Optical Solar Furnace Expected to Slash Cost of Solar Panels

November 28th, 2011 by Nicholas Brown

Lawn-mounted solar panels.

A new type of furnace that was recently tested by the United States Department of Energy is expected to slash the cost of solar power, due to the fact that it enables manufacturers to more precisely and uniformly focus both infrared rays (heat) and visible light onto the silicon wafers that are used to manufacture solar cells, and this is expected to improve reliability and reduce the cost of the manufacturing process of solar cells.

This invention is called an Optical Cavity Furnace. The technology is taking advantage of the fact that light can be concentrated onto small areas far more precisely than anything else.

The U.S DOE is responsible for this new technology and is working with the NREL to prepare it for commercialization. They plan to build an industrial scale version of this invention that produces 1,200 solar cells per hour.

This is important to increasing the adoption of solar panels as a power source, as the up-front cost of solar panels turns most people off (even though they’d probably save thousands of dollars in the long term).

Some people believe that advancing electricity generation technology (of whatever kind) is the only solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Others believe that what solar requires is better government policies and alternate deployment methods. Both are important, but it’s clear that technological advancements such as these do play a significant role.

Conclusion

Technological breakthroughs such as the one mentioned at the top help to solidify the argument that solar panels deserve research and development more than any electricity generation technology, because no other power generators have shown as much promise nor progressed as much for many years as solar. I will certainly keep my eye on this and try to update you on what comes of it.

h/t Thinkprogress | photo via Spanginator

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: optical solar manufacturing, Solar Cell Manufacturing

About the Author

Nicholas Brown writes on CleanTechnica, Gas2, Kleef&Co, and Green Building Elements. He has a keen interest in physics-intensive topics such as electricity generation, refrigeration and air conditioning technology, energy storage, and geography. His website is: Kompulsa.com.

Anonymous

As marketing people clearly realize, one key is getting people to think everybody else is doing it, and steer the herd toward mass adoption. How much money do people spend on tattoos? How many people have tattoos, that you wouldn’t expect, because everybody else does? How many people spend $70+ a month to sport the latest mobile phone and corresponding contractual phone plans? Would these people spend an extra 5-10 cents a day, or $3 a month, for renewable energy, and a healthier life, if it’s sold right? I surely hope so…. Renewable energy is already cheap compared with other areas where people get hooked on squandering money. (and can get majorly cheaper if the masses charge toward it).
- Anonymous
  
  Agreed.
  
  This is what I try to focus our site on a lot, as I think this is one of the most needed things,.. maybe THE most needed.
Anonymous

When will people realize renewable energy is not just about money? How can people focus on the benefits of renewable energy? Like breathing clean air? How about the corresponding long-term health benefits of cleaner air? How about putting people to work here constructively on something that is renewable? We should focus on the positive and strive for progress and innovation at every opportunity.
- Anonymous
  
  The majority of Americans want cleaner energy. They are willing to pay at least a bit more to get fossil fuels off our grids. But that’s not enough.
  
  Many of our utility companies are owned by people who are more interested in the bottom line, in profits, than in the greater good.
  
  Our Congress is blocked by elected officials who put the interests of oil and coal companies ahead of the interests of the people who elected them.
  
  Those people who are most upset about having to pay taxes refuse to realize that burning coal is costing significant tax dollars. They will bitch and scream if their utility bill goes up 1% but overpay for coal produced electricity via their tax dollars because the talking heads on radio tell them that renewable energy is too expensive.
  
  We are very unlikely to win the energy battle based on clean air.
  
  We’ve got to win it on cost.
  
  Wind and natural gas are our cheapest new generation technologies. The price of natural gas will almost certainly rise. The futures market, as of last Wednesday, thinks that gas will be 40% more expensive in four years. That will make wind THE cheap electricity source.
  
  Solar will soon be cheaper than electricity from gas peakers (gas turbines run only when extra power is needed, about 10% of the time).
  
  Wind and solar will force fossil fuels off the grid. It’s happening slowly at the moment. Coal plants are shutting down during windy parts of the year. As fuel prices rise the battle will be won via the bottom line. Those people running utility companies will abandon more expensive fossil fuel generation and turn to renewable energy.
  - Anonymous
    
    This business of making it cheaper Before anybody would do it, becomes a paradox trap trap. If it’s only about money, then people just sit back and claim they’ll never do it until it’s cheaper, but it won’t be cheaper until some people embrace it, some money flows through the food chain, and innovation eventually brings greater energy yields and ideally lower production costs to begin with, thereby lowering the price that can be charged profitably. When did everything in the world become about more money, right now? People still have values. Many marketing campaigns appeal to people’s sense of values to stimulate behavior. Others just use value for the cheaper customer. There is great momentum right now with increasing energy innovation. It’s happening with great momentum, whether the naysayers try to fool people otherwise or not. (I worked in the natural gas industry for many years. I’ve seen the less than $1 wellhead prices, and $12+ Henry Hub prices. rest assured the time will come with high fossil fuel prices again. History has proven that. sadly, history has proven people are very complacent and make the mistake of drifing toward the cheap thing right now, and then are unhappy when the inevitable price cycle makes it more expensive. Renewable energy like solar has 1 direction to go on price. Flat to down. That’s a price curve I can get excited about. People fail to realize all the other costs, such as health problems from pollution pervasively on planet earth. They fail to realize the costs of procuring and protecting oil with military costs in their taxes. They fail to realize the other costs subsidizing fossil fuels you described. Let’s put all those costs into the 1) gas price at the pump, and 2) the cost of electricity from coal. Then will people embrace renewable, clean energy? Sure, they’ll stampede toward it.
    - Anonymous
      
      I’d love to see coal charged full price at the meter and the cost of our oil wars rolled in at the pump, but it’s not going to happen.
      
      Fossil fuel interests have too much influence and too much money to push their lies.
      
      We win this one by being the lowest cost provider.
      
      Here’s a paper you might want to read. It will give you some info about how inexpensive wind power is forcing coal off the grid in Australia.
      
      http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/why-wind-cutting-energy-costs
      
      Wind is also cutting into the profits of coal plants in the US. When push comes to shove utility operators are going to buy the cheapest power they can. Wind, having no fuel cost, can always sell for the smallest possible price.
      
      Solar is competing against natural gas peaker plants. When we see progress like the oven in this article It gets many of excited. It means that we’re getting closer and closer to the point where economics alone kill fossil fuels.
      - Anonymous
        
        Thank you. Well, maybe some of the answers are how it’s sold and marketed to decision makers and the public. If bigger companies are embracing solar and wind, and they are, it’s because there are favorable economics. If people can be sold toward real , actual , proven actions, that can shed some light on the opportunities. (the others selling their pitch about fossil fuels forever and other confused nonsense, speak in vague theory, partial concept truths, and basically deceive their listeners, and perhaps even themselves at times. Very poor leadership. But , the reality is they want more money from the entrenched interests, and their job is to sell it to the public.) Somewhere in all this the truth and the right kinds of communication can inspire people toward the most positive results for everyone. That’s how we overcome difficult times. Hope, inspiration, positive leadership, and actually something to look forward to positively.
      - Anonymous
        
        Give this a read. It’s not the sort of thing that I normally pass along. It popped up on one of my Google “Alerts” which I have set up on various renewable energy topics.
        
        Here’s an investment guy and he’s seeing money to be made in renewables. That tells me that we’re winning….
        
        http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/alternative-energy-warnings/1934
        
        p.s. Avoid these investment guys like the plague. They are not the route to financial security, generally speaking.
      - Anonymous
        
        Thank you. Avoiding the bad sales people like the plague is a wise precaution my friend. They sell all kinds of things people wish for like the next huge money maker, and generally leave people like deer in the headlights as road kill, while they move on to their next victim.
      - Anonymous
        
        I can give you personal testimony about losing money to investment sales people.
        
        I paid a several thousand dollars in “tuition”, but I learned and did well after I graduated.
      - Anonymous
        
        Understood. Rule #1 is cut losses short , so they’re easy to recover from. Rule #2 is always remember Rule #1. It’s like having a circuit breaker in the house. Hope it never switches off, but it can prevent major damage. Every portfolio should have circuit breakers, because it’s what people have left that counts. At some point, people need to cash in and walk out of the casino (I really dislike the gambling metaphor, but it is suitable). I have a chart that shows if people lose for example 50% , they have to make 100% just to get to breakeven, and at say average single digit returns how long it takes just to get to breakeven. Sadly, many get sold on the poralysis of hoping it will “come back” (which really means that many buyers must exceed sellers to drive prices up, and they won’t come back to a losing sector for a long time…) I actually do investment work for people as part of my services work, and it’s a responsibility I take very seriously. Their financial future is something to be safeguarded. Preservation of capital 1st (return of capital) and return On capital (earnings) 2nd. Even people depending on interest in savings have taken practically a 100% pay cut with zero% interest rates. That may force them to erode principal and draw down savings. There’s a careful balance of owning the best companies, getting good dividends, and renting money to companies or banks to earn interest. If I can ever share any helpful tips or thoughts, I’m happy to do so. (sorry a bit long and off topic. I’m happy to share an email if that’s helpful.)
      - Anonymous
        
        No.
        
        Rule one is “A good investment needs no salespeople”.
        
        Good investments sell themselves. Informed and cautious investors seek out good investments. If you’ve got a not-so-good investment then you have to pay someone to push it for you.
        
        What you are talking about is investment strategy. And what you say can be pretty much boiled down to one word.
        
        “Diversify”
      - Anonymous
        
        Everything needs to get marketed Bob. Good businesses need to market to their customers, and market to people who have capital to invest. That’s just the reality of it. Good sales people serve a vital function. Without them there is no business, and no work. Great engineering has been accomplished, but without effective marketing never reached the prosperity it should have. Most families do their work well in their chosen occupation, spend time with family or things they enjoy, and should have a team for the rest. Otherwise they will make all the rookie mistakes, that the predators depend on to pick them off, and take their money. Some of the do it yourselfers for everything become jacks of all trades, and masters of none. Most people don’t have or want to be out there seeking investments, and many wouldn’t know how to properly analyze it even if they did. There are lots of great investments, that won’t just come knocking on people’s doors and ask to get bought. (Just to be perfectly clear: I am not selling anything. I do offer people thoughts, as a neighborly gesture to people I like, because the news , media, etc. just have so much noise that confuse things and steer people toward what they’re selling. In a puzzling manner I find sometimes if I tell people the truth, they think the opposite. Maybe they’re just used to getting lied to by the bad sales people of the world. I’ve discovered this phenomena over many years, telling people basic facts, and they suggest the opposite, or it’s not what they expect.) I hope for your sake you have good teams working for you in whatever areas you don’t want to specialize in, and have picked good people you can trust, who’s interests are aligned with yours. People will pursue their reward systems. Nature of human behavior. Sometimes the best individual investments are ones where we can have some insights, and be ahead of the curve with the right specializations. Others are best left to pros with good teams and many decades of experience with economic cycles. Best of success in all you do.
      - Anonymous
        
        Marketing is different than employing a sales staff.
        
        Some mutual funds are no load. Some mutual funds carry a high load with much of the load going to the “investment advisers” who sell the product.
        (Would you please cut your posts into paragraphs?)
      - Anonymous
        
        I don’t want to argue with you Bob. The “no load” funds have marketing expenses just like any other company. The “no load” implies there is no sales charge and that’s basically a lie. Their marketing costs are buried in the fund expenses. Read the prospectuses and other literature. They’re right there listed as %’s. Rest assured every company has marketing costs. So, people still pay their marketing costs, and get no guidance from a pro. Structure the costs however you want, you’re going to pay for it one way or another. I just hope you get good guidance from a professional in whatever way you choose to pay for it. (definitely not CNBC broadcast). Picking the right people for our teams is a vital skill in life. Best regards for steering clear of the bad sales people and prosperity in all you do.
      - Anonymous
        
        “Marketing is different from employing a sales staff”. Would you care to rephrase that? The sales staff are a vital part of marketing, even the people who go “sell’ advertising to attract customers. Anybody seeking business in whatever manner is a “sales person”. It’s a good and important role, and results in “jobs” for others. It all depends on good people Bob. I’m very sorry that you have had bad experiences with the bad sales people of the world (haven’t we all). I just hope armies of good sales people will market and promote renewable energy in ways will will aspire to and more quickly generate greater volume of people wanting renewable energy.
      - Anonymous
        
        We’re way off of topic. I’ll (probably) make this my last ‘investment’ post.
        
        Marketing is different than sales. Yes, salespeople can do marketing, but marketing can be done quite well without a sales staff.
        
        Mutual funds are very clear about their management fees. They are required by law to disclose. And, yes, marketing costs come out of those management fees.
        
        Non-managed, no load mutual funds can have management fees under 0.25% of the investment.
        
        Managed funds will have much higher management fees.
        
        Load funds can take as much as 8.5% of your investment money right off the top (or with a ‘rear end load’).
        
        With a no load fund 100% of your invested dollars go to purchase stock for your account. With a high load fund less than 95% of your dollars get invested.
        
        As far as “guidance from a pro”, if you are just starting out you might
        want to pay a ‘fee only’ investment adviser to help you get started. That
        person will accept no kickback (or shouldn’t be taking kickbacks) from the
        investment he/she steers you into. They should be working 100% for you and
        working for the hourly fee you pay them.
        
        I’d advise staying away from ‘no fee’ advisers. It takes only a moment of
        reflection to realize that someone is paying them. Now some no fee
        advisers may be great people who will do you well, but there is no way to
        tell them from the ones who will steer your dollars toward the investments
        that give the adviser the largest kick back.
        
        Some years back I had a friend who disliked the profession that he had
        ended up and decided that he might want to be an investor adviser. He took
        the courses, passed the tests, got the certificates, and went to work.
        
        After a year or so he quit. He found that no matter how hard he tried he
        found that the pressure was to sell high load investments in order to keep
        his job with a couple of firms he tried working for. He was forced to work
        for the companies’ interests and not his clients’ interests. Never forget
        that money has a significant corrupting influence.
      - Anonymous
        
        I’m convinced, that not even looking at externalities, solar and wind are already cheaper than coal and nuclear as new electricity options — if you look at how long it takes to get a coal or nuclear plant up and running and what costs will be at that time. http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/10/about-solar-energy-why-solar-energy/
        
        But, yeah, getting policymakers and even the public to understand this is, not to mention getting them to factor in externalities, a challenge.
      - Anonymous
        
        Geico has brilliant makerting. It’s basic and funny. Make it so simple a caveman or cavewoman can get it. Most people are pretty simple. They get lost and confused in all the fact and details, and then are susceptible to the sales people working for fossil fuel industries. They don’t think like engineers. Has to be short and simple for them to get it.
      - Anonymous
        
        the blog I keep trying to post spells it out as 3 1/2 cents per day for more renewable energy. Super cheap. Anybody can buy off on that. Just get the mobile phone companies, or other subscription plans out of their pocket a little, who charge considerably more.
        ———————————————————————-
        The cost of renewable energy put in perspective
        Steven Weissman, associate director of the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment | 11/28/11 | Leave a comment
        
        Would you be willing to pay 3 ½ cents a day to reduce the pollution from the electric power you use by 40%?
        
        In a recent article, the San Francisco Chronicle talked about the high price of adding renewable energy to the grid. Citing a study prepared by the California Public Utilities Commission’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates, it reported that, on average, new contracts for renewable power are 15% more expensive than power from a natural gas plant. he implication is that consumers should brace themselves for big rate increases as the new solar and wind projects come on line. Perhaps it’s worth taking a minute to look at the actual numbers.
        
        The utilities in California must deliver a third of their power from renewable sources by 2020. Their renewable shares are already close to 20%. The question, then, is what the rate impact would be from expanding to reach the 33% goal. Let’s be conservative about this. California Governor Jerry Brown is hopeful that the utilities will actually deliver 40% renewable power within the same time frame. So, let’s assume an additional 20% increment of renewable power.
        
        If, as predicted, that new renewable power costs 15% more than the best alternative (natural gas), what would the effect be on consumer rates and bills? Here is the math:
        
        Purchasing 20% more power at a 15% mark-up adds 3% to the overall cost of power (.2 x .15 = .03). The electricity itself comprises about half of the customer’s bill, so the additional cost of power would result in a 1.5% increase in the utility’s revenue requirement (if the current revenue requirement is 2X, the impact of the added renewables can be represented as 2X + .03X = 2.03X; the percentage change looks like this: 2.03X/2X = 1.015).
        
        Rates would have to be raised by 1.5% to cover the added cost. For customers with an average rate of 18 cents per kilowatt hour, that’s an increase of .27 cents (a quarter of a penny) per kilowatt hour. Customers using 400 kilowatt hours per month would pay an additional $1.08 per month. That’s on top of a current bill of $72.00. For the typical family, the added cost is 3 ½ cents per day.
        
        In our current economy, no rate increase is trivial. But this particular one is small. The utilities could raise rates twice as much this year alone just to cover inflation. And just think about how much this small increase can buy. Since California regulated utilities already get about half of their power from sources with little or no greenhouse gas emissions (hydroelectric, nuclear, and existing renewables), that additional 20% renewable power can knock out about 40% of the emissions that remain. Not a bad deal, for 3 ½ cents a day.
        
        Cross-posted from the environmental law and policy blog Legal Planet.
        
        Tags: electricity rates, Greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy, renewable power
      - Anonymous
        
        thanks. comments with links get held for moderation unless you’re whitelisted. i was asleep i’ll try whitelisting you now, but can only whitelist names or email addresses (not IP addresses), so try to be consistent when logging in to comment.
        
        consumers are willing to pay more, but translating that into better utility policies seems to be a challenge.
        
        i recommend this roundtable of “good” utility company ceos if you haven’t watched it (starts about 18 minutes in) http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/21/utility-ceos-talk-solar/
        
        a couple of them bring this up, but seem unclear on how to turn that into better energy policies.
      - Anonymous
        
        Agreed. They are fighting vigorously to keep as much money flowing to themselves as possible, and will continue to do so using every influence at their disposal.
    - Anonymous
      
      I certainly make sure to point out these critical externalities whenever I mention cost.
      
      On the money factor — I think it isn’t the only thing for consumers at all (the iPad is not a huge success because of its price, and people do still have values) but on the utility level, cost rules the day.
      
      We are all about the cool factor and the health factor and the national security factor here on CT, and try to stimulate consumer adoption by focusing a lot on that. But cost reduction breakthroughs are also fun, i think
- Anonymous
  
  DSNI, i completely understand where you’re coming from and agree with you, but as Bob notes below, our country’s energy systems are not going to be transformed on that alone (even though they shuold be). Barring a significant revolution (go, Occupy!), money rules the day in the U.S., and short-term profits at that. Clean energy is in the match now, and, by my evaluation, is prepared to win it.
  
  Nonetheless, back to your point, I’m actually planning a piece focused on making the same point you are (I think) — to be titled “Too Cheap for Our Own Good”
  - Anonymous
    
    You guys are right. Money, or at least the perception of it, is very important to people in the US. I’m just trying to get past the paradox of , “we won’t do it until it’s cheaper”, and if people get stuck on that , masses would not adopt and the likelihood of it getting a lot cheaper without big volume becomes less probable. Lots of examples came and went. THe 80’s energy crises had everybody up in arms and we’ll suffer the same cycles unless we can get people on board with renewable energy. China sees it, as do other countries. They are steaming ahead, while the bad sales people in the US have people seemingly hypnotized. People need to have the perception of a good value, or other reasons to embrace it. I observe the poorest of people who manage to find money for a cell phone. They find money for it, because they really want it for whatever the reasons. Somehow, we’ve got to reach the core emmotions that drive people to sell them on wanting renewable energy. Walmart has started to carry organic foods , because people in the market want it. If enough people want renewable energy, people running companies in the markets will provide more of it.
    - Anonymous
      
      Agreed
James Coghill

Why do people still insist that photocell production is so costly or inefficient? I have a supplier who can sell me blank chrystaline silica wafers as low as 20 cents each and anybody who can sketch a trace stencil and bake solder paste can turn them into good photocells. Are we supposed to be joyous that the DOE wan’t to take over technology or credit thereof that many home brewers of alternative energy have already been using? The tech isn’t new, nor is it owned or invented by the DOE. The information delivered in this article leads some to believe that somebody is still buying into the DOE’s share of petro interests or petro-propaganda, that the technology still isn’t within anyman’s reach and that it’s not cost effective. The first step to proliferation of affordable and renewable energy is to first realize that anybody can do this, then to teach them how.

I’m not arguing or debating the final conclusion that solar is indeed the ideal path to focus in, I just find it misleading to suggest that this would reduce the costs of all solar cell availability, when it really only applies to comercially mass-produced photocells. In my opinion, it’s that comercial production the keeps the costs at a premium. They are the ones who set their prices so high that a homeowner would need 20 years of use in order to break even on the costs. They are the ones who dread the thought of people discovering how cheap and easy it is to bake your own photocells. It’s that 20 year payoff that feeds into the petroleum industry’s argument that solar is not cost effective.
- Anonymous
  
  Where are your wafers coming from? Are they specially made for you or are you buying ‘overruns and seconds’?
  
  I can buy finished solar panels for really good prices if I take overruns, blemishes, product from bankrupt companies.
  
  Think about it. If there were a cheaper way to make solar panels on a commercial scale don’t you think manufacturers would be doing it that way? Solar is an incredibly competitive market. Companies are going bankrupt because they can’t produce as inexpensively as others.
  
  Finally, are you accurately measuring your costs? Labor? Electricity? “Factory”? Or are you looking at only your supplies cost?
  
  You providing all the labor in your own home and needing no sales, legal, clerical sorts of staff, performance guarantees, etc. is not a valid way to price manufactured panels.
  - James Coghill
    
    I’m talking about buying the raw, sliced and polished blank wafers straight from the ingot-growers with the same quality specs they sell their products to the solid-state and computer manufacturing clients for. These companies grow the uncut ingots, slice the wafers and depending on whether you want 2 inch diameter or three inch, come in the price range of 20 to 35 cents per wafer. No seconds, no over-runs, no scratches or rejects. To make photocells, you simply design a stencil for the solder traces you want on them, align your blank wafers, spread the solder paste over the stencils and then bake at 400 degrees (depending on your brand and specs of solder paste that you choose to use). Once traces are on both sides and the wafers are cooled, they are ready to be mounted and turning solar energy into usable electricity. For a few cents extra per wafer, you can even specify non-circular cuts to make more space-efficient squares or hexagons.
    
    I’m talking about my own time and materials, being able to produce about 64 an hour with a homebrew method in a common household electric oven, which anybody can do. I do not dissagree that making them cheaper and more widely available is a good idea, I am simply saying they are making a big deal over businesses which already have over a 400% markup being able to save part of their production costs and possibly passing that much of the savings on to end customers. Why not simply resist the urge of believeing they cannon sustain or would go bankrupt on a little less profit margin? Perhaps those which do go under only do so because they believe in what they are told by raw material salesman, instead of more competative supply bidding and doing the research themselves. When I see what comercial installations offer in the $20k range and can make the same for about 1/4th the price, it’s not hard to guess where the difference in price really goes, nor is it difficult to see why so many still believe it’s not a cost-effective investment.
    
    Much of the manufacturing could be automated, much could go to even unskilled labor. A simple rule of business is scalability and not over-extending one’s means. Warehousing and factories? I’ll address that when I get there personally. Power distribution? That remains the job and income of the public utility companies. My response has more to do with what it costs me to do and what anybody else with the determination could expect to pay if they chose to make their own as well. I could decide to sell comercially and though producing less than potential demand, could afford what’s needed at far less than what many sell for while still affording all neccessary overheads.
    
    I do not really care if nobody believes or if people demand proof. It would suit me just as well to be the one out there doing what others are standing around thinking impossible. The proof will come in time, when the ideas spread of their own accord, even without advertising.
    
    The real question is quite simply, would you be interested in knowing how to make them for less and not having to buy a book or attend any seminars to learn it?
    - Anonymous
      
      Maybe you don’t care about the money, but if you can produce them for so much cheaper, why don’t you make more, sell a ton of them, and retire?
      I’m sure some DIY people would love to know how you do it, as well, but you have to be practical in realizing that most people who go solar aren’t going to go solar the DIY way. But happy to have you share and even write a guest post on here if you can provide a clear, step-by-step, image-supplemented piece — if you’re just interested in helping more people go solar for cheap.
    - question
      
      James,
      
      Cool description… but I’m not convinced that what you describe is cheaper. A 2 inch diameter wafer has an area of about 3.1 square inches. So you can produce solar panels at a price of about 10 cent/square inch (that’s 6.4 cents for the cells and some for solder, labor, the structure of the panels, the interconnects with the other cells etc. (actually your labor costs given the numbers that you mention are probably at least 10 cents/square inch)). A square meter has about 1600 square inches so your cost for a square meter of active area is about $160. At a 10% efficiency a square meter gives about 100W. So your price is about $1.6/W.
      
      Not a bad price, but not something special. Unless you have an efficiency much better than 10%, something that is unlikely just given the physics of plain silicon solar cells. While I really like the idea of knowing the details of a system that I install, it is actually cheaper to buy panels on the open market. And for many many people it really isn’t that simple. The skills of soldering, “making” etc. are, sadly, not that widespread.
      - Anonymous
        
        China is now selling completed panels at $1.15/watt.