NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.—Silicon translates sunshine into electricity—and Earth receives enough sunshine in a daylight hour to supply all of humanity's energy needs for a year. But despite being as common as sand, photovoltaic panels made from silicon—or any of a host of other semiconducting materials—are not cheap, especially when compared with the cost of electricity produced by burning coal or natural gas. The U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) aims to change that by bringing down the cost of solar electricity via a new program dubbed "SunShot," an homage to President John Kennedy's "moon shot" pledge in 1961.

"If you can get solar electricity down at [$1 per watt], and it scales without subsidies, gosh, I think that's pretty good for the climate," notes Arun Majumdar, director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA–e), the DoE's high-risk research effort. "With SunShot, the goal is to reduce the cost of solar to [$1 per watt] in the next six years."

As it stands, melting silicon or depositing thin layers of copper indium gallium selenide, then manufacturing photovoltaic modules and installing them on rooftops or in large arrays in the desert, can cost as much as $10 per watt. And whereas some technologies can deliver modules for roughly $1 per watt, installation at least doubles that.

"We are making solar for the masses…to get to [a] cost point that is viable," said Bruce Sohn, president of Columbus, Ohio–based First Solar, the world's largest thin-film photovoltaic manufacturer, which claims it can produce its modules for less than $1 per watt, on a panel at ARPA–e's second annual summit on March 1. "We are looking to make something that can compete head to head with fossil fuels over the long term."

As part of the new SunShot initiative, DoE committed some $27 million to fund novel methods for producing solar cells and their components—like 1366 Technology's effort to grow pure silicon wafers directly rather than hewing them from long ingots of the material or Solexant's effort to build thin-film solar cells from semiconducting materials that are neither toxic nor rare. The goal is to produce solar modules at roughly 50 cents per watt with attendant hardware and installation costing the same amount. To reach that target the photovoltaic cells will have to convert at least 20 percent of the sunlight that shines on it into electricity and cost only 25 cents per watt by 2017. "The future of the U.S. depends on three securities: national, economic and environmental. The foundation of all of this is innovations in energy technology," Majumdar said in his own speech to the summit. "The future is still up for grabs. How do we win the future? Invent affordable clean technology. Make them locally, sell them globally."

Of course, harvesting the sun's power is not limited to photovoltaic panels. The DoE push also will incorporate efforts to create solar-thermal power plants that can store the heat of the sun for 12 to 17 hours by 2020, along with attempting to address some of the issues surrounding permitting, inspection and connection of solar systems to the electricity grid. "We want change, we want innovation, we want to overthrow the old energy order," said former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in a summit keynote address. "We want a new era of energy and a new era of American competitiveness."

Already, electricity from the sun costs roughly the same as that generated from burning fossil fuels in places like Hawaii, which remains the only state to rely on imported oil for the bulk of its power. And solar power represents the fastest-growing sector of electricity generation. U.S. solar production in 2010 increased by nearly one gigawatt (billion watts), although that represents roughly the amount of electricity one nuclear power plant can produce. But even at that pace of adoption—spurred by both federal and state government largesse—solar still produces less than 1 percent of all U.S. electricity. And in 2035, by which time the DoE's Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts that solar will have grown fastest among all energy resources (increasing sevenfold), all renewables put together, solar included, will only provide 14 percent of U.S. electricity.

The EIA has often been wrong in such long-term forecasts, but competing with natural gas—newly cheap thanks to the vast resources tapped by fracking in the eastern U.S.'s Marcellus Shale Formation—may prove difficult, even with SunShot. "Natural gas has low capital cost, higher fuel cost but overall lowest costs," noted EIA Administrator Richard Newell at the ARPA–e conference. "There are significantly higher costs for other power sources."

Yet, even at a higher price, solar can offer benefits, which is why Duke Energy has invested $50 million putting solar arrays on the roofs of grocery stores and some of its other large customers. "Distributed solar can be thought of as a distributed resource, a multiple value resource," Duke Chief Technology Officer David Mohler told ARPA–e attendees. "The proper comparison for that is not the cost of a bulk power system, it's the cost and benefit of having an embedded resource."

And flexible solar cells in sheets have already found novel applications powering the telecommunications and other electronic equipment of U.S. Marine units deployed in Afghanistan. Small-scale solar is also booming in places such as Kenya that do not have an electricity grid for charging cell phones or batteries that power lights at night. "We will need every energy resource we can lay our hands on," said Kurt Yeager, executive director of the Galvin Electricity Initiative, an effort to develop the smart grid in the U.S. "There are two billion people in the world without access to electricity. Security means giving them energy."

Of course, the DoE has already invested some $1 billion in solar energy research since the turn of the century, funding efforts to develop "black" silicon or cells employing quantum dots. "If renewables are cost-competitive with fossil fuels then it's a very, very different world," Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said at the ARPA–e summit.

Yet, despite inventing the technology in the 1950s and more than 30 years of government support, the U.S. share of the global market for photovoltaic modules is down from more than 40 percent in 1995 to just 6 percent in 2011. China's Jiangsu Province alone—home to Suntech Power, the world's largest maker of photovoltaic panels—has begun investing more than $152 million a year in solar technology since 2009.

"Just because we lost the lead doesn't mean we can't get it back," Chu said. "We still have the opportunity to lead the world in clean energy…but time is running out."

23 Comments

1. 1. JamesDavis 09:27 AM 3/14/11

   As President Obama said (my understanding, not his actual words), "If China and Japan can do it, why can't America?"
   
   If we stop all incentives to fossil fuel and direct it to developing clean sources of energy: Geothermal (below and above ground), solar and wave (electric vehicles); we can lead the world in clean energy production and use in less than ten years. The only thing that is stopping us from reaching our goal of independent energy is the 'bought and paid for politicians in Washington by big fossil fuel'.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. sethdayal 12:37 PM 3/14/11

   I've been listening to this dream for the last twenty years. Do the research sure but until a reasonable cost high efficiency cell comes along it just ain't happenin'. Mass produced nuke power is already looking at 1.5 cents a kwh while the cost of even 1 month of solar storage is 140 cents a kwh.
   
   It's just a silly dream that is delaying the fossil to nuclear conversion.
   
   The cost of the assembled mass produced cost of the glass and aluminum is actually greater than the cost the solar cells. Currently with the collapse of the Euro solar market fire sale solar panel prices are now less per sq foot than a similarly constructed mass produced skylite at Home Depot. As solar cell manufacturing costs go down it has little effect on the installed cost as installation and structure are 6 times cell cost and as the excess in the market solar cell capacity disappears.
   
   With the $hundred's of billions already spent on solar PV there is no further economies of scale happenin.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. tharter in reply to sethdayal 01:01 PM 3/14/11

   Looks across the Pacific Ocean. Notes that nuclear power is dead.
   
   Looks at Seth's hilariously inaccurate and misleading numbers and notes that some people are seriously deluded.
   
   As this article points out, SPV can reach parity with coal in 6 years. You'll be lucky to BREAK GROUND on a nuke plant any time in the next 6 years, if ever. Wake up dude.
   
   As for '100's of billions of dollars', I'd like to know how many 100's of billions have been spent on nuclear power, compared to the roughly $30 billion spent on all types of solar in the same time period (ever). The current plan is to spend $54 billion on nuclear power and in theory we could have several plants coming online around 2020.
   
   Spending that $54 billion on solar OTOH will mean price parity within 3-5 years and from there on out the capital costs are vastly lower for SPV/STP. Given that nuclear is coming in at this point at $10/Watt and SPV will be at $1/Watt I'm not really impressed. Neither of them requires much more than ordinary maintenance once deployed, but SPV also doesn't require fuel, so clearly it is cheaper in the long run.
   
   Yes, there will have to be energy storage technology and/or backup baseline capacity in the form of gas, wind, STV thermal storage, etc. These are all well understood technologies and can be complemented in a whole host of other ways. The costs are nothing like what you quote. Your numbers are based on a very simplistic model and fail utterly to capture the reality. They are also highly inflated.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. tomgarven 01:42 PM 3/14/11

   I think in lots of ways James Davis is correct; we can do this if we choose to. There is so much that needs to be done yet our members of Congress seem incapable of understanding basic economics - well they are mostly attorneys so I guess that explains a few things, LOL. Just had to throw in a little attorney humor before getting serious.
   
   The first thing I believe we need to change is our tax structure or tax code. Allowing companies like Exxon-Mobile to make billions and billion and not pay a dime in taxes is wrong no matter how wonderful the company might be. The corporate tax rate in America should be about 15% and that should be for every company not just those who can buy some members of Congress.
   
   When the tax code was written to support the growing need for renewable energy in America, businesses could take a 30% tax credit OR a 30% tax grant in the year a solar system was installed. A retired homeowner for example, needed to be working and/or have income to take advantage of the tax credit over some period of years. I can't begin to tell you how many customers I lost as a solar salesman because of this tax code requirement.
   
   I believe solar systems CAN BE manufactured and installed in America competitively without the use of incentives if the industry is structured correctly. Here are some ideas that might get us closer to my belief.
   
   Much more simplified methods of installation needs to be found for homeowners. Mounting rail fasteners something like moly-bolts [sp] that expand under the roof sheathing need development and code approvals. Everything should also be plug and play. Inverters in every panel should be the standard instead of the exception. We need to move away from high voltage DC systems for home systems. Panels should not need more than two bolts for any mounting/attachment; MOST should be one bolt with the opposite end of the panel captured in the rail system. Panels for commercial power systems should be much larger or be manufactured in multi panel arrays to reduce cost. Ground mounted commercial systems should be installed on piles driven into the ground where soil conditions permit. Scraping the land bare makes people angry and significantly increases the cost. In my not so humble opinion, it is downright stupid.
   
   I am sure most of these ideas are in some state of development and/or implementation but we need to get on with the program so to speak. And yes, if we don't remove the incentives for off-shore production soon we might just all be out of work someday.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. poweringanation 02:01 PM 3/14/11

   $27 million in R&D funds seems very little, especially if compared with the numbers from China cited in this article... That said, solar has clearly the potential for a faster efficiency turnaround and quicker ROI than nuclear. Let's hope this program is just the beginning.
   
   Luca Semprini
   www.poweringanation.org

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Sisko 04:23 PM 3/14/11

   @JamesDavis and Tomgarvan-- Please try to understand the realistic facts and not the situation you hope or dream exists.
   
   1. Chinese companies invest in manufacturing developed products. Chinese companies have a competitive advantage only on touch labor.
   
   2. Solar technology does not exist today that you can put on your roof and get a payback on in time to pay for what you purchased. If home installed solar energy could pay for itself, there would be people selling the installation of these kits to every house in America.
   
   There is no grand conspiracy by the oil companies or anyone else. It is just good old supply and demand. In this case there is a great demand for a solar system that people can home install and get their money back in 10 to 15 years. Sadly, there are simply no systems that can yet be supplier to meet that market need.
   
   Unless or until that changes, the US will need nuclear energy in order to stop shipping cash overseas and CO2 into the atmosphere. It is so strange that so many so called environmentalists who want CO2 emissions limited are opposed to nuclear power, when they should be its largest cheerleaders. Very odd indeed
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. tharter in reply to Sisko 04:55 PM 3/14/11

   "There is no grand conspiracy by the oil companies or anyone else. It is just good old supply and demand. In this case there is a great demand for a solar system that people can home install and get their money back in 10 to 15 years. Sadly, there are simply no systems that can yet be supplier to meet that market need."
   
   Actually in some areas the payback is already now well under 6 years. It could be better, nobody is arguing that, but given that prices will certainly fall to 50% or less of current levels in the next few years there's no question this is on track. Not one new nuclear plant for instance will even come online in that time frame.
   
   "There is no grand conspiracy by the oil companies or anyone else. It is just good old supply and demand. In this case there is a great demand for a solar system that people can home install and get their money back in 10 to 15 years. Sadly, there are simply no systems that can yet be supplier to meet that market need."
   
   It isn't a matter of a 'grand conspiracy' it is simply that we're subsidizing oil to the tune of $50 billion a year (at least, arguably much more). We're subsidizing coal like crazy as well. Meanwhile we externalize a vast proportion of the costs of these fossil fuels, which are actually easily 2x more expensive than the visible costs.
   
   Sure, nuclear power has some very redeeming features. It is however VERY capital intensive and it simply isn't making sense to strangle technologies which are ultimately superior by any measure. Realistically nuclear power won't even cut the time required to get clean power online. There isn't going to be even ONE new reactor before 2020. By the time we get there we will be kicking ourselves for bothering at all as renewables will be far more cost-effective in that time frame.
   
   It isn't a matter of being against nuclear for any philosophical reason. It is simply a matter of crunching the numbers and determining that isn't the best choice, pure and simple, Seth's fantasy numbers notwithstanding. That's the long and short of it. No conspiracy theories, no wacky illogical prejudices, nothing. Just hard numbers.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. Sisko 05:01 PM 3/14/11

   tharter- please reference what solar systems can be purchased, installed and pay for themselves in 6 years?
   
   I am not aware of any, but would be happy to be wrong on this. I would guess that you are mistaken, and that to get even close to your 6 year payback a US government tax credit would have to be included.
   
   I look forward to learning the specifics from your next post

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. jdh399 06:32 PM 3/14/11

   If the US Govt funds the research into new and improved solar panels and the technology to produce them, what's to stop the corporations that are supposed to produce this technology from simply giving it all to China on a plate like they have done with every other important technology ever developed in the USA?
   
   We hear about funding to develop technologies that will make the US more "competitive" but until the rules change I see no reason for this technology not to be gifted to our competitors the same as everything else that used to be manufactured in the US.
   
   Just sayin...

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. Patrick 027 09:41 PM 3/14/11

    Payback time? Consider what happens after that. Free electricity. From the little I've seen it seems prices are usually figured based on a 30 year lifespan. Some parts may need replacing multiple times (inverters?), but some components, notably the solar cells/modules themselves, could easily last much longer. The efficiency declines over time, so the useful life will depend on at what point the space taken and balance of system used are no longer justified. Of course, left out in the elements, eventually a large hail stone or tornado may come along. Still, one could argue that investing in solar infrastructure may(?) be a good retirement plan. Individually-owned, you'd want to insure it, but a network of power plants or leased rooftop panels could have a more predictable degradation and loss trajectory in total.
    
    It's not just a matter of affordability ...
    (PS I'm no expert here but it would surprise me to find out that the economy of scale benifit has already been fully realized. With greater sales volume, you can have less overhead per unit, you can be more systematic in delivering and installing, etc. Perhaps even a bigger issue with solar water heating? PS solar PV and water/space heating can be combined (hybrid systems) to increase efficiency - as PV cells produce waste heat and are generally more efficient at lower temperatures. Also, costs can come down as experience is gained working with a particular product/service.)
    ... there's a matter of habit. People do things a certain way, they get used to it; I wonder if they might just not bother thinking about building houses differently, etc.
    
    One exciting thing about PV is that there are a number of PV materials that could be used - if the Te and In, etc, in CdTe and CIGS cells eventually becomes too rare, we might by that time have CZTS or zinc phosphide cells ready to go to market (of course there's also thinner c-Si, TiO2, CPV and luminescent concentrators...).

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. grrok 12:09 AM 3/15/11

    What about NanoSolar's ink/printing technology? It's less than $1/watt, and the utility panels are resistant to large hail and should be easy to scale and install.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. Enviroman 07:00 PM 3/15/11

    Given the problems in Japan with it's nuclear power plants right now, I think that nuclear power is DOA in the U.S. The exception might be the Southeast, but other areas with significant seismic problems and/or fault are just not going to happen.
    
    I am not aware of any solar energy system that can be installed on a single family home that doesn't require federal and state tax incentives and grants, let alone at a price I could afford. If there was one I would have installed it years ago. Even after all the tax and grants, one is out of pocket for $10,000 to $15,000.
    
    Even condos and coops who want to use their roof tops as a solar base have an uphill battle because the laws at the state level don't provide incentives to larger buildings to use solar. See the video for the exception at http://www.millennialliving.com/content/roof-top-solar-energy
    
    Costs aside, NIMBY (Not in my back yard) is alive and well. Even large solar power projects and wind energy farms garner a great deal of opposition due to their large foot prints and lengthy regulatory approvals.
    
    There is also a lot of natural gas in shale formations close to centers of high demand in the East. I am not sure electric utilities or the government is too worried or concerned about the need to go solar with a combination of cheap natural gas and a pipeline system to get it to power generators. It is just to easy for a utility to get pretty gassy and not deal with solar or any resource where the economics don't make sense. See http://www.millennialliving.com/content/are-energy-companies-getting-too-gassy
    
    Like sethdayal, I have been listening to this dream for over 25 years and it has grown tiresome. What we need is a plug and play solar appliance that can be bought at the Home Depot or a solar roofing shingle that is a part of a panel system. Anything more complicated than that, will just go no where.
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

13. 13. ennui 12:42 AM 3/16/11

    The only way is the least expensive. Gravity Control.
    A One thousand Ton weight can be lifted 1000 feet, with only a few hundred watts ,using the technology.
    When it comes down i t can be used the generate thousands of Kilowatts.
    The structures will be silos with the weights sliding up and down.
    The Gravity Control units will be powered by a few car batteries. No pollution, no noise. no radiation.
    It can be built anywhere in the world.
    Oil will be used for transportation only. All the homes using oil and gas for heating can be switched over to electricity. Gas can be used for industrial purposes.
    It can be an industrial revolution and create thousands of jobs.
    Fund me and become an investor.
    Look at> One Terminal Capacitor Joseph Hiddink<
    Patent is expired but I left a few particulars out to avoid use by unauthorized parties.
    > wwww.rexresearch.com/hiddink/hiddink.htm<
    Any country that needs inexpensive power is welcome to contact me.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

14. 14. eric25001@yahoo.com 07:36 AM 3/17/11

    GEOTHERMAL
    
    Why not geothermal distributed all over the world?
    Mass produced and research to lower drilling and installation costs. IMO this is a robust yet underappreciated resource right under our feet that some short sighted people ( Sec of Energy Chu)need to chew on this and open Chu's eyes.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

15. 15. JamesDavis in reply to eric25001@yahoo.com 09:44 AM 3/17/11

    Sec. Chu is all for Geothermal power plants and the use of hydrokenetics, but if he ever mentions these two low cost, never ending high energy producing systems that can pump out free electricity for the rest of our time in a public setting, the Republicans would be all over these two great sources of never ending clean energy in a wink of an eyes and they would try every way they know to stop all funding like Regan did with solar in the 70s. Republicans are pronuclear and will stop at nothing to ensure their conservative pet project, that Regan and Bush promoted, will live on forever. They will push, with lies, decete and deception, this most deadly, most destructive and most expensive fossil fuel to show their loyalty to their two demigods and they can care less the lives it will consume in the process.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

16. 16. Postman1 in reply to JamesDavis 11:33 PM 3/19/11

    I don't know who this "Regan" is, but President Reagan did cut the federal funding for solar by a little more than half in 1982. He also had Carter's solar system removed from the white house roof in 1986, because it was rumored to be leaking and because it ruined the 'historic look' of the house. Reagan believed in government funding for R & D, but not public funding of commercialization of new technologies.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

17. 17. Carlyle in reply to ennui 05:54 PM 3/23/11

    Unfortunately your theories do not work. Fortunately actually in fact because if they did our universe would self destruct. What you propose is a version of a perpetual motion machine where you get more energy out than you put in without consuming anything. Your machine in fact would produce much less energy than it consumed because of various types of resistance plus mechanical to electrical conversion losses. It is the same idea that people have using magnets or for instance using a battery to start a DC motor driving a generator to keep the battery charged plus producing extra energy. Works until the battery goes flat without producing any excess energy. You do not get anything for nothing.
    The solar schemes are not much better & the understanding of the physics by many of its proponents is little greater than yours. Even if the solar panels were free, intermittent sunshine, storage, infrastructure & maintenance can never overcome the diffuse nature of solar energy. Domestic solar hot water in most locations & photovoltaic in remote locations being the only viable exceptions. It is easy & cheap to store hot water but not at temperatures required to create steam & drive turbines.
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

18. 18. Carlyle in reply to ennui 06:26 PM 3/23/11

    A simple test for your theory. Drop a rubber ball. If it bounces higher than the release point, you are on a winner. Drop, don't throw.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

19. 19. Carlyle in reply to JamesDavis 08:49 PM 3/23/11

    You do realise don't you that geothermal is actually nuclear? Decay of uranium in granite rock.
    If you are interested in geothermal you might like to read up on a company called Geodynamics. They have spent huge sums trying to make it viable, including large sums of taxpayers money. The hot fluid ate the bore lining. Their reports are still optimistic but nothing is simple & nothing is free. www.geodynamics.com.au
    If you think that any company whether of left or right persuasion, would turn their backs on any technology that would bring in trillions in profits if it actually worked, you are truly delusional. MUST be of the LEFT.
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

20. 20. Carlyle 05:32 AM 3/24/11

    A breif clip of the event I have been reporting on. I understand a full recording is available however i believe the universities reporting of the event & can not be bothered chasing it anymore. Those who do not believe it never will anyway.http://www.youtube.com/user/AmritaUniversity#p/u

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

21. 21. Carlyle in reply to Carlyle 05:33 AM 3/24/11

    Sorry, wrong string.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

22. 22. aligatorhardt in reply to sethdayal 07:35 AM 4/16/11

    While I was about to complain about outdated information from the article. Seth's comments are so ridiculous that I am distracted. These numbers surely were pulled out of a shady spot. The people in Japan have something to say about how cheap nuclear power is, and how worthwhile it is to have an exclusion zone of 30 miles radius that cannot be used for generations. I'm sure all the people who lost their homes and businesses would rather spend a few dollars more for power and have a home and community again. How cheap is nuclear power? http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/nuclear-power-subsidies-report-0504.html

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

23. 23. ajitesh 07:58 AM 4/21/11

    Clean energy source is the main pespective for any organization in this era.Solar energy is the best alternative among all form of energy sources.Yet government spurred much on these energy plants,more would be expected in the research and technology development.
    Sunshot technology although consume much expenses in the plant establishment,further the cost would be degrades.If I were an authority I would always prefer nature over cost because at the end ,results obtained could be detrimental by keep using older energy sources and do not take step further in order to progress in the new era of renewable sources.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this