5 ms·

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/research

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-university-newcastle-testing-printed-solar-panels/ https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/17/researchers-australias-... http://reneweconomy.com.au/uni-newcastle-team-tests-printed-solar-panels-in-australian-first-50301/ http://reneweconomy.com.au/uni-newcastle-team-tests-printed-... edited to clarify 2/3%

caltelt 9y ago
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.
STRML 9y ago
To be clear to those reading, that's 2% to 3%, not two-thirds percent.
- danmaz74 9y ago
  Thx, fixed
TheStrongest 9y ago
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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
philipkglass 9y ago
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.)
- Animats 9y ago
  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 http://www.uni-solar.com
  - Steeeve 9y ago
    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.
vasili111 9y ago
What is the price of silicon based panels?
- tgtweak 9y ago
  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?

caltelt 9y ago

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.

STRML 9y ago

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

danmaz74 9y ago
Thx, fixed

TheStrongest 9y ago

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.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

philipkglass 9y ago

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.)

Animats 9y ago
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 http://www.uni-solar.com
- Steeeve 9y ago
  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.

vasili111 9y ago

What is the price of silicon based panels?

tgtweak 9y ago
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?