solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal

solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

pahunkboy -> solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 8:48:09 AM)
http://www.solveclimate.com/blog/20071219/1-watt-itunes-solar-energy-has-arrived wow

subfever -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 9:14:02 AM)
Hmm... this is big news, yet it hasn't made any headlines. Perhaps those among the current oil/coal/energy elite aren't very happy about this breakthrough.

pahunkboy -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 9:54:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subfever Hmm... this is big news, yet it hasn't made any headlines. Perhaps those among the current oil/coal/energy elite aren't very happy about this breakthrough. being that it "is all about energy" blood shed over oil, a 9 trillion $ debt - much for Iraq... one would think this would be front page news

luckydog1 -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 10:00:21 AM)
It's a typo, story says 1.00 $ per watt, not .01 $. .01 per watt would be amazing earth shaking news. Time will tell if this becomes big news or not. Is there a drawback to these things? What hidden costs are there? All we have here is a press release by a company, touting thier product as awesome. How long do they last? How much of a government subsidy do they need to make it cost 1$ a watt? And what would the cost of that be if scaled up to running a society on them? But it is very good news, and I look forward to learning more about this stuff in the near future. There are already thousands of great ideas for making power not based on petrol, but running something in a lab, and engineering a new society are different things entirerly. My personal opinion is that Solar is a usefull supplemental power source, but is a limited part of the big answer. Tidal and Wave and Geo Thermal power are better because, they function 24 hours a day, unlike the sun which stops shining at night. And getting Energy from our waste, Garbage and Sewage, serves a dual purpose. Lab tested theoretically we could go back and mine all of our landfills. Did you see the recent news story on Microwaving Tires? Fantastic idea. Get rid of all the old tires and get 10s of milions of barels of oil, and massive amounts of a natural gas like substance. Solar is great for increasing the efficiancy of individual buildings, and every roof should have a panel on it, but not so great for production. If you really want to make a dent in Oil usage, drive 45 MPH.

subfever -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 10:06:58 AM)
http://www.solveclimate.com/blog/20071220/solar-plan-would-end-dependence-foreign-oil-cost-iraq-war

luckydog1 -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 10:23:17 AM)
A very convincing cite of a blog post there Subfever....I would prefer to not have to deforest large tracts of land for Solar panels as you advocate. Your article doesn't include the numbers but it is an appaling amount of land that must be devoted to Solar farming. Forests and wild lands serve an important purposes, and we should be trying to lose no more than is needed. Indeed we could do as the article proposes, but there are better ways of achieving the same desired resluts. As Chris Rock says," Just because you can do something, It doesn't make it a good idea!" Every Roof in America should be covered with Solar Panels, it would increase the efficienacy of those buildings by 15-20%. Check out this story "After many trials and errors, he, chief engineer Hawk Hogan, researcher George Birch, and others found a frequency that turned tires into useful material. With 50 cents' worth of electricity for the large microwave he has fabricated, he demonstrates. He turns a single 14-inch car tire, one small piece at a time, into 1.2 gallons of diesel fuel, 7.5 pounds of carbon black, 50 cubic feet of combustible gas, and two pounds of high-strength steel." http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20071203_Microwaved_tires__Fuel_of_the_future_.html Here's another story about the same technology http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/innovator_2.html

subfever -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 10:32:54 AM)
Is the 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest mentioned in the article forested land or desert? I just read the article and then posted it here. I haven't researched it.

sub4hire -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 10:38:58 AM)
Roger, you and I have had countless discussions on alternative energy methods. I'm happy to say once spring sets in...our bottom garage roof will be completely covered in solar panels. Haven't decided on the shingles or good old fashioned panels. Panels look to be much cheaper. Shingles are like 130 a shingle. Although I'm also looking to buy some land that isn't suited for farming for a small wind farm.

subfever -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 10:44:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Check out this story "After many trials and errors, he, chief engineer Hawk Hogan, researcher George Birch, and others found a frequency that turned tires into useful material. With 50 cents' worth of electricity for the large microwave he has fabricated, he demonstrates. He turns a single 14-inch car tire, one small piece at a time, into 1.2 gallons of diesel fuel, 7.5 pounds of carbon black, 50 cubic feet of combustible gas, and two pounds of high-strength steel." http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20071203_Microwaved_tires__Fuel_of_the_future_.html That's interesting technology. Might be smart to snap up some of those thinly traded shares, as his company may become a target for a buy-out.

Archer -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 10:51:07 AM)
Until they are up and running at a capacity that could fill orders nationwide it's still just a start up. A great start up a start up I'm glad to see but still a start up and like many start ups expected to die within less than 4 years.

pahunkboy -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 10:59:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sub4hire Roger, you and I have had countless discussions on alternative energy methods. I'm happy to say once spring sets in...our bottom garage roof will be completely covered in solar panels. Haven't decided on the shingles or good old fashioned panels. Panels look to be much cheaper. Shingles are like 130 a shingle. Although I'm also looking to buy some land that isn't suited for farming for a small wind farm. cool! alot of it depends on the availabilty of silicon.

thompsonx -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 11:55:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 A very convincing cite of a blog post there Subfever....I would prefer to not have to deforest large tracts of land for Solar panels as you advocate. Had you actually read the Scientific American article you would have noticed that no deforestation was mentioned and no habitat would be destroyed. Your article doesn't include the numbers but it is an appaling amount of land that must be devoted to Solar farming. Are you suggesting that a lesser amount of land is now being devoted to coal and oil production? Forests and wild lands serve an important purposes, and we should be trying to lose no more than is needed. Indeed we could do as the article proposes, but there are better ways of achieving the same desired resluts. Had you actually read the article you would have noticed that they had addressed these concerns. As Chris Rock says," Just because you can do something, It doesn't make it a good idea!" Every Roof in America should be covered with Solar Panels, it would increase the efficienacy of those buildings by 15-20%. Check out this story "After many trials and errors, he, chief engineer Hawk Hogan, researcher George Birch, and others found a frequency that turned tires into useful material. With 50 cents' worth of electricity for the large microwave he has fabricated, he demonstrates. He turns a single 14-inch car tire, one small piece at a time, into 1.2 gallons of diesel fuel, 7.5 pounds of carbon black, 50 cubic feet of combustible gas, and two pounds of high-strength steel." http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20071203_Microwaved_tires__Fuel_of_the_future_.html Here's another story about the same technology http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/innovator_2.html Totally awesome and way overdue...thanx for the links.

subfever -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 12:05:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Until they are up and running at a capacity that could fill orders nationwide it's still just a start up. A great start up a start up I'm glad to see but still a start up and like many start ups expected to die within less than 4 years. Yes, you're right. I should have began my suggestion with "For those with speculative capital willing to speculate..."

samboct -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 1:20:56 PM)
I've been paying a little attention to Nanosolar over the years. It's an interesting idea with some good technology behind it. The principal holdup had been the mfg process- they couldn't get anything larger than a 1 mm square to work. It sounds like they've licked that. CIGS (copper-indium-gallium, diselenide and who knows the exact stoichiometry) is an inorganic compound which could be quite stable over time- similar to silicon. It's also got reasonable efficiency- should be pushing 20%- conceivably higher- it can theoretically go higher than Si (IIRC-could be a multiphoton, multi wavelength process which means that it can exceed the Schockley limit of 32% for single photon processes- i.e. crystalline Si) This means that making a panel is at least a reasonable idea- in contrast to Konarka, which has terrible efficiency. Basically the idea is that by using nanocrystals- you can grow small perfect crystals much less expensively than larger ones. De Beers idea is that crystal size follows a square law- a 2x larger crystal is 4x the price. Since it's crystalline- might do OK in terms of longevity- Nanosolar knows the game is 20 years plus, and it's quite possible this could do it. Possible issues that I don't know about- all solar cells to date have shown a rapid drop in efficiency over time- often by about 20% or higher. Don't know how this one stacks up. Thermal dependence- some cells actually do better in cooler temps- don't know how this one does in terms of efficiency over a temp range. Indium supplies- indium is in short supply and I think is now 2000 euro/kg. There was a question by Dean Kamen as to whether there's enough indium globally to make a significant dent in energy production using solar- however, since these cells use nanocrystals- a little can go a long way. In terms of solar pricing- you can't really tell what's going on these days- it's a sellers market- and most mfg report being sold out for years. Nanosolar is also talking about being sold out for a year- if the first installations look promising- there's going to be some expansion. This would be nice- could stave off China for some years. Why the major news organizations aren't carrying this- who knows? Perhaps because noboby else can buy the stuff, the company is playing things close to the vest by not releasing spec sheets- so how much of a verifiable news story is it? On the other hand- selling a panel on e-bay means that somebody could run the specs themselves- so I'm a bit puzzled by their actions. Sam

DesFIP -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 1:38:47 PM)
Here in the Northeast, you can't use solar only, you don't get enough sun. To get off the grid, or better yet get paid for selling them energy you need a combination of solar, wind and microhydro. And that makes it too expensive as of yet.

samboct -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 2:18:35 PM)
In the Northeast- we're basically screwed. We're in a low energy region of the country- our best bet is to grow things because we have cheap water. However, note that Germany has more installed solar than anybody- and they're not exactly the tanning capital of the world. Sam

luckydog1 -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 4:55:42 PM)
Samboct, you have tides and waves from the Atlantic coast. Perhaps even wave energy from the Great Lakes, surley a lot of wind blows off of them. Little windmill on every house and Solar panel on every roof. Plus you already have several nuclear plants, I do not really want to build more, but the existing ones should be used I suppose.

thompsonx -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 5:17:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Here in the Northeast, you can't use solar only, you don't get enough sun. To get off the grid, or better yet get paid for selling them energy you need a combination of solar, wind and microhydro. And that makes it too expensive as of yet. DesFIP: Not everyone has a stream for microhydro. Not everyone has the proper wind pattern for a windmill. Everyone has solar exposure. The fact that the number and length of your solar days is less than Arizona is relevant only to the size of your solar array. If you have a small solar exposure simply put up more panels. Couple that with making your home more energy efficient will help you solve your problem. As far as getting the electric company to pay you for your power...here in California the power companies will not send you a check. You get a credit against your bill. If you do not use your credit within a certain amount of time you loose it. I wonder who wrote that law? thompson

TreasureKY -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 6:44:46 PM)
FR: Firm under Treasure's acccount: Micro-Nuclear! Toshiba's "Nuclear Battery" Slated For Alaska Town Alaska Town Seeks Reactor to Cut Costs of Electricity Firm

thompsonx -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 7:32:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY FR: Firm under Treasure's acccount: Micro-Nuclear! Toshiba's "Nuclear Battery" Slated For Alaska Town Alaska Town Seeks Reactor to Cut Costs of Electricity Firm Just curious where you put the nuclear waste after its thirty year life span is complete? Seems a more likely solution would be a propane powered generator for this tiny town of 700 upper middle class civil servants. thompson

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875