VIDEO: Nanosolar makes a one gigawatt printing press
With so many auto-makers throwing their hats into the electric car ring, cleanly producing electricity cheaply becomes even more important. While the oft-touted nuclear solution seems to be getting a lot more expensive, solar is set to get a lot cheaper. Days after IBM announced it is moving into the thin-film solar power arena, Nanosolar CEO, Martin Roscheisen, remembered his own CIGS solar power company had achieved a remarkable milestone recently and shared some impressive video of the worlds first 1 GW production tool on his blog.
The 1GW CIGS coating machine cost $1.65 million and currently spits out solar goodness at a rate of 100 feet-per-minute. That's about 20 times faster than the high-vacuum process with a machine about 10 times cheaper. Roscheisen claims that, in principle, they could speed it up to 2000 feet-per-minute and says the coating should be even better. Since the target price point for Nanosolar panels has often been mentioned as $1 per watt., we say, "Crank those puppies out!". Check out the video after the jump.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
meme 3:36PM (6/23/2008)
What I found most interesting about their blog post was that they said that they may begin selling cells on the open market as early as '09. If they've got that price point, sign me up!
Reply
Cervus 3:33PM (6/23/2008)
I'd be more impressed if it was 1.21 Gigawatts. :)
Reply
Joseph 3:41PM (6/23/2008)
Well, there is no excuse now. If they are actually showing a video of it, actually producing these solar cells at such speeds, it can't really be vaporware then.
Unless it has some vital flaw like poor output or short lifespan (which I've never heard of for solar cells) I don't see what's holding it back.
Optimistic smiley face.
Reply
Tim 3:47PM (6/23/2008)
It’s kind of hard to make a "dirty bomb" out of solar panel waste. If a solar panel "melts down" simply make another. If a nuclear plant "melts down" it goodbye Seattle!
Solar is renewable. Nuclear fuel is not.
Solar is getting cheaper. Nuclear is not.
Solar is maintenance free. Nuclear is not.
Solar fuel is FREE. Nuclear fuel is not.
Solar is widely distributed power. Nuclear is concentrated in the hands of the few.
Solar does NOT require gov't funds. Nuclear does.
How many 1GW CIGS coating machines can you make for the cost of 1 nuclear power plant?
How much maintenance free, fuel free, pollution free, tax money free, distributed electrical capacity can each CIGS coating machine print for the cost of the 2nd nuclear power plant?
How many houses can be made fully solar powered with the tax payer money that would be needed for the 3rd nuclear power plant?
It doesn’t take a nuclear physicist to see which technology is better for mankind.
Reply
me2 4:05PM (6/23/2008)
This is such good news ! I am so happy. I've been smiling all day because of this.
Reply
Mike Z 4:13PM (6/23/2008)
Tim:
FYI, Nanosolar cells are based on Iridium which is significantly more scarce than Uranium.
Reply
OhmExcited 4:18PM (6/23/2008)
Unfortunately, these will not be available for residential use anytime soon. Even if it were, the low efficiency would not make it practical. Thus, silicon based panels will continue to dominate in the rooftop applications.
Thin film's best use is to deploy them on the outskirts of cities. They can help augment peak power during the day when AC's are running. They obviously do not provide reliable baseload for electric vehicle night time charging.
One thought is to put these on top of cheap overhead structures in parking lots for a little "free" juice (Walmart parking lots, malls, etc).
Reply
Phil L. 4:25PM (6/23/2008)
Simple question: When will I be able to buy solar roof shingles at Home Depot?
This looks like it's heading the right direction...
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 4:32PM (6/23/2008)
Solar is great stuff, but nuclear works better at night.
Reply
meme 4:53PM (6/23/2008)
"FYI, Nanosolar cells are based on Iridium which is significantly more scarce than Uranium."
First off, it's indium, not iridium. Secondly, uranium isn't as rare as a lot of people make it out to be -- it's 20 times more common than silver in Earth's crust and is about as plentiful as molybdenum and arsenic. Third, CIGS uses miniscule amounts of indium. Fourth, indium is 2-3 times more common than silver in Earth's crust, and no less concentrated than silver (a good indium deposit has a couple dozen to a couple hundred ppm, just like a good silver deposit). We mine tens of thousands of tons of silver per year. Yes, the indium industry isn't very mature, so it's going to go through price spikes for a while until supply and demand settle out. But if this tech works out, expect it to be mined like silver is.
Reply
ooglek 5:19PM (6/23/2008)
Rock on, @meme. I love well informed people.
My question -- $0.99 per watt -- is that per watt of solar panel? I.E. will I be able to buy a 2KW solar panel for $2,000 or so?
Right now I can buy (without price checking or shopping around) a 60 watt solar panel for $600, or about $10 per watt. http://www.boatersworld.com/product/319870010.htm?utm_medium=productsearch&utm_source=google
I know that most people quote solar at about $3 per watt. Being able to get 2KW for $2k and have them last 10-20 years, that, my friends, is rockin.
Reply
Dad 5:55PM (6/23/2008)
Domenick keep reporting on this stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wonderful.
Reply
Tim 5:55PM (6/23/2008)
Welcome to the free electron age!
Rapidly advancing renewable energy technology +
Rapidly advancing battery technology +
Rapidly advancing electrical technologies +
Geometrically expanding economy of scale =
Free and widely distributed power +
Ever shrinking capital amortization times +
a cleaner, safer, and happier world.
(this is really going to piss some people off)
Reply
Dave 6:28PM (6/23/2008)
OhmExcited wrote:
> Even if it were, the low efficiency would not make it practical.
Low efficiency compared to what? The most efficient solar cells available from the lab? Or what's typically used today for installations?
Nanosolar's cells are up to 14% efficient (it would be nice to know what their "typical" efficiency is but you can even assume 10% for this argument). Your typical silicon panel used today is up to 20% efficient.
Not exactly a huge difference, and it's only a difference that would be worth pursuing if your project was space constrained and not budget constrained.
The vast majority of installations have plenty of roof-space for cells. The limiting factor preventing more installations is the cost - and Nanosolar appears to be on target to reduce the cost of panels by 3-4x.
Reply
Cervus 6:32PM (6/23/2008)
We have how many hundreds of thousands of acres of commercial roof space? At $1/watt, I'd like to see these on the roof where I work.
Reply
jake 6:39PM (6/23/2008)
It shouldn't matter how efficient or unefficient this is if the less than $1/kW price is true (though I hear the efficiency is around the same as most solar panels). It's nice to hear some good news on solar. Looking foward to it becoming avaliable to the public.
Reply
jake 6:41PM (6/23/2008)
whoops: "less than $1/kW price is true", I meant $1/W price obviously.
Reply
meme 7:41PM (6/23/2008)
"Being able to get 2KW for $2k and have them last 10-20 years, that, my friends, is rockin."
One of the great things about CIGS is that the chemistry is incredibly durable, whether it's normal earthly use or even in the high radiation environment of space. Some studies I've read actually came back with the cells producing *more* power after being exposed for the testing period than they did beforehand. Gotta love that!
Of course, for rooftop installations, the cell cost is only part of the issue. Get the cell cost low enough and the other costs start to become more important. They're going to need to make them in a way that can be installed faster and more cheaply than conventional cells, for one. And we're going to need cheaper inverters, too.
Reply
Chris M 8:29PM (6/23/2008)
Quote "FYI, Nanosolar cells are based on Iridium which is significantly more scarce than Uranium."
Well, Meme had some good answers to that objection, and I'll add another. A nuclear plant uses up uranium, converting it to other mostly radioactive elements. For that reason fresh supplies are needed and eventually there won't be enough uranium left to continue. But the elements used in solar cells, whether silicon or copper indium gallium selenide, are not used up and are still there even after the cell stops functioning. If necessary, old cells could be recycled, but considering the incredibly long lifespan, there won't be much recycling needed anytime soon.
Reply
Edsel 9:16PM (6/23/2008)
I'm thinking that someone, somewhere is devising an arguement that; "solar cooling" will prevail if we employ too many solar collectors globally.
Excessive solar collectors may wear out our sun! Oh my!
Just a thought.... ;-)
Reply