Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Advanced Solar Panels Coming to Market

Nanosolar's new factory could help lower the price of solar power, if the market cooperates.

By Kevin Bullis

Thursday, September 17, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

A promising type of solar-power technology has moved a step closer to mass production. Nanosolar, based in San Jose, CA, has opened an automated facility for manufacturing its solar panels, which are made by printing a semiconductor material called CIGS on aluminum foil. The manufacturing facility is located in Germany, where government incentives have created a large market for solar panels. Nanosolar has the potential to make 640 megawatts' worth of solar panels there every year.

Cheaper solar: Nanosolar’s thin-film panels.
Credit: Nanosolar

Solar cells made of the CIGS semiconductor, which is composed of copper, indium, gallium, and selenium, have long been considered a potential challenger to conventional solar cells made of silicon. At least in the lab, CIGS cells have reached efficiencies comparable to silicon-based solar cells. And in theory, they could be made using inexpensive printing processes, leading to much less expensive solar power. But developing manufacturing processes that maintain the high efficiencies has proven difficult.

Nanosolar claims to have solved these problems. Its solar cells still aren't as efficient as laboratory cells--the best of them convert 16.4 percent of the energy in sunlight into electricity, as opposed to over 20 percent in the lab. And on average, the company's solar panels convert just 11 percent of that energy into electricity, says Martin Roscheisen, Nanosolar's CEO. But that's high enough to compete with conventional solar panels, he says, due to modifications that improve performance and lower installation costs. He estimates that in sunny locations, power plants made using these panels could produce electricity at five to six cents per kilowatt hour, based on Department of Energy methods for calculating the amortized cost of solar panels over their lifetimes. That's near the cost of electricity from coal and significantly less than most solar power, which costs about 18 to 22 cents per kilowatt hour.

Low efficiency is a problem because it increases the cost of installing solar-power arrays--since each panel produces less power, more solar panels have to be installed. The lower power production can also increase the cost of electronics for gathering the power the panels produce. To address the latter problem, Nanosolar has increased the current its panels can generate, in part by using large aluminum-foil sheets to collect electrons from each panel. This, together with other modifications, effectively decreases the amount of wiring per panel, simplifying installation and reducing the cost of materials. The panels are also larger than competing solar panels with similar efficiencies, and so they generate more power per panel. For example, solar panels from First Solar of Tempe, AZ, one of the largest solar-panel companies in the world, generate about 70 watts. Nanosolar's generate 160 watts.

Comments

  • go solar
    It's great to see these companies come online.  As they say... competition breeds success (and lowers price).  I relish the day when it's affordable to put a whole slew of PV panels on my house and have an EV in the garage.

    As an aside:  If I was a CA legislator, I would be embarrassed by Nanosolar's factory in Germany.  It's also an embarassement to the US as a whole because of all the "green jobs" talk.  However, I am still delighted to see another solar company get up an running.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    jpm1u
    09/17/2009
    Posts:13
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: go solar
      Nanosolar is manufacturing their thin film (their "cells") in San Jose and shipping rolls of the film to their German plant to assemble the panels.  It's a lot more efficient that way.

      Germany got on board early and contracted for Nanosolar's initial output.

      Look for them to build assembly plants in other countries (including the US) as their thin film capacity increases.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Bob61984
      09/17/2009
      Posts:4
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
    • Re: go solar
      Is it just me, or do other readers of TR see articles like this existing more as thinly veiled advertisements than true pieces of technical or scientific information?  I can't help but think someone is getting bribed, er, payed to write them.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      lasertekk
      09/17/2009
      Posts:93
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: go solar
        Ummm, do you mean paid?
        Rate this comment: 12345

        prlsol
        09/17/2009
        Posts:3
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
      • Re: go solar
        Yes, a sad development. Has the Technology in Technology Review taken a long vacation? Or is TR popularizing to reach a wider public? And if it's advertising, how much are you guys getting paid? Maybe some of us want in on the deal as well. Who said solar can't be profitable ;)

        And where is the market if this technology is coming to it? On this topic, NanoSolar has some red flags. Cost claims are unverifiable, there aren't a lot of installations despite GW production talk... of course that gives financing issues!

        Advanced solar panels have already come to market. Thinfilm CdTe, thinfilm Si.

        These guys are several steps behind other thinfilm leaders. Their technology has to be really good to catch up and grab market share. Then again as the other comment said, more competition keeps the market sharp and pressure on innovation, so I wish NanoSolar the best.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        Siphon
        09/17/2009
        Posts:152
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        • Re: go solar
          The decidedly critical comments on the second page of the article may explain why the check never arrived.

          RE: CIGS and CdTe. CIGS is worth following because, in the lab, it's achieved significantly higher efficiencies than CdTe.

          But I agree: the way the market looks now, it's very unlikely that Nanosolar, or most of the other companies developing CIGS, will be able to break into the market--at least in any big way.  First Solar and the conventional silicon cell and panel makers are just too far ahead.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          Kevin Bullis
          09/18/2009
          Posts:111
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
        • Re: go solar
          I'd like to believe in this, but I don't.

          I walked through the remains of the AstroPower building in Newark Delaware. The solar panels on the face of the building were nothing more than a facade. They were not wired to anything and most likely were not capable of generating electricity. The only literature found in the building were booklets for potential investors. There was no sales literature because no products were ever produced. The company owner received millions in investment dollars and government subsidies, pocketed the money, declared bankruptcy, and lived happily ever after.

          So I wouldn't invest my life savings in Nanosolar until I actually see customers using their product.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          joezxcvbnm
          09/24/2009
          Posts:1
          Avg Rating:
          5/5
    • Re: go solar
      Why is the tiffany ad in the comment section?

      Regarding being paid, the Federal Trade Commission has recently made a ruling making it illegal not to give full disclosure if bloggers are being paid.

      ron hansing
      Rate this comment: 12345

      rhansing
      10/06/2009
      Posts:40
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • [no subject]
    yes, thanks, lack of sleep...
    Rate this comment: 12345

    lasertekk
    09/17/2009
    Posts:93
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Technology Drives Economic Viability
    The magic of this story is the economic story, driven by the technology story.  As companies like this drive down the cost curve toward and past grid parity to the point that solar is CHEAPER than old-school technologies, the floodgates open for the transition.  And nanosolar apparently has better PV technology, better process technology, as well as good strategic thinking. 

    Once these players pass grid parity, then they're playing in a $4Trillion/year global electricity market.  That's a $4,000 Billion per year market for the math majors!:)  put that in your VC pipe and smoke it!  I think this is a great technology story, a great economic story, a great national security story, and a great environmental story, for that matter. 

    They won't saturate this market for a long, long time. 

    Rate this comment: 12345

    FreddyG
    09/19/2009
    Posts:14
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • Bankable?????
    I'm not buying the second-to-last paragraph about Nanosolar running the plant at only 1MW/month because the panels aren't "bankable".  That's just not plausible.

    This is a company that says that they can make and sell solar panels for less than $1/watt, while their competitors are selling for $2.75/watt or more.  Given that a large number of solar projects are done without any financing at all(think about government buildings, highway signage, third-world charity projects, well-to-do businesses and individuals), Nanosolar could easily sell every panel that they make for $2.50/watt - a substantial profit margin. 

    I'm really cheering for Nanosolar because they seem to have a breakthrough technology that could finally provide grid parity with fossil fuels.  However, in 2007 they said that they had the capability to make 430MW/year, and made next to nothing.  In 2008, they showed a video saying that they could make 1000MW/year, and they made next to nothing.  Now, they say that they have a plant capable of making 640MW/year, but they're only making 1MW???

    I'm still holding out hope for this, but something's not right here.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    swimdad623
    09/19/2009
    Posts:7
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re: Bankable?????
      Being in the industry I get at least 4-6 emails from Chinese PV manufacturers each day wanting to sell their product.
      Lowest price offer so far,factory door,has been US$1.75 per watt.
      Tried to see if I could purchase from Nanosolar a couple of times but was told that they weren't interested in selling into the Australian market.
      Makes one wonder about their marketing strategy.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      kjblack
      09/24/2009
      Posts:18
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: Bankable?????
        Though I've never been to Australia, and though I'm aware that most of the relatively small population is concentrated along the coasts, given the bright and sunny Outback, I would think there would be some reasonable marketing potential for a solar company there. But then, you guys have teams working at warp speed on this stuff, too, as I recall. Hell, if outsiders don't want to sell to you, but Aussie!
        Rate this comment: 12345

        Mekhong Kurt
        12/26/2009
        Posts:7
        Avg Rating:
        5/5

Resources

Events

Videos

Making More Solar Cells from Silicon

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

Advertisement
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology CyberMedia © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.