|
Friday, June 23, 2006 Large-Scale, Cheap Solar ElectricityA well-financed California startup is promising to build a solar-cell factory that could finally make solar power affordable. By Kevin Bullis
This week, Nanosolar, a startup in Palo Alto, CA, announced plans to build a production facility with the capacity to make enough solar cells annually to generate 430 megawatts. This output would represent a substantial portion of the worldwide production of solar energy. According to Nanosolar's CEO Martin Roscheisen, the company will be able to produce solar cells much less expensively than is done with existing photovoltaics because its new method allows for the mass-production of the devices. In fact, maintains Roscheisen, the company's technology will eventually make solar power cost-competitive with electricity on the power grid. Nanosolar also announced this week more than $100 million in funding from various sources, including venture firms and government grants. The company was founded in 2001 and first received seed money in 2003 from Google's founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Experts say Nanosolar's ambitious plans for such a large factory are surprising. "It's an extraordinary number," says Ken Zweibel, who heads up thin-film research at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO. Most groups building new solar technologies "add maybe 25 or 50 megawatts," he says. "The biggest numbers are closer to 100. So it's a huge number, and it's a huge number in a new technology, so it's doubly unusual. All the [photovoltaics] in the world is 1,700 megawatts." Today, the lion's share of solar cells are based on crystalline silicon, which is about three to five times too costly to compete with grid electricity, Zweibel says. Nanosolar's technology involves a thin film of copper, indium, gallium, and selenium (CIGS) that absorbs sunlight and converts it into electricity. The basic technology has been around for decades, but it has proven difficult to produce it reliably and cheaply. Nanosolar has developed a way to make these cells using a printing technology similar to the kind used to print newspapers, rather than expensive vacuum-based methods. Although the company expects to start selling solar cells next year, ramping up to full production will take more time. Meanwhile, high demand for solar cells worldwide will keep prices high, Roscheisen says. Eventually, however, he says the company hopes to attract more customers with lower prices, in several years reaching prices that make solar-power electricity competitive with the grid. Zweibel says the company is likely to face challenges in ramping up production, although their pilot manufacturing facility is a big step. And he adds that Nanosolar is not alone in developing inexpensive manufacturing processes for CIGS solar cells, and at least one other company is working with a printing process. Meanwhile, Andrew Gabor, senior engineer at Evergreen Solar, a silicon solar-cell developer and manufacturer in Marlboro, MA, says current supply problems related to conventional solar cells are easing as more production capacity is coming on line. This could mean that prices for silicon cells start dropping again, eventually becoming competitive with grid electricity. He suggests that in the future solar electricity supply will likely be met by a mix of technologies. |
![]() |
||||||
| ||||||


Comments
Great work here ladies and gentlemen.
Read this web page for some enlightenment.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/dn9984
Are you specifically looking for incubation of clean energy ideas or other health care related ideas will also be considered??
Please look at www.sunengy.com This is a new technology ideal for India (and most other places).
This looks to be low cost and scaleable for silicon PV chips,
Black silicon http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/research/detailspage.php?rowid=1
But because of how tunable the process is, makes my mind is swim on all the other potential applications.
install about twenty, 100 watt solar panels on my house, however after taking out a mortage to pay for it montly and comparing it with the monthly cost of energy from the grid and taking into account my solar system may need to be replaced by a more effecient system in 10 years, as much as I would love to get off the grid and go solar..... after calculating the cost I am going to have to wait a bit longer for my solar powered dream home.
Stop biting your nails or seek excuses why it is not viable. Set honest priorities and the risk instead of letting others do the dirty work for you.
But for heavens sake stop that squabbling.
My personal consumption averages $100/mo at about 1000KWH. An array suitable for my needs - based on the above example - would be less than $5,000 after the rebate, so costs would remain a factor for the first fifty months, i.e., a little over four years. The array's design life is forty years; it is guaranteed for thirty.
This leads me to suspect the calculations quoted here and elsewhere are centered on solar-electric efficiencies or some other parameter, but not on residential applications or real-world cost/benefit analysis.
Next time Tech Review covers one of these breakthrough solar technologies, a little number-crunching (and the methodology) would be most welcome.
Silicon devices have mean time to failures measured in decades and efficiencies near 20%. I'd be surprised if these devices lasted 10 years with efficiencies over 5%.
None of the muck has every coated the cells enough to compromise performance, and my system worked just fine throughout and after muck-spewing Katrina. Ask the Coast Guard.
They use Carmanah Solar Beacons (made in Canada) on their buoys throughout the Gulf Coast, and muck doesn't stop the LED's from shining brightly all through the night. Neither do bird droppings and guano. Carmanah simply encases the cells and the LED's in curved polycarbonate cases that mucks clings to with difficulty if at all.
Take Silicon battery and divide its cost by four (since the In+Ga content in CIGS is one fourth only). Then devide that cost by 50 additionally (since a thickness decreases by 50 times in CIGS film). So, CIGS seems to be competitive in the market, without respect of its efficency (even 10% efficiency will be great ! ).
even with old (50yr old Arcos)
as long as you're not an energy hog
can't get a mqanufacturer to build the Harvesters, and they are not costly to build, been having to finance all myself,,
LFM
Stay motivated and persistant and it will all pay off. Just takes extra hard pushing these days to get the train rolling.
GREAT WORK!
More on nano-crystal solar here: http://blog.monkeysign.net/monkeysign/2005/05/nanocrystal_sol.html
www.sunengy.com.au