Michel Jullian wrote:
9 to 10% efficiency for Nanosolar's current production (they target
15% ultimately). Installed cost of 1MW German plant panels $3/W.
If they really can achieve $3/W, perhaps despite the problems
described by Jones Beene, than this would be a remarkable
breakthrough. This is $3000 / kW which is cheaper than wind
turbines, nuclear or hydroelectricity. I think only gas and coal have
cheaper installation costs, and of course they require fuel over the
life of the plant.
A higher percent of efficiency improves the cost per watt, but other
than that it doesn't matter. In other words, it would be better to
make it 5% efficient for $200 per square meter than 10% efficient for
$500. For most applications, you can always take up more space.
(There are some apps, such as roadside collectors, in which a small,
compact collector is an advantage.)
To put it another way, collection space is usually cheaper than the
cost premium for higher efficiency. At least that's how it worked out
a few years ago when I checked the numbers. Ed Storms first pointed
this out -- on this forum, I think.
Another critical issue with PV is how quickly they degrade over time.
Many years ago, the half-life was something like 5 or 10 years as I
recall, and the energy payback time for some types was infinity. That
is to say, they never generated as much energy as it took to
fabricate them. They were useful only as a sort of "storage battery"
that you could deploy to a remote location. You can think of it as
transferring energy from the factory to the remote site. I think the
energy payback time has improved considerably.
PV is still growing by leaps and bounds in Japan.
Here is a solar-thermal plant installed in Arizona last year, for
$6,000 / kW of capacity, which is a promising number:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=44696
- Jed
