Slashdot Mirror


Printable, Rollable Solar Panels Could Go Anywhere

Al writes "A startup based in Toledo, Ohio, has developed a way to make large, flexible solar panels using a roll-to-roll manufacturing technique. Thin-film amorphous silicon solar cells are formed on thin sheets of stainless steel, and each solar module is about one meter wide and five-and-a-half meters long. Conventional silicon solar panels are bulky and rigid, but these lightweight, flexible sheets could easily be integrated into roofs and building facades."

50 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. Imagine that by tyrione · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't it amazing how all of these advancements show up when given a little push?

    1. Re:Imagine that by jshackney · · Score: 4, Informative

      From this article, "Building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) have been around since the late 1980s, Warner says, but only lately have they begun to see some success with large commercial and residential developments. Recent advances in flexible thin-film photovoltaic materials--such as those sold by United Solar--are allowing manufacturers to more easily integrate photovoltaics directly into the roofs and facades of buildings."

    2. Re:Imagine that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Imagine that (Score:3, Insightful)
      by tyrione (134248) on Sunday June 07, @06:51PM (#28244925) Homepage
      Isn't it amazing how all of these advancements show up when given a little push?"

      First, what "little push" would that be? You (quite deliberately) don't say. Second, quite frankly, the technique means crap, because they are inefficient, cheap panels, which makes no sense unless you have a huge roof.

      The main reason stuff like this is coming to market is because energy prices were and will be so high. The second reason is that the advent of the computer and hence technology age, more people have the means and opportunity to look into and acquire the materials without going through a misinformed, costly local middleman.

      Still, this is a pretty crappy system, a part of the whole solar setup, and /. should know better. A HUGE part of the system cost aren't the panels, it's the damn electronics, and those prices are really high for a large installation. Anyone who has looked into solar panels, whether hot water pv, knows this. For non-grid tie but grid tie quality AC power, the inverters alone are damn expensive. Those prices aren't likely coming down, given the amount of quality raw material in them which keep going up due to global demand.

      In a lot of situations, a better system is going with a geothermal heat pump or similar, not your entire roof of crappy, inefficient solar panels, tied to your high quality inverter, and thousands of dollars in batteries. I like solar a hell of a lot, but what we need is highly efficient, cheap flexible panels, with correlating consumer priced inverter and battery tech, not this crap.

    3. Re:Imagine that by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's Firefox. Slashdot has looked like crap for at least a month now. For a news for nerds site, it's curious that they aren't concerned with making it look decent on one of the most popular browsers among nerds.

    4. Re:Imagine that by rhakka · · Score: 3, Informative

      Safari 3.2.1 has the same problem, I can report.

    5. Re:Imagine that by feepness · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't it amazing how all of these advancements show up when given a little push?

      It really is amazing how they founded a company, got a grant, looked into an area of research, and made a breakthrough all in less than three months.

      I gotta hand it to the administration. I used to think government was inefficient. Now I know better.

    6. Re:Imagine that by wisty · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Inverters are a cost, but thin film is no worse off - your inverter won't care that you have a larger area of cellls to produce the same voltage.

      Besides, a lot of electronic equipment can run off DC. Why should you invert the power, then run it through a rectifier, then pump it into your laptop?

      AC power is good for long-distance transmission, but it's no better for consumer use. Air conditioners might prefer AC, but mostly a move to DC could be just as good. Houses could be wired to have an AC system (for obsolete equipment, and stuff that needs electric pumps), and a low voltage DC rail (for new stuff). It might also mean cheaper electronics, if you don't need a bloody rectifier in every piece of white plastic you own.

      Edison FTW!!!!

    7. Re:Imagine that by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Second, quite frankly, the technique means crap, because they are inefficient, cheap panels, which makes no sense unless you have a huge roof.

      1. There's no shortage of unused roof space in the world right now. What matters is cost per watt. Make it cheap enough, and it'll be installed everywhere.

      2. Home-scale inverters would be a heck of a lot cheaper if their volume went up 1,000-fold. And that's what'd happen if solar panels that were easy to install on new (or especially existing) homes could be made cheaply enough.

      3. Solar panels aren't only used on roofs. I actually have a flexible solar panel. It's only 12V/5W -- not exactly a roof-scale installation. I use it for backpacking. I wired it up to a car lighter socket->USB converter, and when it's sunny, I can charge AAs and AAAs (two at a time, in a couple hours), a cell phone, or run other USB accessories.

      --
      What a crazy random happenstance!
    8. Re:Imagine that by FordPrefect276709 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      if you have a roof or any other solar exposed surface, go and mount panels to heat water. it's the only reasonable thing to do. solar power is great for low-temp heat harvesting and you don't need expensive (in terms of $ or in terms of resources wasted) controlling electronic. water saves 4.182 kJ per K at no cost & you will save a big lot of $$$ in heating too cold water with valuable electricity or oil! producing electricity from solar power will almost never pay out. and PLEASE: never ever lay those panels flat out on the floor or flat on a wall. it's the most stupid thing I see so often! mount it in an angle of about 45 degrees, 'cos that's the angle you gain the biggest cross-section to the average sun beam (the angle varies by your geo-spatial position and can be calculated (we did it in the university and round our place its 43.xy degrees.... everything else is just a huge waste of too expensive panels!

    9. Re:Imagine that by Bakkster · · Score: 5, Informative

      To change the voltage. Historically, it's been hard to change DC voltages in a small, efficient, compact device.

      Bullshit. It's easy to get >80% efficiency with a small Buck Converter circuit, and well designed circuits can get upwards of 95% for some conversions. You know that power supply in your computer? Only about half of it turns the AC into DC. All those voltages you use (12V, 3.3V, 5V, etc) are generated from small, efficient DC/DC converters. It's just a controller, inductor, capacitor, and transistor.

      Don't believe me? How's this for small? And yes, I am an Electrical Engineer, and spent a summer designing a power supply with two DC/DC converters.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    10. Re:Imagine that by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      8% efficient cells might not be sufficient to provide ALL the power for a house, but they can make a heck of a dent. I have a very modest home (~1,600 sq ft roof area with attached garage) and if you take the tiny solar insolation we get here in NE Ohio (~4kWh/m^2/day) and multiply it out with the 8% you get ~360kWh/month which is almost half my average monthly power draw. If I could buy these cells for little more than what shingles cost then paying for the inverter to reduce my power bill by half would have a pretty quick ROI.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:Imagine that by EtherMonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's Firefox. Slashdot has looked like crap for at least a month now. For a news for nerds site, it's curious that they aren't concerned with making it look decent on one of the most popular browsers among nerds.

      It's not Slashdot OR Firefox. PEBKAC Configure your script blocking to ALLOW FSDN.COM and the problem should disappear.

      --
      --- A man with a briefcase can steal more money, than any man with a gun. [Don Henley]
    12. Re:Imagine that by ninjackn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Companies like Antec and Seasonic have been incorporating DC-DC converters in their newer power supplies. It's even advertised in the product pages. The DC to DC design is becoming more and more widespread in PSU because they're much more efficient than the older design.

      --
      [FUCK BETA 2.6.2014]
  2. Will we actually be able to buy these? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We all heard about how great Nanosolar is, but it's not actually possible to buy any. Will this stuff be any different?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Will we actually be able to buy these? by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. They're in the exact opposite situation, in fact. They can't make their product fast enough to keep up with orders, which is why it's not really possible for consumers to purchase them. There are much, much worse positions for a company to be in.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    2. Re:Will we actually be able to buy these? by confused+one · · Score: 4, Informative

      100% of Nanosolar's production output is going to large scale (commercial/industrial scale) solar plants. They keep building additional manufacturing capacity but have not saturated the commercial demand. There's no need for them to offer panels to consumers; their business model is quite sound.

    3. Re:Will we actually be able to buy these? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

      There's no need for them to offer panels to consumers; their business model is quite sound.

      The quality of their business plan is completely irrelevant to my reaction to my inability to purchase their product.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Will we actually be able to buy these? by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The quality of their business plan is completely irrelevant to my reaction to my inability to purchase their product.

      Also, your reaction to your inability to purchase their product is completely irrelevant to the quality of their business plan.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    5. Re:Will we actually be able to buy these? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      The quality of their business plan is completely irrelevant to my reaction to my inability to purchase their product.

      Also, your reaction to your inability to purchase their product is completely irrelevant to the quality of their business plan.

      Unfortunately, the quality of the irrelevance is that I am unable to react by purchasing their product.

      Er, and, Plan, or something.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. How much will it cost? by wjwlsn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sounds like a great idea, but it probably isn't the breakthrough that the summary might otherwise suggest. The efficiency of the resulting solar panels, even with triple-junction cells, is still only 8% at most (as stated in the article). At that level of efficiency, the manufacturing process will have to be very inexpensive for these to make sense for the average consumer.

    --
    Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
    1. Re:How much will it cost? by TD-Linux · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cost-per-watt matters much more than density right now (efficiency directly affects density) - look at all the roofs and other potential locations for solar panels. Efficiency isn't the reason they aren't up, it's the high cost. Even 8% efficiency, is still more power than you get out of an asphalt slab.

    2. Re:How much will it cost? by Karganeth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It'll have to be around 40% of the cost of a standard solar cell (since many are around 20% efficient). It doesn't seem much when you consider that these solar panels are extremely thin. The amount of materials needed to create them will be very small and these solar panels are printable. If only they showed us a price we'd know if they were the future or not.

    3. Re:How much will it cost? by SourPatchKid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are some on Ebay from a company called Power film Solar and they go for $320 for a 21 watt. I can't imagine this company would be much cheaper. So it is a little pricey for the average consumer.

    4. Re:How much will it cost? by linuxpyro · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have one of these panels, a 10 watt one. I paid about $200 for it new. It's neat, especially since you can fit it in odd places. The high cost is mostly because you can roll it up into a type to store it. If you don't need that, it's not really worthwhile.

      --
      Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
    5. Re:How much will it cost? by physburn · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Very true, the cost is more important, solar power is approaching parity with oil and gas, and is supposed to reach it at 5 cents per watt. The article didn't give the price of the roll up solar cells, so i've no idea how close to that it is, but such advances will steadier push the balance of prices into solars favor, which is to happen expected by 2012.

      Solar Power feed @ Feed Distiller

  4. Slowly becoming cost-effective by benjamindees · · Score: 5, Informative

    Building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV), especially rooftop applications, would be the biggest market for flexible PV technology, Boas says.

    Roofing is a significant cost in a residential structure. Being able to integrate the roofing material with the solar panels can help make photovoltaics cost-effective.

    In Las Vegas, for instance, roofs are made of expensive (and heavy) clay tiles, mostly for aesthetic reasons. These run anywhere from $30-$50 / m^2.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:Slowly becoming cost-effective by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can already get adhesive thin-film solar "panels" in widths and form factors intended for application to metal roofing panels (the kind shaped like this: A______A — but the As are open like a V and they overlap each other there.) You put it down on some sawhorses and roll out a big sticker which leaves you with a cord hanging off one end. As you put the panels on the roof, you snap the connectors together, and they all get covered by the roof cap at the end. If the roof cap should get damaged, it's inexpensive and relatively simple to replace, all in one piece, so it provides excellent protection for the wiring. You can walk on it, although that doesn't set it apart from today's high-quality crystalline panels.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Slowly becoming cost-effective by veganboyjosh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the clay tiles are used in most desert areas not for aesthetics. Well, not directly. They're the material that's been used in that area for hundreds of years. It's cheap, abundant, and easy to work with.

      One more reason they've been the material of choice for so long? They don't spontaneously combust the same way asphalt shingles or other popular materials can.

      /nitpicking.

    3. Re:Slowly becoming cost-effective by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What I want to know is this: why is everyone jumping on the solar cell idea instead of the molten salt tank idea? It seemed to make more sense in those naturally hot and sunny desert areas to go with the salt tanks as opposed to the solar cells, and it looked like it would be pretty efficient as well as cheaper in the long run.

      The sun is tracked by mirrors which focus the rays on a black tank filled with molten salt, which in turn drives a generator. You would only need wires for the tracking mirrors and the generator as opposed to a whole roof for solar cells, and as a bonus the heat from the molten salt would be high enough that you would be able to get after dark power generation which of course you don't get from the cells.

      Was there a problem with the tech? Because it seemed like a perfect fit for the desert states. If we would couple those with reactors and recycle the nuclear fuel we could get rid of those nasty coal plants while allowing us all to have cheap and reliable power. So was there a problem? Because until we figure out how to make solar cells that are extremely cheap and efficient the salt tanks+nuclear reactors like AR 1&2 in my home state seemed like the best way to cut carbon while keeping from having to go backwards technologically. Did I miss something?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Slowly becoming cost-effective by benjamindees · · Score: 4, Informative

      1) It doesn't fit on a roof. The average roof space per capita is fairly tiny. This is the reason people are most interested in small-scale, high-efficiency, and ridiculously over-priced renewable energy production methods such as solar photovoltaics.

      2) Deserts are actually pretty windy. Tracking mirrors have to be over-built to stand up to the wind and avoid mis-alignment.

      3) Molten salt is high-temperature. High-temperature things could possibly be dangerous. Anything potentially dangerous attracts insurance companies, bands of idiots propped-up by a government that prefers killing people via wars and resource shortages rather than allowing individuals access to useful, possibly dangerous technologies.

      4) Aesthetics. Solar panels are mostly unobtrusive. Tracking mirrors and tanks filled with molten salt are industrial-looking, and thus ugly.

      So the basic problem is that power from molten salt tanks must be produced and sold as a commercial venture. That means it has to compete with coal and natural-gas fired utilities, and still be efficient enough to return a profit. This will basically never happen unless governments tax fossil fuels out of existence.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  5. Re:Easy money by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Welcome to the 80s, where I thought I was cool for having a solar powered calculator.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  6. Support for vents and pipes? by ChartBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Big sheets of PV are wonderful when you have big open expanses, but real world roof surfaces have vents, pipes, drains and the like. Rather than play tetris with rigid panels, or even with flexible panels, I'd love to be able to cut an opening in the PV material for each opening and get maximal use of the roof surface.

    Is anyone working on that?

  7. Safety by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Funny

    Solar Power, it's the safest form of nuclear power.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, it's by far the most dangerous. It is completely unshielded, and its ionizing radiation is responsible for thousands of cancer deaths each year.

    2. Re:Safety by hedwards · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nonsense, that would be geothermal. Compare the rates of burned to death by volcanoes with died of skin cancer, I think the answer is obvious.

    3. Re:Safety by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, it's by far the most dangerous. It is completely unshielded, and its ionizing radiation is responsible for thousands of cancer deaths each year.

      Of course, there is the small detail of it being equally dangerous whether you harvest the power, or not. So we might as well....

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:Safety by MrKaos · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it's by far the most dangerous. It is completely unshielded, and its ionizing radiation is responsible for thousands of cancer deaths each year.

      ummmm, I'm sure the magnetosphere shields us from the suns radiation.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    5. Re:Safety by mcvos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If that dangerous radiation hadn't been there at all, nobody would ever have died from anything.

    6. Re:Safety by mcvos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ummmm, I'm sure the magnetosphere shields us from the suns radiation.

      Imperfectly though. Otherwise the sky would be dark during the day.

    7. Re:Safety by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Funny

      Imperfectly though. Otherwise the sky would be dark during the day.

      I've gotta get my vitamin D from somewhere.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  8. Re:nice new tech by confused+one · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well you know, it's not the same panel. Hell, they don't even have a commercial product yet. Closest is the United Solar Ovonics panels, which aren't available through Home Depot. The Home Depot panels are BP solar. The United Solar panels are the same damn technology as the "new" tech espoused in the original article, by the way. Point was, although it's not the tech under discussion, Home Depot does sell solar PV systems.

  9. Re:We'll Make it up in Volume! by hedwards · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not really, Typically you're going to cover all of the roof, or at as much as the tracking system will allow. If you're limited to doing a third of the roof due to cost considerations then that's feasible, otherwise you're probably going to have to make due with less electricity.

    That being said, having even that much is a help, it's more likely to come down to durability than capacity and every bit does help. If they're of comparable durability, then there's definite potential.

  10. Options and Choices. Good signs. by upuv · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the last 18 months we have seen numerous announcements regarding solar power generation.

    We've seen advances in
    -Manufacturing speed.
    -Toxic material reductions.
    -Efficiency boosts in rigid cells.
    -New products like this flexible.

    Yah sure solar has issues. But now given a space that may be inappropriate for wind you can now find a solution in solar.

    This is all good.

    Maybe one day industry will be draining it's massive power needs from the residentially power generating grid. This should be more than doable in 20 years.

    ( Next item we need to add to the list of critically needed tech. Water purification and desalination that can be applied in the residential markets. Imagine how much land would open up for crops, settlement, and carbon sinking if we just had cheap and easy to deploy water desalination. )

  11. Sigh, another technology that will make it someday by barfy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where are the Stanford 10x Li-ion batteries???

    http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html

    This ALONE will change everything. From an All day Iphone and netbook. To a Chevy Volt that costs 1/2 as much.

    WHERE IS IT?

  12. Fallout 3 by grassy_knoll · · Score: 2, Funny

    Next item we need to add to the list of critically needed tech. Water purification

    Let me guess... been playing a lot of Fallout 3 lately?

  13. Re:from the why-isn't-my-car's-dome-light-an-led d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    TTL?! TTL has got nothing to do with illumination with LEDs.

    As for running LEDs on 12V, there's an easy solution for that: a single-chip regulator (costs less than LEDs!) and a string of LEDs in series. Easy.
    You need your LEDs, a small PCB to hold it all, the regulator, perhaps a capacitor or two, and an inductor. The LEDs are likely to consume most
    of the cost.

  14. This is so old news it hurts by Aceticon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Companies have been manufacturing and selling thin-film, flexible printed to roll solar panels since at least a year ago.

    For example, check http://www.uni-solar.com/ and http://www.firstsolar.com/

    The things to keep in mind with this technology:
    - Cheaper manufacturing, partly because the print to roll technology is much more scalable that the processes used to manufacture traditional solar cells, but also because of high silicon prices (traditional solar-cells use a silicon substract just like integrated circuits and thus compete for the same raw materials: before the recession silicon production was insufficient for both needs, so silicon prices where making traditional solar cells more expensive).
    - Lower efficiency (around 9%) versus traditional solar cells (around 15%). Note that some recent advances are likely to increase the efficiency of traditional solar cells even further.
    - Better at generating energy under low light conditions (e.g. in the shadow) than traditional solar cells.
    - There are some questions about the long term viability of some thin-film solar cell technologies since they use rare elements: their price might go higher as production increases since that will also increase the demand for said rare raw materials.

  15. It can be really cheap by twisteddk · · Score: 2, Informative

    While printing on film is fairly cheap, this is actually a somewhat dated techbology already. TFT technology is older than I am, and a couple of years ago, Danish researchers prooved that they could actually PRINT (using a normal printer and special ink) a solar cell.
    Again, it suffers the same problems that this cell does, that the efficiency is very low. At the same time, the print would ofcourse decay/fade over time. This problem at least seems to be resolved by printing on thin film. Production of the Danish invetion is expected to hit the streets pretty darned soon.

    Normal cost of solar cells is measured in $/WP, and at best you'd get about $6-8/WP for a monosilcate or poly silicate cell today, and that's for the really inefficient ones that takes up a lot of space. The new tech will (well, it SHOULD, but likely someone will claim return on investment and hike up the prices the first couple of years) put current prices below $1/WP, but take up even more space than before. This means that it will be cheaper to get cells than buy power on the open market (at least given the prices in Europe), ofcourse dependant on the lifetime expectancy and diminishing returns of the cell. Plus you still need to have enough space for all those cells. Today a 1 Kw base takes up about 60 square feet, and this tech pretty much tripples or even quadrouples that space requirement, but makes the investment affordable.

    --
    --- To err is human... Am I more human than most ?
  16. Re:Options and Choices. Good signs. by upuv · · Score: 2

    Nope live in Aus.

    Just have a gander at the globe. You see all that brown land. It's a fare chunk of the land surface. If even a hair of that was made habitable by the simple application of fresh water.

    Just think North Africa could easily become the bread basket for Europe and Africa if it had fresh water. Australia could grow enough potatoes to feed all of the Irish and put Vodka in all of the Russians on the planet.

    Cheap easy to implement desalination would be possibly the most important thing for man kind since the discovery of antibiotics. Fresh water is the single most important component in the implementation of organic carbon syncs. Fresh water is the single most important factor in the prevention of disease. Without Fresh water you don't have cows or wheat.

    P.S. 100 miles is NOTHING when it comes to distance for a pipe. Good old Reagan proposed once to pipe water from Canada to CA so people could fill their pools.

  17. Hurricanes by JMandingo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here in Florida we have plenty of sun available. However, one prohibitive problem with solar panels is the occasional hurricane. If you have large solid panels installed on your roof, a strong wind will pick them up like a kite and tear them (plus a good chunk of your roof) right off.

    I like the idea of something cheap and flexible because you could either have a system of rolling it up when a storm approaches, OR let the storm have it (like pool screen enclosures) and install a new one afterwords.

    --
    Vonnegut was right: Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are, "It might have been."