SunPower announces 22 percent efficient solar panels
By Donald Melanson 
posted October 16th 2006 9:10PM
posted October 16th 2006 9:10PM
Silicon Valley-based SunPower Corporation is looking to add a bit more juice to your rooftop, announcing its highest power and most efficient solar panel to date. The SPR-315 solar panel is based on the company's brand spankin' new Gen 2 solar cells, which have a rated power output of 315 watts and boast 22 percent photovoltaic (PV) efficiency -- that's opposed to the 7% to 17% common in most commercial PV systems. According to SunPower, that means you should get roughly 50 percent more power per square foot of roof area than the average solar panel, using half as many panels. Whether it'll also cost you half as much or not has yet to be seen, but we should find out by the time the SPR-315 solar panels are available in the Spring of next year, after we too have coated our country cottage in the stuff, and start contributing to -- not pulling from -- the grid.
if i have a old sattilite dish, can i make it into a solor collector?
mark
Is it just me or does the stated math in the Yahoo article seem rather questionable?
First the article states that the panels will generate 50% more power using 50% fewer tiles, which should mean that the same amount of tiles should generate twice the power of a standard setup.
But then later on in the article, it only states that the new panels only produce 50% more power.
Am I reading this all wrong?
actually i think it's even worse:
original power = (original # of tiles)*(old power/tile)
50% more power = 1.5*(original power)
50% fewer tiles = .5*(original # of tiles)
1.5*(original power) = .5*(original # of tiles)*(new power/tile)
therefore, (new power/tile) = 3*(original power)
means they should generate 3 times the power of the original setup with the same number of tiles
The logic/math seems almost correct to me. You'll need 50% fewer panels for the same wattage. Each panel produces twice as much power and probably costs twice as much (actually, probably higher as they'll likely charge a premium for cutting edge technology). The end user saves or breaks even by saving money on the wiring, mounting hardware and labor they would have otherwise spent to get twice the quantity of panels (that had half the wattage). Remember, a panel doesn't refer to wattage - solar panels range from 1 Watt to over 300 watts.
Another site to check out for a variety of solar panel technologies (tho' Sun Power still doesn't seem to be available to average DIY consumers) is http://www.AltEnergyStore.com.
Sounds cool. I could definately see having a set of these, as well as a generator, just incase I stumble upon a cloudy day. It's definately an intriguing idea. Too bad I like the city life.
Maybe when I'm older...
That definately seems to be an inconsistency, Hugh. I didn't notice it, but reading it again, I think you're correct.
Makes me wonder if all those horror stories are true. Surely you've heard of power companies having people sued because they no longer buy gas/electric.
Google could do with a bunch of these...
http://www.eispv.com/google_video.html
I'm impressed, there was actually a little research and a reference to a factual site outside of engadget in the article. Nice job Donald. I'm also willing to bet that the new cells/panels will be cost friendly, comparable to other solar cell technologies and companies.
For the past several years, I've seen articles regarding technologies that were supposed to be applicable to solar energy science. Until this point, I'd never seen anything that made any of the technologies real. I'm anxious to hear price-point.
scabby, you obviously haven't been looking very hard, commercial and home systems have been around for a while. Sunpower also has had 20% efficient cells and panels for a couple of years now.
Yeah, guess so... last time I checked, the good ones were still at 15%, and extremely expensive at that.
It's still unlikley that solar panels will be very cost-effective as a means of generating grid power or for major faculities (unless you have hundreds of acres of land in the desert).
However, this could be a major boon to satellite power systems. On the international space station, for example, they're constantly rationing power... But communications satellites are big buisiness and having high power transmitters presents a problem for providing power.
I dissagree with DrBuzz0. I once read somewhere that if you covered the entire United States for one day with solar panels, you whould produce enough electricity to power the entire world for something like 28 years... Solar panels may not be terribly cheap right now but they are the future for sure...
Upfront it would cost a lot of money, effort and time but the payoff would be HUGE!!! At the worst case senario of PV's costing about $7.50 a watt, and that watt creating about 4.0 kw per year and current power costing like .10 a kw, you would pay off the solar panels in about 20 years.
With studies like http://www.newenergyoptions.com/magazine.php?d=4 showing that solar panels have a lifespan of over 20 years, it seems a very viable long term solution. Even if other costs are included, such as inverters, repairs etc, you are talking 25-30 years to get your money back... not to bad if you ask me...
Its worth a try right? Drilling oil isn't cheap... Nothing is. So why is everyone so scared of the cost of PV arrays? We just need to switch gears and FORGE ON!!! Its the 21st century Dammit!
Just my 2 cents
http://www.soggycowdesigns.com
To get a feel for what a variety of solar panels are actually retailing for, you can look at sites like http://www.affordable-solar.com
Also, I haven't found a place that actually sells SunPower panels, but when speculating wildly on the prices for their products vs. other technologies, consider that in order to get 22% efficient cells, SunPower has to start with better quality silicon (single crystal 'CZ' wafers), discard more of it along the way (slicing off the round parts of the wafers to make square cells), and put the cells through a lot of processing steps (interdigitated back contacts, frontside texturing, and more). Other crystalline silicon photovoltaics may be less efficient, but they may also be simpler/cheaper to manufacture.
What they mean is that using half as many of the NEW tiles compared to the old ones will get you 50% more power than what you would have gotten with the old tiles. Its twice as much power compared to some tiles.
100 old tiles = 100 power
50 new tiles = 150 power
100new tiles = 200 power
Giant solar panels are great and all, but Im still waiting for when they get so effecient that theyll beable to do solar-hybrid cars without putting a giant table on the roof. Solar/electric/gas, now thats effecient. The electric motor and solar panels can share some of the power required and rely less on the gas engine.
explain the logic or math behind
"100 old tiles = 100 power
50 new tiles = 150 power
100new tiles = 200 power"
Shouldn't it be 100new tiles = 300 power?
20% isn't as bad as it sounds. But it's been around for a while now. 22% us just a little improvement.
"The unpopulated area of the Sahara desert is over 9 million km, which if covered with solar panels would provide 750 terawatts total. The Earth's current energy comsumption is around 13.5 TW at any given moment" (wikipedia)
So, 2% of the Sahara coverd with solar panels would provide over 100% of the Earth's current energy comsumption at any given moment.
Sounds nice, put like that.
Put your money into something that lasts.
Hey, I'm speaking to you multi-national money-sucking corporations. Forget about oil and that stuff. Oh, you don't yet have a scheme to make money from it? Well, to bad for the rest of us. And the environment in general. But you got that government on your payroll, so why worry ...
"So, 2% of the Sahara coverd with solar panels would provide over 100% of the Earth's current energy comsumption at any given moment.
Sounds nice, put like that."
2% of the sahara desert = 180000 km2
The average solar panel with control software= 700$ being 0.00000136 km2
That means it would cost 92.647.058.823.200 $
Dude... I can't even imagine that sum of money.
still too expensive for the average customer.
http://www.a-quantum-reach.com
While I am an advocate of PV solar, one has to ask themselve if they really think they can get this past any HOA in order for it to reach critical market acceptance? No, they cannot unless the federal government places guidelines for mandated acceptance.
I wonder if they are using conventional pure Silion, or CIGS, and if they can manufacture this in a form of architectural tile-panel.
As I see it there would be 3 systems to buy when going solar: first would be the PV panels to create the electricity, second would be the huge battery system you would need to store the power for use at a later time when the sun isn't shining, third would be the conversion technology to make DC at storage voltage into AC at 110 V. Using DC appliances would eliminate the need for the third system, but that would be long-term. After all AC became standard not because it was better at powering things for the end user, but because it could be stepped up in voltage after transmission losses by a passive device, the transformer. Most end user devices rectify AC to make it usable for the appliance, with the exception of some motor driven appliances.
Opus
Most people don't need the batteries, you can install a grid-tied system and use the grid when there is no sun. If the electric company uses net-metering then you can use the grid as your batteries. During the day, your solar panels produce more electricity than you are using so the electric meter spins backwards, getting credit for the electricity you are going to use at night.
With government and utility incentives, you can get half of the normal house's electricity with a solar-electric system that costs around 11,000. Then it only takes 10 years to get your money back, less if the price of electricity keeps rising. Since the solar panels have a warranty of 25 years, you get 15 years of use after they paid themselves.
This is all well and good but how about making it easy for average consumers to purchase and have installed? I've been researching and looking into some type of PV system but can't find any info on who locally would install such a system, what that system would cost, how the up front cost is handled with government incentives, etc. It's very difficult to find straight forward information and dealers/installers. Everything I see is about damn pool heaters. I want to use the sun instead of paying greedy power companies and the foreign oil companies for monthly power/heating.
Can anyone comment to this with some information for Orlando, FL residents concerning on the grid PV systems? And scalable systems where I can start off small, than add cells to it as I go.
We also need to look at the systems that are used to either invert this voltage to household current and/or use stable DC loads off of PV cells. every extra % of solar effeciency is great, but many people are still using old ineffecient technology on the backside of their cells. I know when I converted from a standard solar charge controller to a MPPT controller, I got about 20% more out of the same 10 year old panel I use. I have been using outback power products, and while I am using a DC system with a bank of deep cycles and an inverter for the few AC loads I have, I know it also does grid tie applications as well.
Rick,
Here in Phoenix, AZ there is one company that does it really easy. You just write the check. They even get the rebate from the utility company themselves so you don't even have to come up with the full amount. The govt. rebates you have to get yourself since they are in the form of tax credits. The installing company does all the building permits, and paperwork with the utility company. On their free estimate, they tell you how much electriciy you will produce, what is your payback time, and how much you will be saving once the system pays for itself. I found them in a "green building expo", so you may try to look for some event like that or here are some websites with directory listing to look for installers in your area.
http://www.homepower.com/
http://www.solarelectricpower.org/
http://www.findsolar.com/
I live in Northern California (not the Bay Area as that's the middle) and our local paper recently profiled a man with a solar system. With all the California / federal rebates and a loan on the PV system he will pay it back in 7 years. The system has a 25 year warranty so he's basically getting free power for 18 years (his bills are a few dollars a month). Granted this is California so we have higher energy costs per kilowatt and we have higher rebates, but as a long term investment solar is already a great deal. Let me stress again that I live in the far north of Northern California on the coast were it rains all year long and we're fogged in most of the time, yet his installation is still financially sound.
New Jersey has a state rebate that makes the payback on a PV system about 8 years.
It works great, hopefully we will see more state rebates and Federal support for solar. Does sunpower say how big this pannel is ? A standard 170 watt pannel is 21/2 by 5. It wont help if this 315 watt pannel is huge.
There is already federal mandates that say that the an HOA cannot stop you from installing solar panels.
It seems to me that all else equal, this new panel should generate just less than twice the power of the old tiles (22% versus average of 7-17, 12%). Saying you should get roughly 50% more, I thought may be a brainfart by the guy (refering to 50% of the new, not old tile)..but then he goes on to say using half as many tiles. I think maybe he just forgot a few words in there and it would make a whole lot more sense if he said
"you should get roughly 100 percent more power per square foot of roof area than the average solar panel, or could use half as many panels."