Solar panels are one of the most intriguing aspects of technology today. More specifically, researchers and scientists all over the world are looking for new ways to make existing solar panels more efficient, cheaper, and appealing to the masses. As it turns out, there is a new type of solar cell which was primarily inspired by the wings of a butterfly. It’s an interesting thing to think about, to say the very least.
A new Solar Cell With More Efficiency
To put this into perspective, there is still a lot of room for improvement when it comes to solar panel technology. A new solar cell recently unveiled shows major progress when it comes to harvesting light. More specifically, the new cell does it twice as efficiently as do regular solar panels, which makes it of utmost importance to plenty of people. This technology will not appear in consumer-grade solar panels anytime soon, mind you, as there is still a lot of research to be done.
Most current solar panels use thick solar cells. Moreover, they have to be positioned at a specific angle to ensure they collect the most amount of light under any circumstance. This is why most flat roofs will never house any solar panels, as setting them up would be somewhat problematic. Sooner or later, though, those cells will be replaced by thin film solar cells. This new technology is only nanometers thick, which is a significant improvement.
To make things even more interesting, thin film solar cells are far cheaper and lighter than their predecessors, but they’ve usually been less efficient compared to traditional solutions. That is no longer the case, mind you, although scientists had to take some inspiration from an unlikely source. More specifically, they looked at the black wings of the rose butterfly and copied its structure. It was a rather unusual approach, to say the very least, although it makes a lot of sense when looking at the bigger picture.
Thanks to this rather unusual research, we now have thin film solar cells capable of collecting light in a far more efficient manner. Having these cells absorb more light regardless of their angle opens up a whole new set of opportunities that people will be eager to explore in the future. The fact that they are also easy and cheap to make will only bring them to market faster. Then again, it is still unclear as to when we may see consumer-grade technology featuring these thin film solar cells.
The choice to mimic the rose butterfly is not random either, mind you. This species was forced to evolve in such a manner that its wings became highly efficient at absorbing energy. Though it took millions of years to develop this new and improved wing type, it goes to show Mother Nature will outpace human engineering in every possible way for quite some time to come. That doesn’t mean we can’t learn a thing or two from her, though.
It will be interesting to see how this development affects the solar panel industry as a whole. All companies want to be first to market when it comes to this technology, for obvious reasons. The fact that these panels can generate power efficiently throughout the entire day will undoubtedly be of great interest to a lot of consumers.
Solar will be a sensible source for home electricity when: The total cost of the system is such that with the cost of utility or other infrastructure, the cost per KWH is in the $.12/kwh. If we guestimate that the cost of the infrastructure, be it from a public utility OR in the form of home batteries to be about $.05/kwh, than the solar system would need to produce electricity for about $.07/kwh. The cost is a function of both the the cost of the solar system and the amount of sunlight available at each location, ie. daily solar radiation. In the US that varies from low of 2 kwh/M^2/day in the North East to 6 Kwh/M^2/day in Arizona. Currently a 5 KW system (a 5 KW system would generate 10 kwh perf day in the NE and 30 kwh/per day in AZ.) costs about $16,000. So, amortizing this over 10 years and assuming a 3% cost of money – ie every $1000 tied up in solar, were it instead in a bond or bank, would provide $300 in annual income So, over 10 years, a $16000 system would cost $1600/yr + $300, or $1900 per year which is equal to $158/month. In the NE a 5KW system would generate 5X2 = 10Kwh per day or 300 kwh per month. In Az, this same system would generate 5×6 = 30 KWH per day or 900 kwh per month. Even in AZ this computes to $.175/kwh. And in the NE the cost would be $0.52/kwh. IMHO, solar is still way to expensive and it is wise to wait for solar to decline. When a 5k system is at $6000, solar would cost $780 year including lost investment of 3%/lyr on $6000. At that rate, a system in AZ would generate electricity for $07/kwh which is reasonable. The NE however would still be a very expensive $0.21kwh.
I say stay away for now.
I just did a bit more research for my own curiosity. The cost of a 13 KWH Tesla solar compatible battery system is $5500. Thus a home in Az would need two of these to store the 30 kwh/day electricity produced by its solar panels. Since most US homes now use about 900 kwh of electricity per month, and since a 5kw system in Az would generate about 900 kwh per month, fo be “off grid” I conclude that the average home would need at least 2, 13 kwh batteries. So, the batteries would cost $11,000 PLUS the 3%/anum for interest lost. Over 10 years, that amounts to $1100 + $300 per year or $1400/yr for batteries. In my previous post, I allocated $.05/kwh for infrastructure/storage. So the storage would cost $3.83 per day which for a 25 kwh/day system in AZ translates to another $0127/kwh for storage. I do not see how anyone can rationalize going solar NOW. If in a decade, a 5 KW system with batteries cost $10,000 vs the current cost of at least $27,000, a person would actually save (as in not spend) $17,000 PLUS the interest lost on that, over 10 years.At $10,000 + annual lost earnings of $300/yr, the cost of a $10,000 complete system in AZ would be about $1,300 yr or $0.12/kwh. Much wiser to wait, IMHO.
Do your calculations include the 30% investment tax credit? What do you think about power quality and reliability? If you are in a area that has unreliable power a battery is attractive.
Another advantage is you have a fixed cost of power with solar. Assuming fixed power costs from your utility power provider is really optimistic and probably not realistic. Cost of money may net against future power cost increases.
In the first year after installation of 10 solar panels on my house, I saved enough money to pay for the solar panels, after the federal rebate, in about 12 years. This simplified calculation ignored the lost opportunity cost of the money invested, but also ignored the effect of expected cost increases for electricity over the lifetime of the panels. These two factors might cancel out. Also a comparison with the cost scenario provided by aintbuyin should note that the tiered rate structure of PG&E, where I live, resulted in an average cost of $0.17 to 0.19/KWhr, so the reference cost of $.12/KWhr is too low. So my judgement was that the purchase did make fiscal sense. However, there’s an environmental/ethical argument to be made in addition – that helping decrease carbon emissions is an important non-financial benefit. Thus I sure ain’t buying that argument that it’s wiser to wait any longer, till the price goes down some more – although it most likely will.
Are those electrical prices including both generation and distribution cost? What you mentioned only cover generation cost as the distribution cost is way higher here in PA!
That 14 kwh battery is only for ‘night time’ use as your solar panels should be able to charge battery and run your house…so no need for second battery…
The electrical prices I was quoting were the net average cost charged to me, before I got solar panels. After installation of solar panels, there’s a charge of about $11/month for access to the electrical network, then separately a calculation of electrical power use, with a charge or credit. The use charge is paid annually by the homeowner. If you’ve got an energy credit at the end of the year, it’s cancelled out (they keep the money), and the accumulation starts over. The amount of savings I mentioned for the first full year was my previous year’s total bills minus the total amount I paid for access fee plus usage charge.