New Solar Cells 20 Times Cheaper 516
handy_vandal writes "STMicroelectronics has announced a new generation of photocells made from organic plastics. Over a typical 20-year life span of a solar cell, a single produced watt should cost as little as $0.20, compared with the current $4. See also article @ cnn.com. On a related note, this article @ IEEE discusses new improved LED technology by the same team."
Balance of power (Score:1, Interesting)
no wonder (Score:3, Interesting)
No wonder we still don't have widespread solar use. I had no idea it was this much more expensive to "buy" initially.
I heard Solar was going to get cheaper in 1976 (Score:5, Interesting)
Should make space travel cheaper (Score:2, Interesting)
20c per watt ? kwatt-hour is needed type of measur (Score:3, Interesting)
Potential Importance (Score:5, Interesting)
Even with existing prices, it is about as cheap to buy cheaper land in outlying areas and generate your own power as it is to pay a power company _and_ pay higher prices for land. The main problem is you have to have a fair degree of mechanical aptitude to keep one of these systems running reliably.
Cheap solar cells would open up quite a bit of land for human use that is accessible by road but has no power access. When you combine that with WiFi/sattellite access the infrastructure advantages of cities become far less pronounced.
Environmentally friendly (Score:3, Interesting)
This is certainly excellent news. With oil reserves slowly running down and with countries that require 'liberation' slowly dwindling, we certainly need new cheap energy sources. It's great to see a product has been created that harnesses solar energy to the point that it could one day replace all need for fossil fuels. This is also have many positive ramifacations on the environment, making a lot of people happy.
Another large source of energy that has been largely untapped is geothermal energy, which is obtained through convering heat from the Earth into usable energy.
It really demonstrates the effect that these large oil corporations have on our world, when there are much better cleaner alternatives to fossil fuels, yet these are being ignored for the sake of the oil companies.
Re:exoskelton (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I heard Solar was going to get cheaper in 1976 (Score:5, Interesting)
"The Hydrogen Economy", Jeremy Rifkin, Tarcher/Penguin 2002
Not to mention the running out of oil very soon.
Just bought a solar powered watch (Score:3, Interesting)
This article makes me wonder if a substantial amount of the price was because of the power cells (no silver or gold). I'm sure a watch doesn't need the best efficiency (15-20%) of the current pricy solar cells - 10% efficiency would mean my new watch needs about 30 minutes under a lamp rather than 15-20. Big deal. Of if I'm lazy, I'll stand in the sun for 5 minutes instead of 3.
Making solar power affordable, attractive and practical is the first step in converting to environmentally friendly sources of power. Cost effectiveness is a primary obstacle for new technologies, especially for the environmentally friendly. I guess the other would be defeating the entrenched monopolies that currently rely on oil and other natural resources.
Here's to a cleaner planet!
Cheers,
RC
Re:Sign Me Up! (Score:5, Interesting)
Assuming no major error in the calculation, that makes it accessible to anyone who can afford a house. A year's electricity at that rate of consumption would be about $720.
Hopefully they will succeed in delivering this, and the usage of the words "organic", "nanotechnology", and "renewable energy" are more than just buzzwords in search of funding.
Re:I heard Solar was going to get cheaper in 1976 (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, we have lots of "empty" space here and there, and I've heard of people wanting to put solar power stations on the moon. I don't know about you, but I don't want to look up at the moon and see piles of man-made crap instead of its current beautiful state. Power stations on the moon makes me want to vomit.
That said, though, I will embrace the day when I don't have to be connected to any utilities at all...
"All terrestrial energy sources are really solar anyway; this means we've had a nuclear power industry all along!" - me
Answer (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:don't get too. . . (Score:2, Interesting)
One thing you never hear about with solar energy also is that the panel absorb a certain amount of heat that would normally be absorbed by the earth. Will this cause issues on a large scale?
Similar with wind generators, the energy taken from the wind is also removing energy that would be dispursed further down the line. Again, small scale doesn't seem to matter much.
However, a single combustion engine isn't a major issue either. So, while I think alternative energies are a wonderful and exciting thing, keep in mind, everything has environmental impact.
Good News (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, finally some good news. If it will soon be possible to produce cheap solar cells this could mean a more distributed power base. If houses and businesses can generate most of the their electricity from solar cells on the roof the average consumer would no longer be dependent on the local power company. It remains to be seen if the current administration with its ties to the oil corporations would let this happen.
The CNN article does seem to confuse Watts and Watt-hours. CNN.com's science writers have always had a weak understanding of scientific concepts. In an article about the close approach of Mars they said "About every 26 months, the two planets pass relatively close to one another, during periods now known as opposition." What was it known as before??
hemp / bio-desiel (Score:1, Interesting)
Bio-desiel burns in desiel engines with no modifications and achieves the same per litre efficiency. Hemp grows as a weed on six continents and is cheaper to make into diesel fuel than any crude oil deposits.
Re:no wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Resounding answer: no. There is a cost to do anything in the enterprise. You know, the TCO - total cost of ownership. You need backup media, you need power, you need people to make it run right.
So, let's talk about Gas. Is it really $1.36 a gallon, as advertised?
Most folks, again, would answer nope. There are those annoying little hard to calculate costs. For instance - if we weren't dependent on foreign engery - would we need a military the size we do?
How about the environment? Oil-n-Coal aren't doing it a hell of a lot of good. Doubt me? Move to LA - from what I've heard, it kind of sucks there.
So, while we in the US pay $1.36, we really are paying more - it's just not reflected at the pump.
It's only a matter of time before we move to Solar.
Re:Potential Importance (Score:2, Interesting)
I would love to have some stuff in my house moved off the main power, but cannot justify cost of equipment over the cost of using the power company.
Are there places out there where you are getting the equipment for reasonable prices? Is this a homebuilt system, or did you buy one.
Looking at a few systems such as Mr Solar [mrsolar.com] small systems start around 5k.
Just curious about what you did...
Thanks.
Serious Question about efficiency maximums (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there some sort of theoretical limit we're hitting with current technologies, or are there different technologies that may have some promise? This article doesn't address efficiency, it just says they can make them cheaper than anybody else.
Any links or references would be appriciated.
Re:Environmentally friendly (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Balance of power (Score:1, Interesting)
FYI: most solar cells produce less than 3% electricity/solar energy exposed, some special cells that are very very expensive and used on satellites produce around 5% brand new. With micro meteorite impacts, it slowlw drifts back down to 3%-4%.
If 10% solar cells that are highly available, with the approximate cost of today's cells existed, I gurantee you that you would see more houses plastered with them top to bottom, and electricity or hydrogen would be the de-facto NOW.
answer: a buck a watt (Score:3, Interesting)
According to some folks at Alliant Energy (one of their reps recently gave a lecture at my engineering college), it costs about $1.00/watt to build a coal power plant. In other words, building a 500 MW coal plant would cost $500 million. Also keep in mind about 50% of that power is lost as heat during transmission - so the cost to the end user is really about twice that.
Interestingly, in our area large wind turbines cost about the same (a buck a watt) - and the power companies are becoming more interested. Despite what you might think, they actually hate to build new large power plants. It's a huge chuck of cash for them to lay out, especially when the full capacity of a large plant may not be needed for another 10-20 years.
Anyway, $0.20/watt would be cheap!
Re:Sign Me Up! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Here's the same artical on (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps because the original article was in <FONT name="Eight-point Eyestrain">?
I suppose it "looks better" to some web "designer", but it's practically impossible to read at a resolution higher than 640x480.
Re:I heard Solar was going to get cheaper in 1976 (Score:2, Interesting)
I Googled for a random reference [spacefuture.com] discussing the subject.
It is yet another space possibility that won't be realized while it costs thousands of dollars to launch a kilo to orbit. That price won't go down while lots of jobs at NASA depends on the shuttle...
Re:Sign Me Up! (Score:3, Interesting)
If this were true, I'm sure these cells would sell retail for $14,999.99. Or whatever one-penny cheaper than it would cost to buy electicity from the power company is. Price is what the market will bear. Not what would make life better for everyone.
This is why DSL costs $50/mo, instead of $10/mo. The service doesn't cost that much to provide. It's what the market will bear.