
Printed Solar Panels for Less Than $10 a Square Metre - dakna
https://www.newcastle.edu.au/newsroom/featured-news/the-clever-electronic-inks-rewriting-our-energy-future
======
kirrent
Hey, I know the phd student who printed out these cells and set up the
demonstration! It's part of the university's push for large scale organic
solar demonstrations along with the smaller test cells.

From talking with him, the technology isn't really ready for prime time yet
but it's getting pretty close. I think the key point is that efficiencies in
small scale cells and larger scale manufacturing are still climbing (the same
group has achieved greater than 5% in a cm^2 test cell iirc) and the printing
is incredibly cheap and very amenable to fast scaling up.

It seems pretty obvious that you needed more efficiency for it to be a viable
rooftop solution but the guy who set this up claimed that the fact he could
just stick down some velcro and stick on the cells opened up some different
use cases with cheap and lean installations supporting cheap cells.

All in all, if you look at how far the technology has come in the last 5 years
alone, then it's a pretty exciting field to follow.

~~~
Brakenshire
> It seems pretty obvious that you needed more efficiency for it to be a
> viable rooftop solution but the guy who set this up claimed that the fact he
> could just stick down some velcro and stick on the cells opened up some
> different use cases with cheap and lean installations supporting cheap
> cells.

I imagine one end-case could be using this as a cladding material, you could
cover buildings, and the low efficiency would be balanced by the low cost.

The major problem is that these materials are unstable and degrade quickly, if
you can get the lifetime up from 5-10 years now, to 20-30 years, then it
really starts to look attractive.

~~~
misterhtmlcss
I don't think commercial structures typically keep their cladding beyond 10
years, unless it's a warehouse, so I'd imagine if it's anything other than. A
warehouse they'd be happy to just have it reliably last 10 years then whatever
from that point forward.

Also depending on who's involved and the business vertical, plus tax and
policy structure, there could be a cottage industry around skinning warehouses
I'd imagine, even if it needed to be re-skinned ever 10 years, but I agree
that anything less than 10 years isn't sturdy enough for many applications
beyond super niche.

------
danmaz74
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-...](https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/17/researchers-australias-
university-newcastle-testing-printed-solar-panels/)

[http://reneweconomy.com.au/uni-newcastle-team-tests-
printed-...](http://reneweconomy.com.au/uni-newcastle-team-tests-printed-
solar-panels-in-australian-first-50301/)

_ edited to clarify 2/3%

~~~
philipkglass
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
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
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.

~~~
milesvp
You should check out the planet money podcast on this topic. Turns out a big
part of (consumer?) solar getting cheaper was the invention of a new tool,
some kind of wrench I believe.

[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/04/10/398811199/episo...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/04/10/398811199/episode-616-how-
solar-got-cheap)

~~~
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
> GOLDSTEIN: But again, just in the past few years, installation has actually
> gotten a lot cheaper. As a way it's gotten cheaper is it's gotten faster.
> You don't have to pay those guys to be out at your house for as long. And
> when I was out at John's, I actually saw some of the reasons it has gotten
> faster.

> RYAN BARNETT: This is the Zep Tool. This is the end-all be-all of tools.

> GOLDSTEIN: The Zep Tool? Led Zep Tool?

> BARNETT: Yeah, exactly. (Laughter). One tool to rule them all. Yep.

> GOLDSTEIN: That's a guy named Ryan Barnett (ph).

> What's a Zep Tool? I mean, it's a wrench. It's basically a wrench. It's got
> these little marks on it or whatever, but the key thing is it's part of this
> whole installation system they use.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtiKyp12ej0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtiKyp12ej0)

I think it's much more accurate to call it an installation platform/system, as
the wrench is fairly incidental. The hardware is the innovation. Pretty cool
overall.

------
HillaryBriss
For a _very_ rough comparison, according to this, conventional solar panels
cost about $10-$12 per square foot, or very roughly $100 per square meter.

[https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-cost-per-Sq-ft-for-
solar-p...](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-cost-per-Sq-ft-for-solar-panels)

Of course, what we really want is a comparison in terms of cost per watt.

Maybe equally important to the cost of these panels is the ease and cost of
_installing_ them. These new printed panels are very flexible/lightweight and
can be deployed easily and even temporarily.

~~~
jaclaz
Yep, but the article states "production costs":

>The technology delivers unprecedented affordability at a _production cost_ of
less than $10 a square metre.

the cost you are citing are "sale prices", they are not the same thing.

Given that the Quora post cited is accurate (and "current" as the price of
conventional panels is dropping constantly, and a two years old post sounds
like outdated) the ratio is much smaller than 1/10, more probably around 4/10
or 5/10.

Still a "big thing", however, provided that it works, that the cost estimation
is accurate, that the efficiency is comparable, etc.

------
QAPereo
Does anyone have any information on how efficient these are how long they last
and that kind of thing? All I got for the article was a lot of hype and $10 a
meter.

~~~
sand500
Woild like to know normal panel's efficiancy and costs for comparison

~~~
ekr
You can buy solar cells off aliexpress at ~$0.33 / watt (this is the lowest
price atm). The most efficient cells are at 23-25% efficiency, but these are a
bit more expensive (closer to $0.5).

Here's the first example I could find
([https://www.aliexpress.com/item/10-Pcs-17-6-125-x-125MM-
Mono...](https://www.aliexpress.com/item/10-Pcs-17-6-125-x-125MM-Mono-Solar-
Cells-5x5-Grade-A-monocrystalline-Silicon-PV/32679479078.html)).

------
plaidfuji
I'm a researcher in this field. Printable, flexible solar cells have been
researched for over a decade and improvements on their efficiency plateaued at
about 10% almost five years ago. That's at lab scale being tested in a
nitrogen glove box, using the most exotic designer molecules and printing
techniques that don't scale. Many companies have tried and failed to
commercialize this technology in the recent past, Konarka being one example. I
believe Heliatek in Germany is the latest iteration, no doubt propped up by
their massive solar subsidies.

The main problem is that the raw organic semiconducting materials are
currently not produced at scale, and no chemical company will risk ramping
production when the end product is only a 5% efficient cell that will be
outcompeted by c-Si in almost every application except niche cases like the
chicken coops described by others here.

That being said, my best guess is that printable, flexible electronics will be
seen in flexible displays/wearables within 5 years, RFID tags on product
packaging in the same time frame, biomedical and soft robotics applications
within 10, and flexible large-area lighting (think wallpaper with programmable
lighting zones) within 10 as well.

But in the energy game, efficiency and raw material costs determine winners,
and printed OPV is losing on both.

------
nilsocket
> On our lab-scale printer we can easily produce hundreds of metres of
> material per day, on a commercial-scale printer this would increase to
> kilometres. If you had just ten of these printers operating around the clock
> we could print enough material to deliver power to 1000 homes per day,” said
> Professor Dastoor.

That being said, may-be 10Km worth of these can power 1000 homes.

It costs $10 per sq.meter.

~~~
kurthr
The costs of the inverters, installation, and connection already dominate the
cost of solar.

Before incentives in California, you are looking at $5k/kw and the solar cells
are less than 20% of that.

~~~
throwaway5752
Is that true? I was looking at $4/kw (all in) 5 years ago. Not in CA, but that
should come close to a 25% difference. It was mid-tier panels, but a high
quality inverter.

~~~
kurthr
Yes, but did that include federal and state subsidies? With Fed tax incentives
(as most people quote) on a 5kw installation in CA it's $15-20k depending on
who and where. So that would be in the $3-4 range... a lot of that is labor
(almost half) so other parts of the country are lower. Rural places tend to be
higher though.

My real point was that labor price variations can easily be larger than the
total actual panel cost.

~~~
ac29
Curious, what is the need for a 5kW array? Do they typically only produce at
5-10% of peak? Or do the relatively low panel prices mean that if you are
going to build 1kW, you might as well build 5?

I just went outside and checked my utility company smart meter... the whole
house isnt even using 100W right now (though thats on the low side, I'd
think).

~~~
IkmoIkmo
Lighting/laptops/phones take a tiny amount of energy. For example, a phone
battery nowadays (e.g. iPhone 6) is about 10 watthours with say 5 hours of
screen-on-time. Disregarding it's on doing background stuff all the other
hours, it approximately uses just 2 watt on average.

But the very first microwave (oven) I looked up on Bestbuy used 1500 watt, and
if you've got something cooking for 40 minutes in there you're easily using 1
kWh, or about three months of iPhone use.

> Curious, what is the need for a 5kW array? Do they typically only produce at
> 5-10% of peak?

As for peak production, well yes-ish. The average peak solar hours in the US
is about 4 per day, Europe is probably at 3, in Texas it's probably 5. That
means a 5kW array will produce about 25 kWh a day, or 750 a month in Texas,
saving about $85 a month / 1k a year in electricity purchase at 11.5c a kWh.
So yeah, on average a panel in the US produces at roughly 15% or so of peak.
(±4 peak hours per day).

------
Someone
2% efficiency would give you ballpark 5W per square meter (peak) or about .25W
for a sheet of paper (less indoors or at night)

So, if this can be combined with a paper-thin e-ink display (and, if needed, a
flat sheet capacitor for power storage), would that be enough to make true
paper-thin displays at reasonable price?

------
simcop2387
I wonder if these could be used to produce panels on a remote
planet/planetoid. I.e. could you use this to create a bunch of panels to place
on the moon, even with the low efficiency you'd still save a lot by not having
to ship them.

~~~
blhack
You would still have to ship the raw material, as well as the machines to
assemble/print them.

~~~
tiku
and figure out a way of transferring power through space..

------
ChuckMcM
An interesting addition to the mix. The design space around solar power
systems focuses on either cost (like in this example where efficiency is low)
or efficiency gains regardless of cost[1].

Presumably if we get to a point where you can cheaply print 25+% efficient
cells then we're "done" as it were on improving solar cells :-)

[1] [https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/japanese-company-
dev...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/japanese-company-develops-a-
solar-cell-with-record-breaking-26-efficiency/)

------
amelius
> “By reinventing the delivery model we remove the need for initial lump sum
> outlays, overcoming the key barrier to community uptake and ensuring that
> the science actually ends up on our rooftops,” said Professor Dastoor.

But can't banks just solve this, by financing panels upfront? There's quite
some money to be made there, I'd guess. And the risk is limited.

------
peter303
A lot of cost in installations is now other factors such as casing, peripheral
electronicls like invertors, labor, financing, etc.

------
Dryken
A French company has been doing solar panel printing for while now. What's so
new with this one ?

------
wrycoder
Shingles are about $8 per sq meter, uninstalled. Plywood is somewhat more. How
durable is this stuff?

------
audunw
If the efficiency could just increase (to ~8% maybe) and inverters got a bit
cheaper still, I think you'll start to really open the "just for fun" part of
the market. I wouldn't hesitate to put them on my shed.

~~~
lightedman
Plenty of cheap inverters - design your system to run at higher voltages. Run
your panels in series to get to ~120V first, then get a simple switch inverter
since you're already matching (in North America where I am) your mains
voltage, those inverters are cheaper and usually more efficient. Then you feed
that into your MPPT, which should have the step-down for 12V battery charging
and cleaning the input 120VAC power..

------
Ghost66
Efficiency is the bottleneck of that's project, perhaps if it became an open
source project creative people can create fantastic uses for it.

------
Ghost66
Efficiency is the bottleneck of that's project, perhaps if it became an open
source project creative people can create fantastic uses for it.

------
brreakdown
Could I wear it and generate power while I walk around? Could I sell the power
I generate when I reached my destination?

------
msoad
How those films hold under direct sun?

------
konschubert
What's the cost per Watt?

------
vasili111
What is the price per watt?

------
unwttng
Yeah but do they mine bitcoin

------
1024core
> If you had just ten of these printers operating around the clock we could
> print enough material to deliver power to 1000 homes per day,” said
> Professor Dastoor.

The US has 100M homes. That would require 100,000 days, or 300 years...

~~~
anovikov
That also means if these things decay at the same rate as normal solar panels
(producing an equivalent of 30 years of like-new power through about 35 years
of lifetime), only 100 presses will be enough to power the entire U.S., or
about 300-400 presses if you include all power needs, not just home. Which
doesn't sound like a lot, one press per million people.

~~~
djrogers
But where are you going to put these things? They are quite inefficient
compared to conventional solar, so it’s not like you can just cover roofs in
them and be done.

~~~
anovikov
Yes i already realized that... Essentially that is half-scam, with that low
efficiency they are pretty much useless.

