Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar efficiency 9-10%, installed cost $3/W
- Original Message From: Michel Jullian 9 to 10% efficiency for Nanosolar's current production (they target 15% ultimately). Installed cost of 1MW German plant panels $3/W ... Well, they will tell you almost anything when, as this Company president was telling potential investors, it needs to raise $100 million in private equity ... ... and in a field which is already over-crowded; and in which the raw materials issues (indium? gallium?) have not been solved; and which raw materials problems are conspicuously absent from mention ... like Cervantes, I smell another rat - of the 'promise them anything' variety, especially since: In 2003, the price of indium was less than $100 per kg. which is not cheap (and you will see a price in that range mentioned by some of these high-flying thin-film companies trying to lure investors). Lately, the surge in demand for indium due to LCD computer and TV screens, has resulted in a price which broke through the $1,000/kg level and is still on the rise. There is only a limited supply. IOW - demand for indium will continue to increase if thin film solar technology gets into production. The best solution for using solar is probably algae (aquaculture). Billions of years of evolution has taught those little buggers a thing or two about converting sunlight into storable energy efficiently. The next best solution may involve titania - TiO2 - which is a common ceramic produced in largequantities, which is a factor of well over 100 times cheaper than indium will ever be. Itis used as the white pigment in house paint, for instance. Anyway, perhaps a decent solution for using thin film or printed solar cells would involve the following implementation of the *cheaper semiconductor* approach, which is the cell being immersed in water, and with the advantage of a storable form of energy, like H2. http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9894373-54.html?tag=nefd.top : ... if nothing else, it takes a lot less money to develop this technology. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/solar-hydrogen.html http://www.nanoptek.com/ I really hate to see good money from conscientious investors being poured into this kind of dead-end technology, which can be made to look pretty in a slide-show, but when far better solutions for that capital exist now.
Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar efficiency 9-10%, installed cost $3/W
Michel Jullian wrote: 9 to 10% efficiency for Nanosolar's current production (they target 15% ultimately). Installed cost of 1MW German plant panels $3/W. If they really can achieve $3/W, perhaps despite the problems described by Jones Beene, than this would be a remarkable breakthrough. This is $3000 / kW which is cheaper than wind turbines, nuclear or hydroelectricity. I think only gas and coal have cheaper installation costs, and of course they require fuel over the life of the plant. A higher percent of efficiency improves the cost per watt, but other than that it doesn't matter. In other words, it would be better to make it 5% efficient for $200 per square meter than 10% efficient for $500. For most applications, you can always take up more space. (There are some apps, such as roadside collectors, in which a small, compact collector is an advantage.) To put it another way, collection space is usually cheaper than the cost premium for higher efficiency. At least that's how it worked out a few years ago when I checked the numbers. Ed Storms first pointed this out -- on this forum, I think. Another critical issue with PV is how quickly they degrade over time. Many years ago, the half-life was something like 5 or 10 years as I recall, and the energy payback time for some types was infinity. That is to say, they never generated as much energy as it took to fabricate them. They were useful only as a sort of storage battery that you could deploy to a remote location. You can think of it as transferring energy from the factory to the remote site. I think the energy payback time has improved considerably. PV is still growing by leaps and bounds in Japan. Here is a solar-thermal plant installed in Arizona last year, for $6,000 / kW of capacity, which is a promising number: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=44696 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar efficiency 9-10%, installed cost $3/W
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:29:24 -0400: Hi, [snip] Michel Jullian wrote: 9 to 10% efficiency for Nanosolar's current production (they target 15% ultimately). Installed cost of 1MW German plant panels $3/W. If they really can achieve $3/W, perhaps despite the problems described by Jones Beene, than this would be a remarkable breakthrough. This is $3000 / kW which is cheaper than wind turbines, nuclear or hydroelectricity. I think only gas and coal have cheaper installation costs, and of course they require fuel over the life of the plant. [snip] Note that like wind turbines, installed capacity doesn't mean that it's available 24 hours a day (whereas for e.g. coal that is (almost) the case). You have to divide by 2 to get real maximum capacity, and this assumes both that the array tracks the Sun, and that there are never any clouds. Actually it's a little more than 2, because the atmosphere is thicker at dawn and dusk, which filters out more light. If it doesn't track the Sun, then you have to divide by Pi (approx.) in the tropics, or by 4 if you average over the whole surface of the planet. This is what the manufacturers are not advertising. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar efficiency 9-10%, installed cost $3/W
Jones wrote, The best solution for using solar is probably algae (aquaculture). Billions of years of evolution has taught those little buggers a thing or two about converting sunlight into storable energy efficiently. Sure is Jones. Consider a municipal wastewater treatment plant is a liquid fertilizer plant on a massive scale. Biological reduction plants each have their own culture adapted to the plant to improve efficency. Some of these cultures are unbelievable in action, having been carefully nurtured. Major US cities can have several huge plants, some massive, capable of treating a billion gallons of wastewater per day. For some years we have watched this resource going down the toilet. The problem is compounded because the existing treating processes still allows compounds to enter the nation's streams including drugs, hormones etc. Combining treating process with aquaculture makes sense. The most efficent process remains the smaller lagoon systems where ponds are used for cascading the process downhill until the final pond effluent is ready to return to nature. A type of bamboo can grow in this culture at the rate of a foot or more per day. The root systems on these bamboo species are unreal and near perfect filters. Richard
[Vo]:Nanosolar efficiency 9-10%, installed cost $3/W
Copy of the article below. 9 to 10% efficiency for Nanosolar's current production (they target 15% ultimately). Installed cost of 1MW German plant panels $3/W. Michel http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9894373-54.html?tag=nefd.top : March 14, 2008 10:56 AM PDT Thin-film outfit Global Solar touts efficiency, seeks expansion funds Posted by Martin LaMonica | 2 comments The race is on to make most the cost-effective solar panel, and little-known Global Solar Energy says its flexible, thin-film cells have got the lead. Company president and CEO Mike Gering told investors at the recent Piper Jaffray's Clean Technology and Renewables Conference that the company is trying to raise $100 million in private equity to finance construction of two new plants--one in Tucson, Ariz., and one in Berlin. A flexible, thin-film solar cell from Tuscon, Ariz.-based Global Solar Energy. (Credit: Global Solar Energy) The company is one of several developing thin-film solar cells made from the combination of materials copper indium gallium and diselenide (CIGS). CIGS, one alternative to the dominant silicon solar cell, is fast becoming a substantial piece of the fast-growing solar business. Solar industry research firm Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development estimates that thin film technology could represent 20-30 percent of solar cell production by 2010. Nanosolar, a well financed start-up from Silicon Valley, started shipping its CIGS solar cells late last year and they will be used in a solar power park in Germany. Nanosolar and Solyndra, another CIGS challenger, are said to be looking to raise significant amounts of money as well at very high valuations, according to rumors. One of the largest venture investments last year was another CIGS producer, Heliovolt. It used to be that CIGS technology was the next hope for thin-film PV (photovoltaics), but that point has been reached by Global Solar, Gering said, adding that others will reach that point. Gering discounted the progress of his competitors. That's not surprising, given that he is trying to raise money, but the company has been manufacturing for a few years already and all of its production for 2008 is already sold. Until now, the company has sold its cells for use in portable, flexible solar chargers for military use or to charge consumer electronics. But he said a bigger growth opportunity is in solar panels and building-integrated PV, where cells are baked into roofs or siding. To expand, it needs more capital to build a 40-megawatt plant in Tucson and a 35-megawatt plant in Berlin, Gering said. In addition, Global Solar claims to hold the CIGS efficiency crown for converting light to electricity. The company's products can now convert 10 percent of sunlight to electricity and the company claims it will get to 13 or 14 percent. For comparison, the most efficient silicon solar cells are in the 20 percent range. Meanwhile, Nanosolar CEO Martin Roscheisen disclosed that his company's cells operate in the 9 to 10 percent range. He, too, spoke at the Piper Jaffray conference, where he said that the company expects it can reach 15 percent efficiency ultimately. Our entire strategy is not based on delivering the most efficient panels. It's to deliver the most cost-efficient panels, he said. Roscheisen said the installed cost of the panels at the planned East German plant will be about $3 per watt. He added that the company expects it can make the entire system cost lower than stock market high-flier First Solar, which is considered the most cost-effective on the market today.
