Researchers create printed solar cells

We've seen a lot of attempts to cut the costs of solar cells, but a team in Japan has managed to create an inexpensive flexible cell that's as thin as a sheet of paper using what they describe as traditional printing techniques. The team, composed of researchers from Toin University in Yokohama and private firm Fujimori Kogyo, managed to eliminate the expensive silicon component of regular solar cells, reducing thickness to just .4mm (.015 inches), and allowing a factory to pump out reams of the material every month -- enough to generate 10 megawatts of juice. That's actually a fairly low estimate, as the cells are only at 6% efficiency right now, but we can imagine that number shooting upwards after they start shipping in February.

[thethirdmoose @ Dec 10th 2007 8:34PM]

So... how can I print these myself?

[a ham sandwich @ Dec 10th 2007 8:46PM]

yeah really. something tells me your standard inkjet printer aint gonna cut it.

[AndrewNeo @ Dec 10th 2007 10:07PM]

a ham sandwich: Actually, I'm fairly certain that the projects to print heart cells or whatever it was actually used (probably a specific model, but still) regular inkjet printers.

[thethirdmoose @ Dec 10th 2007 10:13PM]

I will be extremely disappointed if my dot matrix printer will not work with these

[Chuckles McGee @ Dec 10th 2007 8:37PM]

Wait, why are we confident that these specific cells will have improved their efficiency in two months?

[Rob @ Dec 10th 2007 8:38PM]

Man, I miss Yokohama and that humongous Ferris Wheel. What a sight. And, the view of Fuji during sunrise. What a beauty. I need to go back and maybe pick up a few of these solar cells.

[Dan @ Dec 11th 2007 10:21PM]

don't bother coming back

[Rob @ Dec 11th 2007 11:08PM]

Well Dan, whenever I decide to return and visit, you can rest assure that I won't look for you. So, you can indulge in your own bitterness. Kampai.

[Chuckles McGee @ Dec 10th 2007 8:39PM]

Nvm, "that number" in the article was for 10 megawatts/month, not 6 percent.

[Murc @ Dec 11th 2007 1:17PM]

the article DID say 6% efficiency. that has NOTHING to do with how much they print. they can double their production to 20MW per month....but the 6% efficiency will remain.

FYI, 6% is pretty bad...the best solar cells out there are pushing upper twenties, and in a year or so, they will be above 30....if they can get above 30, and have no silicone (which should help keep costs down) the market will get way bigger.

[ThisIsNo @ Dec 11th 2007 5:54PM]

@Murc

I'm sure the silicone (with an -e-) content will be zero. Alternatives to silicon will indeed be nice though.

[LaughingMan @ Dec 10th 2007 9:26PM]

Even if we make solar panels cheaper and easier to make, will it really catch on?

Seems some people prefer drilling for profits...

[David W. @ Dec 10th 2007 9:38PM]

If individual consumers can buy these to limit utility bills then they'll definately catch on. If they get cheap enough and are reliable enough that people can cover their roofs in this stuff...it could be a big deal

[Pretol @ Dec 10th 2007 9:44PM]

You know that's what they asked SUV drivers about the rising prices of gasoline, and they said: "oh fudge, I'm buying a monster truck next year regardless of what gas prices are"... gas prices went up, SUV sales went down.... All these ratios, proportions, relationships work out a balance regardless of what people think will happen....

[Will H. @ Dec 10th 2007 9:39PM]

As I understand, 6% is not particularly efficient, but it's still good. I think the Engadget post means to suggest that a factory set up to produce these sheets which perform at 6% would be able to produce more then the estimated 10 megawatts. I agree though, the wording isn't great.

All the same, it's a really great thought to be able to mass mass produce solar cells. The reduced thickness of the sheet would make it ideal for large scale implementation, including shipping and installation. Sure they're ugly, but who really cares. Think about extensive use of solar cells on the tops of shopping centers, sporting facilities, convention centers, airports, industrial/commercial complexes, etc.

How would you use them??

[bdplaid @ Dec 11th 2007 8:06AM]

I'd use it to generate electricity for my home. I'd cover the whole back roof with the stuff, if I could afford it. I live in a somewhat rural area which is prone to occasional electrical outages when there are bad storms.

This, and that the electrical rate here in MD just increased by a whopping 73%, it would be a great thing to ease my life. That, and I'm angry enough about the price increase to want to live off the grid...

[ethana2 @ Dec 10th 2007 11:05PM]

I'd put it on some kind of hat to power my tablet PC and wireless internet so I can use VoIP instead of cell networks.

VoIP and cells killed landlines
VoIP and WiMax/700MHz will kill cell phones as we know them
..and it can't happen soon enough for me.

Toshiba Satellite, Clearwire modem, 400W cigarette lighter inverter, Skype/OpenWengo/Ekiga.

[Amy @ Dec 10th 2007 11:31PM]

I'd make blinds or window shades of some kind with them.

[Pretol @ Dec 10th 2007 9:43PM]

the selling point is COST (not efficiency, although that's nice as well), which has been the MAJOR drawback of solar panels. If they'll cover the roof of my house with 6% efficient solar for 1000 bucks, I'm jumping on it. But 20,000 bucks for 17% efficiency (or any efficiency) is beyond the scope of my careful budgetting. Make it cheap... CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP.... ooooh yeah... I'll wear solar shirts, jackets, make my bags out of this stuff... have a socket on every single piece of printable material...

[bobby @ Dec 10th 2007 10:02PM]

Didn't some prof in NJ (NJIT) design them already ?

http://www.physorg.com/news103997338.html

[sean @ Dec 11th 2007 4:30AM]

He came up with the chemistry behind it, and then let it sit. The guys mentioned in the Engadget post actually made it happen. There's a big difference between coming up with the concept, and actually implementing it.

[Bob @ Dec 11th 2007 8:05AM]

"NJIT researchers develop inexpensive, easy process to produce solar panels. Credit: New Jersey Institute of Technology"

Pretty sure the had something physical they produced and tested before releasing a paper like that . Not just science here , actual product , not commercial , but definitely did make it happen .

[bdplaid @ Dec 11th 2007 8:26AM]

Interesting. This was exactly the same path as penicillin took in the 1920-30s.

~1925: Fleming discovers the mold spore and names it "penicillin." Lets it drop.
~1935: Florey, Chain and Heatley (at Cambridge) work to develop it for use as an antibiotic.

Sure glad they did that.

[Phred @ Dec 10th 2007 10:25PM]

And silicon-valley based Nanosolar is planning to go commercial with photovoltaics that they can apparently print faster, cheaper, and more efficiently than either of those.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/green/item_59.html
Keep up with the print rags, engadget.

[CK @ Dec 10th 2007 11:03PM]

http://www.livescience.com/technology/070723_
solar_paint.html

So much for todays journalists.

[Nilay Patel @ Dec 11th 2007 2:41AM]

Check out the very first link in the post, homeboy.

[chris @ Dec 10th 2007 11:16PM]

For now who cares about the efficiency, what's the price per watt????
If it's sub $1 then this is real BIG news.

[whitesites @ Dec 11th 2007 2:30AM]

6% isn't bad. Remember 100% efficiency would be 1000 watts per square meter. So for 1 square meter of this stuff you would make 60 watts. I just wonder how well the stuff would hold up on my roof with a little duck tape. Now if they could only find a way to bring the cost of the inverters down we would be set.

[Bosco @ Dec 11th 2007 2:23AM]

Ypu know how this will work... They will practically give away the printers, but have some funky DMCA'd ink cartridge that costs $50.

[pb @ Dec 11th 2007 5:52AM]

solar versus phallic power, it is an interesting contest. What does driving a large car really mean?
I would buy them that is for sure.

[palehorse @ Dec 11th 2007 2:06PM]

U.S.-based Nanosolar is wayyyy ahead of these guys... and they hope to break the $1 per watt barrier with their solution!

120 MW per year? HA! Nanosolar is planning to print 430MW per year, or more! And the Nanosolar revolution begins in 2008...

[jgvp @ Dec 12th 2007 12:37AM]

The reason photvoltaics cost so much is that after the energy crisis in 1979, all the leading oil companies bought up all the manufacturers of those panels and sat on the R&D while they pushed the prices up and up and up. I was all gung-ho about buying them in 1976, but as the prices soared I lost interest. You see the problem is when corporations like Exxon Mobil et al envision the oil running out then they figure they will replace that revenue with the revenue derived from photovoltaics. The consumer can never win with these guys.

[skhawaja @ Dec 12th 2007 6:04AM]

Whatever happens, it's worth it, companies will always need competition :] and if nanosolar can't produce enough, there will be room for other manufacturer's and suppliers.

Now if only the original process and technology that all of this development is based on stays the hell away from lawyers, patent trolls, and intellectual property vaults owned by petroleum companies we're on our way to the future.

I support any company that will keeps its focus on development and let the commercialization process unfold naturally. I see a few chain stores allocating precious retail space to solar panels and inverters right now, that is forward thinking, regardless of the profit they make.

Have you seen stores carrying solar panels and inverters near you? If you do, mention this type of technology to the store owner or general manager, write an email to the company at least. Sometimes not everyone gets a press release that should be getting one.

[Andy @ Dec 12th 2007 9:27PM]

Do you have to use photo quality paper for this? That stuff is expensive!

[Reggie Rasmussen @ Dec 13th 2007 5:22PM]

Not only will Nanosolar produce more, but the effieiency is much better. They have thin film product that are as efficient as silicon. They now have plastic solar panels that are 6% efficient! The downside to thin film is that it is not yet field tested. What may work great in the lab or on the computer may not pan out.
Another option to affordable solar is Citizenre. They are trying market solar with an approach similar to satellite TV, cellular telephones, and alarm systems. That is to provide the customer a complete solar system with no upfront charges and make money from a service contract. In this case the service contract would be a rent agreement. They intend to put a complete silicon solar system on clients home. When the system produces electricity, it will lower the bill from the current utility provider. In most cases the savings from the lower bill will more than cover the rent fee that the company intends to charge. The company currently has no product available but intends to deploy in the middle of 2008. They are currently taking reservations and have almost 26,000 takers so far. I have written several articles on this company in my blog and even have a couple of videos that I have recorded at www.solarjoules.com. Feel free to take a look. I welcome comments. As in any start up business, a chance exists that they may never get off the ground and fulfill any preorders, but if this is the case - the potential client has not lost anything. If you cannot afford the upfront cost of solar today, this may turn out to be a great alternative. I have my name on the waiting list. If thin film does not work out and I cannot purchase, I will then use Citizenre if they are available.
If anyone would like company information you can go to www.jointhesolution.com/razmataz.