
New connection between stacked solar cells can handle energy of 70,000 suns - pyre
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-stacked-solar-cells-energy-suns.html
======
LAMike
How far does battery tech have to go until it's feasible for lower-middle
income families have a solar panel on their roof in LA/San Fransisco?

10%? 50%?

~~~
grannyg00se
It's not feasible for lower-middle income families until it is as cheap or
cheaper than the alternatives.

But there are many factors complicating this kind of cost comparison. For one,
pv solar pays off over years, while others are paid per as pennies per kWh
used. Another complicating factor is the environmental impact of oil and coal.
Do you include that? If you do, how do you quantify it?

This looks like a decent article [http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-
of-solar-energy/...](http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-
energy/energy_economics.html)

In short, solar has a long way to go. Twenty or thirty times more expensive
than the traditional sources of energy. It looks like a huge breakthrough and
alternative method is needed rather than incremental improvements in current
methods.

What this article is about is reducing cost by using a type of solar cell that
can handle incredibly dense concentrations of sunlight. So you can use a cheap
lens to take say 30 square feet of sunshine and focus it on one square foot of
solar cell. Once square foot of solar cell is much cheaper than 5 square
metres of solar cell. But the article doesn't go into detail about how much
these high capacity solar cells would actually cost at mass consumption
levels.

~~~
6d0debc071
> This looks like a decent article

Their stats don't line up with the final cost to the consumer. Going by
average LA energy costs

[http://www.bls.gov/ro9/cpilosa_energy.htm](http://www.bls.gov/ro9/cpilosa_energy.htm)

'Los Angeles area households paid an average of 20.3 cents per kilowatt hour
(kWh) of electricity in July 2013, up from 19.3 cents per kWh in July 2012.'

Whereas, according to the linked article,

> 1 ton of coal costs $36 = $0.006 per KWH | 1 barrel of oil costs $70 = $0.05
> per KWH | 1 cubic foot of gas $0.008 = $0.03 per KWH

Which may well be true, to the people with the powerplants, - but consumers
can take advantage of the price of solar much more directly.

Assuming that we buy into their stats about the price of solar, (which I'm now
a bit reluctant to do,) things look a bit happier; more like 1.7 times the
price rather than twenty or thirty times.

~~~
grannyg00se
Awesome, if true. At 1.7 times the price it should be pretty easy to convince
some early adopters. If I were building a house in the right area I would love
to do a solar/wind combination for power.

------
eksith
I'm curious what this will mean for ROHS compliance. Gallium Arsenide isn't a
terribly friendly substance and, depending on the concentrations, it could
pose a safety issue during installation and/or recycling.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium_arsenide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium_arsenide)

~~~
aristidb
If you concentrate the sun to "4000 suns", you also need _far_ fewer panels,
so I think this fear might be overdone.

------
bigd
Not sure about this as is inorganic, but I am afraid all the Organic
Photovoltaic business will be only another speculative bubble. It's been
>10years now, millions have been spent, Konarka has failed, and investments
are still raising when the scientific community only aims to an extra .1% to
publish.

------
yason
I wonder if there are constructions that also utilize the absorbed heat, i.e.
energy that isn't caught by the solar cells. You could at least heat up the
household water with that energy, or possibly use it to generate additional
electricity on a parallel track or in combination with the solar cells.

