Nanosolar

They are certainly cheaper to produce. Thin Film from First Solar has a manufacturing cost of around $1 a watt. However the efficiencies are about half that of a conventional cell.

And the technology isn't Nano Solar it's CIGS (Copper Indium Gallium and Selinide)

just crap...

are you smelf smarted?

this video is very awkward to listen to. you need to speak clearly, and like you actually care about what you are talking about.

You have your figures wrong. Thin film Photovoltaic is only about half as efficient at converting sunlight to electricity as monocrystiline PV. It is cheaper, thinner, easier to mount, but it is not as durable as Monocrystaline PV modules at this time. To install PV on your residence, you want a top performer because you have a limited amount of surface area, so Thin Film is not a good option. No doubt, there will be advances in the future that will change all this.

stephen hawking voice

can we replace this as roof tile , may i know the cost psf, thk

As a solar installer, Nano has several issues. It is thin and easily damaged, I question your data about productivity levels. The reason panels are the standard, is that they have history and are the work horse of the solar industry, tried, improved and durable. Yes panels are clunky and expensive, but it is what we have that we know works.

lets not toss good things out because they arent what we are used to. Isn't an exposed voltiac cell easily damaged? Thats why they put them into panels, same thing could be done with this im sure. Hell, they might even come up with a better idea to keep the product from being damaged.

yeah nano solar has one thing going against it
its flimsy! even the foil when left to element will only last for a short time this is the problem with it and if you encase it in palstic its efficency drops but i hope they can solve this