

      Some guerilla solar ppl who do not understand this do it anyways.

      The grid uses generators that generate sinewave power.

      To connect cleanly and correctly you need a Sinewave based
      Synchronous Inverter and that is not cheap.

      Also if you live in a heavy lightning storm area then you run
      the risk of your huge investment going up in smoke by being
      attached to the grid.

      Your best bet is to get off the grid.

      Some ppl do it a little at a time by converting all their lights
      to LED lighting and have wind and or solar charging some used
      forklift batteries that are stored outside in a fireproof box.

      forklift batteries are not the best, but used ones are cheaper
      by a huge amount than the very best made new for this purpose.

      Over time as they get more of their own power made they can
      move circuits over to the off grid system.

      The killers are central heat and air, electric dryer, fridge,
      hair dryers, vacuums, electric ovens, and microwaves.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    6. Re:Wow by GrahamCox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For 5V, for example, use a 7805

      The 7805 isn't a switch-mode power supply, it's a simple series regulator. The voltage that appears across it x the current through it equals its power dissipation, i.e. the power it is merely wasting as heat in order to drop the voltage to 5V. That can be quite considerable - if it's handling 1A and dropping from 12V, it's wasting 12-5 X 1 = 7W, while delivering only 5 X 1 = 5W to the load. That's only 41% efficient. You don't want that sort of figure when your power source is solar.

      A true SMPS will do much better, but unfortunately is more complicated than one three-legged IC and a few caps.

    7. Re:Wow by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Found a better one, lists that capability as standard:

      http://www.infinigi.com/beacon-power-m5-inverter-5-kw-gridtied-battery-backup-p-104.html?ref=100

      Only 5kw though. At $5k, it'd take 4 years of eliminating my electric bill to pay for the inverter alone, much less solar cells, wind turbine, or install.

      By my back of hand figuring on the basis of using ~1000kwh a month, I'd need a 4-5kw inverter anyways.
      1000kwh/month = 33kwh/day, 1.4 kwh/hour, 1400 watts average load. Times 3 for rough guess on usable/production periods vs max, 4.2kw minimum load needed. BTW, my water heater/stove/dryer are all electric, but heat is propane. I pay ~.10 cents per kwh, decreasing if I use a lot.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  2. TCO by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's something for you, that I didn't realize: apparently it costs MORE to install and set up a set of solar panels on your home than it does to manufacture them. It made me think, "wow, I'm going to install those myself for half the price!" but attaching stuff like that to the power grid is probably not a DIY project. And it isn't just a day labor job either. It's going to take a trained electrician, at $30-$60 an hour putting that stuff in.

    So, their goal is to get the cost of manufacturing down to about 60-70 cents a watt, and the cost of installation down to $1 a watt. I didn't realize the hidden cost of installation was so high.

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:TCO by stabiesoft · · Score: 5, Informative

      It does not take that long to put in the "grid" part. My system was wired (the part requiring an electrician) in a couple of hours. The large cost component besides the panels is the inverter for a DIY. The magical box converts the DC from the panels to a sync'ed grid AC. The DC from the panels is extracted in such a way as to maximize the power, by constantly adjusting the voltage of the panel output. Its a cool little box with all sorts of protection to make sure the power company and your line doesn't crackle.

    2. Re:TCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm preparing to install solar on my roof. It isn't that hard. I've completed almost all of the paperwork for the CSI grant and local permits. Mounting the panels to the roof is simple as is figuring out which way to point them. The wiring is brain dead simple. I have a local electrician lined up to come out and hook it into the actual panel for me. Total cost for his time is about $300. I'm saving $10k by doing this myself! Total out the door cost is about $23,500 for 4.6 Kw.

    3. Re:TCO by ducomputergeek · · Score: 5, Informative

      That may be true, but for TCO, we're talking set up costs vs. money saved over the expected life span of the panels. We put some up at work, enough to cover about 50 - 70% of our energy needs depending on the time of year. (we ran out of roof space to cover 100% of our energy needs) Now we viewed that as a sunk cost on the part of the business. Last year we all couldn't take anymore money home without getting bumped up into higher tax brackets. So we decided to reinvest the profits to help improve cash flow. Which it has. It freed up enough to hire a jr. developer.

      Total time to ROI is about 7 - 9 years by the absolute numbers in terms of savings on our utility bills. But the extra developer allowed us to put a product on the market this quarter instead of late Q2 or even Q3 of this year. Already it is earning enough to cover 40% of his salary and should be profitable by the end of the year. The product could make enough by this time next year to pay for the solar panels. If not next year, certainly within 24 months. If the solar panels last us 15 years, we're looking at recovering a good long term ROI even figuring in the replacement of certain parts at least once during that period.

      I would like to see more people putting these on their homes where it makes sense. Obviously places like Seattle aren't ideal candidates, but if you could turn every house and flat roof into a power producer instead of consumer. I'm sure the power companies don't want that. And I'm not sure if the current government would like that since it would empower people to take individual action to meet their energy needs instead of relying on the government. Even if every home/business just produced 20% of the power they used, it would reduce the load on the power grid by that much. And it would make life easier for places that are already having brown outs etc.. (California)

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    4. Re:TCO by grassy_knoll · · Score: 4, Funny

      thats... ::puts on sunglasses:: ...shocking.

      waaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiilllllllllll!!!!!!

  3. Re:Tellurium by wjh31 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is something we are told about just about any mineral resource, and usually once it gets short, we manage to find a new resource, obviously this cant happen forever, but running out mightnt be an issue for a while. Also it means this technology isnt going to be cost effective for long using the current materials.

  4. Re:Cadmium Telluride? How green by dotancohen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sounds like the classic solar is not a renewable energy source tale because of the non-renewable materials in solar cells. You do realize that once the cells are built, that they continue to work until damaged or otherwise decommissioned, and that the nonrenewables are not consumed in the process? Also, there are alternative materials to use, and alternative places to mine what there is.

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  5. Re:Tellurium by QuasiEvil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mod parent up - the mining industry typically just isn't wandering around prospecting for new ore veins unless they a) don't have enough reserves to meet projected demand or b) the price is high enough to justify opening new mines. When the price gets high enough or the reserves get low enough, they go looking and they usually find something. Most of these alarmist "we're out of element X" projections are based on proved reserve numbers, which are just what the mining companies know about *right now* and can extract.

    It won't last forever, but there's a lot of ground out there to be dug up yet. I can't promise it'll be as economical to extract as current reserves and prices may fluctuate accordingly, but there *IS MORE OUT THERE*.

  6. Re:thats nice by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well as long as they're using rare earth metals, they will never become available. Their supply is much too limited.

    Cadmium may not be that expensive, and not that super-rare (though calling the supply abundant would be a stretch), there is barely any tellurium supply.

    From the wikipedia page :

    Tellurium is extremely rare, one of the nine rarest metallic elements on Earth. It is in the same chemical family as oxygen, sulfur, selenium, and polonium (the chalcogens).

    And the reality is ... of all the atoms in the universe (and "more or less" on earth) you have the following relation, for every ton of gold in existence (on earth), there's about 100 grams of Tellurium available.

    It's not expensive, because no-one's using it. But if you start mass-producing anything with tellurium in it that cheapness will disappear sooner than you can say "exhausted supply".

    It would probably be a very good investment to buy (right now) a ton or so of tellurium and put in your basement. Perhaps a bit unorthodox an investment, but before 20 years pass it will be many times more valuable than gold or platinum. Right now it costs between $70 and $100 per pound. You can reasonably expect that to become at least several thousand within the next ten years.

  7. Re:thats nice by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    None of the elements being discussed are rare earth elements (which are indeed all metals). Cadmium and tellurium are not, and neither are copper, indium, gallium or selenium. This is too bad actually, since despite their name none of the rare earths, except of course for promethium, is very rare.

    And the reality is ... of all the atoms in the universe (and "more or less" on earth) you have the following relation, for every ton of gold in existence (on earth), there's about 100 grams of Tellurium available.

    Tellurium is fairly common for an element of its atomic weight in the Universe. On Earth it is quite rare, but instead of 1/10,000 as common as gold as you would have it, tellurium has about one fourth the abundance of gold in the Earth's crust. See this abundance table.

    --
    a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
  8. Re:thats nice by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not too much of a worry. Concentrating solar power costs have been falling quickly as well, and they require nothing more exotic than reflective surfaces and mineral oil.

    Also from the Wikipedia page: "Recently, researchers have added an unusual twist - astrophysicists identify tellurium as the most abundant element in the universe with an atomic number over 40." Which disagrees with the thrust of your objections, but hey, it's Wikipedia. Who knows if it's thinking straight today. The tellurium page also says that cosmic abundance is far higher than terrestrial.

    Another thing to keep in mind: one of the reasons so little tellurium is mined is because nobody has had much use for it before. Also, if tellurium becomes a limiting factor, we should be able to get more energy out of each ton by using concentrating reflectors.

    As for the "put a ton in your basement" strategy, it may be sound. But Wikipedia advises that it is mildly toxic and should be handled with care.

    --

    You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  9. Thermal Solar by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Thermal Solar is making some great advances and even pushing the boundaries of Stirling engine design. The picture is an animated gif of a parabolic dish mounted generator - note the interesting design of the alternator off the power piston.

    There is a lot going on in Thermal Solar right now as it has the greatest potential to meet base load power needs when coupled with molten salt storage.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  10. Re:thats nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    What do you mean - Promethium very rare? Wikipedia says: "It was calculated that the equilibrium mass of promethium in the earth's crust is about 560 g due to uranium fission and about 12 g due to the recently observed alpha decay of europium-151"

    So, not only is there a pound of that stuff in the earth, but it is ALWAYS there. As soon as you take it away - BAM - another pound.

  11. Re:thats nice by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 4, Informative

    "So, not only is there a pound of that stuff in the earth, but it is ALWAYS there. As soon as you take it away - BAM - another pound."

    What you are implying is that promethium is the result of a process subject to equilibrium processes. Radioactive decay is not an equilibrium process.

    I have no idea the natural abundance of promethium, but if you take away a pound of promethium, there is no "BAM - another pound".

  12. Re:thats nice by KevinIsOwn · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have decided, for the purposes of acquiring tellurium, that there should really be more of it available on the Earth. I have updated the Wikipedia article to reflect this. Hopefully this update gets pushed to the Earth so we can get some cheap solar panels.