Nanosolar solar film rolls off the presses at 100 feet-per-minute

It looks like those curious to see just how Nanosolar turns out their solar panels for less than a dollar per watt need wonder no more, as the company has just posted a video that shows the thin film solar cells rolling off the presses at speedy 100 feet-per-minute. That's apparently possible thanks to what the company claims is the industry's first 1GW production tool, and its use of its own long-in-development nanoparticle ink, which eliminates the need for expensive high-vacuum chambers (though the printer still costs a hefty $1,65 million). What's more, the company says their technique would even work "in principle" at speeds up to 2,000 feet-per-minute, although they aren't making any promises about attempting an upgrade anytime soon. Head on past the break to check it out in action.

[Via Earth2Tech, thanks William]

[Sasha S. @ Jun 19th 2008 8:38AM]

Congratulations to Nanosolar! Well done!

[john @ Jun 19th 2008 8:40AM]

Wonder how practical and expensive it would be to make hood, trunk, and roof covers out of this stuff, to help charge hybrid and electric cars.

Or, for houses, awnings and blinds.

[Scott Culp @ Jun 19th 2008 8:47AM]

That's kinda what I was thinking too.

Why isn't EVERYTHING being covered with these things. I don't know what these things would look like easthetically but I'd take a little ugly for free energy.

[From my Cube @ Jun 19th 2008 8:47AM]

your forgetting the solar panels make up about 1/2 of what you need...you have to store it, convert it...and send it through tubez...and we all know tubez are expensive




WHY THE F ISNT MY AVATAR SHOWING UP? i hope the caps help

[applefan @ Jun 19th 2008 9:05AM]

The reason these aren't on anything is because despite what the tech companies say, they really don't give a crap about the environment. So they're in this just to make money. And if you don't have to charge your device as much someone is going to lose money. And they don't like that.

[Mike C @ Jun 19th 2008 9:24AM]

Try this is working proof of a concept they have spent the past few years developing. Rather than take the approach of making more efficient really expensive panels, they make average efficiency really cheap panels to bring the cost to consumer down to make it implementable.

Which on another note you should be thankful for because this process doesn't use high grade silicone (or any at all maybe?) so that means you'll still be able to buy your Mac's since there will be resources to make them.

The economics of R&D has a funny way of working out in the long run

[Don @ Jun 19th 2008 10:16AM]

This solar film will be very practical in the near future. $1 per watt will be the going rate once the production is in full swing. You will see this stuff every where and for once the power companies will be paying us for energy. That is if you tap it into the grid.

[buttabean @ Jun 19th 2008 9:47AM]

I would think they could do it the same way they make aftermarket carbonfiber hoods for imports

[rock99rock @ Jun 19th 2008 9:39AM]

Lets say I do cover the top of a standard sized vehicle with these, and stick an assload of laptop batteries in parallel in the trunk, and somehow tie in a converter/motor to 'replace' the internal combustion engine. Would that in any way work? You know, for say perhaps 100 miles of available distance. I would like a solar car. The sun is free energy, and id like to tap that ass.

[Ken @ Jun 19th 2008 9:54AM]

A car doesn't have enough surface are to run on solar energy. Cars are far too heavy. Remember this simple fact 1hp = 745.70 watts.

[Frankenstein Black @ Jun 19th 2008 10:21AM]

@ John. It CAN be done, see:
http://api.ning.com/files/Sdt59mj1L-DolE841PTuNydqB-rg1Ofi6YpQ-JHLzp4MNwOSyEN9hZGpqIWTLtBmCVFe1YTA1t7x9eQA6cRlQAEcOODEO5FU/IMG_0461.JPG

[john @ Jun 19th 2008 10:27AM]

Ken: I'm not talking about entirely powering a car from these. I'm talking about letting a hybrid or electric car use these to boost its battery charge. All of that time spent sitting in the sun, or even while driving, could help extend the MPG of a hybrid, and/or extend the range of both hybrids and electrics.

Exclusively power them? No. Augment their other power sources? absolutely.

rock: I would start with an already electric car... Zenn, a modified hybrid that allows for external charging (plugin and/or these solar cells), etc.

[Juice @ Jun 19th 2008 10:42AM]

Heck even if the power generated could recharge cell phone or power the radio while parked and off would help. C'mon already it's 2008...

[rock99rock @ Jun 19th 2008 10:52AM]

@ john

The Zenn looks great and all (not really, but i like the idea), but it is not approved for highway use. I wanna go 70mph. At least. Any other ideas?

[chris @ Jun 19th 2008 1:02PM]

implementing these to cars would be great.
Think.
Rush Hour. Parked on the free way.

[Ignatius @ Jun 19th 2008 8:45AM]

Once they get into full swing for this, I'd be tempted to pick up a few dozen panels for my roof. Should prove to be pretty cheap comparatively.

[Bob Robertson @ Jun 23rd 2008 11:00AM]

That is if NanoSolar ever sells to the general public.

[Danakin @ Jun 19th 2008 8:52AM]

yeah...and when we use up the sun, what next?

[Ignatius @ Jun 19th 2008 9:07AM]

Well, by the time we use up the sun, all of humanity will probably be extinct anyway, so let's not worry about that.

[Danakin @ Jun 19th 2008 9:32AM]

...humanity isn't extinct already?

I thought; what with the current religious war and our inability to show compassion, understanding, and sympathy to opposing viewpoints; our over-usage of natural resources, man-made resources, and our general waste of all things we use; and the continuing success of Microsoft despite their development, marketing, and output of sh*tty products; humanity was already in the poop shoot.

...wait, you didn't mean that philosophically?...you just meant that the human race is still alive?...Oh.

Then I guess not.

[rock99rock @ Jun 19th 2008 9:33AM]

Well NOW I'm worried. THANKS

[DorianGray @ Jun 19th 2008 10:04AM]

@Danakin

LOL! That was really really funny!

[Steven @ Jun 19th 2008 10:03AM]

"[...] all of humanity will probably be extinct anyway"

Damn, Ignatius, I like that "probably"! :-)

Even if you exclude the red giant phase the sun has at least 4 billion years to go. Mankind: < 10000 years (my estimate, based on observation of our idiotic and self-destructive behavior. A natural calamity or two may increase the odds)

[Fragmit @ Jun 19th 2008 12:59PM]

..and people like Danakin wonder why they never get invited to parties.

[Jaimi @ Jun 19th 2008 10:40PM]

" Mankind: < 10000 years "?

Dude, they've found frozen people that are older than that. Try guessing in the millions. You did go to school, right?

[Danakin @ Jun 19th 2008 10:49PM]

@Fragmit

I am aware of why I don't get invited to parties...but the difference between me and everyone else is that I'm okay with it :)

[Cory @ Jun 19th 2008 9:04AM]

printer still costs a hefty $1,65 million???
No way. Your telling me that if they wanted a second one of those they would need that much more? Seems that the most expensive part is the "ink" which apparently isn't that expensive if they hope to produce it for 99cents/watt.
Even if it does cost that much buy 100 of them. 100 of them @ 100fpm and 99cents/watt would bring in... 100 billion dollars! not all profit but still not bad for 100 printers.

[JP23 @ Jun 19th 2008 6:15PM]

Wait until HP gets their hands on the printer. It will cost $5k for a little 0.1oz ink cartridge.

[Hello Moto @ Jun 19th 2008 9:19AM]

@Cory

That 1.65 million dollar price is probably included the engineering cost to have it designed as well as the one-off machining costs, both of which are very expensive compared to a mass produced product. You would never want to build 100 of them because that would create too much supply and force you to lower price losing profit, also since the panels are becoming cheaper so quickly, to have 100 printers means that you would be unable to compete in 6 months, that’s why everyone builds just one plant every few years, so that they are always able to compete.

[3lement @ Jun 19th 2008 9:27AM]

Waiting for Nanosolar IPO....

[buttabean @ Jun 19th 2008 9:38AM]

no word on how efficient these rolls are per square foot? I highly doubt they are more efficient the solar panels that are out now.

[Will @ Jun 19th 2008 9:46AM]

Thank you...I do building energy consumption/conservation projects for a living and everyone keeps missing the deal on this crap and all solar companies in general: what is my watts per squarefoot. I could wallpaper the exterior of my entire house with this stuff, but if it will barely power a Ipod it is worthless.

[Johan S @ Jun 19th 2008 10:46AM]

There is word, and no it's not as efficient in converting sunlight to electricity per square foot....that means that per square foot of solar panel CIGS based thin film solar produces less electricity from sunlight than conventional solar panels

BUT

The efficiency of solar panels is not an issue, what matters is the cost of the panel per watt of electricity generated over a period of a few years.

So yes, even though you need more rooftop or desert land surface area, your overall cost per watt will be less.

[solarbuddy @ Jun 19th 2008 9:58AM]

I'm sure they are *much* less efficient than current amorphous cells (at the low end of cost/efficiency at the moment) but in this business cheap production is the goal. I now have 4.7kw of solar on my house in 27 expensive panels. If I could get panels that were half as efficient and a tenth as expensive I would plaster the WHOLE roof with the things.

[gnome @ Jun 19th 2008 9:58AM]

Their website says 14% efficiency, which if I recall (admittedly not watching solar tech religiously) is pretty much in-line with other commercial solar panels.

[J Thomas Heywood @ Jun 25th 2008 3:06AM]

I read they have 14% efficiency

[unknown x @ Jun 19th 2008 9:58AM]

hmm? solar panels on film?

waste of time imho.

in a few years time we 'll get photovoltaic cells in paint.

[DeviceMan @ Jun 19th 2008 10:05AM]

So they have a machine that spreads a layer of goo on a sheet at 100 feet per minute. Did they say/demonstrate anything that came off the machine actually converting light to power? Or because they mention the machine and latest efficiency in the same paragraph we are supposed to assume the two are actually related?

[alex @ Jun 19th 2008 10:16AM]

ummm how is this thing powered? Does it use it's own solar panels to power the machine? Ironic wouldn't it if it needs to draws power from the grid to make those solar panels.

[Honza @ Jun 19th 2008 10:22AM]

If they open the roof above the printer they could get the thing to power itself. If I paid 1.65m for a printer, it would have to reload it's own ink too...

[MichaelP @ Jun 19th 2008 11:29AM]

Just looked at a typical industrial panel, and it looks like .05W / sq inch is reasonable to expect, even after the expected loss of efficiency with age. That means that I could cover the sunnier side of my house roof, about 1000sq ft (144000 sq in) with solar panels and reasonably expect 7200Wh during sunny times, though that would cost (at the $1/w expectation) $7200 to buy. If I could save that, or feed it to the utility company for credit, I could reasonably expect to generate 72kW on a sunny day. At $0.07/kWh, that would be $5/day or $150/month. Compared with my typical electric bill, I can see that, if I can store or get credit for most of that power, I will cover all my normal electric use.

Based on these estimates: ROI: 4 years. Post-ROI savings: $150/mo.
(Not including installation, maintenance, or equipment for power storage, regulation, or inversion.)

Lifetime savings (based on BP Solar warranty of 25 years/ 80% output): $37800, over 5 times the initial cost.

Though these estimates are almost worthless without estimates on what the other stuff costs...

[watt @ Jun 19th 2008 12:40PM]

As long as it's under $30k you'd still be breaking even, though.

[dj-kenpo @ Jun 19th 2008 12:41PM]

I think the real point of all of this is that when zombies attack and the power grid goes down, you'll still have juice dude!
party on!

[Jody @ Jun 19th 2008 11:30AM]

This is pretty huge. Current solar modules run about $5 a watt at the bottom end. The problem with solar is the cost.Here in San Antonio, I have speced out a grid tie system for my home. 2000 Sq ft home which uses around 1800 KwH of electricity a month on average. This requires a 13,000 watt system to be grid neutral, which means I pump enough juice into the grid during the day to make up for what I'm going to use at night. The cost of a system this size is currently around $70,000. Our rates here are .085 KWH which works out to be about $1750 a year, so it would take 40 years to pay for a home solar system. Now I can get tax breaks and rebates and get my payback time to about 27 years, obviously still not financially viable. However, if nanosolar can get the panels down to $1 a watt, my 13,000 watt system would cost around $23,000. Giving me a 6 year payback if current tax incentives and rebates are still going.

[Steve A. @ Jun 19th 2008 12:10PM]

Jody, I think your calcs are somewhat off.

First off, you're consuming an average of 58 kWh a day. That's pretty high. You should first look into getting a more efficient heating & cooling system, preferably a ground-source heat pump, more insulation in your home, and CFL light bulbs. Those changes alone would most likely halve your extremely high rate of consumption. Also old hotwater heaters and fridges consume massive amounts of energy compared to new ones.

That aside, even to cover your current consumption, you'd need a smaller array than you think. San Antonio has an average daily solar insulation of 5.88. So for every 1kw of panels you have, you'd generate 5.88 kWh on average daily. To cover every last cent of your current consumption, you'd need a 9.8 kw array, not 13 kw. With inverters, panels, and install, an array that size comes to around 75k and take around 48 panels. An array that size would save you 58kw daily (just a hair under $5 at your stated rate), that works out to be 1824.27 annually in savings, barring any state or utility rebates/green tags.

Depending on your utility, CPS Energy in Texas offers $10,000 in rebates for installed residential PV panels. You'd also be eligible for a 2k personal tax credit from the feds. Depending on if you sell green-tags for the energy you produce, you'd make around $500 annually of those too.

To be the most cost effective, you need to focus on figuring out where you're wasting all that current energy. Putting panels on an energy-hog home like that is not solving much. If you cut your consumption by half, then installed a 5kw array that costs 35k installed, plus added the above rebates, then you'd be much better off. First year installed cost would be closer to 22,000 and payback would be about 10 years.

[Student Driver @ Jun 19th 2008 12:01PM]

Just think if clothes were made of this; my mother-in-law could power a suburb with just her ass. Awesome (the power, not the vast-ass).

[direwolf08 @ Jun 19th 2008 1:17PM]

"Their website says 14% efficiency, which if I recall (admittedly not watching solar tech religiously) is pretty much in-line with other commercial solar panels."

I can almost guarantee you that is the efficiency of their best CELL in a lab setting. Commercial scale, module efficiencies are much lower. They have some nice manufacturing, but their product has a long way to go.

[Brian @ Jun 19th 2008 1:53PM]

BRAVO, Nanosolar!

I hope this thing takes off, quickly. I where we are going to see solar cell in the next decade.

[ddub @ Jun 19th 2008 3:15PM]

Watching the video, 100 ft/min does actually look pretty slow. Lets hope they don't have too many issues speeding it up.

[WowBow @ Jun 19th 2008 5:22PM]

Hmmm...$1.65 million for the printer. The ink refills, however, cost $850K each. Thanks, HP!