Utilight's 3D Printer for Solar Cells

Utilight is a start up company that was begun by a group with a significant amount of expertise and experience in physics, engineering, and materials science. After receiving initial funding from angel investors and the Israeli government, venture capitalists were eager to invest in their innovative photovoltaic printing process. Requiring a minimal addition to the production line, with no other changes, the process they have invented Pattern Transfer Printing allows for the quick and accurate creation of more efficient photovoltaic cells of a much smaller size. More information regarding this PTP 3D Printing system for solar cells can be found here: http://3dprint.com/70489/utilight-3d-print-solar


Below is a picture of the printers in action:
http://3dprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/u3.png

fantastic !
At the moment we can't have solar panels as we have a weird pyrimidal shaped roof.

Hopefully smaller, more efficient panels will get round this limitation.

The thing is if national governments passed a law stating that all newly built houses should have solar panels installed. Within ten years most countries would be eletrically independant of other generating methods. Guess pressure from the gas and nuclear lobbies prevents such a sensible thing from happening.

But maybe cheaper, more efficient panels might help make something similiar happen, here's hoping :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curious aardvark

a law stating that all newly built houses should have solar panels installed.

---

Sadly, laws don't work like friendly, gentle reminders that something should be done, they're a bit more forceful than that. Legislating requirements for rooftop solar means getting rid of the cheaper non-solar house option, and shrinking the housing market. Not saying it's a bad idea, but the people building houses as well as the ones wanting to buy cheaper houses are right there next to the big energy companies against mandatory rooftop solar.

I would love to see every house have solar, but it has to progress towards that naturally.

And, unless things have changed dramatically in the past few years, most houses can't generate sufficient power to supply the (current) average need in that house. A single floor house (ranch for example) might stand a chance. Multiple floors will have more space to heat/cool as well as many more lights and devices but still have the same roof area as a single floor home would. Then you get into apartments and the roof to living area ratio drops like a rock. Also, many people have these things called trees. They have a nasty habit of blocking sunlight (which is why people plant them...shade). And it gets worse the farther from the equator you are. For folks up here in Wisconsin, solar power is extremely inefficient (and thats being polite). The sun strikes this part of the earth as a much lower angle and thus travels through far more of the atmosphere limiting its energy radiation. That coupled with winter for 9 months (solar panels covered fully or partially with snow and ice) makes them a total waste of money.

Would they help? Certainly. In most cases they could supply at least a partial amount of power consumed by a home. Totally replace it? No. Not even close right now. In time, yes perhaps.

So, while mandating a solar panel install sounds like a good idea, its not.

What I would like to see is something along the lines of what I saw in a movie last winter. Wish I could recall the movie name. It was about a kid who investigates the mysteries around an inventor. Anyway, at the climax, its revieled that his greatest invention was a tree (actually 3 IIRC) that has leaves that generate power from sunlight. Trees have MASSIVE surface area for sunlight to fall on and thus generate energy. Imagine a tree (man made obviously) that had leaves that were really solar cells. And how nice it would be if it looked like a real tree. Nothing obtrusive. It would produce shade like a real tree but also supply electricity for the bug zapper and lights hanging from its limbs. We are close to this already with flexible panels. Just a litte more work in that area and it could be done within a few years.

Just like 3d printing solar cells are a bit too hyped...

1/ They work well ... within a very tiny temperature range.

2/ They are quite polluting to manufacture and recycle.

3/ OK they generate energy ... during cloudless days. How about the rest of the time ? The energy storage required is far from benign.

well talking to many of my clients that have had solar panels fitted. They not only supply the households entire electrical supply they kick out about 50% extra as well.

So they get free electricity and also get paid for the extra.

Modern panels are a lot more efficient than you think. And this is in england - a country not overly blessed with bright shiny sun :-)

Have you looked at the true ROI on them? Cost of the panels? Installation? Maintenance? Charging systems? Inverters? Battery banks? And the amount of income they provide on power chargeback (return to the grid, if any)? You are looking at anywhere between $5k and $30k for the system just for the hardware alone. And then you need banks of batteries. I just looked up on a site what I could actually install on my own house. I can get a max of 14 of their panels (7 across, 2h ) on my roof. Their 12 panel unit is $7800. The inverter only produces 5000w of power, the array only produces 3.8 kW (I presume only on a good sunny day). The inverter produces 21 Amps @ 240V max. The mains here are 2 phase 240 so each leg of 110 would be limited to 10 amps out of the inverter. I have a toaster oven that runs 12a. There is no freaking way that system which covers my entire roof on one side. is capable of supplying my kitchen let alone my whole house.

Ah! You say! Thats only half my roof! Yea, the half the sun shines on! If I step up to a 24 panel unit that runs $14k. But! Only half the panels will ever be absorbing sunlight (morning on the east side, afternoon on the west side). Noon time they both will be but since they are not at right angles to the sun their efficiency is dramatically cut. So, on average only half the panels will be charging. That inverter produces 32 Amps @ 240v or 16a per 110v leg. The panels could (if all were operating at peak) produce 7.6 kW. The inverter can supply 7.68 kW. Since the panels could only ever produce 3.8 kW at any one time, it only supplies half of what the inverter could produce. This system only supplies the equivalent of 2 of my 15a household circuits. And thats covering my entire roof!

http://energy.gov/energysaver/articl...lectric-system

Quote:

---

For example, a 2-kW system in Denver, CO, at a residential energy rate of 7 cents/kWh will save about $266 per year: 2 kW × 1,900 kWh/kW-year × $0.07/kWh = $266/year (or $22.17/month).

---

Using the smallest system above and our local rates, I am looking at saving around $1700 per year. Thats assuming its always sunny. Its never raining. And I get on the roof every time it snows and clean off the entire roof panel install. (None of which is ever going to happen) Given all that I am looking at 4-1/2 years to pay off the system before I see the first nickel of actual savings.

Now, lets assume some weather shall we? Milwaukee has an average of 100 partly sunny and 90 sunny days per year. So, lets lump them together and use 190 as an optimistic number (so thats really a generous over-estimate of the sunny day output). That works out to approximately 52% of the days are sunny, leaving 48% fully cloudy. Factoring that into the equation, that moves me from $1700 down to around $900 (figures that cloudy days produce 10% of the normal output) per year savings. Now that system realistically is amortized out to 8 years before the first actual savings occur. So, subtracting the 8 years from their quoted 25 year lifespan (totally unrealistic in my opinion but lets go with it at face value) that yields 17 years remaining saving $900 a year yields a total savings over the entire 25 year life of the unit at $15,300. None of that factors in maintenance over the 25 years nor does it factor in any installation costs which could add another $5k-$8k to the system cost according to several sites. If we are generous and presume the install plus any maintenance over a 25 year period is only $5000, that yields a savings of $10,300 for a total COST of $12,800. Sounds pretty dismal to me. I spend $12,800 to save $10,300 after the system is paid for. Over 25 years.

So, lets look at an alternative. Lets say I simply stuck the $7800 + $5000 estimated install/maintenance in a CD (one of the notoriously lowest interest rate returns on investments) in my credit union and let it sit for 25 years. At the end, I would have a CD worth $15,314.09. I would have to do nothing. No maintenance. No problems. Just let it sit. By doing nothing, I end up with $15k, if I install a solar panel with the same money, I only save $10k. Why would I do that? I can earn more by doing nothing than spending money. And with it in a CD I have that money to draw out at any time during the 25 years. I can't sell a solar panel system second hand and recoup any money reasonably.

To make things worse, I won't be living in this house 25 years from now. And unless I pony up to have it removed, transported and installed in another location, I must leave it and its savings behind for the next owner.

Am I saying solar panels are dumb? No. For some people, they make sense. They make great sense in areas where grid power is not available or is extremely unreliable. What I am saying is mandating them to be installed by everyone everywhere is dumb. They only make sense in a narrow band of circumstances.