Nanosolar begins shipping "world's lowest-cost solar panel"

We've heard plenty of promises about low(er) cost solar panels, but it looks like the heavily-funded upstart Nanosolar is actually getting around to churning out what it says is the "world's lowest-cost solar panel." As The New York Times reports, that feat was achieved by taking a different approach to lowering the cost than most -- namely, by reducing the manufacturing cost instead of trying to increase the efficiency. As a result, by using a new process that effectively "prints" photovoltaic material onto an aluminum backing, the company says they can profitably sell the solar panels for "less than $1 a watt" or, as The Times points out, the price at which solar energy becomes less expensive than coal. What's more, while Nanosolar itself is hanging onto one of the first panels for exhibit, and one is being donated to the Tech Museum in San Jose, Nanosolar is auctioning off one of the first three panels to be produced on eBay, where the bidding currently stands around $1,000. Anyone looking to actually put it to use may want to think twice, however, as the panel is being sold "as-is."

[Via The New York Times]

[william @ May 7th 2008 1:54PM]

More space O.K then application is great for rural farm and ranch power ponds gates etc... bring it on nano I have cash in hand and don't mind waiting in line.

[dennis gunn @ Jul 13th 2009 7:24AM]

Has anyone actually seen an installation of Nanosolar panels. If so where?

[divya @ Jul 18th 2009 10:05AM]

why cant we use this nano solar cells in powering satellites...

[Craig B. @ Dec 18th 2007 11:42AM]

Does anyone know the efficiency % on this thing?

[clads01 @ Dec 18th 2007 11:59AM]

If they are the amorphous Si type, then probably ~10% efficiency. Single crystal Si can get you ~20% efficiency.

[yabun @ Dec 18th 2007 12:08PM]

Good question, but no exact technical specs posted. From their site:
"We presently share product data sheets only under Non-Disclosure Agreement with qualified volume customers. This is so we can extend the period of protection for certain proprietary features we have developed."

[max andrews @ Dec 18th 2007 2:50PM]

It's about the same (13% or so) as normal expensive panels. They use a nano-style gathering process so the energy is collected over very short distances, removing the losses you get on a large silicon panel where the charge must flow through a large amount of silicon to one of the conducting wires. This way, the weight and cost goes way down and the silicon does not have to be single crystals, but the efficiency remains about the same or even a little bit better.

[Brian @ Dec 18th 2007 11:47AM]

Anyone interested in learning about the ROI calculations for using solar panels should check out http://www.greenandsave.com -- they also offer over 50 more ROI calculations on home remodeling and improvement projects. This is a great resource for any homeowner or individual interested in helping to save the environment. They show that you can actual save money as well.

Source: http://www.greenandsave.com

[ziphem @ Dec 18th 2007 11:58AM]

Very interesting, great info!

[geri @ Dec 18th 2007 12:11PM]

Thanks for the link. I loved the video they put together showing the construction and remodeling done to their house. Here is the link if anyone else is interested in enjoying it--it is about 2 minutes long.

http://www.greenandsave.com/highlight_video.html

[Chris @ Dec 18th 2007 1:57PM]

Brian - First post on Engaget was Nov. 9th and that post spammed the greenandsave site then as well.

Ted and Geri's first posts are in this thread also! What a coincidence!

Seriously, get out of here with your spam. By the way, Engadget is nofollow, so you aren't even generating any indexed backlinks to your site. Scraping for traffic everyday is not a good strategy. Go build some legitimate backlinks and leave us alone.

[Xzavier @ Dec 18th 2007 3:05PM]

Looks like somebody got caught Green-Handed???

[Xee @ Dec 18th 2007 3:33PM]

Zing!

[ry @ Jun 19th 2008 9:44AM]

Chris,
Even if it is technically spam and he's not just a major green-advocate, he's doing it in a respectful manner and only on relevant articles. As an about-to-be-homeowner I'm actually grateful for that link. It's a valid site with some very good info, and doesn't seem to be selling anything in particular.

Brian, thanks for the link.

[NHAnimator @ Dec 18th 2007 12:25PM]

Looks like things are heating up in the solar power community.


Sorry.

[eek @ Dec 18th 2007 12:49PM]

That's ok

[andrew k @ Jan 1st 2008 7:45PM]

I love it love it love it. I heard about nanosolar in mid-2005 and I knew if they came through with these panels with low production costs, we have hope for the future. In fact, if they can really produce these on massive scale, our energy problems will become energy opportunities. Now we need those new batteries from Toshiba for energy storage (maybe EEstore can come throught too?) in mass-production. nanosolar panels and lithium-ion battery industries will be feeding through each other like portable MP3 players and flashdrives.

[BigD145 @ Dec 18th 2007 1:08PM]

Lower efficiency means more space is needed for the panels. For years and years, that's what people have been bitching about. "Ew. Huge and ugly panels on my roof. You know, that place I never ever look at unless I happen to be in a plane."

Can you still recycle the aluminum backing later on down the road?

[saintchuck @ Dec 18th 2007 1:11PM]

"...solar panel is currently in Seller’s possession but it will be held in escrow until 6/1/2009..." screams of vaporware/scam but I have been following them for too long to give up hope now.

[Frankenstein Black @ Dec 18th 2007 1:22PM]

Add Solar body panels to the roof and hood of this baby
http://www.seriouswheels.com/2008/r-z-0-9/2008-Tesla-Roadster-With-Bridge-Rear-1024x768.htm
and in rolls the "JESUS MOBILE"!!

PS Fuel? We wont need no stinking fuel! Matter of fact, plug that house into this "rolling solar reactor power plant" disguised as a sports car!!

[Frankenstein Black @ Dec 18th 2007 1:26PM]

One more shot for ya! Full frontal JM ;^)!!
http://www.seriouswheels.com/2008/r-z-0-9/2008-Tesla-Roadster-Front-Angle-Bridge-1280x960.htm

[Mike @ Dec 18th 2007 1:23PM]

Since they can print the panels now, can they be printed in a pattern that resembles conventional roof shingles?

[Frankenstein Black @ Dec 18th 2007 1:28PM]

Yes! Rent "Who killed the Electric car" and the old dude shows them at the end...

[max andrews @ Dec 18th 2007 2:53PM]

Yup, that's the point. You'll be able to roll this out on your roof with likely a couple different looks, and it will be a lot cheaper than current solar.

[BigD145 @ Dec 18th 2007 3:40PM]

Roof shingles are different. I know, I've held them in my hands.

[biking person @ Dec 18th 2007 10:01PM]

I saw photo voltaic roof tiles on an example solar house in Atlanta during the 1996 Olympics. The idea's not new, but hopefully now it'll be feasible. Roof tiles feel so different because they've got a thick layer of tar holding on the granular surface but really any impervious surface should do the trick if it's durable enough and doesn't degrade with UV exposure.

[greg @ Dec 18th 2007 1:32PM]

I'm sure they could produce some kind of solar panel that is shaped like a roof shingle. But it'd probably be all shiny still. Don't think that would really make it look all that better. Anyways, I think this is really great. If it reduces solar power to the point where it competes with coal, its a huge step!

[clads01 @ Dec 18th 2007 2:39PM]

"Solar shingles" can be made to look much like conventional shingles. See for example pic at:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/photovoltaics.html

[toyotaboy @ Dec 18th 2007 1:41PM]

this is great news, that's easily 1/4 the cost of current design, and they're just ramping up production. I'm not so sure about cheaper than coal just yet, I think they have to hit the 50cents/watt pricepoint first, but it's getting really close. Now all we need is for this company to IPO.

[andrewyamp @ Dec 18th 2007 1:43PM]

The problem with solar is you still need to factor in the cost of realestate necessary to house the panels. So using that logic it’s still a long way from being competitive with coal 

[required @ Dec 18th 2007 1:59PM]

coal has extremely costly negative effects on society and the environment so when you do your cost comparison don't forget to factor in how much it really costs to deal with acid rain, cancer, mercury poisoning, etc.

[Brian @ Dec 18th 2007 2:36PM]

@required:
Yeah, but until there's a tax that ACTUALLY makes it cost that much, it doesn't matter.

[Josh @ Dec 19th 2007 1:36AM]

@Brian:
External cost can be internalized a number of different ways, one of the most formal of which is a tax. However, the recent protests against new coal burning plants show that the external costs of polluting and being energy inefficient over the long term actually are being internalized, both by a general constituency of local residents who can influence all sorts of (non-tax) regulations, and by the (potential) customers themselves who can choose not to plug into the grid.

[bcarney @ Dec 18th 2007 2:03PM]

Check out their corporate website. Neither of the two production plants they have appear to be using them ... you'd think they'd at least have a few on the roof for internal corporate use.

[Iridium @ Dec 18th 2007 2:06PM]

The problem is if I can buy a panel that makes 100 Watts for $100 it really isn't cost effective. Running a 100 watt lightbulb for 24 hours a day for a whole month costs less than $5. At normal usage it would take 5-10 years for the panel to pay for itself just to light one lightbulb.

In a place like Cleveland where we only see the sun for less than 120 days a year solar power just isn't effective. While this is a great thing to cover the roof of every Wal-Mart, schools, and other large buildings to add a few megawatts to the grid it isn't good enough to take us off of other fuel sources.

[KSAT @ Dec 18th 2007 2:11PM]

You guys need wind-generators to catch the lakeshore winds off Lake Erie! I bet you could power the "mistake on the lake" and all of New York.
^^^^^^^^^^^(haha - sorry, I'm from Cincy!)

[required @ Dec 18th 2007 2:15PM]

I don't think you understand how much sun power really hits Cleveland every day.

[Russell @ Dec 18th 2007 2:32PM]

I don't think you understand how much you will have to pay after 2 years, when the panel has paid for itself. Thats right zero, and no one guarantees that electricity cost from coal will stay the same.

[Joe Maki @ Dec 18th 2007 2:48PM]

Most states also offer significant tax breaks. In WI you can cover close to 50% of your installed costs with federal and state tax incentives.

[BigD145 @ Dec 18th 2007 3:40PM]

You don't seem to understand how solar works. You can get 80% of peak wattage in cloudy conditions.

[Russell @ Dec 18th 2007 2:12PM]

You can't buy them, even in 2008. 2009 looks questionable too, what good is it if you cant buy it.

[Harbin @ Dec 18th 2007 2:24PM]

Check out some of the solar technologies in the NASA Tech Briefs Create the Future design contest:

http://www.createthefuturecontest.com/pages/view/viewentries.html?tag=Solar

[Andrew Horn @ Dec 18th 2007 3:30PM]

ooooooooo this is exciting I can't wait

[etrigan @ Dec 18th 2007 3:37PM]

What if a tree fell on my house? Does home owners cover it? I'm assuming that it depends on your provider, just wondering if anybody has a quick answer to this from experience or perhaps.

[Julian @ Dec 18th 2007 5:31PM]

Has anyone heard much about a similar product from www.xsunx.com? Do you know if it is comparable?

[Richard @ Dec 18th 2007 10:51PM]

This is a campers dream. I'd love to paint my '75 Boler fiberglass trailer and use the entire body as a solar collector. Give me 100 watts and I can camp forever using gas for cooking.

Spray paint my kayak with it and I could carry a small electric motor for the times when I'm going against the current or just want to kick back for a while.

Why not paint your car with it and use it to recharge your batteries for an electric car.

And for those that asked, from what I've read about from the company its currently 6.5% efficient looking at a goal of 20% in the near future.

Paint my house!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ted Ledbetter @ Dec 18th 2007 6:54PM]

Awesome

[Nutsy @ Dec 18th 2007 7:32PM]

To only have an efficiency if 10%-21%? Seriously why bother? There are already cheaper and much higher quality pannles comming out. Look at the german univercity that made the new multicolour high quality panels witch they said are already cheaper to produce than the current top end panels... Seriously focusing on churning them out at the sake of quality is a serious mistake.

And as for Ugly? Excuse me? If you ask me a nice blueish reflective panel is more pleasing to the eye than a black slate tile. And its going on the roof of your house. Not in your bedroom.

[skhawaja @ Dec 18th 2007 10:14PM]

I want those solar panels that they deploy on satellites :]

But this is worth it - when do you look at your roof anyways?

Lets move along with progress here - yes there are newer panels coming out - but the resources and materials required appear to be greater than this process - a more efficient production method and a reduction of the bulk associated with current panels deserves some attention.

If they're talking bullshit, I don't think the companies, that have put down the money, are going to be associated with them for much longer.

Of course you can call it vaporware - that's most likely how they transfer the layers to the aluminum (aluminium) :p

To the naysayers and poo-poo-ers, having a felxible solar panel greatly increases the adaptation rate for other products for solar. And that's a good thing, flexible panels or not, anything that you can purchase once, that generates power while there is some sunlight, is worth it now, and it will be worth it for the future after the original owner passes it on.

What's the lifecycle of a solar panel anyways?

[palehorse @ Dec 20th 2007 4:04PM]

Two things:

1) When will I be able to use these in combination with decent-lookng roofing tiles?

2) HOW CAN JOE SIXPACK (ME) BUY STOCK IN THEIR COMPANY!?

ugh... this company is going places, and I want in damnit!