backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 88 comment(s) - last by Procurion.. on Oct 14 at 9:16 AM


Solyndra's curvy roofs use thin-film solar cells to generate more power and have less wind resistance, all helping to make solar more cost competitive.  (Source: Solyndra)

Solyndra's key tech, seen here, is a tube shaped solar panel. The tube is manufactured with connections similar to a fluorescent lighbulb, with the inner tube coated in a thin film of semiconductor, which generates the solar power.  (Source: Solyndra)
New cheap and curvy roof is aerodynamic, generates more power, and lasts longer

Solar power is an incredibly promising tech.  With efficiencies constantly improving over the last couple decades and costs dropping every year, solar is likely to become very competitive with fossil fuels in coming years.  Some states and cities are offering incentives to citizens purchasing panels and some businesses are buying them as well

Critics say that solar power isn't ready for primetime and the unsubsidized savings are negligible.  A new startup is looking to silence those critics by improving solar rooftop installation.

Solyndra is turning heads with its cheap, curvy solar roofs.  The new roofs are composed of a series of tubes, as opposed to the traditional blocky flat shingles.  The company is brewing up the new cells using a mixture of copper, indium, gallium, and selenium.  The company deposits this semiconductor mix on an inner glass tube, then encases it in another glass tube, complete with electrical connections, similar to those found in fluorescent lights.

The resulting solar device has two key advantages.  First it generates more power over the course of the day, improving its total output.  This is due to the fact that part of the of tube's solar material is normal (at a right angle) to the incoming sunlight throughout the day as the sun changes position in the sky.  The second key advantage of the cells is aerodynamics.  The new cells are less wind resistant, so they are cheaper to install.

Chris Gronet, Solyndra's CEO says the cells will help to further cut solar power's costs bring unsubsidized solar energy closer to fossil fuel cost equivalence.  While the company won't say exactly how big an improvement it’s talking about, that’s not stopping it from generating some huge business. 

Solyndra has raised $600M USD in venture capital and has received orders for $1.2B USD of solar panels.  Currently, Solyndra sells exclusively to commercial entities.  It is currently in the process of ramping up its production.  Currently it produces 110 MW worth of solar panels yearly -- it will soon open a new 420 MW-per-year factory.

The new solar panel form factor comes courtesy of thin film solar cells.  The U.S. government and private entities have poured hundreds of millions into researching thin film solar cells, and the research is finally starting to pay off.  Miguel Contreras, a senior scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, in Golden, CO, worked with a team at his lab that designed the mix that Solyndra uses.

He states, "There's a lot more flexibility with thin films than there is with [conventional silicon] wafer technologies."

While normal solar cells must be bolted down, Solyndra's new design allows wind to pass freely between the tubes.  It is perfectly secure on rooftops under its own weight, even at winds as high as 130 MPH.

The only downside of the new cells is that the bottom half of the cylinder is in the dark.  However, by painting the roof in a reflective color, such as white, the bottom half can produce power as well, driven by reflected light.  Mr. Gronet further says that by optimizing the manufacturing processes and volumes, his company will be producing unsubsidized cells at or below the average cost of electricity in the United States (about 10 cents per kilowatt-hour) within a few years.

Unfortunately Solyndra, as of yet, has no plans to move outside the commercial roofing business.  For now curvy residential solar roofs and utility-scale solar farms will have to wait.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Reality
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2008 2:36:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
http://www.chooserenewables.com/estimator_start.ph...


In my area, it would take 49 years to pay back a 3kW solar setup. It would take over 110 years to pay back a 3kW wind installation. In my parents area, it would take 19 years to pay back a solar installation and 89 years to pay back a wind installation.

And the sites rising cost of standard power sources obviously is related to coal. If you have nuclear, those price rises won't exist.

And the flat cost of wind and solar doesn't take into account the fact that wind and solar do have maintenance costs and that solar cells do not last forever.




RE: Reality
By GeorgeH on 10/8/2008 2:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
Stop being reasonable and just drink the Kool-Aid already; the ice cubes are starting to melt.


RE: Reality
By headbox on 10/8/2008 7:40:45 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, solar tech isn't 110% efficient so we shouldn't invest in it. It's not virtually free yet, so we shouldn't invest in it. We should keep going down the same road, giving trillions to the middle east, and polluting the air.


RE: Reality
By RamarC on 10/8/2008 8:33:31 PM , Rating: 3
hmmm. folks will spend $6500 or more on a new roof that will never pay itself off. likewise, a $20,000 kitchen remodel may not raise your home's value the same price. a new $5000 AC unit probably won't pay for itself in savings until 6+ years. so, 19 years doesn't sound too bad on a $15K expenditure.

and a solar system may increase the price/saleability of a home depending on area (definitely in CA and AZ). depending on roof layout, the solar panels can reduce heat buildup in the attic and make the house cooler. and when $20K is rolled into the mortgage, the extra $200 monthly mortgage cost could come close to being offset by the lowered utility bills in hot areas where bills can average $200 a month.


RE: Reality
By theapparition on 10/9/2008 10:19:41 AM , Rating: 3
Problem is, that site above is just a generalization. Try buying one. I did.

From BP Solar.......total cost for a large solar installation on my house was over 70K!


RE: Reality
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2008 9:52:27 PM , Rating: 1
I'm saying invest in it. When its ready, then use it. But it will never replace coal, hydro, and nuclear. Variable sources of power will never be able to be the main source of power for a nationwide power grid. It doesn't matter how efficient and cheap they are. They take space, don't work 100% of the time, and require an insanely expensive infrastructure to store energy. But there's no way you can build enough capacity to have essentially a battery backup for the entire country.


RE: Reality
By FraG AU on 10/9/2008 7:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
This is the most short sighted tripe I have read in a long time. If people had your way of thinking we would be likely living in caves and hoping for lightning strikes to get fire.

Using the word never in respect to technology is sheer stupidity at its best...


RE: Reality
By DanoruX on 10/9/2008 8:56:58 AM , Rating: 2
It's not always stupid to say "never" when it comes to technology - I can say the following:

quote:
Current propulsion methods will never allow us to travel faster than the speed of light.


Perfectly valid statement.


RE: Reality
By cornelius785 on 10/9/2008 9:00:49 AM , Rating: 2
How is it short sighted? He is speaking the truth. The power grid CAN NOT handle sources that fluctuate after some much percentage (maybe 15%?). There are has been a lot of research done by the people who design and operate the power grid (power electrical engineers) and from what I can tell, they all put some sort of limit on how much power solar power and wind power in particular can supply to the grid. I know who I believe has actually done their 'homework', has yours?


RE: Reality
By ZmaxDP on 10/9/2008 12:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
He is not "speaking the truth", his comment is a statement of opinion, not fact. Had he prefaced it (as another poster did) with the "Given current technologies, we will never..." then it would have been a lot closer to the truth. Though, still it would have required a follow up statement of "... in a cost effective manner" as it is technically possible to build enough battery capacity even with current technology. It just wouldn't make any sense - which was the point of his comment I assume, and what he should have said probably.

Despite my own bias in favor of renewable energy, I completely agree with him that the only reasonable future for our energy supplies comes from a mixed source methodology. We need a diverse and flexible energy portfolio, not a renewable only one.

However, I don't remember anywhere in the article or other posts that anyone claimed solar was going to provide 100% of our energy, so I'm not clear why anyone needed to bring that up in the first place.


RE: Reality
By CommodoreVic20 on 10/9/2008 9:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
It will never be 'ready' unless we start taking a hit now. Like all industries and technologies, it is expensive at first but once it gets into full swing with everyone on board the prices will come way down and the technology will greatly improve. But we can't wait around for a small group of scientists to research and perfect a technology in a vacumm for 100 years, that simply doesn't work.


RE: Reality
By DLeRium on 10/8/2008 2:47:00 PM , Rating: 4
Most people should understand that solar power comes in many forms. I know people in my neighborhood that have solar panels. They use SunPower. Do you know what SunPower does? They use monocrystalline Si and then they build their cells so all the electrical connections are on the back side and thus you have maximized area on the front. This is like the high end of Si solar cells.

Solyndra and many other companies in the Bay Area work on CIGS cells (Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide). These are thin film cells that are not only lighter but easier to mass produce and cheaper. Si cells are easy for now because have in place a huge semiconductor industry already and wafer fabrication is technology already realized.

If you're talking about costs, Si cells are expensive, but these thin film cells are supposed to drop costs. Now Solyndra has a problem in that when they were asked questions yesterday they refused to give a dollar per watt figure. We really need to be in the $1 per watt figure to be very competitive. Well of course that's still a long ways away but it's everyone's dream in the solar industry.


RE: Reality
By Screwballl on 10/8/2008 2:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
19 yrs solar and 89 yrs wind here as well in my stretch of FL


RE: Reality
By Tsuwamono on 10/8/2008 3:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on the type.


RE: Reality
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2008 4:09:07 PM , Rating: 1
My parents live in Orlando.


RE: Reality
By Samus on 10/8/2008 6:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, who's parents DON'T live in Florida ;)


RE: Reality
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2008 9:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
My parents are likely moving to Texas. They don't want to retire in Florida. And they're at least 10 years from retirement.


RE: Reality
By Doormat on 10/8/2008 3:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
No one should by a solar power system at $9+/W.

Prices will come down once the solar boom is caught up - SunPower and FirstSolar recently got downgraded because of an expected oversupply of panels in the next few years, due to lower subsidies from falling government tax revenue in Europe, the number of thin film manufacturers coming online, and the credit crunch.


RE: Reality
By headbox on 10/8/2008 7:44:57 PM , Rating: 1
Not everyone is as broke as you. Some people think getting off foreign oil and polluting the air is a higher priority than waiting for costs to keep going down. With your poor man's logic, prices won't fall, because no one will make any investment in the technology.