Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TalkingDog

(9,001 posts)
Tue Mar 13, 2012, 11:28 AM Mar 2012

New solar panel technology: 40 cents pr watt. (50% cheaper than China / Competes with fossil fuels)

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122231-solar-panels-made-with-ion-cannon-are-cheap-enough-to-challenge-fossil-fuels

As it stands, almost every solar panel is made by slicing a 200-micrometer-thick (0.2mm) wafer from a block of crystalline silicon. You then add some electrodes, cover it in protective glass, and leave it in a sunny area to generate electricity through the photovoltaic effect (when photons hit the silicon, it excites the electrons and generates a charge). There are two problems with this approach: Much in the same way that sawdust is produced when you slice wood, almost half of the silicon block is wasted when it’s cut into 200-micrometer slices; and second, the panels would still function just as well if they were thinner than 200 micrometers, but silicon is brittle and prone to cracking if it’s too thin.

Twin Creeks flexible solar panelThis is where Twin Creeks’ ion cannon, dubbed Hyperion, comes into play. If you look at the picture above, 3-millimeter-thick silicon wafers are placed around the outside edge of the big, spoked wheel. A particle accelerator bombards these wafers with hydrogen ions, and with exacting control of the voltage of the accelerator, the hydrogen ions accumulate precisely 20 micrometers from the surface of each wafer. A robotic arm then transports the wafers to a furnace where the ions expand into hydrogen gas, which cause the 20-micrometer-thick layer to shear off. A metal backing is applied to make it less fragile (and highly flexible, as you see on the right), and the remaining silicon wafer is taken back to the particle accelerator for another dose of ions. At a tenth of the thickness and with considerably less wastage, it’s easy to see how Twin Creeks can halve the cost of solar cells.
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
New solar panel technology: 40 cents pr watt. (50% cheaper than China / Competes with fossil fuels) (Original Post) TalkingDog Mar 2012 OP
Big news! This looks interesting too."MIT creates solar cell from grass clippings" The Wielding Truth Mar 2012 #1
Most people in the USA pay less than ten cents a kilowatt. Bandit Mar 2012 #2
That's "cost to manufacture", not 'price of energy'. The Doctor. Mar 2012 #3
This message was self-deleted by its author Tesha Mar 2012 #4
Just a guess zipplewrath Mar 2012 #5
The old panels had a useful life that exceeded 20 years. bvar22 Mar 2012 #6
Not so much zipplewrath Mar 2012 #8
I bought hodge-podge some 8-10 year old panels rated 750 watts (cumulative) ... bvar22 Mar 2012 #13
That's very good performance zipplewrath Mar 2012 #14
Your math is wrong, too. Ready4Change Mar 2012 #7
Manufacturing Costs. New technology = much less waste. Less waste = lower panel price. TalkingDog Mar 2012 #9
Another PR piece about a an approach that is no where near the market ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #10
"New solar panel technologies" are a dime a dozen. TheWraith Mar 2012 #11
Is this more vaporwhare?! uponit7771 Mar 2012 #12
Hard to tell at this time ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #15
AWESOME!!!! fascisthunter Mar 2012 #16

Bandit

(21,475 posts)
2. Most people in the USA pay less than ten cents a kilowatt.
Tue Mar 13, 2012, 11:53 AM
Mar 2012

A kilowatt is a thousand watts. At forty cents a watt that would be about four thousand dollars a kilowatt..I think something is wrong here..

 

The Doctor.

(17,266 posts)
3. That's "cost to manufacture", not 'price of energy'.
Tue Mar 13, 2012, 11:59 AM
Mar 2012

It costs $.40 to create a portion of the solar cell that produces one watt at a time.

Response to Bandit (Reply #2)

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
5. Just a guess
Tue Mar 13, 2012, 12:07 PM
Mar 2012

Guessing they mean 40 cents per watt of producing capability. Not kilowatt-hours which is what I think you might be talking about. It would make a kilowatt panel cost about $400, which ain't bad.

5 hours per day producing 1 kilowatt for 5 years is about 4 cents per kilowatt hour. Not too shabby.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
8. Not so much
Tue Mar 13, 2012, 01:17 PM
Mar 2012

I'd be curious which panels you mean. There were serious drop offs in efficiency after 5 -8 years. The weather could be hard on the panels.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
13. I bought hodge-podge some 8-10 year old panels rated 750 watts (cumulative) ...
Tue Mar 13, 2012, 06:03 PM
Mar 2012

...at a serious discount in 2001, and installed them on a houseboat in the Mississippi River near St Paul.
I routinely clocked over 650 watts, and that is at a very Northern latitude where nobody achieves rated output from brand new panels.
I was very happy with them.
If you can get +80% rated output from a 10 year old panel that is practically free, what is the problem?
The only thing I was NOT happy about was the 1/2 ton of very toxic lead/acid batteries I had to install along the keel.

I would readily buy old panels again, at a discount,
IF our rural electric Co-Op would update to a Buy Back Grid.
We're not going to bring a ton of Lead/Acid batteries to our new, very rural location (Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas).
There will need to be a serious breakthrough in a storage medium, or a Buy Back Grid before we can consider Solar or Wind.

We are intrigued by the hi-capacity/fast charge lithium batteries installed in the newer Electric cars,
and if an opportunity comes along to buy some at [salvage prices, we may open that door,
but they are pretty toxic too.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
14. That's very good performance
Tue Mar 13, 2012, 08:24 PM
Mar 2012

You're right about the storage. There are losses in the voltage conversions as well, not to mention inverters and the like. Buy back/sharing is probably the best solution.

TalkingDog

(9,001 posts)
9. Manufacturing Costs. New technology = much less waste. Less waste = lower panel price.
Tue Mar 13, 2012, 02:26 PM
Mar 2012

Reading the ARTICLE helps.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
10. Another PR piece about a an approach that is no where near the market
Tue Mar 13, 2012, 02:40 PM
Mar 2012

I am a big believer in PV solar. However, the field is ripe with hucksters and PR releases taken being sold as major breakthroughs.

***IF*** this approach has merit, lets see when it gets it to the market and what the prices will be then. Until then its a PR release and nothing more.

TheWraith

(24,331 posts)
11. "New solar panel technologies" are a dime a dozen.
Tue Mar 13, 2012, 02:43 PM
Mar 2012

I can't count the number of reports over the last 5 years or so about some new technology that's going to make solar panels cheaper than ever. Usually, they turn out to be more hype than substance, either not working as well or as cheaply as promised, or being 10 years away from practical production. A couple years ago it was that "printable" solar panels were going to come out by the gigawatt and be too cheap to meter. Before that concentrated solar power, stirling engines, solar thermal, a dozen different flavors of PV panels, etcetera, etcetera. I'll believe it when you can buy it on eBay for the promised price.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
15. Hard to tell at this time
Wed Mar 14, 2012, 02:01 PM
Mar 2012

Yes its a PR piece, but not all of them are fraudulent. The technology is continuing to evolve and that is clearly a good thing.

My approach is smile at them and see where they are in terms of the market in a few years. Some will make it, many will not.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»New solar panel technolog...