Hacker News Reader

Comment by danmaz74 | Hacker News Reader

Looks like the conversion efficiency is between 2% and 3%, so, pretty low compared to silicon based PV
reference
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/17/researchers-australias-...
http://reneweconomy.com.au/uni-newcastle-team-tests-printed-...

edited to clarify 2/3%

View on HN

That would put them at 20-30 watts-peak per square meter, or $0.50 to $0.33 per Wp if the cost is $10/m^2. At the lower efficiency, crystalline silicon modules are already cheaper. At the higher efficiency, it may be cheaper than crystalline silicon modules but just slightly. It would need to reach commercial-scale production very soon to avoid being overtaken by the relentless manufacturing optimization of standard c-Si technology.

Another problem is that "less than $10 a square meter" is almost certainly an estimate referring to scaled-up commercial production. Printing 100 m^2 of devices for that test site did not cost under $1000.

Finally, I'd wonder about lifetime and endurance. Crystalline silicon itself is extremely durable. With good supporting materials and thermomechanical design, c-Si modules can go 30 years before they degrade below 75% of original rated output. (There are at least a few solar modules installed in the early 1980s that are still working fine.)

Half the cost of solar panels is installation, because the price of panels has dropped so much. Low-efficiency panels are thus a lose; if they're less than half the efficiency of existing panels, they could cost zero to make and not be useful.

This isn't the first roll to roll process producing solar cells. Ovshinsky's Energy Conversion Devices made such things for years; in 2008, they were the largest producer of flexible solar cells. Their Uni-Solar unit is still active, but not a big player.[1]

(That was one of Stanford R. Ovshinsky's many inventions. He invented flexible solar cells, nickel-metal-hydride batteries, and much of thin-film electronic technology. But each time, some other technology pulled ahead.)

[1] http://www.uni-solar.com

I don't disagree, but that's really absurd. Installation is not particularly difficult. There are dangers, but It's not significantly challenging. The market requires it - because all those solar companies wouldn't exist if it wasn't profitable. Still... every time I see an installation quote I'm blown away by how much people pay. People don't seem to care about numbers once they have to get financed for a few years.

Installation is labor-intensive custom work. Panel manufacture is a high-volume production process.

And skilled labor at that. You don't want your roof leaking (if that's where it's installed), nor do you want an electrical fire.

I also presume the current installation prices might include some sort of maintenance guarantee. That adds to cost as well.

You should check out the planet money podcast on this topic. Turns out a big part of (consumer?) solar getting cheaper was the invention of a new tool, some kind of wrench I believe.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/04/10/398811199/episo...

> GOLDSTEIN: But again, just in the past few years, installation has actually gotten a lot cheaper. As a way it's gotten cheaper is it's gotten faster. You don't have to pay those guys to be out at your house for as long. And when I was out at John's, I actually saw some of the reasons it has gotten faster.

> RYAN BARNETT: This is the Zep Tool. This is the end-all be-all of tools.

> GOLDSTEIN: The Zep Tool? Led Zep Tool?

> BARNETT: Yeah, exactly. (Laughter). One tool to rule them all. Yep.

> GOLDSTEIN: That's a guy named Ryan Barnett (ph).

> What's a Zep Tool? I mean, it's a wrench. It's basically a wrench. It's got these little marks on it or whatever, but the key thing is it's part of this whole installation system they use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtiKyp12ej0

I think it's much more accurate to call it an installation platform/system, as the wrench is fairly incidental. The hardware is the innovation. Pretty cool overall.

Since owning a house I am no longer surprised when seeing high costs for quotes of solar installs. Pretty much everything from a simple plumbing job to getting a window fixed has gotten very expensive.

I'm sure the costs for a contractor doing solar panels on a complete new build "cookie-cutter" subdivision could be quite reasonable but anytime it's a one off, with every house having its own unique quirks, it becomes expensive. It's also one of those things where I assume liability for the contractor can get quite high. Panel falling off the roof, or causing issues with standing ice or roof leaks, etc. Additionally it requires expertise in not only roofing but also electrical circuits (so a qualified electrician).

According to this [1], installation costs are way less than half of solar panel costs in 2016 US$. Looks like 10% - 15% depending on the installation case. See Figure ES-1.

[1] http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/67474.pdf

Look at page viii on your link. "Hardware costs constitute about half the total price of our small-battery systems. The largest single hardware cost for these systems is the 6-kW battery-based inverter ($3,596), followed by the PV array ($3,584) and the lithium-ion battery ($3,000)."

PV only is the orange box at the bottom. The cheapest option is 3,584 for the panels and total cost of 15,581. The most expensive option is still just 3,584$ for panels and a total installed cost of 47,171$. Trying to drop that 3,584$ portion is not going to make much difference a this point. But, needing to install more panels would significantly increase other costs.

Agreed, and thanks. It's clear that dropping panel costs really wouldn't affect the installed bottom line much.

I just focused on installation costs, which in all cases seem far less than 50% of the overall system cost. This suggests that there isn't much economic leverage in reducing (or preventing growth of) installation cost, either. Only in the large battery cases is there a single component (the battery) that dominates other cost components.

Also notice that this is for solar with energy storage. If you want to tap into the grid then you need a permit and an electrician in addition to an emergency cut off for firemen. That ends up being $Ks which are related to installation (not panel/inverter/mounting) rather than a battery.

Check Project Sunroof for a quote: https://www.google.com/get/sunroof

It's not uncommon for installation costs to be over 30% (especially for smaller installations and depending on roof conditions), and when you only get the Fed subsidy when you pay taxes that number ends up looking bigger (even if it's the same % in the end).

Inverters are improving too. New semiconductors are being developed and improved.

Half the cost of solar panels was not installation for my system. Care to provide figures?

A simplest comparison would be it's 10x less efficient and 20x cheaper. For residential might not be useful as you'd might want to maximise output.

For solar park or industrial rooftops (especially when building new) that could be good price advantage.

Sure in the First World that makes sense. But if you're looking ahead and pondering how to bring power to the millions (if not billions) who are not First Worldites then this is fascinating.

If it's easy to manufacture local to need that's also an additional perk.

Would you clarify for me? Do you mean 1/10th efficiency and 1/20th the cost?

Yes. I am not sure what's the problem, sir.

I asked for clarification, because 20 times cheaper than $10 is $200 less or $-190. One 20th of $10 is $.50.

This is what I was looking for. The 'Performance' section of the article was pretty lacking on any actual details. They mention that it's more consistent over 24 hour periods, but that could've just meant that output was low, regardless of the time of day.

Last I heard silicon based was getting close to 25% efficiency. So for the same amount of energy of a square meter of a traditional panel, you'd need 10 square meters. That's a huge solar panel for only a regular amount of energy. I assume they'll continue to get more efficient though, maybe in a few years it'll be worth it.

To be clear to those reading, that's 2% to 3%, not two-thirds percent.

Thx, fixed

What is the price of silicon based panels?

Industry average 300w panel (17% efficient) is about 1.6m² and comes in at about $0.40/W wholesale. At scale you can go cheaper. Manufacturing cost is likely lower. Shipping costs can be 15-20% on top of that.

~$120/m².

What would be helpful to know:

How much of every material is required/m²?

How much does 1m² weigh?

What is the 75% output lifetime?

Efficiency graph at varying solar iridescence?

Manufacturing yield rates?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com