Printed Solar Cells

[tcrenshaw]

Watching a kind of dooms day TV documentary show last night the show mentioned solar energy as a promising replacement for oil. Oil is determined to hit its peak production in 15 to 40 years, at that time a very large spike in price is supposed to take place, upwards of 200 dollars a barrel. Personally I don't think it will ever go that high for any period of time. That kind of pricing makes many other existing alternatives very attractive, such as Bio-Diesel for fuel and solar for electric. Anyway the show went into the costs associated with present solar energy technology and the picture grew a bit dimmer, until they mentioned NanoSolar out of California. NanoSolar has developed a method of printing solar panels. Now this sounds kind of like the cells that many of us have been buying off of eBay that are created using a ribbon technology, but this is different. The NanoSolar panels are created with a special type of painting/printing technique. Supposedly they have panels that are 14'x 10' and produce 110v - yes that foot not inches. Wattage output is not listed. They also advertise on their website a 4"x12" cell and that they will build custom sizes. Unfortunately they don't seem to be in production at this time and no pricing is available on their site. With the painting/printing technique though they say the cost is very low compared to today's cell production technology. The cells are also black instead of the blues that we are all pretty much accustom to. I'm going to write to them for as much information as I can get. Hopefully they will soon solve any problems that they may still have and be in full production in the near future.

[skravlinge]

I do not know how this printed cells are working, but I have read of ways to use nanocircut to work as photoelectric devices. It is possible to make such circuts  using a method as printing. Nanocircuts on paper working as a screen to update newspapers are printed, and is on the experimental stage in Sweden.

They notice it could be possible to generate a very small amount power, by lighting a printed circut.

[Junkie]

Trouble is how do you store the power? Something like 70% of all oil is used for transport. And of course by the time people start using this we won't be able to afford the oil to refine / print / (mine?) all the materials to produce them.

BTW from what I've read online, most experts say oil production will peak well within this decade  (some say 2006 - 2012).

[tecker]

  You have to consider electric technology for transportation . We have so many strides in that direction an existing vehecal manufacturer could toolup and produce the back bone of a net work of vehicals with very little r and d. . Flexable solar technology needs to step up .

[skravlinge]

You can still use liquid fuel, and onshelf motors, not using any fossil fuel. In fact many millions do it already. I have seen hybrid cars running on batteries and a diesel. The electricy mainly in areas which has to be protected from mass amount of  exhaust (i.e urban areas) and short distances, and the biofuel on longer trips.

[skravlinge]

Forgott, even if you can paint the car with cells, it will not do well if you not goes on a  plain way in a hott desert.

[RatOmeter]

Nanosolar intends to begin production in 2006.

I've been following emerging PV cell technology pretty closely and see two areas where manufacturers are pushing research.  (1) improving efficiency and (2) lowering cost.  

The main push on the efficiency front is the use of several layers of materials, making multiple junctions which are each sensitive to a slightly different portion of the light spectrum.  This allows more of the sun's energy to be used to push electrons and less to heating the panel.  It's a mixed result on cost, higher efficiency means smaller panels per unit power, but requires a more complex (and expensive) manufacturing process.

The cost-reducing approach has long focused on 'printing' techniques, the most widely used being the printed or 'painted' glass variety which, while cheaper to produce, suffers in efficiency.  More recently, outfits like nanosolar have been looking at reducing the costs more by using cheaper materials and faster/cheaper 'printing' processes; printing on flexible substrates is integral to the cost-saving production methods, but may also expand the range of applications.  So far all real products based on flexible materials and/or low cost production have still exhibited lower efficiency than the good ol' silicon wafer based cells.

I think the reason nanosolar doesn't state the current or total power spec on their 14' by 10' sheet is that they (a) don't know what will be yet and (b) they do know it's not high enough yet.  I suspect (totally unfounded on fact) that they are experiencing disappointing results so far but expect/hope to improve those figures in the next year or so.  I also suspect their production model(s) will have quite a lower efficiency that, say, evergreen solar's 'ribbon' PV cells, so they'd better be competitive on price.

There are quite a few other PV technologies being developed right now that are supposed to be 'breakthroughs' but are still 2 or 5 years out.  If it's not just a lot of hype,  this decade is going to be very interesting for PV products.

[tcrenshaw]

I agree, the next decade will be very interesting in energy development. The other technology, Hydrogen is also a great possible alternative. One of the major complaints right now is production through electrolysis is expensive. Hopefully with solar PV technology breakthroughs the electrolysis will be done with the use of the sun and this issue will be resolved. There are still many more promising technologies.  Of course the price of oil and other natural resource fuels will eventually push the development for renewable sources like solar, bio-diesel, and hydrogen technologies even faster. I've never been a dooms dayer but I do believe there will be some rough spots along the energy highway.

[whatsnext]

This is just a guess but I don't think electrolysis of water will ever make sense. Water is very stable, that's why it's so plentiful. Hydrogen may be a future fuel but it will likely not come from water. Far more likely, in my opinion, will be the chemical breakdown of coal as an energy source. We have what amounts to an unlimited(within reason) supply.

John.........

[skravlinge]

The most common way to  make hydrogen using coal, is to break down water!

The hydrogen even if it comes from water then is to be counted as fossil fuel

as the CO2 emission results from fuel coal.

[tcrenshaw]

The show I was watching was saying that there is a very large supply of coal in the United States but even the large amount would only allow for about 250 years worth of use. That's really not that long and isn't what I would consider unlimited. Clean coal technology, though it has advanced and is very promising I think will still be set aside for the longer term (indefinite) sources of power like hydrogen, solar and bio-fuels. Even though water is very stable, if the cost to produce hydrogen from it is even close to that of a chemically produce hydrogen from coal, I think the direction will be towards the water. Of course there's also nuclear and cold fusion technology is now showing a 30% greater return of energy than that put into it for the reaction to occur. Now there's a long way to go with this technology but it also holds promise. I just don't think fossil fuels will be used that much in future technology for our energy needs.

[whatsnext]

Do you have any idea how much technology will advance in the next 250 years. I'm quite sure we'll be converting coal to liquid fuel, something we can do now, for a long time before cold fusion starts working. And, if you've seen a scientificly verifiable report showing cold fusion at 30% over unity I, and the rest of us earthlings, would love to see it.

John...

[Ungrounded Lightning Rod]

even if you can paint the car with cells, it will not do well if you not goes on a  plain way in a hott desert

Even there it won't do well.  You only get about 1 1/3 horsepower worth of sunlight per square yard in noonday sun.  Say you've got two square yards of car to paint with solar cells and you've got a potential power under three horses.  Then multiply by the cells' efficiency and you're well under a horse.  That's not even enough power to run a motor scooter, let alone drive a car to freeway speeds up a mountain.

[Ungrounded Lightning Rod]

The other technology, Hydrogen is also a great possible alternative.

Hydrogen is not an energy source.  Hydrogen is an energy transport mechanism.

Hydrogen bound to oxygen is not fuel - it is ash.  You have to put energy in to crack it loose, and that is the energy you get back when you burn it.  You have to collect that energy some other way.

Hydrogen more energetic than that bound to oxygen is already being mined and burned.  It's bound to carbon, in oil and gas, and is the main source of energy when those are burned.

The only way to do better with hydrogen is with nuclear fusion.  Develop THAT technology to power-plant level and you have a breakthrough technology that actually WOULD use hydrogen as a NEW power SOURCE.

[skravlinge]

Pure coal has no hydrogen, fossil coal has some. The best result producing hydrogen using coal is the process  C + H20  =  CO + H2.  There are other methods to make fuel from coal as Fischer-Trops  method.

( http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/2001_Updates.htm ). Still it will impact the klima with CO2 emissions, so it is not easy to do a clean coal technology even if we try to hide  it  in the CO underground.  Solar and biofuel is with good will practical to start use now, and in a time of say 10 years will be a big part of the energy-industry.

Wind and waves beside current hydro will add up. I am sure if we spend money on improving photoelectric, wind, waves, and biocorps it can be done.

To reduce the costs of artifically  produced  nitro for fertilizer, it may be possible to make genetic changes in corps, so it's not as today, they change them to stand pestcides. More better is to make them using the air to get the nitro as some plants already work together with bacteria do. Just think of weat  or corn taking nitro from air. All  RE energy can be produced almost anywhere, and in this respect reduce political frictions.  Get read of fossils is not an economic disaster, it is a way to create the future. So why not try to be leading in this, by investment and  research.

[skravlinge]

Fussion using hydrogen has  as artifact  has been succesfull only as mass-destruction devices.  It may be possible to use it as an energy-source.

The problems are hugde, you need big plants standing billions of centigrades.

It is not for small-scale and will be risks of  military or terrorist  target. A society depending on it have risks of be too centralizied and difficult to run as democracy in the long run. The power of the energy will be on few hands.

[skravlinge]

There is the Australian solar car race (thought of  that).

[tcrenshaw]

Hi John, to answer your questions, no I have no idea how far technology will advance in the next 250 years, but then neither do you or anyone else. If I could predict the future, I'd be rich! The only thing we have is the past to predict when break throughs in technology will occur. This is only slightly better than a best guess. As we all know though there are times of stagnation and times of what appears to be miracle break throughs. One thing though, I don't see your point about how far technology will advance in the next 250 years anyway, because for one the coal will be depleted at that time if not sooner and two that statement applies to all future energy sources.

Coal liqification still has many problems. Yes I agree it will be used, but it still has the one fatal drawback of any fossil fuel and that's running out and that's my point. I agree it will be used long before cold fusion.

I have not seen a verifiable report. As in the initial post, I was watching a TV documentary and they showed the cold fusion and made the statement that measurements were showing a 30% greater output than the energy put into it. They did not go into detail as to what the issues were for large scale use or even lab issues that still needed to be resolved. You can check out the History Channel to see when the program airs again and see if you can gleen more information.

[tcrenshaw]

I agree and one of the interesting parts of the TV documentary was that major population areas in Europe want to be producing 50% of their power from wind farms alone by 2050. A hefty but worthwhile goal.

[tcrenshaw]

True and they did state the Hydrogen is not an energy source in the TV documentary, I use it just that way just for simplification.

The show, which was on the History Channel was called Doomsday Tech 1 and 2, a two part show airing directly after each other. Unfortunately they show no additional airings at this time. Here's the description:

"Pessimists and doomsday prophets, gather around the TV for this two-part episode examining technology, both available and in the works, that could ultimately destroy civilization and Earth. There is some discussion of such positive developments as alternative fuels, and devices to detect and prevent natural disasters, but overall, this sobering report on "the dark side of progress" makes the future look bleak. Among the topics are hydrocarbon-based energy, nuclear weapons, nanotechnology, and threats posed by bioterrorism and cyber terrorism."

Printed from the TV Guide Description - Modern Marvels 12/28 8:00pm Channel 55 HIST Central Time Zone.

I watched the show and found that it did spell out many disasters waiting to happen but being a pessimist myself I found it enlightening rather than making the future look bleak. I'm a pessimist but not a doomsdayer. People have been predicting the end of the world for so long that it's laughable. Alternative sources, clean sources of energy exist and great strides are being made in technology to bring the costs down and bring those technologies into production. I do think there will be bumps in the road, some severe but it's not the end that for me is for sure. If the show ever appears again I'll post it. It was produced sometime this year, it just says 2004. It was very very good.

[iFred]

I'll be playing negative on this one as well as the devils advocate.

Let's just take a look at solar technology shall we?

First off, the same size solar cell that was available in 1980-1990 and 2000 at the same price throughout, nothing has changed. Then combine this with the fact that we have better technology, faster production methods and no price changes. Add in a bit of price fixing and lets not forget that all the gas/oil companies bought out the solar producing company's and the price still didn't budge, even with the increase research and development funds (a tax writeoff, free money scam). I would say your going to  be waiting a long long time for that technology to come out and even when it does must compete against those others or be eaten alive for breakfast.  Don't hold your breath, you'll gasp for air when all is said and done. I hate being negative, but when I see the production limits and price fixing going on, and what I had to pay for solar, it's hard not to see reality square on. Sorry to burst the bad ol bubble.

[tcrenshaw]

Hey Fred, I know what you're saying and it's true - many of the large energy producing companies have killed or at a minimum slowed the progress of solar and other potential energy sources. At the same time though I remember people saying that alternative energy (hybrid) cars would never make it to market, yet they have. Not only have they but they are starting to take off, with all major manufacturers very near production if not already in production. It comes down to two basic things, economics and more important to them - control! If they can control the industry then they will remain in business and profitable. And even though the technology is better and production is faster, there's still the need for volume production before prices will dramatically drop. The problem, there's a demand for the products but no real high volume production. And why? Because those same companies that own the solar industry would face a great loss on their dino-fuels if they were to go into mass production and supply the volume to bring the prices down. The power industry would collapse if everyone and their neighbor had cheap solar panels on their homes. Electric cars would start showing up all over the place. The oil companies would go broke. So they control the move to solar, ensuring their survival and profitability. No bursting of the bubble here, just seeing reality of the industry and how it controls us - just another reason for me to get away from commercial power!

[Ungrounded Lightning Rod]

There is the Australian solar car race (thought of  that).

Ultralight vehicles on an essentially level dead-level run.

[whatsnext]

Todd, I didn't plan to really go after you but 30% over unity cold fusion would be the biggest news since, well, news. It would mean the end of all energy shortages forever and a whole new paradigm for all of mankind. I'm a little bummed I missed it. The point I was trying to make is that we do not need any breakthroughs just yet. North America has an almost unlimited supply of coal, ten generations at least, and there are plenty of bright engineers who can find enviromentaly sound ways of using it while still maintaining current living standards. We have a very flexable ecomomy that excells at sorting out the best processes. That wealth will allow a large military to keep less progressive economies at bay. If other nations want to live in the 1800's we will have the capacity to put them there but I don't see anyone really wanting that. As an engineer the idea of 'breakthroughs' kind of iritates me. Just becuase something is new does not mean that a lot of dedicated people have not been working a very long time in developement. So it's not really a 'breakthrough' as much as a 'saleable product announcement'. I'm not saying that we know all and that it's just a matter of refinement. It's just that most of the easy answers have been taken and now we need to knuckle down and work. The idea that we'll all be driving veggy cars within a few years is just silly. That does not mean that I don't have one in the works now. I'm just realistic enough to know that I'm not Mad Max and that I won't have the streets to myself. I just have fun doing things for myself.

John......

[iFred]

OK, now that we are into it. You say that the whole energy and  power industry would collapse if everyone and their neighbor had cheap solar panels. This is a misconception and a major problem of thought for everyone to overcome. It would not, I repeat not collapse anything, it would however produce new sector jobs in other areas. Sorry to burst your bubble but your wrong on this one. The world can handle a major change but is still thinking like this!! This has nothing to do with anything but money and yes to some degree control, but thats what I would call price fixing!

http://www.jxj.com/magsandj/rew/2002_04/world_pv_market.html

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=20124

Look at the stats! See for yourselves, no change in prices. WHY?

I can tell you why in one word... GREED.

http://search.ebay.ca/solar-panels_W0QQmaxrecordsreturnedZ300QQsorecordsperpageZ50

The market is there, the production is there, the darn price is way way to high!!!

Just look at the bids, minor, why? because they know it's to high a price to pay.

[skravlinge]

Solar and wind is  already  an important source of energy. Many millions get hot water from the sun, millions of tons of  foodstuff are dried using the sun.

And this is in all countries rich as poor.

Windpower is the fastest growing energy busines in Europe. The Danes who was first to see its future have made it to a multibillion industry, their second best export business. The greedy  bussiniss today, just look for the next three month as they pay the leadership for the short sight thinking. The world never stays the same, some will make the breakthrough  in solarcells, not only for electric, for making advanced chemicals as well , and if western countries companies try to slow down its potential due to interest in old kinds of energy, they will see them surpassed by  foe example India or China in this for the future big market.

[tcrenshaw]

What a second Fred, you contradict yourself here and you seem to be taking this personally, please do not. It's just opinions and not much more. You say that the power industry would not collapse and then you say that it's greed that's causing the issue. You also state that a new industry and new jobs would be created. And what would happen to the old ones? Would the people from the old oil industry just migrate to the new jobs that are opened up? I don't think so. This would be like saying that the I.T. workers here in the states just migrated to the health care jobs that opened up. It didn't happen. When the I.T. industry went away, many of the I.T. people were out of work for years. Now there are other reasons for this too, but the point is, when an industry dies or has a sharp decline the people don't just go to another job that pays the same or anything like that. They have to find work in places they most likely don't care for. This is what I mean by the industry would collapse. Yes the oil industry would suffer and it would be replaced by a new power industry, but there would be a lot off turmoil (no phun intended) in between while this switch took place. Thinking that there wouldn't be a problem is not correct. That's not how the work force has ever worked. Those people would be out of work and have to move onto other most likely lesser paying jobs. This would be a shift in millions of lives. Maybe I should have clarified my statement more in saying that the oil industry or fossil fuel industry would suffer and so they maintain the control by holding up the processes of moving to solar and other better (IMHO) energy sources. Is it because of greed, you bet it is, totally. The effect of that greed is slow migration over to other energy sources so they can maintain their CEO incomes and keep their stock holders happy. The greed is not just at the top, it goes all the way down to the lowest level workers. And slowly we are seeing this controlled change as many of the articles (keep'em coming, there pretty good) are showing. A quick switch though is not the answer, and I also have to say that the slow migration is going way to slow. Good discussion.

[tcrenshaw]

No problems John, I'm pretty thick skinned at times and being human, sometimes stupid too, all at the same time. I'm enjoying the discussion that this simple post started. I do wish the show would air again too. I would record it this time.

I would really like to see the cold fusion work and see more information on it. Unfortunate that they didn't go into detail. The show was more interested in painting a death and destruction picture for the world instead of trying to create a potential positive outcome for humanity. Being a pessimist you'd thick that I'd like their approach. I didn't.

I agree totally with you in that a lot of the technologies have come past the breakthrough point meaning that we know we can do things we just have to figure out how. This almost kills dreaming because simply, if you can dream it, most likely we can do it. Not a bad thing really. The idea still has to be thought up and worked through to get the actual product.

I don't think we have ten generates of coal though. I'm seeing more like three or four at the most. Still, that's a lot of energy stored in the ground. I sure hope those bright engineers, and you are right there are plenty of them, do step up to the plate. My biggest concern with coal is the pollution it produces. Even liqufication is not yet clean enough, though they are working pretty hard on it. I also agree that we won't intentionally put other nations in the back seat on energy technology, well maybe the OPEC nations just so we can get out from under their thumb. I do think that the greed that Fred and I are discussing later in this thread is going to cause a lot of problems. The "everyone is taken care of" attitude of StarTrek and such is a long way down the road. I guess we have to deal with the many different types of power - political, monetary, and the actual energy itself.

I don't see bio-diesel being used as much as some here have predicted but as the dino-oil shortage grows I do see a switch. I'm sort of surprised that such a product is not making it to market faster just because there's little to nothing to do to a diesel engine to run it off this fuel. With oil based diesel at a quarter above gasoline I'm surprised the trucking industry is putting up with it, yet I hear no screaming from them as in the past when oil based diesel has increased in price to ridicules amounts. Instead we have hybrids which are under powered, expensive and still run off of fossil fuel. Go figure!

[tcrenshaw]

Some good points. Yes if the west doesn't get moving the same that has happened in other industries (auto, electronics and such) will happen in energy. Funny, the west still seems to be a major (but not the only) developer of many new technologies. At one time it was one of the very few developers of new technologies. That has changed. The exploiters of these technologies seem to be over seas. This is a blanket statement of course but it does not mean in all industry, just a heck of a lot of them. Many still look to the west for the education and funding to develop these ideas/products yet our own businesses have failed many times in using these same ideas here in the states. Instead other countries that are not dependent upon product "A" can integrate the new product/technology into their economy fairly easily. I think the west can to but the businesses here just refuse to use some forward thinking. I say this because I work for a very large electronics firm in Texas and we have many Europe and east based offices around the world that are developing technologies that we won't see here in the states for years. It's really strange to assist a co-worker in France or India knowing that the technology they develop will not be available here in the states because someone above in the business world believes the product would not do well in the states. Europe seems to be the big exploiter of alternative power technologies. Of course this is an effect on the move to a global economy/industry. As they say the only constant is change.

[skravlinge]

I often hear that  countries like India is a poor country,and the industry there are mainly cloth and low-tech industry, and they have only low wedges  to compete with. All this is changing a country like India apperas as a continent having a billion living there. They have a lot of low-tech, but an increasing number of  high-tech as well.  Its a nuclear power, it  begin explore the space.

Fastest growing windpower, modern software industry.

The modernasition of this countries is in most cases good, they benifit from the globalisation more than we might think. If you have a look at USA or any European country, we are heading the same way. The society has a part in the high-tech production and  some increasing in low-tech, mainly services. The time will soon come there you dont can see if a person is healthy and rich by looking at his nationality. The globalisation will make the world total richer, and the poor you will find everywhere. Today you cant see this at a big scale, but it is  a rapid change in the world. As a counterforce to this process I think small scale and local production will be more for us in the west as well. The modern world can go on well without  a lot of its inhabitants. We had 40% of the population in agriculture by the time I was born, now it is less than 5% and they produce more. The manufacturing will soon reach the same number and still producing more. As you would not be more happy using many cars or telephones when it gets to a certain number, a lot of changes in how we make our living is to come.

[RatOmeter]

I share your frustration with the still-too-high pricing for PV, but I respectfully disagree that there has been no reduction in price.  I also disagree that there is enough control of PV production to make pricing fixing a strong concern. There are major manufacturers who are not related to the oil industry at all. In terms of technology, the manufacture of vanilla PV cells is not really that exotic when compared to say, Intel's latest line of microprocessors. With just a few million dollars, you too could make PV cells, and ain'ta nobody gonna stop ya.  No thugs from Mobil are gonna show up at your plant, telling you how to set your prices... you'd quickly find that the cost of manufacture, market forces and your investors will set the price.

On price trends and other interesting observations:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator12.htm

A quote from the above article:

"Industry analysts note that between 1976 and 2000, each doubling of cumulative production resulted in a price drop of 20 percent. Some maintain that prices may fall even more dramatically in the future."

[tcrenshaw]

Just read your comment Rat about price fixing and I have to lean more towards Fred's view. I think there is plenty of control out there over pricing but I also agree with you that small start ups will grow and eventually push the price fixing out the door. It's just a mater of time.

[tcrenshaw]

For anyone interested, the show is available on VHS from The History Channel store.

http://store.aetv.com/html/search/index.jhtml?search=doomsday+tech