Inexpensive solar panels nearly ready for commercialization

We've been inching closer to low(er) cost solar panels (for the mainstream public to enjoy) for some time now, and apparently, AVA Solar Inc. is just about ready to start cranking out units that "will cost less than $1-per watt by the end of next year." The technology was reportedly developed by Colorado State University's Professor W.S. Sampath, and production is slated to begin soon in a "200-megawatt factory" that could employ some 500 individuals. Of note, it was said that the "cost to the consumer could be as low as $2 per watt," but even that figure purportedly rings up at about half the cost of current options.

[Via Slashdot, image courtesy of CSU]

[Watsonr @ Sep 24th 2007 8:21AM]

Spiffy! If can they can handle -30 degress celcius, like the current generation, I'm in!

[HineyWipe @ Sep 24th 2007 8:32AM]

I wouldn't be so quick to embrace this. It seems that several "professors" over the years have developed some "useful" tech and then 180'd on it for greed (See the dimming windows patent...priced at $500/sqft). So nice to see how an instructor exploits his grad students, uses grant money and state-funded school money and then patents something.
(ofcourse, if the school has the patent...that is another story).
20-1 someone offers him a "quiet" NDA to buy that tech and patent...and is likely a Utility company...

[david @ Sep 24th 2007 9:05AM]

Do you have a link for those dimming windows? I remember them being developed but haven't seen them anywhere and they ain't on the Google either! Pretty cool idea. But wow, that greed factor probably killed them until the patent runs out.

[jon @ Sep 24th 2007 9:47AM]

Or look at Spheral Solar Power... amazing technology developed by TI, then purchased by ATI. It was amazing in the lab and they touted amazing production numbers... but they could never get their process right for full scale production.

I think they ended up selling to the Chinese (don't quote me on that one). Hope they can figure it out.

Just take the reports with a gain of 'silicon'. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Rick @ Sep 24th 2007 12:50PM]

Exploits? Ah, they are in class to learn about these processes. They will no doubt get good grades for their work. So you want them to get A's and a pay check while in school? They are bascialyl interns and they still produce working products that can be sellable. I don't see an issue there.

[jason51873 @ Sep 24th 2007 11:13AM]

This is great news but I have to agree with this poster. Most ground breaking energy tech is bought up and made to disappear by the large energy companies. For example look how long hydrogen fuel cells were kept under wraps. The big oil companies bought all the patents and made the tech disappear for years so that it did'nt over take their huge oil profits. I'm guessing the same will happen with any solar improvement as well.

[shalinshah @ Sep 24th 2007 11:19AM]

Most universities take the bulk of any money that comes from patents that were developed in house (generous universities will share 20-30% with the developer). I personally have no problems with professors profiting from their work, given the years of monetary debt during grad school followed by years of slave labor as postdocs (where they usually make less than 40k per year with long hours...and remember, these are people with PhD's). To me, given the current system, it's a wonder that any research gets done at all.

[Eli Gibson @ Sep 25th 2007 1:26AM]

Professors that are interested in doing commercializable work should look into working at universities like Simon Fraser University, up in Canada. Professors here have full ownership of their IP, and many of the engineering profs have done very well for themselves because of it.
[Disclaimer: I am an SFU grad student]

[John Hughes @ Sep 24th 2007 8:49AM]

Even if cost of solar panels fell to the cost of paint, solar would still be expensive and intermittent. Voltage regulator, batteries, structure,etc.

[shaka999 @ Sep 24th 2007 9:06AM]

It it was inexpensive as paint you could just pump in back in the grid. Yeah, you need an DC-AC converter and such but the cost of those would be pretty small. This actually works well because peek power demand is during the hotest/sunniest weather.

[nikola @ Sep 24th 2007 9:49AM]

hey john hughes, there is a solution for anal warts like yourself.

DON'T BUY ONE!

I'm sure there are many people more than willing put in the "structure" so they could take advantage of this. The tax credits you get would MOOORE than make up for it.

[Chris O @ Sep 24th 2007 12:20PM]

If the system is installed properly they are not highly intermittent and batteries are not required for grid-tied systems. Incentives are making solar a reliable investment, even under the current (low) efficiency levels.

[strider_mt2k @ Sep 24th 2007 8:49AM]

Do they hold up longer than traditional ones in use?

[Trent @ Sep 24th 2007 2:45PM]

You mean longer than the current 25 year warrantee period at full voltage? Solar panels last a tremendously long time. As I said they are guaranteed to maintain a certain voltage level for 25 years on average, most survive much longer. One report of some early panels that were installed and a little older than 25 years showed 1 panel out of 25 that had gone bad with a voltage drop on average of around 20%. That's an amazing figure given the age.

[Bill @ Sep 24th 2007 10:00AM]

That's why you feed to the grid or use batteries.

The new lithium-based batteries being developed for electric vehicles are nice and compact, with fewer maintenance issues than traditional, flooded lead-acid batteries.

If lithium batteries are developed that can stand up to the abuse they'd have to take in vehicles, then they're also an option in your home to store that solar energy.

I'll take 5 kW of $2/watt solar panels for my roof.

>solar would still be expensive and intermittent.

[netposer @ Sep 24th 2007 11:15AM]

Here in NC we have Progress Energy. They try their hardest to screw you if you want solar power or any other alternative power.

They will make sure you can't A. Make money selling it back or B. Make it take over 20 years to re-coupe your cost.

They will charge you for another meter to go back into the grid and the only way to make it worth your while to sell power back to them is get a subsidy from a state run organization.

So at least in NC alaternative power is for the rich or the hard-core philanthropist.

[Dan Isaacs @ Sep 27th 2007 9:21PM]

I'm in Apex. I've looked into it. It seems the best option is to become a wholesaler for NC Greenpower, and get paid a better rate than what Progress offers for Metering. Of course, you're still going to need a separate meter. I'm not on Progress, either, the Town of Apex provides Muni power.

I'm waiting for one of three things: Higher efficiency, lower cost, or 2.5 years when my cars are paid off. :)

[brad @ Sep 24th 2007 11:34AM]

so it will cost $500 to run my 500w psu?

[dj-kenpo @ Sep 24th 2007 1:11PM]

$2 per watt, not $1.

so it would cost ME $120 to run my 60W laptop, but thats for life.

also protects against power outages and apocalypse.

[Jeebus @ Sep 24th 2007 1:18PM]

"also protects against power outages and apocalypse"

I'm pretty sure that the Apocalypse will darken the sky, making solar cells useless.

[whatever @ Sep 24th 2007 3:48PM]

And the internet will be down, so there's no point in living...

[Sma @ Sep 24th 2007 7:05PM]

I read an article on tomshardware that talks about this. They had a computer running off of about 60watts. Although they did limit it(i think) to one hard drive and one cdrom, and some motherboard/cpu combo that doesn't use alot of power, and it was also running the lcd monitor off of the solar/battery array. Instead of using an AC/DC PSU they used a DC/DC PSU, alot of energy is lost in the proccess of converting AC to DC power.

[Indie @ Sep 24th 2007 11:54AM]

I might be incorrect with my numbers, but at current electricity prices (23.54 cents / kW-hr in Hawaii) and assuming 12-hr operating conditions every day; a $2/W solar panel investment could break even in 2 years (ignoring other infrastructural investments)? In Colorado (9.65 cents / kW-hr) could break even in 5 years?

That doesn't sound too bad at all.

[Chris O @ Sep 24th 2007 12:20PM]

Current simple payback for a 5kW system is around 10-14 years in New York with the incentives. These systems usually have warranties for at least 20 years and they are maintenance free.

[KC @ Sep 24th 2007 2:56PM]

The only problem is that you sell the power back to the grid at wholesale prices. That is, when you purchase power from the grid, you are charged $0.25/KwH. But when you sell power back to the grid, you will probably get it at $0.08/KwH. So your ROI would be different.

[Zach @ Sep 24th 2007 11:55AM]

$1 watt isn't bad for solar. The current market is $6.19 per watt according to siliconsolar.com.

However, coal is still $0.010401 / watt.

I don't solar energy in the near future taking over coal and feeding energy into the grid. Nothing short of a breakthrough will be required for that. However, solar energy does have several advantages over its alternatives. These advantages have the potential to revolutionize the world’s energy portfolio. For one, the ubiquitous power cord can be replaced by a photovoltaic charger. This would allow for devices that were designed to be charged with a power cord to be charged via light energy. Once the chargers gain popularity and increase worldwide interest in solar energy, devices can start to be engineered with photovoltaic power in mind. By designing electronic devices that use electricity in a more efficient manner and refining photovoltaic cell technology, solar energy can prove itself useful.

[Zach @ Sep 24th 2007 11:56AM]

PS: I meant "I don't see solar energy", not "I don't solar energy". Engadget really needs an edit comment feature.

[Sven @ Sep 24th 2007 12:21PM]

>However, coal is still $0.010401 / watt.

You're making an invalid comparison because your units are wrong.

Coal, hydro, and other grid power sources are measured in Watt*hours, not Watts. Solar is measured in one-time costs, based on peak power output.

Assuming a 20-year life for these new panels (current panels have a 30-year life), then the amortized cost per Watt becomes $2 per Watt * 175,000 hours, or about $0.0000114 per Wh.

That's 1000 times less expensive than coal.

[jetexas @ Sep 24th 2007 12:12PM]

I think it was almost 7 years ago that I was investigating putting a solar array on my home, but it was around $10k for the kit, and it still didn't supply enough power to run air-conditioning. The batteries were said to have a life of somewhere between 5 - 10 years. Not a cost-effective option.

[Nick @ Sep 24th 2007 12:24PM]

Well, if the "solar panel paint" ever becomes commercially viable, the entire highway grid in the USA could be repainted with it....that would be enough power to seriously minimize (or even eliminate) the need for coal fired power plants.

Solar, wind, and wave generated power definately appear to be the sustainable alternatives for our energy demands.

[Xendris @ Sep 24th 2007 12:25PM]

...and my post made the error of assuming 24-hour sunlight. Valid, I suppose, for a lunar installation.

Even with six hours of peak production per 24-hour cycle, reasonable in much of the United States, this form of solar is still over 200 times less expensive than coal.

Yes, solar has problems. Mostly at night. No, it won't ever replace grid power systems, but it will eventually help businesses and people reduce grid consumption during peak hours.

Using solar as a sole energy source is still very impractical. Batteries are expensive, and weather uncontrollable. This won't stop thousands of households and businesses from cutting their utility bill in half by using this kind of technology.

[J @ Sep 24th 2007 12:58PM]

Bill, I'm guessing you're not a lawyer either.

If I decide that my iPhone will work better with a nail through the middle of the screen, then Apple will gladly replace it when the performance suffers?

The point is not whether they will replace or repair a factory defect (that is another can of worms with Apple products...)--but rather whether they will bail you out when you break the rules of the warranty agreement (which you are not legally bound to follow) and end up with a $500 piece of plastic. Someone else posted a quote of the warranty agreement earlier and it is hard to deny that any sort of 'unlocking'/hacking/whatever is not part of the intended use of the product and therefore relieves Apple of any liability.

If you buy a new car and fill the gas tank with sugar water (even though the owner's manual says not to use anything but gasoline), the manufacturer is not responsible for your stupidity.

[Bill @ Sep 25th 2007 7:16AM]

You're still choosing to ignore the fact that state regulators can and have modified manufacturer's warranties in favor of the consumer.

So, yes, if there is a "reflash" option that would restore a "bricked" iphone, states where Apple does business can force Apple to offer it at nominal cost - sure, they'll let Apple get something for their trouble.

The alternative is to force a complete refund, with no restocking fee allowed (yes, the state can do that as well)

[J @ Sep 25th 2007 10:12AM]

Bill, I'm guessing you're not a lawyer either.

If I decide that my iPhone will work better with a nail through the middle of the screen, then Apple will gladly replace it when the performance suffers?

The point is not whether they will replace or repair a factory defect (that is another can of worms with Apple products...)--but rather whether they will bail you out when you break the rules of the warranty agreement (which you are not legally bound to follow) and end up with a $500 piece of plastic. Someone else posted a quote of the warranty agreement earlier and it is hard to deny that any sort of 'unlocking'/hacking/whatever is not part of the intended use of the product and therefore relieves Apple of any liability.

If you buy a new car and fill the gas tank with sugar water (even though the owner's manual says not to use anything but gasoline), the manufacturer is not responsible for your stupidity.

[J @ Sep 25th 2007 10:13AM]

I guess you're right, Bill--I am choosing to ignore this "fact" because the pro-consumer modifications the states "have made" to the warranty don't show up in the actual warranty.

Following this theory, if I go buy an iPhone and throw it into Lake Michigan, then the state can force Apple to refund my money.

[dj-kenpo @ Sep 24th 2007 1:14PM]

you could view solar as expensive, sure, but at the same time, there's a lot of low power devices on the way. seiemens o-star leds that are brighter than normal halogen bulbs but only burn 5watts instead of say a 60watt bulb you might have now, or even a 13watt energy saver. etc.

these sound great for the cottage where energy prices are mental!

[Magallanes @ Sep 24th 2007 6:21PM]

Just add solar panels charging all the day + hydrogen (or oxygen?) generator + hydrogen car = free (in theory) gas!.

[james foster @ Sep 24th 2007 7:56PM]

When will we find these devices at our local Home Depot?

[Bill @ Sep 25th 2007 1:16PM]

J-

Yes, state regulations do modify warranties in favor of the consumer.

Remember, as a manufacturer you do warranty fitness for use.

Since unlocking is specifically permitted as an exemption to DMCA, a state regulatory agency can decide all on its own that Apple cannot void the warranty for those who have merely unlocked their iPhone.

Like it or not, any individual state can indeed modify terms in a manufacturer's warranty.

Don't like it? You, as manufacturer get to take them to court.

[jacobkash @ Oct 22nd 2007 8:45PM]

I have started a company that will have liltium-ion
solid state battery system available in the U.S.
in 2008 the unit will be just a bit bigger than a microwave batteries and inverter included with 5kw
storage each battery 2.5 kw can be racked endlessly
would this technology be something you would like to discuss. this also can be used for emergency back-up system
and also solar chargable