April 23, 2006
solar panel revolution
The active component is CuInSe_2, an artificial form of the Chalcopyrite mineral CuFeS_2. Power to the people.
Hard to believe it, but a quick journal search on V. Alberts confirms legitimate science (apparently the research was not conducted under a dank lean-to).
Apparently our National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL) has latched on Prof. Alberts discovery
Fair analysis, but the abstract on the NREL site states a near-future cost (with boosted production) of $1.00/Watt. That drops the return time to about 2 years. Though I agree the benefit is not overwhelming for us, with government sactioned Green Tax Credits for larger entities, the market for such a product increases. Add that to the Switzerland market where new homes are required by law to have a few panels, humanitarian efforts in Africa, India and China (complement of the eastern 1/10th) and you start to see why Aleo Solar has invested over 100 million.
What you are forgetting in the calculation is that you can put the solar cell under the 60 Watt light bulb, that you're powering with that solar cell... and then you get the energy back. You line the walls of every room and you get light and then the cell collects all your "unused light" all back. You can sneak them into your neighbors house and sit back and watch the dolla's roll in. Free money! It's better than stealing gas!
« Older How to cut glass bottles | lick a free BJ (cone) Newer »
To post comments to a thread you must login or create a profile.
"According to the physicists' forecast cost models, the solar panels can be produced in huge commercial volumes at a cost of about SA Rand 650/60 W panel. A silicon-produced panel costs about R2,100/50 W, says Alberts."
Per Google 650 Rand is approx $108. Somehow that still seems too high for it be revolutionary. (60W)*($0.10/kWh)*24*365.24 = $52.59 a year of electricity cost for a hypothetical 60W lightbulb. If we assume a duty cycle for the panels of .5 (which seems generous due to cloudiness and that pesky night thing) then you're looking at 108/(52.59/2) = 4.11 years for return on investment. This doesn't seem too bad (assuming the failure rate of the panels is low), but not revolutionary either.
When you take into account future increases in electric power costs and insulation against blackouts, I suppose it becomes more attractive, but still seems like there is more innovation needed before this becomes anything resembling a panacea.
I guess another factor I'm omitting is that regular non-solar panel glass still costs something and so if you're putting in windows anyway then the economics would work a lot better (not sure how big a 60W panel is). But given that they are being compared with silicon panels then that doesn't seem like a fair comparison.
posted by habcous at 03:40PM CST on April 23