A guest post by John Goetz
Anthony has mentioned previously that he installed solar panels on his roof and, when he was a Trustee for Chico Unified School District, he spearheaded their first ever solar power installation at Little Chico Creek Elementary School.
For years I have wanted to do the same thing. That is, install solar on my home. I am motivated not by a desire to reduce my carbon footprint (which I view as nothing more than a size 10), but more by a desire to lessen my personal use of non-renewable energy sources.
Unlike Anthony, however, I’m cheap. Current technology in silicon solar cells costs about $9/watt. Based on where I live and the sizing of the system, I would be looking at a payback period of 20 years or more on a photovoltaic system, even after tax credits. I have not been able to rationalize the economics around a solution that won’t pay for itself within a few years. Up to this point the longest I have lived in any single home is four years, and I plan to retire and move further south in another five years. So I will never see the economic payback at my current residence. On top of that (pun intended), the shingles on my roof stand a good chance of needing replacement in the next 20 years. I can imagine the cost of re-roofing a home with panels on it will significantly add to the payback time.
The good news is that The silicon shortage that has kept solar electricity expensive is ending. This could mean prices will get down to $5 to $7 per watt in a few years, although that may increase demand enough to drive another shortage, thereby raising prices.
Even better news is an email I received from a company I have been watching for a while: Nanosolar. (Full disclosure – they are privately held and I am not, unfortunately, an investor.) Nanosolar has developed a proprietary ink that allows them to deposit their photovoltaic thin-film semiconductor (copper, indium, gallium, di-selenide, or CIGS) a highly conductive, low-cost foil substrate. This allows them to avoid the need to separately deposit an expensive bottom electrode layer as is required for a non-conductive glass substrate.
Much of the news around breakthrough alternative-energy technologies seems to be followed with statements like “hope to have manufacturing capability in 7 years.” However, the reason Nanosolar sent out their email was to provide a link to a video demonstrating their newly installed manufacturing tool. Here is their email:
Dear Nanosolar friend:
We wanted to let you know of a major milestone in solar energy technology we have now achieved: The solar industry’s first 1GW production tool.
Yes, that’s 1GW of capacity from a single production tool!
You can see it yourself in action in a video we have decided to release and share with you.
Most production tools in the solar industry tend to have 10-30MW in annual production capacity. So how is it possible to have a single tool with Gigawatt throughput?
This feat is fundamentally enabled through the proprietary nanoparticle ink we have invested so many years developing. It allows us to deliver efficient solar cells (presently up to more than 14%) that are simply printed.
Printing is a simple, fast, and robust coating process that in particular eliminates the need for expensive high-vacuum chambers as traditionally used to deposit thin films.
Our 1GW CIGS coater cost $1.65 million. At the 100 feet-per-minute speed shown in the video, that’s an astonishing two orders of magnitude more capital efficient than a high-vacuum process: a twenty times slower high-vacuum tool would have cost about ten times as much per tool.
There’s still a lot of hard work to be done for us to bring solar power everywhere. But at this time we wanted to share with you our excitement about transformational progress happening.
Thank you for your continued support of Nanosolar. While deployment of our product will focus over the next 12 months on installations with our wholesale customers (which includes the world’s largest utility), we are looking forward to making our products more broadly available to everyone in 2009.
Martin Roscheisen
CEO, Nanosolar Inc.
One of Nanosolar’s goals is to bring down the cost of solar power down to $1 per watt. At that level the technology becomes a very attractive option, particularly in new construction. If their company does indeed ramp manufacturing fast enough to serve a broader market in 2009, it should be very interesting to see how rapidly adoption occurs.
I, for one, will be standing in line to install their product.
Ditto that- I want solar on my business – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m sorry but there hasn’t been a silicon shortage. There has been a shortage of economically viable technology.
Electronic engineer
14% conversion would be astonishing. Most thin film/printed cells are in the range of 3-5%. The best monocrystaline are around 19% (Photonics Spectra, July 2008) You can get higher efficiency with exotic materials, but the costs go through the ceiling.
Anthony,
Received same email as you.
Like you, I will be installing this on my house as soon as it is available.
At $1 per watt, a few thousand will meet all my needs, with perhaps a smart interface back into the grid to earn credits during the day.
Great breakthrough.
I may have to keep the fire burning in my fireplace to replace the CO2 not generated via a coal plant. As the globe cools, we’ll need to get as much CO2 up there as possible to prevent a new ice age.
You might have a while to wait before Nanosolar is ready to go rooftop. They’re targeting large industrial/small municipal projects in the few MW range at first and apparently have a backorder running tens of months. But a second, much larger factory is scheduled to open in Germany pretty soon. Their first factory is in San Jose. They started shipping in December (for a project in Germany — no surprise there). They don’t use silicon, they use a printable roll-to-roll CIGS, nanoparticle impregnated ink process. And it sounds like they’re really starting to crank! These guys sound very cool, and I wish them the best of luck.
My bad. June 2008 Photonics. p.71-74, with efficiency of 6-8%, so 14 is still astonishing. John is right about the cost. Raw panels go for about $6/watt, installed around $10. Leftcoasters can get up to a 50% credit from the utility or the state. Power rating is somewhat dubious. Mfr’s measure at 1kw/m^2, which doesn’t happen too often during the day unless you have a mechanical tracker, with the panels always pointed directly at the sun. Hard to put that on a rooftop. So the cost per real watt is higher. Nano’s website is a bit cryptic, I’d like to see some hard specs.
Lots of folks in SV working on solar, expect some good stuff in the next few years. And, alas, a few FBN’s.
High gas prices are credited with spurring further development of new technology. However, the shift toward developement of more efficient technology has already happened and it is questionable whether further pressure will increase this movement. Now, we should be considering how to deal with the adverse effects of high gas prices.
NREL http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/sum2/state.html has historical data on insolation energy in kWhr/m^2/day that is useful for predicting panel output in most locations in the US. It is based on field measurements. Usually you can just multiply the NREL energy number by the panel efficiency to get an estimate of kWhr electrical output per day per m^2 of panel.
The panel efficiency does not need to be that high if the cost is low. Even 10% efficiency would be acceptable if the cost is a factor of 10 less than silicon panels. A big question is lifetime of an organic/inorganic polymer matrix compared with crystalline silicon. Even if they are free, they will not compete with silicon PV if they need to be replaced every 5 years, because of labor costs. Remember that amorphous Si, which was going to replace crystalline Si, achieved 12% efficiency but never was able to achieve long-term stability. It should be interesting to see how this rolls out over the next few years, as Nanosolar prices its product to maximize profits.
There’s a shortage of silicon? I thought it was one of the most common elements in earth!
—-
Here’s a different way to put solar to use:
In the summer, cover your roof with a light-colored, perhaps reflective tarp. In the winter, flip it over so that black side is up. This will reflect light when it’s warm out and and absorb it when it’s colder out.
Now if somebody could build shingles that change their albedo automagically in response to temperate and light and make them affordable, they’ll be rich. Just remember to send me a check for the idea.
REPLY: Shortage of processed pure crystalline silicon – Anthony
Aaron, my guess is that though you said gasoline you mean petroleum products. Consequently, my guess is that higher gas prices are having more of an impact on personal car travel rather than on the trucking industry. That’s not to say that the trucking industry isn’t affected, just that I presume there is less demand elasticity in it. And since trucks get fewer MPG than cars, that might explain the discrepancy. But that’s a guess.
What really puzzles me is the shear quantity of solar cells they are talking about making. They claim the machine can make 1 GW per year worth of solar panels. That is about 1/3 of all the solar energy generated in world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic). So in one year, one machine will add 1/3 to the total world solar energy capacity, wow.
And if they are selling their panels at $5.00 a watt, that means they will take in over $5 Billion in the next year. Unless the ink is made from powdered Unicorn horn (or something just as rare and expensive) they are going to be making an amazing amount of money.
I hope this is real but this sounds a lot like the “Cold Fusion” fraud nearly 20 years ago.
Sorry folks, but unless the solar cells return more energy over their lifetime than they take to manufacture they aren’t an energy source.
Nano solar may have overcome this but most of these alternate energy schemes are actually about tax farming.
George, the difference between the Nanosolar technology and Cold Fusion is that Nanosolar has moved beyond the laboratory, successfully deployed prototypes into the field, built not one but two manufacturing facilities, signed up some very large customers, and is ramping production.
I have looked at these guys in the past. Very interesting product. Does anybody know if this is the same technology as Iowa Thin Film developed? I know they have product,but it is somewhat limited in availability. If these companies can get the product to market eventually in the 1-3.00/watt range I have a feeling demand is going to be pretty great. Heck,I would fully A/C my soon to be built shop here in Florida at that price…
Chris
Interesting article.
I am motivated not by a desire to reduce my carbon footprint (which I view as nothing more than a size 10), but more by a desire to lessen my personal use of non-renewable energy sources.
However, I think that is a misplaced motivation. I admire the “I’m cheap,” one much more.
According to Kudlow, we have over 400 billion bbls potential reserve in Bakken (sweet, but requiring side drilling).
We have nearly a trillion in shale, (recoverable by today’s tech) in the Rockies. Several trillion by tech-to-come.
Note the use of the word “potential”. That is the only sensible mode of measure when considering if we are “running out”. All other measures are merely tactical.
The world currently uses c. 30 billion bbls. per year. So the problem really isn’t one of conserving “non-renewable resources” in the sense of oil.
I think those who believe in the current “peak oil” mantra are about as offbase as AGW proponents.
HOWEVER, wealth, once expended, is gone. So I heartily encourage you to pursue anything that will save you money (which you will either spend on other things, or will bank/invest).
Without tax credits, which are, themselves, a waste of wealth.
If Nanosolar is a solid economic (and energy-efficient) endeavor–without gummint training wheels–then I am very much in favor of it. I don’t know what will turn out to be the “energy of the future”. But I am quite convinced that we will still have plenty of fossil fuels on hand when it is discovered, and the switchover will occur because we want to, not because we have to..
Let me put a different spin on the need for solar. I am looking into limited use of solar for one purpose. To run my well pump after a hurricane takes out our power lines and repair time is 2-3 weeks. Cost is not an issue, having running water is. A bank of 3 marine batteries, rechargable by solar would give me enough power to turn on the well pump for the short time I would need it to run. I can stockpile food, drinking water, and other supplies, I cannot go without running water for showers, cleaning and toilets. Now if I can get away with a small windmill without the County Code inspector finding out …….
I had an interesting solar panel installation on my previous house, first installed in 1979. It was a sealed liquid system designed just to heat my hot water, a task it did efficiently that I blew several relief valves on the storage tank the first year or two. It was mounted on the roof of my garage which had a 10/12 pitch roof facing within a couple degrees of true South. With the tax credits available at the time, the payback was around 7 years, IIRC. In 1981, 30 days out of its 5 year warranty, my original air to air heat pump self-destructed and I installed one of the first closed-loop geothermal systems in Northeastern Indiana. To make it even more unique, we connected the ground loop with the solar panels via a heat exchanger, controlled by a heat-sensitive switch. In the winter, when the solar panels couldn’t get my hot water above 80 degrees, it switched over and gave the geothermal loop a boost. On a sunny, 25 degree winter day, I’d get around a 3-4 degree boost in the ground loop. It was all pretty cutting edge back in the early 80’s.
Anthony :
Cheaper, but less efficient, solar cells use poly-silicon. They are still expensive.
I am not decrying attempts to use solar power. I just decry the uneconomical. The “renewable” energy sources, such as wind, rain, sun, tides, waves, convicts, are only economic because governments are subsidising them with the money of real power users. It is a scam. I do hope that some technological miracle will arrive eventually, but for now, these sources have only limited economical application,
We’ll probably get fusion going before then.
‘But a second, much larger factory is scheduled to open in Germany pretty soon.’
So, a larger factory will be built overseas. I wonder why? Maybe too much red tape here at home?
This is hopeful news. 24 years ago I built my house with a roof pitch equal to my latitude in expectation of panels being cost-effective in a few years. I’m still waiting, but maybe not for another quarter century.
How long does it take for solar exposure to either destroy the ink or the underlying film? Do the panels actually last long enough to produce more power than their construction used? In what climates?
I wonder if this is the same process that is being developed by First Solar in Germany? It certainly sounds very similar, curious to know if anyone has any info on this.
also, in regard to the comment on peak oil – I do think there is a very good case to be made for it, but as usual the concept has been way oversold and most people who use the term have no idea what the theory actually says. The theory does NOT say that the age of oil is though, but simply that our rate of production has peaked and from now on, the rate of new discoveries will never do more than equal the decline rate in old discovered fields. The numbers support that idea. However, with enough exploration (like the oil shales) then levels near current production can be maintained for many years.
The shale oil formations, such as the Bakken, the Haynesville, and the Marcellus are good examples of this proposition. They have very good reserves, but they are difficult and expensive to produce, and so production will be stretched across many years. The amount will be good, but the rate will be slow. That’s what peak oil is all about – our rate has peaked, and will not be topped. With regard to prices, this means that prices will continue to rise until demand destruction begins to take hold. And this seems to already be happening.
Won’t all these panels need massive inverters to change the DC to AC?
George Pratt (14:42:49) :
“I hope this is real but this sounds a lot like the “Cold Fusion” fraud nearly 20 years ago.”
And I hope this doesn’t start a long, fruitless discussion. Cold fusion hasn’t gone away, people still keep coming up with stuff that can’t be readily explained away. I don’t think it’s a fraud, but it may yet be delusional. I haven’t gone looking for information for a few years, but I fell across and interesting experiment a couple days ago.
Suffice it to say that Nanosolar has a lot more to show for their efforts.
The links below go to that cold fusion experiment. You’ll also find comments about Nature saying it doesn’t happen, congresscritters blocking research, basically all the same stuff used against Svensmark’s Galactic Cosmic Ray hypothesis. Oh my – I see a comment wondering if Arata is seeing muon catalysed fusion. Maybe cold fusion only works when the sun is quiet? 🙂
http://physicsworld.com/blog/2008/06/coldfusion_demonstration_an_up_1.html
http://physicsworld.com/blog/ (Other stuff)
http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm
Evan Jones (16:01:50) :
To your list of resources, you forgot to add coal. Coal to Liquids which is viable at current crude prices are sufficient to last for the 200 odd years. And which country has the largest coal reserves in the world? Yes, the USA.
The problem is not availability and potential. The problem is that the USA will never be allowed to develop these resources by the warming alarmist fifth column who control the media, acedemia, entertainment and very soon the government.
The congress is busy putting restrictions on drilling for oil anywhere. The liberal govenor and senator from Colorado are doing their best to delay and stifle oil shale exploration. Coal to liquids is buried in a mountain of bureaucracy that I will confidently predict that not a single plant will be built in the US (while China, India and South Africa will build hundreds, considerably lessening their exposure to the world crude markets).
Do you or anyone else on this forum want to speculate on why these entities seem intent on destroying the US’s current economic standing by dramatically increasing the cost of energy?
Suba F.
Cold fusion isn’t a fraud. The original discovery was made at the time the carbon scam was ramping up. The prospect of cheap carbon free energy would have killed the carbon scam stone dead. So a campaign was launched to label cold fusion a fraud. It was remarkably similar to the recent campaigns to label climate sceptics, deniers, etc. Not surprising, seeing it was orchestrated by the same people.
The Japanese continued working on cold fusion and are now giving demos of their device. I understand there has also been succesful work in Italy.
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sci-tech/cold-fusion-success-in-japan-gets-warm-reception-in-india_10053182.html