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
And reduced traffic should improve the trucking efficiency as well.
Kim, it’s my understanding that ethanol was added to gasoline because it increased efficiency and caused less wear on engines (prevented gunk from building up). Up to about 15%. After that, it causes a decline in efficiency. (please don’t make me look it up, I have repetitive stress problems.)
Ethanol (and MTBE) were added to reduce emissions. And it works, I have test data before and after for all the beaters I drove. It does reduce mileage. Ethanol has about 60% of the energy per gallon. A tad higher ‘octane’ rating can make up for some of it. Without special tuning, you also get a bit of formaldehyde, which is not so good.
I’d like to see the total cost of production, from farming to harvest to final product, including energy input and fresh water. As well as ‘lost opportunity’ from what the water and electricity didn’t do. I think you’ll find that ethanol should remain in beer and not in cars.
As to solar economics, be sure to include % of sunny days. Won’t get full output when the sun is not bright.
Rick Lambert,
you think Gubmint stayed out of too much.
Please explain why the polluters who caused the superfund sites were not hunted down and required to fund ALL the clean up.
GUBMINT!!!!!
Most solar calculators (and advice from installers) I have seen and used on the web do not assume that you try to completely eliminate your grid usage. For one thing, you cannot use it at night. Efficiencies vary throughout the day and throughout the year. Typically what I have seen are recommendations to replace 1/3 to 1/2 of one’s electrical usage with solar at today’s panel prices.
And the calculators produce results consistent with Brendan’s.
Aaron, the ethanol thing is very complex. Retired Engineer is right, in that ethanol has only 76,000 btus/gal, whereas gasoline has about 116,000. However, ethanol is 113 Octane vs gasoline’s 86, or so.
Octane burns Very efficiently at high Compression, but, less so at 9:1, or so, where most passenger cars reside. This means that you can burn it in a small, very high compression engine and get the same power/mileage as gasoline in a larger lower compression engine.
As I said, it’s Very complex. But, the bottom line is that a ten percent blend in your car will, probably, result in about 1.0 to 1.5% less mileage.
The real “kicker,” and, not understood part, is that many cars will get better mileage on either a 20%, or 30% blend of ethanol than with straight gasoline.
http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1732&q=&page=all
Bottom, Bottom Line: Beware all one sentence definitive statements on ethanol. It’s not weather science; but, it’s not simple, either.
Oops, Wrong Link:
http://www.rhapsodyingreen.com/rhapsody_in_green/files/optimal_ethanol_blend_level_study.pdf
There.
Thanks John! That’s because I used basic data – the same thing the calculators use. I was trying to calculate what it would take to largely remove you from the grid (including batteries to take you into the night hours). The systems as installed for homes actually may be cheaper because utilities would likely buy daytime electricity back from a consumer at higher prices and sell them cheap power at night. That would mean many less batteries, and a generally better overall cost. Regardless – if nanosolar can make $0.50/W -$1.00/W solar modules, the overall electrical energy market will draastically change – and this will have an impact on transportation at some point.
I’m not sure you’ll see reliable low cost solar modules for a few years… Wait and see!
MTBE and ethanol were not intorduced to reduce wear on engines. They were both mandated as oxygenates (with MTBE being the preferred oxygenate) to cause more even burning in carburated engines and to reduce overall emissions. It was abright idea. Unfrotunately, God invented EFI before oxygenates had their full effect, and EFI had substantially greater impact on emissions reductions. Studies out of UC Berkeley using the Caldicut tunnel showed no impact on emissions from the introduction of oxygenates -merely the impact of older vehicles being removed from the fleet – a gradual decrease in emissions quality (the exception was the elimination of benzene which did indeed have a huge impact). However, CARB and EPA continued to insist that the oxygenates were having a huge impact even as their impact to groundwater grew.
Oxygenates and the various witches brews of low emission fuels could be eliminated tomorrow and the impact would be a drop in prices in California by about $0.35/gal and elsewhere by about $0.15/gal. And that’s not including the price of ethanol – that’s merely the impact of having a Tower of Babel fuel program across the US…
KuhnKat (14:24:28) Please explain why the polluters who caused the superfund sites were not hunted down and required to fund ALL the clean up.
Heck, that’s easy: the compant or companies most directly responsible declare bankruptcy. Even if a few of the principals ultimately face criminal charges, what good does it do from an economic perspective?
Any other questions?
Pardon me for saying so, but too often the attitude is that if gubmint gets too involved, gubmint is to blame. If gubmint doesn’t get involved enough, gubmint is to blame. Sounds to me like gubmint can’t catch a break no matter what it does, and industry never even has to try no matter what it does. If you disagree, how so?
Superfund sites: Where the originators are identified, they do pay for the cleanup. Most of the “gubmint” sites are either due to midnight dumpers or result from the “gubmint” themselves. Regardless -when much of these releases occured (not all, but many) there was little understanding of what the results would be. This isn’t all of course – well into the 80s there were still companies trying to get away with dumping, with even the rare company trying to get away with it today. But to think that companies in the US (and I can’t speak to their international subsidiaries) would try to get away with it in general is conspiracy think. They are much more afraid ofthe bad press. Yes, they try to approach the cleanup in a slow fashion. I won’t get into the reasons for it, except to say if there was no resistance, almost infinite amounts of money (instead of the merely hundreds of billions) would have been poured into these sites, and the results would have been much the same. Gunk goes easily into soil, and comes out slowly, limited by difussion in many cases.
I do have one final story to tell – or to point to – the poster child for the environmental movement – Love Canal. The reason for that mess was not the landfill owners, but greedy school district owners who ignored all deed and safety restricitions placed on that site when they were forced to transfer the property. The story can be found here…
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29319.html
Sometimes ago, bacteria were discovered that could breakdown PCBs. One more case of serendipity. Also, there was a concern about landfills that organic matter would soon fill them up. Apparently that problem was solved too via bacteria with methane as a byproduct.
I don’t object to the concept of superfund. It istaking care of past pollution (those who did it were not under restrictions and/or are long gone).
So in theory, it’s not inappropriate that the government handle it. (As a temporary measure. The way Hubert Humphrey SAID affirmative action was supposed to work.) I don’t know how well superfund is being handled, though.
Current pollution is a different story. There’s less of it and there are laws covering cleanup.
What do we do in Michigan when we don’t see the sun for a week at a time?
Or when the solar collector is buried under 6 inches of sow?
A more efficient and cost effective renewable energy system is needed.
A more efficient and cost effective renewable energy system is needed.
To accelerate the implementation of renewable electric generation with added incentives and a FASTER PAYBACK – ROI. (A method of storing energy, would accelerate the use of renewable energy) A greater tax credit, accelerated depreciation, funding scientific research and pay as you save utility billing. (Reduce and or eliminates the tax on implementing energy efficiency, eliminate increase in Real estate Taxes for energy efficiency improvement).
In California, you also have the impediment, that when there are an interruption of power supply by the Utility you the consumer cannot use your renewable energy system to provide power.
In today’s technology there is automatic switching equipment that would disconnect the consumer from the grid, which would permit renewable generation for the consumer even during power interruption. Energy storage technology must advance substantially. “Energy conservation through energy storage”.
New competition for the world’s limited oil and natural gas supplies is increasing global demand like never before. Reserves are dwindling. These and other factors are forcing energy prices to skyrocket here at home. It’s affecting not just the fuel for our cars and homes, but it’s driving up electricity costs, too. A new world is emerging. The energy decisions our nation makes today will have huge implications into the next century.
A synchronous system with batteries allows the blending of a PV with grid power, but also offers the advantage of “islanding” in case of a power failure. A synchronous system automatically disconnects the utility power from the house and operates like an off-grid home during power failures. This system, however, is more costly and loses some of the efficiency advantages of a battery-less system.
We’re surrounded by energy — sun, wind, water. The problem is harnessing it in an economical way.
Jay Draiman, Northridge, CA
June 19, 2008
Jay Draiman Energy Development Specialist provides expertise in all sectors of the energy and utility industry.
Over 20 years experience. Specializing in: Energy Audit, Telecom audit, Utility bills audit and review for refunds or better rates, Demand Management, Energy Efficiency review and implementation, Renewable Energy, Lighting Retrofit, Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Fuel-Cell, Thermal imaging, Rainwater harvesting, Energy conservation, Ice Storage, Water conservation methods, Energy and telecom audit and procurement
Much is at stake when policy makers, regulators, and corporate executives face the challenges of evolving energy markets and efficiency.
http://www.energysavers2.com
Hi,
I know you have heard this before in 5 or 10 years we will see solar really takeoff “EH” LOL. When they run the first steel mill or heavy equipment off of solar then I will be a believer.
What do we do in Michigan when we don’t see the sun for 2-4 months and there is a foot of snow?
What do we do in Michigan when we don’t see the sun for a week at a time?
What you do is vote for the guy who is anti-energy. Why you do this I am not quite sure I understand.
‘Old construction worker’
Germany has 1/3 of the worlds tax laws, you can only drive around a traffic island once (2 times is an offence of $160 ) you cannot mix plastic with paper in the garbage containers ( outside our house there is 9 different colored containers ) Garbage police carry guns, in the winter you cannot leave your car engine running, to paint your kitchen, you must employ a ‘Maister’ you cannot do it yourself, a registered business of 2 people must employ a full time bookkeeper, it is illegal to go up a stepladder or mobile device more than 3 feet without a licence ( to get a licence is 12 weeks school) there are towns in Germany without street lights because they have no licenced people,
to work as a shop assistant is impossible if you comply with the law, and you say “maybe they have less red tape over there?
When I put ethanol blend in my car, the mileage drops 10 to 20%.
The reason why your solar collector is disconnected from the grid when the power fails is the power company doesn’t want your collector system to kill their workers.
As to your claim that we need even higher subsidies in order to make collector’s more economical, I call BS.
If collector’s can’t compete without subsidies, then they should be allowed to die.
REPLY: Along with Mark’s comment, I call double BS.
Subsidies aren’t the answer, becuase all they do is distrubute wealth. The answer is in more efficient technology. At 14% conversion ratio, teh cost of solar has to be subsidized now to make it affordable at all. More subsidies will only prolong, more subsidies. Market forces and economics will drive efficiency. -Anthony
Several points:
Mike Borgelt: Nanosolar claims a two-month “energy-payback time” on its photovoltaics, and says for traditional silicon-wafer photovoltaics, the energy-payback time is three years.
Anthony: The conversion ratio (efficiency) has little to do with the need for subsidies. If the Nanosolar has 2/3 the conversion ratio of a crystalline silicon photovoltaic, but costs 1/5 as much, it is in much less need of subsidies than the silicon, even if it needs 50% more area.
The question of subsidies is a tricky one. You can make a case that they can jumpstart investment that is needed to bring the cost down so that eventually a technology can survive without subsidies. On the other hand, it can attract industrial “welfare queens”.