Comments on: New solar technology hits snags

Companies hoping to sell an inexpensive solar technology have had to delay commercial production of their products or change their product line.

[Seaspray0]

a question...

What I didn't see in the article is the cost per KWh for these products. Solar is a green power, but current cells are expensive. The break-even point for a solar system is about 15 years. A solar system combined with wind power works well and can give you a quicker return on investment. Even so, they are expensive with many years before you see the return on investment. Their most practical uses is for homes with no access to a power grid. One of the strongest selling points is they are green technology and if utility prices keep rising, you will have made a good investment.

[jamesmedina]

Business Policy

I think they keep the cost per KWh secret so the installers can charge whatever they want. I think the next step needed in this industry is going to be low cost installation companies. Right now the installation costs have their own payback period.

[m.o.t.u.]

an answer........

the break-even point can be greatly reduced through Government Subsidy. The Australian Federal Government will introduce such a subsidy in the coming year, up to $8,000 (Aus.) per household. If the system costs say $13,000 the break-even point might be as low as 5 years (based on a cost to the householder of $5,000).

Utility prices on the Eastern Seaboard of Australia will continue to rise.

The Snowy River Hydro Electric Scheme is currently holding only 6% of it's water capacity and is using Fossil Fuels to spin its Turbines.

Sydney's water storage hasn't been over 40% full for years.

I think we now have some strong selling points.

Regards.

[Hoser McMoose]

Rough approximation

An exact answer isn't going to be possible since there are dozens of variables involved here, many of which can't be accurate stated since they depend on WHERE the solar panel is installed. However the company is hoping for a reduction by more than 1/3rd (on a per-watt basis) for the cost of the solar cells themselves.

Now, figure that the solar cells make up probably 40-50% of the total cost of a residential solar system, we're talking about reducing the cost of that portion of the bill by 60-70%, or a total cost reduction of 25-35%.

However there's an important caveat here. These solar cells, by being only half as efficient, will require twice as much area for the same amount of power. This means that you're installation and maintenance costs are going to go up slightly. More importantly though, you quite simply need twice as much area. If you would only have half (or less) of your roof covered with standard solar cells than this isn't a problem, just cover the whole roof. However if you need to buy a bigger roof (ie bigger house), then you can pretty much stick a fork in these cells, they aren't going to cut it!

The above is particularly important if you're looking at solar power from a commercial perspective where the cost of the land could well be a significant expense (in a household system you can usually consider the roof of your house to be a sunk cost and therefore not counted as an expense).

Anyway, the long story short? It depends. In some situations these could be cheaper by up to ~35%, in other situations they could be much more expensive.

Personally I think the best use of these panels will be for the "solar panel shingle" style of setup. Your land costs and a lot of your installation costs are already covered (since you've got a house and it needs shingles anyway), it's only the extra cost of solar panel shingles vs. standard ones and the associated equipment (wiring, inverter and 2-way power meter) that are needed. Large scale utility company deployment, on the other hand, is likely to be the worst use of these cells.

[suyts]

So what's the problem?

"A factory that can produce 30 megawatts worth of silicon solar panels might cost close to $100 million. CIGS manufacturers say they can build factories for $25 million that will produce their 25-megawatt panels."
.3 megawatts/$1 mil. vs 1megawatt/$1mil. Tricky math.

[dargon19888]

The problem? Efficiency.

You have a limited amount of space on your roof.
So you want to get the most "bang for your buck".
More efficient panels means faster ROI.

But if you have a large area, like an industrial complex, or a farm with a lot of buildings/sheds and shade areas, larger but less efficient panels make more sense.

For example, suppose I want to put up an electric cow fence. I really don't care if the solar panel to help recharge the battery is 3 sq feet or 12 sq feet. (Not real numbers just an example.)

So you have to consider what is your application when you go to purchase a solar panel.

[shera89]

Answer and question

There is no doubt that utility rates will continue to rise.
One question, as I did not see anything listed in this article relating: What about the warranty on these panels? Most of the major manufacturers of PV panels have a warranty of 20-25 yrs. This technology really has yet to establish itself in any sense. I know that if I were to make an investment of 20k+, it better not be breaking down in five years. And with that much VC on the line, what kind of viability do these companies really have? Will they even be around to honor thier warranties? Though these technologies are promising, I think that anyone who is seriously considering a solar investment should consider these factors.

[quincho]

Efficiency of solarcellls

I think remembering in one of previous articles that Boeing's Spectrolab subsidiary had designed solarcells made of sillicon which,thanks to a concentrator, had reached an efficiency near 33% and could be improved to the 40% limit. In that case will CIGS panels with a maximum efficiency predicted around 22% ever make it to the market?