Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Printable, Rollable Solar Panels Could Go Anywhere

Posted by timothy on from the why-isn't-my-car's-dome-light-an-led dept.

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."

29 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 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!!!!

    6. 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!
    7. 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]
  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.
  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 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.
    4. 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 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. 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?

  6. 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 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.
    3. 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.
  7. 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. )

  8. 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.