--- Michel Jullian wrote: > But they seem to be selling at $0.99/watt, which > makes up for the looks I guess...
Michel, I hope that you are right, and that this Nanosolar product becomes a great low-cost energy solution. The last thing I would want is to sound like a skeptic of really good alternative energy solutions... unless there are strong negative which are known to the company, but are not being voiced. However, having said that - and since I am located in the area where they started, and since there are many rumors floating around, apparently undisputed by the company, and mostly from former consultants and employees, then it is worth noting that their press releases are hiding what "could be" serious problems... A few of the problems facing Nanosolar as a competitive player in the solar energy arena. 1) Net efficiency is low: The best published estimate is 9% (at noon in July). The rumor is that because of the high impedance and other peculiarities of this panel, it will not even hit 5% until mid-morning in winter, and that the average output per day is far less than the average for normal solar panels, so more area needs to be covered for the same net energy. Since the net efficiency is lower than expected, you may need to buy about double the installed capacity to get the same average electricity per day. Even with this as a negative, the 'assumed' low price per watt would make that doable, were it not for the higher installation costs. 2) High current - very low voltage. This peculiarity makes the installation cost much higher, due to more inverters and other devices needed for the larger surface area of panels. 3) This one is not peculiar to Nanosolar, but in areas where the building code requires professional installation by an electrical contractor, the cost of the panel itself is less than 40% of the final cost to the consumer for regular solar panels (thin film or crystalline) and the situation would be worse with Nanosolar. 4) There is still no good evidence locally that they are close to starting production, as they claim, other than most of the backers are local and have not been alarmed by the PR, apparently. But the big (generic) problem for home solar is that even if they *gave away* the panels for free, there is never a breakeven point in areas of high labor cost... that is, if the price of grid electricity does not rise substantially, or if there are not much more generous tax incentives than now offered.. IOW - in my area- which is where Nanosolar started, the average turnkey home installation of thin film panels is around $25,000, but only $10,000 is for the panels, so even if they were to be free, the installation cost of $15,000 can never be paid off from savings from PG&E! ... unless the cost of electricity rises significantly from where it is today... which may indeed happen, due to the weak Bush-dollar, but historically this has never happened to the degree necessary. The situation may be completely different if you are a company with an electrician on the payroll. It should be noted that Google is a big backer of Nanosolar, and perhaps they and other companies can install and maintain the panels with their own staff, but for the homeowner elsewhere in this state, these or any other panels make ZERO economics sense now that the tax incentives are largely gone - even if they were to give the panels away. Jones
