MIT spin-off 1366 Technologies touts better, cheaper solar cells

In what's become an increasingly familiar tune, a startup company has announced that it's just pulled in a significant haul of funding based on its promises of better, cheaper solar power. In this case, the company in question is 1366 Technologies, which was spun out of research from MIT and is headed by MIT professor Ely Sachs (who is taking a leave of absence to focus on the company). According to the company, it's found a way to make solar cells from multicrystalline silicon that are just as efficient as ones from single-crystal silicon, which is normally much more expensive to produce. In terms of hard numbers, that translates to solar cells that are 27 percent more efficient than your average solar cell, and (in its current state) a cost a $2.10 per watt. Sachs says that cost will come down to $1.65 per watt when manufacturered on a commercial scale, however, and will eventually drop to $1.30 a watt with some "planned improvements." That's still short of the $1 a watt goal they're aiming for (which is roughly the cost of coal), but the company seems confident they can hit that mark by 2012 with some "anticipated advances."

[Via Physorg]

[phanbouy @ Mar 27th 2008 5:20PM]

Random unrelated reguritation of fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Proselytizing for nuclear power.

Obligatory denigration of those who disagree as "socialists", "hippies", and climate scientists out to steal their precious bodily fluids.

Rabid defense of industrial/consumption status quo and the miracle of limitless growth on a finite planet.

Rinse/repeat.

[peshue @ Mar 27th 2008 5:26PM]

Are the price comparisons really that relevant considering that solar is a essentially unlimited supply and coal isn't, plus the cost of building coal plants.

[BigD145 @ Mar 27th 2008 5:40PM]

All businesses think in quarterly profits. Yes, it is relevant. Should it be this way? NO!!!

[kentavos @ Mar 27th 2008 6:20PM]

I was about to post the exact same thing. I've always heard this "1 dollar a watt" holy grail, but it never made sense to me. Will someone with more industry experience care to explain?

[Murc @ Mar 29th 2008 3:18AM]

We have enough coal to last around 200 years....which is a long long time, by the time coal runs out, we will allready likely all be getting our electricity from Nuclear Fussion power plants.

also, yes, coal plants do cost money to build.....and solar ones dont.? :/

[mohaine @ Mar 28th 2008 9:09AM]

I believe the $1/watt is price per watt for the average coal plant over its entire life. So it is

Cost of Building + Cost of running plant over entire life of plant(Coal included) / Total energy generated of entire life of plant

[retro77 @ Mar 27th 2008 5:41PM]

Quick! Get this technology over to SoCal Edison!

[HunterXI @ Mar 27th 2008 5:53PM]

$1 for a watt with coal? Here I was thinking I paid 10 cents for 3.6 million of 'em.

Am I just doing something seriously fucking wrong here?

[HunterXI @ Mar 27th 2008 5:53PM]

$1 for a watt with coal? Here I was thinking I paid 10 cents for 3.6 million of 'em.

Am I just doing something seriously fucking wrong here?

[retro77 @ Mar 27th 2008 6:29PM]

Ya, your double posting

[HunterXI @ Mar 27th 2008 7:57PM]

Unintentionally. It isn't my fault this is the worst forum/BBS-esque system ever made.

No offense, Engadget, but the posting system is the rough equivalent of a forum from 1995. And yes, I know this isn't supposed to be digg or something (thank god), but it shouldn't be hard to prevent double posting, especially when the enclosed messages are totally identical.

[kyle allen @ Mar 27th 2008 5:57PM]

totally random question here but, im trying to decide if i should work in the solar industry or be an industrial designer. and i have like a month or two to decide. any input?

[retro77 @ Mar 27th 2008 6:29PM]

Solar will be more ground breaking if you can get in at a place like this.

[Jonathan @ Mar 27th 2008 7:16PM]

The industry is lacking professionals. If you are looking to get an engineering degree and your NABCEP certification then you'll be laughing.

[Adam @ Mar 27th 2008 6:12PM]

These numbers are complete B.S! 1 WATT= 1 Joul (Unit of energy) per second.
So the good think about solar energy is that it costs ZERO per Watt. The only cost is the initial manufacturing cost! Presumably one could want to know
how much energy will a solar cell generate over its lifetime.
But this number will come in Jules or Watt x hour units.

[greg @ Mar 27th 2008 10:50PM]

yea, I never really understood how they got these number either. At best I figure its a good way to compare different kinds of solar panels. But lets not forget that solar panels also have they're own set of quarks that affect the "cost" of having these things. You have to constantly keep them clean to keep efficiency. The amount of power is totally dependent on the sun (unlike other non alternative sources). It takes a lot of land to replace a traditional plant. ect.

[Brian @ Mar 27th 2008 6:43PM]

That's good and all... but how about finishing the AT&T U-verse service like you have been promising for quite a while.

[Brian @ Mar 27th 2008 6:44PM]

sorry firefox clicked the wrong link.. so ignore it

[iofthestorm @ Mar 27th 2008 6:52PM]

Darn, they should have chosen a number 29 lower than that for their name.
/ducks

[For2itous @ Mar 27th 2008 8:30PM]

"Anticipated advances..." -- Sounds more like 'Solar $ell' to me!

[tekdroid @ Mar 27th 2008 11:05PM]

"The company's efficiency and cost claims are based on results from small solar cells (about two centimeters across) made in the lab of Emanuel Sachs, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, who is one of the company's founders. 1366 Technologies is building a pilot-scale manufacturing plant that will make full-sized solar cells (about 15 centimeters across). Within a year, the company will decide whether its pilot-plant results justify building a factory for commercial production, Sachs says."
---------
Assuming things all go smoothly within a year on a larger scale...

[M.H.A.Anas @ Mar 27th 2008 11:47PM]

Pls send us, your products

[Capagotks @ Mar 28th 2008 4:10PM]

why 1366? why not 1337?

[Tom @ Mar 29th 2008 1:09AM]

NanoSolar already has a product that is 100x more efficient than this.