Their mission: to deliver cost-efficient solar electricity. The Nanosolar company was founded in 2002 and is working to build the world’s largest solar cell factory in California and the world’s largest panel-assembly factory in Germany. They have successfully created a solar coating that is the most cost-efficient solar energy source ever. Their PowerSheet cells contrast the current solar technology systems by reducing the cost of production from $3 a watt to a mere 30 cents per watt. This makes, for the first time in history, solar power cheaper than burning coal.
These coatings are as thin as a layer of paint and can transfer sunlight to power at amazing efficiency. Although the underlying technology has been around for years, Nanosolar has created the actual technology to manufacture and mass produce the solar sheets. The Nanosolar plant in San Jose, once in full production in 2008, will be capable of producing 430 megawatts per year. This is more than the combined total of every other solar manufacturer in the U.S.
![]() Nano particles |
Nanosolar, Inc. prides themselves on being the “Third Wave” of solar technology. The “First Wave” began over three decades ago with the introduction of silicon wafer based solar cells. This technology bore high material and production costs with poor capital efficiency. Silicon does not absorb light very well and therefore, the silicon wafers must be very thick. Also, the wafers are extremely fragile. Their need for intricate handling complicates processing all the way up to the final panel product.
The “Second Wave” came about a decade ago with the first “thin-film” solar cells. This established that a cell 100 times thinner than the solar wafers can work just as well. However, this process also has its setbacks. First, the cells semiconductor was deposited using slow and expensive high-vacuum based processes. Secondly, the thin films were deposited directly on glass as a substrate. This eliminated the possibilities of:
- Using a conductive substrate directly as electrode (The Nanosolar cells work on a metal foil substrate, or semiconductor, instead of the stainless steel or glass substrate. The metal foil semiconductor creates an increase in yield of 20%);
Achieving a low-cost top electrode of high performance (An electrode is a conductor through which electricity flows.);- Employing the yield and performance advantages of individual cell matching & sorting (The effect of electrical mismatch per cell leads to greater losses per panel as a result, and panel yield and efficiency distribution suffer: A bad cell results in a bad panel with thin-film-on-glass technology; but with a cell-sorting technology, only that cell will be a loss);
- Employing high-yield continuous roll-to-roll processing (Roll-to-roll processing allows large quantities of material to be processed with equipment that leaves a small footprint);
- Developing high-power high-current panels with lower balance-of-system cost {Nanosolar.com}. To put it simply, the production cost was still too high and the product did not yield a high enough output of energy.
Nanosolar, however, brings together the entire conjunction of all seven areas of innovation which delivers a dramatic improvement in cost efficiency, yield and throughput of the production of much thinner cells than ever before.

Nanosolar offers a 25 year warranty on its products. They test their products in much harsher conditions than the official certification standards. They expose the cells to intense UV light as well as intense humidity. This in depth testing allows for Nanosolar to produce a quality product with efficient output in all environments.
But, despite such advances, congress is trying to remove tax incentives for renewable energy….
|
On TV / Videos CNBC: Sunshine in a Can CNN: Global Challenges History Channel: Modern Marvels |
Update: First Panels Now Shipping
Further Reading:
- Popular Science, Nov 12, 2007
Nanosolar: Top Innovation of the Year 2007 - Forbes, July 9, 2007
Solar Power Heats Up With Nanotechnology - Plenty Magazine, March 17, 2007
Nanosolar: #1 of Green Energy Top 20 (PDF) - Energy and Capital, March 16, 2007
A New Day Dawns for Solar
U.S. DoE selects Nanosolar for $20m grant - National Geographic, Aug 2005
Powering the Future - History Channel, Dec 30, 2004
Modern Marvels: Energy Technology (MPEG video)
view Celsias projects related to this topic >>

November 23rd, 2007
Interesting development. This has really been the holy grail of solar panels for the last many years - can they beat traditional energy in cost?
I think despite global warming, what really makes people adopt new technologies is the dollars. If there’s saving involved, people are quick to change their spending habits.
November 23rd, 2007
This is great news! I have been watching nanasolar for years and knew it would be them that brought solar into the main stream.
November 23rd, 2007
I can’t believe this article even made it online, there are so many mistakes its not even funny, not to mention “reducing the cost of production from $3 a watt to 30 cents per watt, this makes, for the first time in history, solar power cheaper than burning coal.”
That simply isnt true, not to mention the units are completely wrong. For a start power when sold is sold by the kwh. Even so if solar power is now at the 30c per kwh its at least 4 times as expensive as other technologies.
Further more the claim that the San Jose site will “be capable of producing 430 megawatts per year” again is another example of the writers ineptitude. The definition of a Watt is a Joule per Second. This is utter rubbish.
November 23rd, 2007
While the cost of the solar panel drops significantly the AC-DC converter costs the same so while you can afford a great many more panels per installation it’s still going to cost quite a bit to start up the project. However payback is now reduced from 7-9 years to
November 23rd, 2007
This sounds wonderful. I live in the northeast, and winter is coming along, and the heat bills will be going up up up. I would like to sign up as a test house for the northeast brutal winters. Anyone want to come up and put some of this on my house??
November 24th, 2007
This is very very interesting, but I read nothing about how efficient this is in terms of energy output per square inch. If I have 1 square meter and I need it to provide me with as much solar power as possible, will this Nanosolar product be the way to go?
November 24th, 2007
This is a revolutionary product! If it can be produced this efficiently and cheaply, we may finally have finally found a viable solution to curb global warming! I can’t wait!
November 24th, 2007
MetalStorm -
Admittedly the author is confused about units. The 30 cents per watt claim may be accurate however as it may refer to cost per watt of capacity, not cost per unit of energy. Perhaps the author or another poster could clarify this.
- Crosbie
November 24th, 2007
Correcting Metalstorm:
Maybe you have other complaints about the article, but the two you mentioned are groundless. 30 cents per watt is not a measure of the cost of electricity from these panels, but of the panels themselves. It means that i could buy a kilowatt panel for .30$/W*1000W=300$, if that panel lasts for 25 years (the warranty), and averages 8 hours of sunlight per day at a kilowatt, that is 1kw*8h/d*365d/y*25y=73000kWh over its lifetime, so the cost per kWh is 300$/73000kWh=.004109$/kWh ~ 4 tenths of a cent per Kilowatt hour. Obviously, for the end user, this figure is higher due to installation and retail markup (but is lowered by incentive programs). Also, the output of the plant is measured in Megawatts because its a *manufacturing* plant, it makes panels, not electricity. So before you hurl insults, check yourself.
November 24th, 2007
To MetalStorm:
The units used in the article are not “utter rubbish” as you claim, they are only slightly confused.
When you buy a solar panel they don’t charge you by the kwh… because that obviously would depend on how long you actually use the panel. A panel (or solar strip in this case) has the ability to produce a certain number of Watts when exposed to direct sun light. This is the number quoted when you buy one. Take the price and divide by that.
However, the claim of “producing 430 megawatts per year” is wrong. The author should have left off the “per year” part, or perhaps they really meant “average 430 megawatts per year” given that it depends on lighting conditions over the year.
November 24th, 2007
Ops, actually the 430 megawatts part is right too… it’s the plant not a power station based on the technology.
November 24th, 2007
The 430 megawatts is the power output from amount of solar cell product is produces each year. i.e it rolls out 430 megawatts capacity of solar cells. i.e. if you connected them all up they would generate 430 megawatts under peak sunlight conditions.
November 24th, 2007
I would assume people versed with solar power would be the ones reading this, so Im surprised to see people have NO IDEA what they are talking about in the comments. All Solar panels are rating in basic Watts output as an Ideal measurment of instantaneous output. The 430 Megawatts number is also an industry standard method rating the manufacturing capacity of a facility. Its very high, but thats the point of the article. The factory will produce cells capable of producing an instantaneous power output of 430 million watts over the years production run. I think maybe a few of you arent quite ready for the reality of solar power until you read up a bit more.
November 24th, 2007
Y’all quit the tiddly detail arguments for a second here and help me out with the important issue please? How can I, an average American, invest in this company, this technology, and this new wave of opportunity to maximize my, and your, freedoms- independence- profit etc?
November 24th, 2007
Hmmm, yes,
it’s important to understand that the eventual cost/watt of solar panels is based on the total life of the panel. (which is usually based on the warranty.) This is how the cost/watt can be compared to power companies.
What’s particularly interesting about NanoSolar is their production methods.
They have simplified production to something that resembles a printing press. This brings the possibility of large scale production of solar panels closer, as well as dealing with the aesthetics issue. (Let’s face it, most solar panels don’t really add to a house’s visual appeal.)
Thin film panels can be more easily integrated into traditional roofs. This further lowers installation costs.
November 24th, 2007
How can yo have a “break through” with out a product ?
I can’t buy this today it is / could be just smoke and mirrors. I would love nothing better than to line my roof with these bad boys …but when i go to …
http://www.nanosolar.com/products.htm
All I get is “opportunity” to sign up to be notified of when the system comes out.
Show me a price list with shipping costs or it does not exist.
Cheers
J
November 24th, 2007
It bothers me when people write such a nice article and leave out some important details.
What is the max output per square meter?
Thirty cents per watt is nice but not if it takes a 16′x16′ sheet to generate one watt.
And are they going to be selling to Joe neighbour or are they only selling wholesale to power production plants?
November 24th, 2007
What is the efficiency? If it is only few percent than this technology is not very useful. Deliberately avoiding this spec makes me wonder what else is not being disclosed.
November 24th, 2007
It would be so important for us, to become indepent from arabian countries or Russia, that I hope very much, that it will succeed.
November 24th, 2007
Actually an incredible development. Not quite the best technology, but certainly at the forefront and the addition of manufacturing capabilities takes this technology to the next level.
November 24th, 2007
I have seen lots of thin film PV modules fail so I am skeptical of new technologies. What kind of field experience is there whit these modules? I am in the PV installation industry and do not want to see unreliable products put in the field. It will severly hurt the industry.
November 25th, 2007
I agree with Cary Lane. We’ve seen the hype before with little practical use in industry. Let’s hope for the best.
November 25th, 2007
“The company uses Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide - which can acheive up to 19.5% efficiency - to build their thin film solar cells. ”
Straight from Wikipedia’s entry on Nanosolar. This technology looks mighty attractive.
November 25th, 2007
Well, full on production has yet to begin at Nanosolar. But I am sure, that since the production costs will be lower, they will have products that can be offered to the “average Joe” as well as the commercial consumer. Thanks “Tom J’ O was just about to post that. Just Google [or Blackle - the energy efficient form of Google] Nanosolar and you can find much information about them and the various specs of their product.
November 25th, 2007
The part about what congress may or may not do is interesting, But be aware there are currently incentive programs available.
If you are a resident of New York State go to http://www.nyserda.org/default.asp
There are also U.S. Federal Tax Credits see http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154657,00.html and Look Up Form # 5695 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5695.pdf
Residents outside NY try this link: http://www.dsireusa.org/ .
The tax incentives/credits are out there to do something to help either save money for your budget, or save the environment.
November 27th, 2007
“Solar now cheaper than coal.”
Technically solar energy is limited and coal is a solid substance, a form of carbon that will most likely, in the long run, outlast the sun. So, solar energy will never live up to coal. Carbon is an eternal element, balls of gas eventually burn out.
Don’t get me wrong, nanotechnology is a great science but according to my sixth grade science teacher it is possible that a debris field could block out the suns rays. Metal Storm’s opinion aside I think this was what he was trying to say.
November 27th, 2007
It is difficult to tell if the product would revolutionize the PV industry without the support of technical data but from a production cost stand point, it is definitely a ‘brow riser.
Assuming the efficiency of the product will be much lower then thin film, and even amorphous membrane, I am not sure if the technology has a place in the real world where it can be applied affectively. But let’s hope the efficiency of the product once they become available will prove me wrong.
November 28th, 2007
They look like a nice product etc but I do find the ‘30c/watt’ price pretty baseless, maybe thats what they will manufacture them for but the market decides its own price, when they see how much they can charge for them it will be a lot higher.
November 28th, 2007
Regardless, it is supposed to be cheaper than current solar products. They are trying to make a product that is not only more efficient, but much more affordable to the masses. I am sure it won’t be ridiculously cheap, but if it is cheaper than the current solar products, then I say kudos to Nanosolar.
November 30th, 2007
This is an amazing development which means that the option of powering your home via solar energy just got a lot cheaper, or the level of power achievable is a lot higher for the same amount of money. All that’s needed now is for battery technology to catch up and the dream of a home without bills is ours. I also see demand for creating hydrogen from water for the next generation vehicles.Cover the deserts with these and our cars become free to run.
December 1st, 2007
sheesh. I guess I’ll have to explain this. The qouted cost of .30 cents is for an installed watt of capacity. Thus if you wanted a system capable of producing 5kw of peak electricity under peak sun conditions you can expect to pay $1500 (5000x.30=$1500) vs $30,000 for a traditional pv panel array (apprx $6 per installed watt not $3) this info is by far the most important thing you should pull from the story as it will completely revolutionize the way we think about electricity in the most fundamental ways.
December 2nd, 2007
Joshua, the cost is not the most important thing unless there is some energy density info to go along with it. What if your $1500 5KW peak system takes 50 acres of land to produce those 5KW?
If I wanted to power my house, do I have to dedicate my whole farm to solar arrays? What’s the point then?
On the other hand, if I could just cover my roof with these panels, and that provides enough power for me, my neighbour, and spare power in battery storage for cloudy days, then I’m interested in that. Whether it costs $1500 or $15,000 I’d be VERY interested in that.
I’m presenting extreme examples, but I think it goes to show that energy production capacity is not something that should be completely left out of the discussion.
It leads me to believe that the details have been left out because they’re less than impressive.
December 4th, 2007
what is the cost per unit if tied into the power grid? thus no batteries. most of us are on the local grid allready.
December 4th, 2007
sounds like a step in the right direction.we can only hope it stays cheap enough for 3rd world countries, where it will compete with fossil fuels on ground level.
December 4th, 2007
By my reconning it’ll take about this long to get your investment back:
pi*(1 dollar/W)/(100 dollars/(600kW*hour))/.9
This gives 2.38 years. You can copy and paste into google to verify that.
Here are my assumptions: when they talk about a watt. they mean an instantaneous watt on a bright sunny day; when they say it costs $0.30, that means I’ll actually pay $1 if I want it.
Here is my reasoning: I looked around online and someone near me payed the electric company $100 for 600kwH. I figure that’s about the going rate. I divide the cost per power by the cost per energy unit, which gives me the time it’ll take for my investment to pay off.
Now I multiply it by pi. I used some very vague calculus to decide that it’d take about pi days to get a days worth of nice sun. I then divide by .9 because the DC to AC inverter would only be maybe 90% efficient.
All in all this is still pretty optimistic. I don’t live in the desert. It’ll be cloudy some days. And there’s winter, when the days will be shorter. But there you go, a quick and dirty estimation of return on investment. All in all this is pretty good. My pops says that 3 years for a return is what you expect, so this looks like less than that if you live in a sunny place.
December 6th, 2007
Down Here wrote :”Technically solar energy is limited and coal is a solid substance, a form of carbon that will most likely, in the long run, outlast the sun. So, solar energy will never live up to coal. Carbon is an eternal element, balls of gas eventually burn out.”
Oh, that’s sad. I’d like to believe this is a joke.
The Sun is a G2 type star, about 4.5 billion years old. It’s got another 4 billion years of life, easily, before it starts to get old and becomes a Red Giant.
When that happens, the Sun will expand greatly, and engulf the Earth, burning it to a cinder.
The supply of coal for energy use is limited. It’s NOT an “eternal element”, since you have to burn it up to get the energy out.
Ronald Reagan confidently said there was 400 years of coal left.
Well, it’s been a couple of decades since he said that, and there’s just over a hundred years left in the coal reserve.
We’re using it faster, you see.
But, if we build solar power plants in the SouthWest, the supply of sunlight won’t run out any faster no matter how many solar panels we put up !
December 11th, 2007
I have been also watching nanosolar for over a year. I hope this really does pay off, and is a commercial viable pruduct for everyone to afford. It is if it works out the way the say.
Problem I see is not with them but what happens everytime somethink like this does happen. You will see the oil company’s,electric company’s,coal company’s and others doing everything they can to stop it or make it hard for everybody. See them paying off them paying off the house and senate and others like the do now to stop stuff. Like citys and states have restriction on its use.
Like the not in my backyard they use against people that want to put up a windmill for electric. Hell in my state West Virginia, they try to stop you if you live on a farm out in the middle of nowhere with no neighbors for a good distance away from putting up a windmill for electric, I myself thing the local goverments been paid off by the coal company’s and electric company’s to stop them.
But if this works out people will see what I’m talking about. The coals,oils,electrics and a few others will be feedng the goverments coffers to do what they can to make it hard. Thanks
December 11th, 2007
Thanks to you experts, I’m learning while you folks hash this out. I’ll leave it to you wonderful “Math People,” and you great “Electricity People,” to agonize over the details of whether NanoSolar Energy will make it affordable to me.
As for me, I can’t wrap my head around a new learning curve of this magnitude. I’m just waiting for the chickens to come home to roost — and then see how they look.
A “homegrown” somewhat effective investigative reporter, I doubt I could have written an article on this subject — that interests me greatly — which would please us all. We Writers work with what information we can glean from our sources.
I’m just an ol’ country gal who prefers to “make do” with the natural resources our Maker created for us — with enough power to run this computer. (OK! So I want my cake and eat it too!)
So I’ll be watching these guys… and if they can come up with a way to live off the grid cheaply enough for me to buy out of my SS check, an occasional Windfall, and sale of a few books…
I’ll buy.
Bless you all… MuleMarm
December 11th, 2007
What should happen, we should have the feds buy up some lands in Utah, Arizona, Southeastern Cali, Parts of Colorado, and New Mexico, and Build a Huge solar Power facility. Of any type. This nano-stuff may be cheaper, we will have to wait and see. But instead of blowing all of our tax dollars over-seas we should be doing something like that.
December 11th, 2007
These developments are worth keeping and eye on but please don’t get too excited until you see a ‘for sale’ sign rather than ‘don’t call us, we’ll call you’.
Without efficient energy storage, this is a partial solution but nonetheless a great step once full production starts and it is widely available.
And yes the Watt reference is for a panel’s peak instantaneous capacity not its energy output. Note actual output can be significantly lower 95% of the time.
December 11th, 2007
Gentlemen, I applaude you on your development. I would like to link to your site and also to extract from your site enough to give our many viewers from around the world (96+ countries and up to 25,000 visitors per day) an idea as to what you have.
Thanks,
Larry
480 899 4463
December 14th, 2007
quite an interesting turning point…
even more interesting when you consider the cost of the War in Iraq…
Now, the entire Energy production of the United States in 2005 (according to the CIA world factbook) was 4.06 trillion kWh.
now…..there are 8765 hours in a year. So, if you divide 4.06 trillion kWh by 8765 hours, you get 463 billion watts, which is the average power capacity of the United States in 2005.
Now….let’s assume their 30 cents/watt is an exaggeration, and estimate the cost to be closer to $1/watt.
To replace the ENTIRE 463 billion watt power capacity of the United States with solar panels at $1/watt will cost $463 billion dollars.
recall that the war in Iraq has cost the US government $474 billion dollars so far….
December 20th, 2007
Nanosolar ships First Panels:
http://blog.nanosolar.com/
Enjoy it
December 20th, 2007
Dear Celsias:
We have large area Panels with uniform light emission. We have capability to make UV or Visible spectra matched to your requirements. We can construct not only spectrum wavelengths but/and spectrum shape, using blends of Phosphors available today.
Look in www.uvquantum.com.
We can make Light Emitting Panels with size up to 96″by96″ size. Current production panels are 20″by36″ and 20″by48″ size. Quantum Light Systems can help you to test your Cells with long life spectrum matched QEL-Lamps.
Sincerely yours, Vladimir Danilychev, President, Quantum Technologies, Irvine, CA 92614. Ph.: 949-251-1977, Fax: 949-251-0566. E-mail: quantuv@pacbell.net
December 20th, 2007
What this article misses is just how many watts can be captured with how much cell surface area based upon the intensity and wavelength of the incident energy. As always the maximimum solar flux incident tangent to the earth is 1367 W/m^2. 70% is relected back into space. This leaves about 900 W/m^2. But this spread across the spectrum. Even at the high eficiencies this only leaves about 300W/m^2. And this is when the sun is directly shining on the panels with no angle from tangent. So at 37 degrees north where I live, I can expect maximum on a clear winter day is about 100 w/m^2. So in the winter with a 30% efficient cell I will need 10 m^2 of cells. Someone at the equator in winter will need maybe 3 m^2
The cells are narrow band devices. The energy from the sun is spread through out the spectrum. There are two peaks in the spectrum, one in the green and one in the red. The valence and conduction bands in the constructed crystal lattices are very photon selective. Which means the lattices must be layered one on top of another, each layer with different quantum properties tuned to different incident photon energies. If the photon eneregy does not match the band gap energy then the photon is not absorbed and no electrons are bumped into the conduction band and hence no electricty flows.
That is not to say this is not good. Because there can be lots of good uses for this tecnhology as adrressed in the article. But most people jump to conclusions and forget to examine the total system electrodynamic balance. In real terms it would take energy absorbing surface areas that would far exceed a typical building lot to supply a major fraction of a single home’s energy needs. You can imply acres of surface area for standard national electric code (NEC) assumed power requirements for moderate single family homes
December 23rd, 2007
Hi All - update here. First panels shipping out at 90 cents p/watt.
December 26th, 2007
Wonderful news! Cheap, clean power is critical if we are going to substantially curb global warming. The other side of the coin is to (somehow) reduce consumption. We simply waste too much energy. Most people have seen the picture of the earth at night. The US spends $billions annually lighting up the night sky. This type of behavior simply is not sustainable under any circumstances. Still, your news is very encouraging.
December 26th, 2007
Unbeliavable. But amazing
Should we forget about coal and petroleum?
December 26th, 2007
cool to know. now we just need people to start using it!
December 26th, 2007
Please, I beg, not so much scientific double talk when it comes to energy. How about some simple economics? At first it was 30 cents per watt, now according to a news release they made at their first shipment, they want to try to get the cost down to $1. And I though there were only about 5 peak sunlight hours in the most of the populated world not 8. Do these supply the same energy for the same sun angles as regular solar cells? How dense are they, is a square meter of these cells as good as the same size in the old cells? Are they electrically similar?
Why only 480 megawatt hours manufacturing capacity per year? World energy use according to Wikipedia is 15,000,000 megawatt hours. Of that coal supplies 3,800,000. At this rate it would take 7900 years to replace, wonderful! What would it cost though to tool up to make enough of these so anyone in the next several generations would benefit? I fear, in the urgency the 30 cents corrected up to something above a $1 may need further adjustment. The investors and geniuses who invented this may want a share themselves.
December 27th, 2007
BTW. Beware of anyone quoting cost / watt. Efficiency and Cost/Area are the only way to calculate the amount of energy you can expect to capture.
I can see two errors in my above post. #1. is 30% of solar flux is reflected out into space before reaching the surface. #2 The solar flux is normal not tangent to the earth surface.
Cost/Watt is simply wrong.
December 28th, 2007
Grid costs decreased!
Hi. I find even more reason for optimism. Solar power imply the possibility of on-the-spot production, reducing (or even canceling) the need for electrical grids. These grids are - economically speaking - “natural monopolies”. Reducing their importance (or taking thme out of the picture), will bring to significant additional savings.
December 28th, 2007
Solar Photovoltaics will NEVER be a factor in replacing the grid. Solar photvoltaivs are good in places where there is no grid. For example in the backcountry in the national forest and parks or on weather bouys or in orbit around the planet. Solar photovoltaics might be a bit more useful around the equator for small loads like lighting, fans, small refrigeration loads etc.
So if there is a grid avaialble then it is the most economic solution.
In fact the grid will only have to get bigger when we build trasmission coupled fusion/fission power systems.
The initial fusion plants will be pulsed systems. Gigawatts of energy will flow in to charge the plant. Then the plant will fire the energy to fuse the hydrogen nuclei with a small loss of mass. The grid will have to be able to source and sink the energy while absorbing the small gains.
The grid will be like a large inertial energy store. Fission reactors will provide the initial inertia. The fusion reactors will then pull and push the grid system. However, if the grid goes down, the fission plants will have to build up the inertia again to bring the fusion plants back on line.
December 29th, 2007
I have read the efficiency of nanosolar panels is about 4%. It means a lot of panels will be needed for any practical use. So … why the fuss.
It really doesn’t matter much. What happens is that these panels will be good, not for homes, but for the grid. The world has plenty of desert land to generate lots of PV energy coming from giant (in square meters) power stations … own by the same big multinationals as at the present. I am sure they are happy with this development. Distributed power for all is still many years away. Anyway, good for Nanosolar!
December 29th, 2007
So we should cover fragile desert ecosystems with light blocking solar panels. I do not think that will happen.
If these are 4% efficient then why even bother.
December 30th, 2007
Great to see inovation like this, this is what gives me hope that we can finally rid fossil fuels as our primary energy source. The cost potential of 30 cents/W looks very good even if total end user cost is $1/W that would be a hugh success. The efficency of 4% is low relative to other technologies but i am sure this will only improve with time. 4% gives about 1.5 kw peak on a roof measuring 10m x 4m this is not bad out of the gate, if they can get to 12% then the same roof can produce 4.5kW peak enough run the house day entirely day and night.
I congradulate Nanosolar and wish them rapid advancement and success.
December 30th, 2007
The last three comments have referred to 4% efficiency. Can you provide a source?
A recent update on this post indicates 13.9% efficiency.
December 30th, 2007
Lets check the power calculation in post 96
Post 96 statement
40m^2 @ 12% efficiency gives 4.5 KW.
Calculate Flux / Meter
Output Power
4.5kw/40m^2 = .35 KW/m^2
Input Power (using 12% efficiency)
.35 (KW/m^2) / .12 = 2.916 KW/m^2
This is more than 2 times the the the maximum solar flux at the the equator during the summer equinox. @ 12:00 PM Local time
Solar Flux is 1367 w/m^2 not 2916 W/m^2. I am not even going to calculate the for 4% efficiency. Unless of course the stateted power is based upon the output that would be achieved if we were in orbit around Pollux.
Please show your calculations or where you read them.
December 30th, 2007
Correction to my last post. I blew the calculation, post 58.
40m^2 @ 12% efficiency gives 4.5 KW.
Calculate Flux / Meter
Output Power
4.5kw/40m^2 = .1125 KW/m^2
Input Power (using 12% efficiency)
.1125 (KW/m^2) / .12 = .9375 KW/m^2.
This assumption is still best case. No clouds, June 21st 12:00 PM LTIME at 0 degrees latitide. This a peak value. In reality expect a 10th of this or less as useable average power that can be colected, stored and drawn upon 24/7 hours for that 40m^2 collection area.
December 31st, 2007
to Joe Frisco: well,there are other corrections as well. E.g. at noon local time on June 21 the sun is not directly overhead at the equator (0 deg. lat.) That would be at noon on March 21 or Sept.21.
December 31st, 2007
I had not thought of two intensity maximums at the equator. Good information, thank you.
Anything else?
January 8th, 2008
Sounds to me like “Big Oil” disinformation about photovoltaics that has been going on for 50+ years.
I design, build and repair State of the Art Solar power systems for ~$10per watt installed.
140 Sq. Ft. will produce ~5 million Watt Hours of power in a year in Tacoma, Washington. What you do with it is your business.
SolaRichard in Tacoma
2037 South 7th Street
Tacoma, Washington
USA 98405-4013
Voice: 253-572-9220
www.SolarRichard.com
www.SolarPowerNigeria.com
Providing Ecotricity for the World
Each day, More energy falls to the earth from the Sun’s rays than the total amount of energy the planet’s 6.2 Billion inhabitants would consume in 56 years using a SolaRichard Photovoltaic Solar Tracking System. The Sun radiates 174,423,000,000,000 Kilowatt Hours of energy to the Earth each hour. In other words, the Earth receives 3.8 X 10 to the 33rd Ergs/Second or 28 Mhz=F10.7 which is the Solar Constant. It’s nuclear, eight minutes away. So, how much do you use?
January 15th, 2008
This is a pivotal development for the solar energy sector. This will definitely make the price of solar systems cheaper & affordable. If you are looking for FREE cost estimates or research help for your solar/green projects go to our website.
www.energy-guru.com
“Enable Global Adoption of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficienty”
January 21st, 2008
I hope everyone read ALL the info on the company web site. Production is starting in ‘08… However, this product will not be available to the average joe for quite some time. Once they have fufilled their contract obligations with the EU (Europeen Union), the company states that they will only sell their products to a very selective clientel (that have secure sites). What they mean by secure sites is that the solar panels must be enclosed in an area not accessible to the general public. Now I understand this company put a substancial amount of capital to create this new technology and they want to cash in/protect their patents/technology. But in this day and age where climate change is threating the very existence of human kind, shouldn’t we exploit this planet saving technology ? It’s like saying we found a cure for cancer or AIDS… but for the first while we’re only curing people in Europe… Then we’re only curing a very selective clientel and the general public cannot talk or see them…
January 21st, 2008
They must be real good if you have to put a fence around them so nobody can see them working.
January 24th, 2008
I don’t think it’s a matter of them not wanting to sell to individuals, but more a matter of it’s better for them to make 50 sales their first year to big buyers rather deal with 400,000 people who want a few panels. I see no problem in this… I PERSONALLY want them to either offer them direct to consumers, OR sell them to retailers(which gives them the ability to fulfill just a few large order while still getting them to individuals) but I can’t fault them for their current plan. BTW I’m emailing them asking if they will be selling to retailers, if they say yes I’ll come back and post again!
In any event it sounds like the efficiency is good enough when the price in considered. Count me IN for spending 10K to never have an electric bill ever again vs 30K for traditional panels.
January 24th, 2008
Has any one thought about cell degredation due to radiation (If its hot it is efficieny is being erroded away), spectrum efficiency, planar solar flux densities, locational latitude, not to mention quantum valence and conduction band electron levels and their effect on a distrubted variable photon band gap lattice. Put some math on the page. I have!
Do something smart, ride a bicycle to work.
January 25th, 2008
Although I do agree with you on the fact that they would much rather make a few ‘big’ sales… than many small ones… There’s still the fact that they require ’secure sites’ for the solar panels that are going to be installed by the ‘very specific clientele’… which means we would be able to profit from this new technology… not anytime soon anyways…
January 25th, 2008
Well the way I see it within 1-2 years they’ll probably start selling to distributors if not direct to consumer. I was brought up in an entrepreneurial family so I have a tendency to think about things from the businesses point of view. I don’t see any problem with what they’re doing.
IMO one more reason to want to sell to only big customers is so they can control any potential problems that might pop up in the initial deployment. Undoubtedly there WILL be issues. If they have contracts that say the issues must be kept quiet then that would be greatly beneficial to them. You can’t keep hundreds of thousands of people quiet about something. It could ruin their brand image forever even if it’s something that gets fixed 6 months down the line.
I say we all sit back and stay tuned. Undoubtedly these WILL hit the consumer market sooner or later… Likely within a few years tops. If anything maybe we should be glad big companies are buying the first lot. By the time they become available to us regular folks all the problems will be ironed out, and perhaps efficiency increased, etc etc etc.
February 1st, 2008
In my small undeveloped country Bosnia and Herzegovina, ravaged by a cruel war, there is an international rush to nvest in hydropower and coal powerplants. In two-three years ecological desasters will be accomplished and huge quantnties of CO2 added to global worming potential.
It happens like that all around the peiferal world, and it produces effects now. If nanosolar products are really what they say, there can be no any superior business reason that should postpone their new investments and much greater production for one single day.
We need it NOW.
February 8th, 2008
My calculations say at 20% eff we need 200 miles by 200miles of solar panel to meet the total energy need of the US. Each yaer the US uses ~3E13 KWHours of energy (total energy not just electric). Each 100 mile by 100 mile square produces about 2.2E12 KWHours/year.
Still waiting to hear from Nanosolar what there eff. is. Also if they use Gallium, how much Gallium existing in the world? What is the annual production of Gallium? How much do you use per watt of cells?
February 12th, 2008
Market forces will sort all this out.Copycats who can use the idea while not violating patents will do so .manufacturing in low wage countries will also happen, but all of this doesn’t happen ovenight. We are in the yr 1900 realtively for solar technology vs the auto. Over time the technology for the car became widespread and eventually managed by the average shade tree mechanic. The genie is out of the bottle, hundred dollar a barrel oil will do wonderful things for innovation, relax folks.
February 22nd, 2008
It disturbs me when people claim to be knowledgable about science and have nothing to back it up. One of our poster made a “convincing” argument on Nov. 23rd stating:
“I can’t believe this article even made it online, there are so many mistakes its not even funny, not to mention “reducing the cost of production from $3 a watt to 30 cents per watt, this makes, for the first time in history, solar power cheaper than burning coal.” That simply isnt true, not to mention the units are completely wrong. For a start power when sold is sold by the kwh. Even so if solar power is now at the 30c per kwh its at least 4 times as expensive as other technologies.”
OK, watts are a measure of POWER, not energy, so measuring cost in terms of watts in this case makes sense, because solar has ONLY FIXED COSTS. When you buy a 100 watt light bulb, that tells how much energy is used PER hour, which is POWER. If you run that light bulb for one hour, you’ve expended 100 watt hours of ENERGY.
His other “point” is:
Further more the claim that the San Jose site will “be capable of producing 430 megawatts per year” again is another example of the writers ineptitude. The definition of a Watt is a Joule per Second. This is utter rubbish.
What’s utter rubbish is that people think it’s OK not to read articles carefully. The definition of a Watt is indeed a Joule per second, which is irrelevant in this context. The measure the article is using, megawatts per year is a measure of the FACTORY’S OUTPUT. Every year, the solar factory can produce 430 megawatts worth of solar cells, in other words, 430 units of power to U.S. power plant capacity. Perhaps the writer could have made that more clear, but sorry, “Metalstorm”, your science makes me cry.
Go to school.
February 22nd, 2008
Hey, um… sorry about that last post. Looks like some other posters already tackled these issues. But seriously, I’d recommend to any poster that if you want to write anything anywhere, please be part of the solution and not part of the problem. If you don’t know what you’re talking about, please don’t post.
March 6th, 2008
Although selling to large commercial buyers maks sense in the short term, it misses the long term goal of decentralization.
A single central power plant means you have to get that power to municipalities, which means sending it through power lines, transformers, resistors, and entropy takes its toll.
If people put solar cells up on their homes and businesses, integrating it with municipality, that would reduce greatly the loss in efficiency caused by power transmission.
Solar panels also produce DC current, which many electronics run on. A centralized solar power plant would be that much more inefficient, having to convert from DC (power plant) to AC (transmitting) back to DC (many of your electronics). With the rise of LED lighting, which is DC, a hyper local DC municipal power system would be much more efficient indeed.
Plus it is far more difficult for malicious people (dare I use the word terrorists?) to attack a decentralized infrastructure.
A commercial buyer would be smart in the long term to set up a service installing these panels in peoples homes, rather than building a huge plant way out in the boonies. A central solar power plant would be subject to all the same inefficiencies of power transmission and transformation that coal and nuclear power suffers.
March 8th, 2008
Although I questions its current economic value, I think that the innovation economy will learn to benefit from solar power.
As we shift to become, more mobile society, and with other technologies in the make, I’m excited about new application potabilities.