Renewable energy technologies will never get off the ground until they become cheaper than fossil fuels. Today, Nanosolar CEO Martin Roscheisen says his startup took a step in that direction by shipping its first thin-film solar panel after five years of development. In a blog post, Roscheisen claims his company has produced “the world’s lowest-cost solar panel – which we believe will make us the first solar manufacturer capable of profitably selling solar panels at as little as $.99/Watt.” That would put energy systems made with Nanosolar panels within striking range of the price of coal, which is around $2.10 per watt for new coal plants. The way Nanosolar is lowering its cost is through a new manufacturing process. Instead of making solar panels out of silicon in $3 billion chip factories, it has developed a thin-film process that is more like roll-to-roll printing.
But note that Roscheisen says he “believes” Nanosolar is “capable” of making solar panels so cheaply, not that he has actually done so. Those prices will only come with high-volume manufacturing, and Nanosolar still needs to scale up. But at least it is on its way. Nanosolar says it is sold out of its initial manufacturing run. In the meantime, you can bid on Panel #2 on eBay. (The current bid is $810).
Nanosolar boasts an all-star list of investors, including Benchmark Capital, Mohr Davidow Ventures, Swiss Re, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Jeff Skoll, and Reid Hoffman. It has raised a total of $112 million.
Cooloo
I love energy technologies!
From the eBay auction:
“This solar panel is sold AS-IS, without any warranties (either express or implied). As we make no claims to any express or implied warranties, all bidders acknowledge and agree that this panel is presented as a collectable item that may have potential historical value, not an item meeting any specifications.”
Ummmm….. I realize that it is a collectible item, but shouldn’t you feel confident in bidding that it actually works?
Current bid raised to US $1,020.00….
I remember doing a report on photovoltaic energy in college more than 20 years ago. It ‘wowed’ me back then, the idea of sunlight instantly converted to electric power. I’ve heard so many ‘almost there’ stories the past two decades that it’s tempting to be cynical. But perhaps solar’s time has finally come. Certainly in the next few years. And if that’s the case … GREAT. What’s not to like??
WOW!!!!! A solar power proponent says we are on our way to widespread, cheap solar power! Holy Cow! Stop the presses! This is Big News!
Homer Simpson: “And Lord, we’re especially thankful for nuclear power, the cleanest, safest energy source there is, except for solar, which is just a pipe dream.”
Man, I hope these guys are for real. If so then this is a historic day, indeed.
Hello Roscheisen,
Your bright idea just might save the planet, thanks.
If this is true, ecologists will find a big Big BIG problem in the solar energy.
Remember they are against capitalism…
A couple of things don’t add up here:
- The coal to solar PV comparison - one Watt of PV does not equal one Watt of Coal. For example 1 MW of PV panels only produces 1 MW of power under standard test conditions which only occur on a very limited basis. Occasionally it may produce more than 1 MW but most of the time it produces less and much of the time (at night) it produces zero. A 1MW coal plant on the other hand produces 1MW 24 hours a day.
Of course, there are many advantages to solar power including the fact that you don’t need fuel. And there are not the very high climate, health and pollution costs associated with coal. But the simplistic comparison done here tells us nothing about whether or not this PV system is cheaper. For really comparison purposes we should see the cost of 1 Wh on an annual basis.
- The article estimates the total install cost at $2 per W. But currently the balance of system components (mounting, inverters, wiring, circuit protection), labour and permitting come in at more like $4-5 per W.
- All other PV panel manufacturers supply a spec sheet for their product. Nanosolar still has not put one up on their website.
Day4 Energy has also claimed that their PV concentrator systems will be competitive with coal. But Day4 actually publishes spec sheets and hundreds of their modules have been installed around the world (in non-concentrator systems).
what are the cost per watt for those windmill generators? My guess it would match pretty close Cost per Watt with solar as they both have variable output. Nukes *still* have the best potential as a clean source of energy for the US to switch using the Greenhouse Gas producing Coal plants.
LarryL9797.
Repeat after me, “The cost per watt is not a good comparison.
The cost per watt is not a good comparison.”
(Especially for wind which has no standard for sizing turbines in terms of watts).
The cost per W for wind is much less than solar. But again it is not very relevant. What is relevant is the cost per Watt-Hour (Wh) of energy produced over time (an annual basis is usually good for comparison).
If you live in a place that is not too windy the annual cost per Wh for solar will be much less than wind power. But if you live in a place with ideal wind conditions the cost per Wh for wind will be much less than solar. And under ideal conditions the cost per Wh of wind will come close to that of coal.
Also one has to differentiate between capital and operating costs. The article here mostly just compares capital costs. Capital costs for solar are quite high but the operating costs are close to zero.
The cost of nuclear is controversial. Some claim that the capital costs and operating costs are highly subsidized (especially the liability insurance). Some also claim that the operating costs are going to rise substantially because uranium ore deposits are dwindling and they require higher fossil fuel expenditures to mine the ore.
you have to see what the efficiency of the nanosolar product is to guage its cost effectiveness. I doubt their efficiency is anything north of 8%
And scaling is where all these solar companies fall apart. Affordable (non subsidized) solar energy is like a perpetual motion machine– its a fantasy. Dig through a used book store for some old Whole Earth Catalogs from the 70’s– same cost predictions and time estimates as the solar hucksters give today. In fact, most of them are the same hucksters (wearing older and smellier Berkies).
Your children’s children will be using virtually the same amount of coal and oil as we use today …oil shale, oil sands, deep water crude, and coal coal coal coal coal. Invest in filtration companies to get cleaner energy not fantasies.
ps- Operating in infrastructure costs for solar, unlike what was noted above, are far from zero–thats a specious claim at best. One could make the case that oil costs almost nothing after extraction and initial processing using a limited examination, but then you have to move it (as one has to move electricity or petrol), sell it, service it, yadda yadda yadda. Oh and with solar there are the tiny costs of readapting the ENTIRE GLOBAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE. Yeah, thats freebie.
If the operating costs aren’t “close to zero” (which is what I said) - what are the costs that you are referring to?
Good Lord, I hope this is for real…
And to the haters on here (who may, or may not, be somehow tied to the fossil fuel industry), just because a broad solution hasn’t yet presented itself, it doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying.
If everyone thought that way, we’d all have Polio by now… And there wouldn’t be a single entrepreneur in the world.
(A similarly narrow-minded cynic once said, “What? You two college kids want to start an internet search engine called “GOOGLE?” And you think people are gonna pay you to advertise on it? The hell are you smoking!?”)
Good luck. I am a big fan of solar. I just think the biggest problem though is where to install. Seattle might be a hard sell.
“A similarly narrow-minded cynic once said, “What? You two college kids want to start an internet search engine called “GOOGLE?” And you think people are gonna pay you to advertise on it? The hell are you smoking!?””
Actually, they tried to sell the engine first to Yahoo! I believe. The advertising came later when they were running out of money. Good call though.
cbmeeks
http://codershangout.com
“Affordable (non subsidized) solar energy….”
But solar is not subsidized any where near the amount that fossil fuels are - $325 billion / year (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3818995.stm).
“Invest in filtration companies to get cleaner energy not fantasies.”
LOL, good clean/sequestration coal technologies are not commercially available yet. On the other hand, there are thousands of solar generation sites around the world. And which one is closer to “fantasy?”
Wow, if this works it’s fantastic news! Good luck and be good (-:
“Seattle might be a hard sell.”
Not as much as you would expect. The nation that produces the largest percentage of its power from solar is Germany. And most of Germany gets less sunlight than Seattle.
About a year and a half ago I help install a solar system on a home just North of Seattle (in a place that gets slightly more rain than Seattle). The home is now net-zero for electricity.
And to the haters on here (who may, or may not, be somehow have read news reports from thirty years ago or be able to think critically)
there, fixed it for you, idiot. Recognizing shortfalls in a technology that’s been trumpeted for decades and not pan out doesn’t mean I’m part of some nefarious plot. It means I’m a big meany who just wants to stomp on your rainbows, strangle the earth mother, and celebrate with a unicorn steak.
Leave Coal alone, it’s the best thing out there!
fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
If you’re so smart, where’s your website?
LOL Doesn’t even take the time to type a legible name, or link-back (thereby placing whatever he says in a ’specious’ category, one step above spammers) , and calls people idiots.
Way to get people to listen to what you have to say….
I came across some calculations that show that in some parts of the US current commercially available solar PV technology is already cost competitive with conventional electricity rates even WITHOUT subsidies:
http://www.renewableenergyacce.....y?id=44723
(see comments 8 and 9).
You’re right. I shouldn’t have called you an idiot. You’re making it clear to everyone.
I didn’t realize you were elitist too. I’ll just go back to the other huddled masses and leave you alone.
i love all the solar energy companies!
please take my money… i beg u!
When is the IPO?
Sweetness. I hope this works, I’d love to run solar.
What substances are used in making these solar panels ? Manufacturing solar panels is not environment friendly, just like coal power plant.
After all you get DC from these PV, and DC to AC is very inefficient process. Never any pure sinewave like coal powered AC motor. And the batteries you need to store DC.
I think the process is similar to that of making 35mm film — if I remember correctly.
I remember reading about this several months ago (in B 2.0 perhaps), when this was in early testing, and word was just beginning to be whispered that a whole new game in solar was about to begin.
Wow, it is amazing how much mis-information there is about solar PV out ther.
“Manufacturing solar panels is not environment friendly, just like coal power plant.”
Wrong. Solar PV manufacturing is very energy intensive but the panels produce more energy than is used to make them in 3-7 years. It is way cleaner the coal power.
“After all you get DC from these PV, and DC to AC is very inefficient process.”
Really? Most solar system inverter operate at around 95% efficiency.
“Never any pure sinewave….”
Wrong again. Most modern inverters that are sold are pure sine wave. And they are required to be pure sine wave to be grid-tied (which is what most new installations are).
“And the batteries you need to store DC.”
Wrong again. You can have a straight grid-tie system. Probably the majority of systems going in right now are without batteries.
Thanks rbaxter. If it were that easy with solar and just like an AC generator, I wish I can have domestic solar power generator over my rooftop and connect to my mains. When no sun, you can switch to local supply. On any given a day in a year, we experience between 25 to 45 deg C in mornings.
I’m less interested in arguing a position than in understanding the costs. If we were to accept Martin Roscheisen’s comment about the feasibility of $2 per installed watt, and taking “watt’ to be a “per hour” measurement, I would think the next question might be how many watts of power could an installed “1 watt system” produce in a year in a given location and how even would that production be on a day to day basis.
I estimated my home usage of electricity, for example, to be a minimum of 12Kw per day (12,000w per day). How much effective production of electricity might I expect out of a 1000 watt system in, say Kansas City? If the system would consistently only produce about 4000w per day and my system, at $2 per watt costs $2000 to install (including storage, converter, etc.), and the going rate for purchasing electricity is $.10 per KwH, then my 1000 watt system would only produce 1460 Kw per year, and the production would be valued at $146. Even assuming $0 operating cost, the payback period would be over 13 years.
In the numbers I used in this example, the total install cost might well be much higher, and the daily electricity production might be much higher, too. Clearly the $.10/KwH value given to electricity produced gives no weight to the avoidance of environmental consequences of fossil fuel use either. Im just proposing these numbers for discussion purposes. Can anyone out there make an informed comment on what would really be an expected wattage production rate per day, or per year, for my nominal 1000 watt suystem in Kansas City (or somewhere else)?
Greg,
Based on a quick calculation using data I have for NE Kansas it would be 4,570 kWh per day or 1.67 MWh per year.
That gives you a simple payback of 12 years (if you could get it installed for $2000 which seems very low to me).
The panels do come with a 25 warranty and the more conventional silicon panels have been shown to produce power after 50 years (not sure now long nanosolar panels will last).
So you are going to be getting free power for many years.
Thanks, Rob
I agree that the install cost sounds very low, particularly for home systems. I would think that large flat-roof arrays or on-the -ground super-large arrays would be more likely to be cost-competitive with coal much sooner. No doubt ramped up production of panels will lead to further cost reductions as well. If Nanosolar is really capable of selling their panels at a profit at a price of $1 per watt, suddenly the challange becomes reducing the installation costs. If you read some of the material on the Nanosolar website, it appears that they have been paying attention to this, in terms of linkages of panels into larger arrays, etc. So maybe we aren’t at the point yet where home installation of solar arrays is a particularly cost effective option but it still seems that $1 per watt panels represent a tremendous step forward. It really does raise hopes that large scale use of solar power may be on the verge of being economically viable.
“A 1MW coal plant on the other hand produces 1MW 24 hours a day”..this would be true if electricity demand were level, but it’s not. Most coal plants will be operating at a fraction of their capacity from, say, 10PM until 7AM. But their capital costs, of course, continue during this interval.
But coal and nat gas plants do have the ability to run flat out during the parts of the day and year when demand is maximum, whereas for solar, this is up to the weather gods.
If the cost estimates are true, then a lot of solar capacity will probably get built, and once this gets past 5-10% of overall supply, then running the grid is going to get even more challenging than it already is, with significant energy sources subject to wild and uncontrollable output swings.