The announcement of a 41% efficient solar cell is great news, and will go far to inspire people and convince them that alternate energy is a viable replacement for fossil fuels.
Boeing-Spectrolab has developed a solar cell that can convert almost 41 percent of the sunlight that strikes it into electricity, the latest step in trying to drop the cost of solar power.
Potentially, the solar cell could bring the cost of solar power down to around $3 a watt, after installation costs and other expenses are factored in, over the life of the panel. The new cost information comes from Boeing, whose Spectrolab unit supplies searchlights and solar simulators, and the Department of Energy, which sponsored the project.
Current silicon solar cells provide electricity at about $8 a watt, before government rebates. The goal is to bring it to $1 a watt without rebates or incentives.
The cell achieves 40.7 percent efficiency. The Department of Energy has been sponsoring research to find ways to get solar cells past the so-called 40 percent barrier.
Now all they have to do is commercialize it.
Here’s a link to an article about Boeing’s Spectrolab facility.
Exciting. This proves again that American scientists can and will overcome barriers to help in energy independence and curtail pollution.
All they need is suitable funding and a governement that is serious about those problems. Beginning in January and especially two years from now, we will have such a government.
I am becoming much more optimistic as Americans wake up to the dangers of the GOP and the possibilities of a science and data driven society.
The news should be, every one of these factories sells their capacity of solar panels at the current market price. There is no overproduction problem of PV cells, like there is in say cars…
This could work out even better as many wind farms could use the solar panels on the ground beneath the wind turbines.
The down side of course is those old night time and cloud problems make their production unreliable. We would still need back-up power generators.
$3 a watt. Is that a “one-time” cost? So, if I spend $180 to install these cells, I can power a 60 watt lightbulb forever?
#5
Exactly..
But it looks more like… You need roughly three kilowatts for the average household to run the refrigerator and AC and what not. Electric stoves are out and electric heat is out… so you need $9k worth of solar. that is like 70 volts dc (iirc) and no really usable, so you need an inverter. An electrician plugs it all in.
During the day (unless you are running the AC and frige at same time) your your power meter runs backwards. At night you take power off the grid. If you size it right, your mothly electric fee is min price. (like $20 around these parts)
If at end of month you are way under, and stuck still paying the min price, you add a battery system and charge your batteries with surplus, then when they are charged you sell back to grid. Then at night you use the batteries until they are dead, then you switch to grid.
Thats a 10k solar system for the average 1200 square foot Air conditioned house.
If you spend 20k on a solar instalation on that same house, you are off the gird, except for when you have no sun days at a time. Really more useful in areas with poor electric service, or no electric service.
If you have an electric stove, or electric heat, it screws those numbers up, and becomes much more expensive.
I also should add… For the first situation I mentioned, $10k system is enough, almost too much, for southern Arizona. The $20k system is almost not enough for Michigan.
On the other hand, in Michigan we have wind, so if you can get it by the neighbors(wind turbines are loud), wind generator makes much more sense in Michigan.
The important thing to note is, we wont use one system. The replacement to oil and coal will be a mixture of Solar wind and biofuels, and Nuclear. Saddly, Solar and wind are sufficient for residential use, but dont even come close the the power densities needed for say… A small thermoelectric steel plant. Not even close.
Saddly, Still it costs less than the 300 billion dollar yearly security subsidy we pay on oil.
Also, and this is why liberals are becoming intolerant of conservatives on this issue, we could have made the switch for less than say… The cost of Iraq.
Awesome news. Green product in the next few years will be the biggest boom. Also this is the biggest problem, the Green Conundrum.
Imagine a company that just spent 1M$ putting the 8$/Watt cells, and this product comes out within 5 years. Any $ saved now, for the next 10 years, is completely negated with the newer product.
So is it better to jump immediately, or wait? Well, everyone is always waiting. Wind power has made much more advances in the same period of time.
#5, nope. I deleted my 5 paragraph techno babble from this post to fully answer. Layman’s explanation: your house MUST run on 110v AC, and panels output 13.5v DC per cell. To convert = loss = double up the cells + conversion equipment.
More like 1,000$ to run your lightbulb forever.
Change the same 60w with an 8w Neon, do the math compared to above. If it takes 50 years to recoup your investment, will you do it?
However you could power eight 8w neon bulbs with the same 1,000$ setup…
My next question is, given the (un)reliability of sunlight to power these things, along with the dark hours, how much do the batteries used to store any surplus energy for those periods negate the “greenness” factor of using solar power?
#8, the small household sized wind turbine from Renewable Devices is whisper quiet. Less noise than a heat pump / air conditioner.
If you’re in the Snow Belt area, the best scenario is what #7 explained (good job btw).
The cost of batteries is not worth it, since you have to heat your house six months minimum, almost every night.
I’m looking into geothermal for the house right now.
9,
Better still, change your lamps out for 3-V LEDs…
Um, shameless plug… For someone else, not me…
Here is a 2.2 kilowatt system for about $14k. They claim with rebates and tax credits it is about $5k(but i am always skeptical of those figures). You can add panels so that it is 3 kilowatt.
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/gridtie.expand.html
#10,
None at all. Lead acid batteries are very clean and safe, and Lead is a valuable commodity. Just don’t eat it and you will be fine. They do vent hydrogen gas (oh no!) when you drain them to hard.
Also, batteries in general are almost as good as steel and aluminum for recycling, so claiming they are toxic, therefore bad for the environment is a bit of an oilmans canard.
I bet the entire lead acid battery infrastructure of the USA has less lifetime enviromental cost then say, a single Exon Valdez tanker spill.
I’m not against solar but no-one’s mentioning some of it’s other shortcomings like the toxicity of the materials used (both for manufacture or disposal).
#8 – good points but liberals are the one who are always fighting nuclear and as you yourself pointed out, that’s the only alternative that can fuel industry.
This story has really been overhyped the last few days.
The previous record was 37.9% efficiency. That means this is an increase of barely over 7%. Every story i’ve read is proclaiming some enormous leap in technological capability.
Come on people, its not like the previous record was 10% or something. And I’d venture to say that the vast majority of photovoltaics in use currently are around the ‘teen’ percentage efficiency. It’s not like these cells will instantly be pushed out and replace the old ones. This bleeding edge tech probably won’t even reach manufacturing for at least a year.
Many of you have missed something about solar panels…
The Life of the panels is around 5 years.
Next point….DONT commercialize it…Just sell it from the makers.
20,
Sometimes crossing a specific line makes for an awakening awareness. Crossing the 40% point is one such milestone, INMSHO. That’s a figure anyone can grasp.
21,
Commericalization is vital to success, as market penetration is much greater if a range of standard sizes and interfaces exist. That would also address the lifetime issue, as modular systems manufactured in quantity could be more easily and inexpensively swapped out in contrast to custom systems that would require special care each and every time.
#19,
Again, you retreat into a disproven conservative strawman. PV cells are made out of metals and sand. At the end of their service life they are recycled to get at the valuable metals. By all accounts they have a similar service life to a nuclear power plant. Which would you rather clean up and recycle after 50 years?
Also you are mistaken about liberals and nuclear. We are against fuel reprocessing, not nuclear energy. If you look at a map of all the nuclear power plants (oops they have all been taken down) you will see that the nuclear power plants are mostly in Blue states. History will regard our oposition to nuclear energy in the 70s as brilliance. Now that nuclear technology is maturing, there is less of a mess to clean up in those first and second generation power facilities.
I continue of oppose Dick Cheneys nuclear plans, because he has a habit of being corrupt, and doing business with corrupt people. If you don’t mind, I’d like the administration of nuclear power facilities corruption free.
Finally, quit bitching about taxes. You have no right to ever bitch about taxes ever again until you install a alternative energy system in your house. OMG the credits are huge. You can save 10s of thousands of dollars on taxes by buying a wind turbine or pv array.
You have been spanked. Be a good little boy and move along now.
All the doubters need to shut up for a minute and follow the link I posted on #14. Those cells have a 25 year warranty.
That is a system you can buy today!
#23, I’m not sure about #19, but I’m never in favor of using a tax system to alter or punish legal behavior. I’d prefer we all be taxed equally and get rid of all credits.
Thanks for the info on batteries. I’ve always been under the impression that they were much more toxic than that. I am guessing though that not all varieties are equally desirable. I’ve never really had much of a reason to look into the subject.
#22,
I appreciate what you are trying to do. Reeally I do. But please read up on what is happening in solar before you make proclimations like, “it is not commercially viable” I have a number of friend who work directly in the solar industry. Both in certification labs, and in manufacturing. Solar is a commercial success. Every PV factory is currently operating at capacity. Here in Toledo there are a number of engineering firms that do nothing but set up new PV cell factories. Thats all they do, build PV cell factories. Why toledo?? Because we have the glass factories here already.
The price of solar is currently a function of commodity, not cost. That is, there is more demand for the product then there is product. That demand is for the cells that are 25-30% efficient. Something like this 40% efficient cell will not make it to market for the next 10 years or so.
#23 – I understand the metal and glass part. I’ve also read that the trace elements used in PVs are some the most toxic elements on Earth. I would be quite pleased to be incorrect about that.
Every time I see a nuke plant proposed I see ecofreaks showing up to protest. I’d like to see ground broken on at least 500 nuke planets tomorrow. I’m all for it and always have been. I’ll take your word about the plants being located in mostly blue states. We just had a local news article about a WI college students research paper showing that most nukes are right next to Indian reservations. I have no idea how to intrepret that.
I live in an energy efficient home that uses both passive solar and off-peak electric to supplement heating. I don’t have the bucks to install alternative electric but have thought about for quite a while.
I don’t recall bitching about taxes in this thread. Different context, different issue. I think you mistake my questions for an attack. I’m all for all these technologies.
Folks really should read instead of relying on what they heard last Friday night at the American Legion bar.
Boeing is aiming at commercial production in just over 2 years. Do you think projects like this are an exercise in tax abatement? They really do prefer to make profits.
40% in production is a 60% improvement over the 25% efficiency in the goodies generally in production.
Combining methods is as useful and important as assuring your monopoly power utility is forced to allow net metering. Even then, the thugs will usually pop for wholesale compensation while they charge you retail. And your local/state politicians think that’s just fine.
Wind/solar combos make great sense throughout a quarter to a third of the country. Nuclear rocks — once you get past the lousy design/loan shark mentality/greedy corporations who’ve always had a monopoly on American nuclear power. Don’t hold your breath.
More efficient, longer-lived batteries? Our death labs are working as fast as they can to come up with product for the military. Civilians are second or third in line; but, there could be useful stuff in the near term. They don’t have to worry about affordable for the military. You and I are here to pick up the tab — remember?
26,
Where did I say that solar isn’t commercially viable? I said that solar needs to be commercialized, which is a different thing entirely. Please read the comments more carefully.
#6 because you get this development supported by the State… that’s why. In a Liberal Capitalist country as yours this is Heresy…
that’s why.
From reading US Patent 6,704,607:
“…allows series or parallel interconnection between multiple cells and provides for high thermal conductance to improve cooling the solar cells.”
What’s interesting is that the efficiency gains are just with the silicon, but with other elements of the total solar collector.