Solar Power at 1/10th the cost. And it is "ideal for cloudy climates."

[jsamuel]

I am so tired of people who keep saying solar is "not the way to go" because it is too expensive. Sure, RIGHT NOW IT IS. That's why we research it more and it may be the solution in the future.

Taking Nature's Cue For Cheaper Solar Power
April 6, 2007

Science Daily — Solar cell technology developed by Massey University’s Nanomaterials Research Centre will enable New Zealanders to generate electricity from sunlight at a 10th of the cost of current silicon-based photo-electric solar cells.

Dr Wayne Campbell and researchers in the centre have developed a range of coloured dyes for use in dye-sensitised solar cells.

The synthetic dyes are made from simple organic compounds closely related to those found in nature. The green dye Dr Campbell (pictured) is synthetic chlorophyll derived from the light-harvesting pigment plants use for photosynthesis.

...

Dr Campbell says that unlike the silicon-based solar cells currently on the market, the 10x10cm green demonstration cells generate enough electricity to run a small fan in low-light conditions – making them ideal for cloudy climates. The dyes can also be incorporated into tinted windows that trap to generate electricity.

...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070405171830.htm

And why is it that solar is a solution? Because, from the article:
“The energy that reaches earth from sunlight in one hour is more than that used by all human activities in one year”

[SmokingJacket]

1. Wow!

That's incredible -- I want those panels.

Technology will save us all -- if it doesn't kill us first...

[jsamuel]

2. here's to hoping... and doing something about it :)

[greenman3610]

3. more good news about wind, too

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-03-18-voa10.cfm?textmode=0

A large wind turbine on a small outer island is one of Hong Kong's few sources of renewable energy. One of the reasons not more are being built is that the wind in the city is simply not strong enough, a problem it shares with many places worldwide.

Engineers at the University of Hong Kong and a private renewable energy company have developed a new micro wind turbine that can generate electricity even if wind speeds are as low as two meters per second.


Inventor Lucien Gambarota demonstrates how the micro wind-turbine can generate electricity
Lucien Gambarota , the main inventor of the technology, says this is its advantage over conventional small wind turbines, which only work about 40 percent of the time because of low wind speed.

"We never stop this machine and they never stop because there is always one meter per second wind - 365 days, 24 hours a day, they keep working," said Gambarota. "They deliver different levels of energy because the wind changes but these turbines they keep moving, they keep spinning."

Gambarota says the small turbines are ideal for crowded cities such as Hong Kong because they can be installed on rooftops and balconies.

[Exultant Democracy]

6. I hope the "Peak Oil" doom and gloomers take a look at this

this surface hasn't even been scratched yet with what we will be able to do with alternative energy.

[baby_mouse]

22. Have to say it's making this doom and gloomer feel a bit more optimistic.

Very inventive!

[rockymountaindem]

38. I think they're just attracted to the idea of living in caves

Nothing will dissuade them.

[Exultant Democracy]

72. Well I'm happy to be ne of the people who thinks that

we just started and that we can do better. I just don't see the point in thinking it is all over already.

[rosesaylavee]

41. Set of 20 gearwheels costs about $25!

"The wind turbine is easy to install and comparatively cheap. At the moment, a set of 20 gearwheels costs about $25. Gambarota says the price will go down once the turbines are being mass-produced, making them a good option for consumers who want to cut down on their energy costs.

"Let's say if you have good conditions, five, six meters per second, if you are a family with one kid you need most probably three, four square meters of that then you can most probably cover at least 60, 70 percent of your needs."

How cool is that... It produces energy and its cheap.

[grannylib]

50. I just e-mailed that link to the GM of the company I work for today! I've

been pushing the solar, and skylights, and green roofs, and all that jazz for a couple of years now. He did install some programmable thermostats that have lowered our natural gas useage by 51%, so that's pretty good for a start...
I am going to check out these wind thingies a little more closely; I want some!!

[rosesaylavee]

62. If it saves money, people will buy.

Nice sig line btw.
:rofl:

:hi:

[grannylib]

64. Thank you, I am rather fond of it!

[NuttyFluffers]

75. thanks for the info! i know i want one!

now the big issue is the CC&A of the Home Owner Associations across america. they can be pretty anal retentive about the smallest of things.

[Jonathan50]

88. Here is an article with somewhat more information on the micro wind turbines.

http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/03/21/micro-wind-turbines-small-size-big-impact/

According to tests, turbines arranged within a surface area of one square meter and a wind speed of 5 m/sec generate 131 kWh/yr. We’ll be watching when the Hong Kong Sea School installs 360 micro-turbins (20 square meters) next month. A second installation of another 880 micro-turbines will be realized if the first installation is a success. Plans are also on the way for the World Wildlife Fund’s Hoi Ha Marine Reserve to install micro-turbines some time in the near future.

[eppur_se_muova]

4. Wish they mentioned a scientific journal where this was going to be published...

...or a patent application. All I found with the Google were reworkings of the original press release, plus one neat photo:

http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=1727.php

http://www.handsheld.engadget.com/2007/04/06/new-zealand-peeps-imitate-plants-to-do-solar-on-the-cheap/

http://www.stuff.co.nz/bayofplenty/4017784a11.html



The materials they mention -- porphyrin dyes and TiO2 -- are materials that many different groups have done a lot of work on. These guys at Massey may well have won the race.

[Jonathan50]

95. Here is a little more information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye-sensitized_solar_cells

[garybeck]

5. your premise is not exactly correct

Solar is cost effective NOW.

I wish people would stop saying that we need a breakthrough for it to be cost effective.

If standard scale of production models are applied, the cost of solar would come down by magnitudes, just because more are being built.

Even at today's prices, there are many applications where it is cost effective even without increasing production.

[TheWraith]

25. People say it because it's true.

Solar panels are incredibly expensive and produce very little power. On a cash per watt basis, they take forever to even pay for themselves. And it's not for a lack of production--it's because of the difficulty of production, particularly in larger sizes, and the inefficency of the technology.

[garybeck]

28. no, that is not true.

forever is a long time my friend.

the fact is that if you can make your house more energy efficient, get rid of your electric heaters and get a more efficient refrigerator, you can use solar cost effectively.

especially when you consider tax credits and rebates available, solar is cost effective now in many applications, both residential and commercial.

I'd be happy to go over the numbers with you.

the fact remains, that the cost would come down without any change in technlogy, if only one thing were to happen -- increased demand and production. we are not waiting for a technology breakthrough. we are waiting for leadership and policy to spark a revolution.

[FogerRox]

33. IN NJ you can expect to break even after 10 yrs

I would balance the rebates with the federal subsidies offered to the oil industry. Properly installed, many houses can generate 120%/annum.

[roody]

48. I sure enjoy NO ELECTRIC BILL, thanks to my solar panels.

[Javaman]

7. Okay so when will this solar panel and this micro turbine be available to us?? nt

[beastbitten]

13. Apparently now, for the microturbine...

http://www.motorwavegroup.com/new/motorwind/index.html

[Javaman]

18. Cooooooooooool, thanks for the link!! nt

[havocmom]

55. Thank you. Wind & solar working together is what I want.

Too cool

[paparush]

8. This message NOT brought to you by Exxon

The oilcos will shit a golden brick before they let cheap, reliable, solar get any real traction.

[SpiralHawk]

16. "What's in it $ for us." - Republicon Oil Cronies

"Me, me, me, me, me, gimmee, gimmee, gimmee." - Republicon Oil Cronies

[donkeyotay]

9. That is really cool. nt

[pberq]

10. Kick & Nominated

[FredStembottom]

11. Excellent!

Dr. Wayne Campbell

[lovuian]

12. Where can I buy these

I want one

[Change has come]

58. see post 13 (above)

K&R

[MessiahRp]

14. I always wondered why the Decepticons never just set it up to collect

energon cubes from the energy released by the sun. Foolish Megatron! :)

In all seriousness this is great. With the way my electric bill has been the past few months, I'm really looking forward to a day when Solar and Wind Energy are the cheap available options for everyone.

Rp

[rosesaylavee]

43. They're 'more than meets the eye'

:P

[earth mom]

15. Of course it can be done cheaper. But there isn't any money in it for TPTB.

That's why we must elect Gore as President because he is the ONLY one who will make sure the necessary changes happen...profits be damned!

[devilgrrl]

17. It's "expensive" because nobody needs to start a war and get killed over it.

That is a piss-ass excuse isn't it?

[Selatius]

19. Solar is too expensive because of LACK of economies of scale

If you put enough infrastructure into mass production of photo voltaic cells, the costs of production will drop radically, but as it stands, mass production is still many years away. If you want to make it cheap, you have to start now, not later.

[garybeck]

36. DING DING DING. You win the prize!!

finally someone gets it!

[Eric J in MN]

20. kick

kick

[gravity]

21. The silicon in solar cells right is what makes it expensive

But this is good news, since this technology will make it much cheaper to produce.

[garybeck]

29. silicon comes from sand. it's cheap.

it's the processing of the materials, and the low scale of production that make solar energy expensive. If 10X the amount were in demand, the cost could go down by 2/3.

[TheWraith]

23. Why bother?

Sure, someday solar power improvements may make it more practical than the expensive, low power technology it is today. But by that time, we'll also have made significant advancements in other more promising and less ecologically devastating technologies. (Unless you missed the fact that we'd need massive, unprecedented amounts of strip-mining and heavy industry to produce enough solar cells to make a difference.)

Oh, and by the way, that quote you mentioned is grossly misleading. Total energy need for the human race is about 13.5 terawatts. When you figure out that the vast, vast majority of solar energy is already spoken for--in the form of, you know, maintaining the planet's ecology and climate--plus the fact that you'd need to strain all that power through 10-15% efficient solar cells, you'd need an area the size of California producing at full potential. Given that you can't pack solar cells that close, figure more like 700,000 square KM. Even that is very generous in terms of wasted space and the need for access roads and paths. Then you have to have at least three of them, spread out across the globe, to provide power 24/7. That's around 2.1 million square kilometers. Sure it would be possible, but at what cost? Or the only marginally more reasonable alternative, refurbishing all existing buildings with solar panel roofing, which is neither cheap nor likely to produce all the power you need.

[Selatius]

24. Ultimately, the solution is a portfolio of alternatives instead of just solely solar power.

I doubt anybody here would come out and defend the notion that all of humanity's energy needs can be met with solar cells alone, as opposed to using it in combination with wind power, geothermal, hydro-electric, etc.

[TheWraith]

26. You'd be surprised.

"I doubt anybody here would come out and defend the notion that all of humanity's energy needs can be met with solar cells alone"

I have, in fact, seen people espouse that exact sort of attitude here. (Shrug)

In any event, I suspect that the majority of our future power is going to come from a new source, not from any of the established (and, save perhaps in the case of wind, highly limited) sources. If Boussard is right about the claims he's made, we may have viable large-scale fusion reactors within ten or fifteen years.

[Selatius]

27. It's an unpopular notion, but I believe cutting consumption is also in that portfolio

I remember speeches from Jimmy Carter asking Americans during winter to run the heaters a little bit less and to wear sweaters a little more often. He had a good energy policy in place to cut consumption, but Reagan dismantled it all before he left office in '88.

[diane in sf]

35. It's very easy to cut power consumption in a house or apt.

without being too cold or too hot,

1) replace lightbulbs with compact fluorescents
2) replace inefficient appliances
3) better windows if you own or heavier drapes if you rent, use of blinds for sun, plantings around house to provide shelter from the wind on the north and deciduous plants to provide shade on the south in the summer
4) insulation if you own, seal cracks if you rent

I'm a renter, but I dropped my electric use by almost half by replacing about 6 lightbulbs and getting a new fridge. the new fridge was 40% bigger than my old and although the inital outlay was high--$1100, it paid for itself in around 3 years. I also got $150 in rebates because it was an energy star appliance.

Some of my favorite sources are: rmi.org and the book "Natural Capital" Amory Lovins also has an excellent book aimed at industry and business about profiting from getting off oil "The Oil Endgame."

[krispos42]

31. It will be, I think, ultimately all fusion power

With unlimited non-polluting electricity available, we will be able to distill ethanol using electric heating coils instead of using coal or natural gas, essentially converting non-portable fusion-derived electricity into an easily-portable liquid format.

All homes will have ample power for lights, appliances, heating, and water-heating through electricity, as well as charge up our electric or hybrid or electric-with-auxillary-generator cars (see my Journal for the last one). Natural gas and home heating oil will be things of the past.

Needed petrochemicals can be extracted from remaining oil fields, or processed from coal. Any carbon dioxide generated in the processes can be fixed as limestone, solid and not adding to the greenhouse effect.

Hydrogen for fuel cells can be generated without polluting.

There would not be any nuclear fuel residue. No depleted uranium, no plutonium, no meltdowns, no radioactive material used.

Efficient and cheap solar cells, wind turbines, and ocean-wave generator can of course add to this, and would be welcome, as the power generated would be even cheaper than the fusion power. But we would not need to dam rivers or burn fuel anymore.

[TheBaldyMan]

40. fusion isn't clean - it never will be. it still produces radioactive waste

[krispos42]

45. No, it makes helium.

However, the components of the fusion power plant will be bombarded by intense radiation, and that can cause some radioactivity. Far less than spent nuclear fuel, and far less dangerous than the millions of tons of pollutants the alternative entails. But those worn-out components will have to be taken care of. However, unlike gaseous emissions, they will be discrete, solid objects that can be easily transported someplace safe.

Besides, at some point, if we ever get around to it, we'll build a space elevator and have the ability to cheaply dump large quantities of radioactive materials into the Sun instead of a landfill.

[TheBaldyMan]

63. Space elevator ?!? - Sci-Fi much?

I'm talking present day here, not some unspecified time in the future.

I seem to recall a discussion on precisely this topic a few months back in the science group. The general consensus was that fusion was not clean and that there were a great many obstacles to overcome.

Fusion has not yet shown itself to be anything but a future technology.

[krispos42]

73. We're talking about near-future.

The Europeans are working on a fusion reactor, and I understand that current research is close to the break-even point. If that idiot Newt Gingrinch and his fellow regressive hadn't cut federal funds for research shortly after taking power in '95, we'd be a lot further along than we are now.

Idiots, all of these anti-science Republicans. Billions spend on useless missile-defense shield that doesn't work, but they can't fund something useful! :grr:

All the stuff we're talking about will take a couple of decades to come to fruition anyway. Mass use of electric or hybrid cars, regulatory changes to make power companies buy home-generated power at fair rates, ocean-wave generators... the list goes on. Fusion power is on the list somewhere.

The space elevator research goes on. They are currently looking for a way to make carbon nanotubes strong enough and cheap enough. That's a long-term project, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

[TheBaldyMan]

79. Fusion power has been 10-20 years down the road since the 1950s.

I wish it were viable but the finishing tape keeps being moved back. It seems perpetually to be a future technology.

Most experimental reactors can get up to initiating a fusion reaction, the trick is to maintain a stable reaction.

[krispos42]

80. Yeah, I know, right? :-)

Remember when that guy claimed to make cold fusion on his countertop or something about 20 years ago? :-)

We need to keep working towards that. In the mean time, we have to get by with what we know works: solar cells, solar water heaters, wind turbines, clean-coal power plants with carbon capture, ocean-wave generators, and solar-reflective plants. And those trout-friendly hyrdoelectric dams are a good idea as well.

[TheBaldyMan]

81. Don't forget tidal caissons like the French are working on ...

CHP and energy conservation as well.

All this talk of alternative energy makes me want to take up my local Green Party offer and distribute some leaflets for the UK local elections in May.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. I think it's the folks who envision humanity en masse giving up cars and moving into yurts

who are living in a fantasyland, frankly.

Technology and forward "sci fi" thinking are WHAT is going to save us, IMHO.

And he's right. Fusion reactions do not produce any high-level radioactive waste.

[TheBaldyMan]

78. where is the proof that fusion does not produce radioactive waste?

I would be very interested to see the research.

[MsUnderstood]

39. i'm not sure i'm reading this right

Are you saying that if we install solar cells, we will be taking away the solar power needed to grow plants?

Or are you saying the solar engergy isn't available?


Meanwhile, why not buy solar panels per home? thats what we do now right?

[ieoeja]

30. Less than $500 for a full installation (excluding labor)

All the people on this thread complaining about the cost obviously haven't checked out their website. Go here and click on shopping.

http://www.motorwavegroup.com/new/motorwind/index.html

[garybeck]

32. this is nearly impossible.

a 10 x 10 cm cell = .1m x .1m = .01 sq m.

the amount of POTENTIAL sunlight that falls on a square meter is 1,000 watts.

the cell described is .01 sq. meter, with a maximum potential of 10 watts.

if the cell was 100% efficient, it would produce 10 watts in full sun. that is less than one amp at 12 volts

in reality, there's no way these are 100% efficient. current PV cells are about 10% efficient. Let's say these are 5X better, just to be extra fair. That would mean 50% efficient, and the 10cm X 10cm cell would produce 5 watts of power.

Hypothetically assuming he has achieved 50% efficiency, that means he is describing a 5 watt fan that could run on the cell.

in reality, he should have said a "VERY SMALL FAN." just about the only type of fan that could run on this amount of power is maybe a small muffin fan, that you see inside computers to cool the CPU, and that is in full sun.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he is talking about a very small fan, and he does have 50% efficiency.

The problem is his claim that it could do it in low light conditions.

The fact is with solar energy, as the light level decreases, so does the maximum potential energy. It is true that some types of solar cells are better under lower light conditions, but the variances are not large, and this is mainly because the maximum potential is just not there. if you cut the amount of light, you are going to cut the amount of power produced, period.

So to say that you are going to get enough power to run a small fan in low light conditions out of that sized cell, I would challenge that statement.

I'm not trying to shoot these guys down. I'm just saying, I've been working in the solar industry for 20 years and I've seen reports like this come and go, on a regular basis. They do not help the situation because they give people the impression that there is something better coming, so no one buys solar.

the truth is, that with today's PV technology, if we just increased the scale of production significantly, the price would plummet as a direct result. also, increasing production would be a major spark to our economy, create jobs, generate tax revenue, and solve many world economic and political problems. So I say, let the researchers do their stuff. In the meantime we should be doing the necessary things to spark the industry and increasing demand and production, by offering tax incentives, teaching it in schools, etc...

[Xithras]

37. I've had the same argument with mis-educated solar advocates.

The actual number, by the way, is approximately 1.4kW per square meter. That is the absolute MAXIMUM you can pull out of a solar cell, assuming that it's operating at 100% efficiency, directly on the equator, with the sun directly overhead, and neither a cloud or any pollution in the sky. 1.4kW per M2 is the maximum amount of solar energy that falls on the Earth, and you cannot draw more power than that without making the sun brighter.

I was on another discussion board yesterday when this topic came up, and some guy started making a big fuss about these, talking about how he was going to strap them to the top of his Prius and go totally gas free. He absolutely would not believe me when I pointed out that, even at 100% efficiency, the 57kW motor on a Prius would require over 600 square feet of solar panels to operate properly. And that's on the equator in clear weather!

It's not their fault really, because nobody has ever set them straight, but there is an annoying mythology that the sun can provide limitless energy "if we'd just invent solar cells capable of tapping it". I've run into it with my students, with fellow environmentalists, and even with so called sustainable energy "experts", and they all get mad when you try to correct them.

[meldroc]

42. Hmmm. Lemme do some calculations:

1.4KW/m^2 under optimal conditions. Let's say 1.0KW/m^2 under realistic conditions for regular sunlight.

Let's assume current solar panels get about 10% efficiency, so realistically, you could get 100W/m^2 out of today's panels.

Put together some tax breaks, or heck just some regulations that make it mandatory for all new houses to have at least 20m^2 of solar panels on the roof. That will get you about 2KW of power per house during sunny daylight hours. Less for cloudy days. Also add in some storage batteries for each house so some of the power collected is saved for nights or cloudy days. Every thousand houses with these panels on the roof will provide 2MW of power to the power grid. Build a few million houses, and you end up with gigawatts of power. Enough to take the place of lots of fossil-fueled power plants.

My guess is that it won't be able to completely meet all of our energy needs, but it will take a large bite out of our energy needs.

That's with 10% efficiency cells. There are some cells in the laboratory that can do 40%, putting 20m^2 of those on your roof will give you 8MW of power, which is enough to power a typical house, and then some. The drawback is that with today's technology, 40% efficiency solar cells probably will cost more than the house they're sitting on - they're outrageously expensive. Maybe if there was some investment in developing the technology and building infrastructure to mass-produce these cells cheaply, they'll become affordable.

[Jonathan50]

65. You are off by an order of magnitude..

1,000 W / m^2 * 20 ^ 2 * .4 = 8,000W = 8KW not 8MW

8 KW * 8hr / day = 64KWh

64 KWh / 24h / day = 2.6 KW continuous power over 24 hours.

2.6 KW * 16h / day = 41.6 KWh battery capacity needed to store the electricity needed for when the solar cells are not producing significant current.


http://www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=1087

High Power Polymer Li-Ion Module: 37V 16 Ah (592 Wh) 40 Amp Rate

Sale Price $795.95

41.6 KWh / 592 Wh = 70 packs needed.

70 packs * $795.95 = $55,716.50 for the batteries.

Assume you can get a price break of 66% by buying bulk.

55,716.50 / 3 = $18,572.17 for the batteries.

[meldroc]

66. Whoops, thanks for the correction.

I didn't even start to look into pricing for a 20m^2 solar array, or try to figure out kWh for storage when the sun isn't out. Gotta also account for seasonal changes in sunlight, and reduced power on cloudy days and such.

Also, typical el-cheapo solar cells typically have an 8% efficiency. If you're willing to pay more, I'm guessing (probably wrongly) that you can get 20% efficiency solar cells, and like I mentioned, 40% is possible in the laboratory today.

So with 20% efficiency cells in a 20m^2 array, that gets you 4kW, * 8h/day = 32kWh/day.

It's definitely possible. Say set up some energy policies by starting with five years of grants for research, development and infrastructure construction for large-scale efficient solar cell construction. In 2012, start requiring all new homes built to have solar cells on their roofs. Maybe start small, maybe 1 or 2 m^2 mandated, but big tax breaks if you put more up. By 2020, make sure all new homes have a 20m^2 array on the roof, with 20% efficiency, along with inverters and batteries so the house can power itself off the grid for the most part. Maybe by 2030, start requiring older homes be retrofitted with solar cells whenever possible. Also have businesses and factories install solar cells on their roofs, to at least partially offset the power they use.

That will take a HUGE bite out of our fossil fuel consumption, and make homes much more self-sufficient and make our society less susceptible to power outages and such.

[Jonathan50]

67. I would be very interested in hearing more about these new solar cells.

It's too bad that the original article didn't go into more detail on the nanotech solar cells.

Given that light is a form of radio wave it is theoretically possible to build a rectenna system to directly convert light into direct current.

I had heard some talk about this several years ago but nothing at all lately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna

A rectenna is a rectifying antenna, a special type of antenna that is used to directly convert microwave energy into DC electricity. Its elements are usually arranged in a multi element phased array with a mesh pattern reflector element to make it directional.

A simple rectenna can be constructed from a Schottky diode placed between antenna dipoles. The diode rectifies the current induced in the antenna by the microwaves. Schottky diodes are used because they have the lowest voltage drop and highest speed and therefore waste the least amount of power due to conduction and switching.

Rectennas are highly efficient at converting microwave energy to electricity. In laboratory environments, efficiencies above 90% have been observed with regularity.

[meldroc]

69. Optical rectenna would be interesting, but they require nanotech.

The size of the rectenna required for converting a particular frequency into power is related to the wavelength. Since visible light has very short wavelengths, a rectenna that can convert visible light into electricity at a decent efficency will require nanotechnology. Might be possible though.

[garybeck]

70. here, check this out

from the Department of Energy:

"PV technology can meet electricity demand on any scale. The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules. "

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html#1

[garybeck]

68. no, that's the amount that strikes the UPPER ATMOSPHERE.

Solar radiation reaches the Earth's upper atmosphere at a rate of 1366 watts per square meter (W/m2

While traveling through the atmosphere 6% of the incoming solar radiation (insolation) is reflected and 16% is absorbed resulting in a peak irradiance at the equator of 1,020 W/m².<2> Average atmospheric conditions (clouds, dust, pollutants) further reduce insolation by 20% through reflection and 3% through absorption.<3> Atmospheric conditions not only reduce the quantity of insolation reaching the earth's surface but also affect the quality of insolation by diffusing incoming light and altering its spectrum.

from Wikipedia, and also confirmed in every text book i've ever read on solar energy.

so unless they plan on putting those cells into the upper atmosphere and beaming the energy down at 100% efficiency, my calculation is correct.

[NuttyFluffers]

76. working in solar industry 20 yrs, can we get PV roofing tile any time soon?

if it can be made cheaper than roofing tile slate or something it might be a pretty in-demand product. i mean, yeah PV isn't the most resilient of materials, but wrapped up in a few centimeters of one of these nigh-indestructable plastics now available it would make a decent alternative in roofing materials. and if it's modularized and easily swapped out it could be a great selling point. but i have no idea of the logistics right now. but you have many years experience, what is your take on making PV roofing tiles?

[porphyrian]

34. Make that available to everyone now. - n/t

[sofa king]

44. Not to be a cynic, but this story comes up every five years.

Right along with the "car battery that goes 100 miles" story and the "infinite data compression" story. And Paul Moller usually gets in a story about his flying car that never actually flies.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/1994/150/9356
http://80.70.129.162/site/en/weizman.asp?pi=412&doc_id=117
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/188098/solar_power_breakthrough_new_lowcost_solar_energy_may_replace_gas/
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=116&art_id=vn20060211110132138C184427

[cascagraphic]

46. Now we just need to elect a President who will throw the governmentt's full weight behind solar.

[lostnotforgotten]

47. Maybe - But Solar Cells Won't Run Jet Engines!

Solar Cells Are Only Part of the Solution.

[NEOBuckeye]

51. Maybe not. But trains make a fairly good stand-in.

Those can run on electricity generated by solar panels. Granted, you will still need planes for inter-continental travel, but limiting air travel to such a use, in addition to widespread use of solar panels and electric-powered vehicles will curb our demand for petroleum dramatically.

[lostnotforgotten]

52. Where Will The Investment Money Come From To Rehabilitate The Rail Lines

They are barely able to handle the freight traffic now.

[NuttyFluffers]

74. well, it could have come from all that money we wasted in our stupid wars...

but sadly that is not the america we have now. we have broke, bloated, belligerent version of america. it's not a pretty sight. tends to make dreams of a better tomorrow for this nation harder.

[sandnsea]

56. Plenty of oil for engines

If everything else is on solar and wind.

[lostnotforgotten]

57. Oh Really - And Have You Considered The Turn Over Required To Replace The Existing Fleet

Auto Fleet turnover - 10 years or more.

Peak Oil this Year or Next.

Hardly a recipe for electric cars to significantly affect the outcome.

It's a story of too little too late.

[sandnsea]

60. oops, gloom & doomer

Sorry, I didn't know. Carry on.

:hi:

[lostnotforgotten]

61. Don't KNow What A Gloom And Doomer Is

Suggest that you start reading the www.theoildrum.com.

You just might learn a thing or two.

[autorank]

49. New Zealand will be the new power broker -- "and that's a good thing"

Actually it would be a good thing. NZ said no to Iraq, they appoint all civil servants below top cabinet positions through a real civil service procedure, NZ is rated as the most favorable nation for a free press, and they have some amazing sailors...fun to think of New Zealand as the new Saudia Arabia.

Great post, great news, save the planet soon, please, anyone

[BrklynLiberal]

53. K&R for solar power.

[sakabatou]

54. When do these go on the market?

[EVDebs]

59. Our solar panels on our detached garage crank out about 14 Kw/day in April

and will go up to around 21 or so in June. Our meter runs backwards most of the time and PG&E essentially pays us since we conserve "big-time" (clothes line drying whenever possible, etc.).

When our panels wear out in about 20 years or so hopefully these lower cost panels will be on the market and even more inexpensive ! Thanks for this original post, btw.

[garybeck]

71. I think you mean Kw-h, right? now how about some photos?

a picture is worth a thousand words!

[EVDebs]

84. Correct. No pics but there are 14 panels on the garage roof

and everything is working fine with grid-tied system so far.

[conscious evolution]

83. Thats a lot of power

How large is your array?

[EVDebs]

85. 14 Kwh is what I meant; 14 panels (two rows of 7) nt

[conscious evolution]

86. How big are the panels?

Who made them? Do you store with batteries or are you sending all excess power out on the grid?

I am an electrician who is is considering doing conversions and I am trying to round up as much info on solar as I can.Particulary info on in-use systems as opposed to what is advertised by solar companies.

[EVDebs]

87. We have Kyocera panels

http://www.kyocerasolar.com/pdf/specsheets/ksi_kc_modules_031706.pdf

about 60" X 30" each, so 14 total panels each at around 200 watts maximum power per panel. You can also learn more about installations at Real Goods solar living institute in Hopland, CA (near Ukiah, CA, Mendocino County)

http://www.solarliving.org/

with 'hands on' classes on installations and products. I just googled up thin film solar panels and got this


Thin Film Photo Voltaic Laminates Everywhere
http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=2066

and this on PV shingles

http://www.bobvila.com/BVTV/HomeAgain/BTS-1005-PhotovoltaicShingles.html

NEAT, HUH ?

[conscious evolution]

90. Thanx for the links.

Especially the one on the PV film.I had heard a little about it a while back but had not been able to find much useful info on it.

The classes offered will probably come in handy also.The only problem is that it is in Cali, while I am on the East cost.Too broke for travel these days.Know of any such classes in the south?

[EVDebs]

91. Call up the RealGoods site and ask for references

BTW, RealGoods has an annual SolFest with stars like Darryl Hannah and Ed Begley, Jr., showing up and music too (I think Bonnie Raitt played there). "Three Days of Sun & Music and Nothing BUT Sun and Music" would be a great slogan for an East Coast version of this...maybe you could close the NY State Thru-Way again !

[conscious evolution]

92. I just realized something

Every time a thread on solar is started the google ad feature thingee DU has shows links to solar companies and info!

[EVDebs]

93. Groovy dude ! Hey, I checked my digital reading for today: 17.624 kwh

and soon, in June or so, we'll be hitting 20 kwh a day ! This results in a net annual "true up" with PG&E of a negative billing; which means no electric bill per se but the system cost around $15,000 meaning that in around ten or eleven yrs it'll be paid for out of the savings.

[conscious evolution]

94. On a microeconomic scale it will take

ten or so years.On a macro scale it is already paying off by reducing greenhouse emissions right now.

[cascadiance]

82. This is why Bush's slashing of alternative energy research from day 1 has been CRIMINAL!

If we could have been doing this research earlier back in 2001 instead of waiting for foreign companies to do it now, we'd have a lot better energy independence now, and we'd have a lot more revenue about to come from it now too, in addition to a lot of savings of our existing oil reserves and reduce the neocon's reasons for having more wars over in the middle east to grab their oil!

He cut the budget for alternative energy research by over half after entering office in 2001 as shown here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6837/full/nj6837-04a0.html

Just think how much farther along they'd have been if the solar research budget hadn't suffered a 54% reduction!

And even now he still manages to cut true alternative energy research for things like solar and geothermal sources, while continuing to raise the pork for his oil and other fossil fuel company buddies! shameful! It's all about maintaining centralized energy controls for these fascist bastards!

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2007/2007-02-05-02.asp
http://www.physorg.com/news68303622.html

[EVDebs]

89. "Cost of Solar Power Equal to Coal Now"

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/02/363742.html

So now last night on 60 Minutes there was a paeon to nuclear power. I wonder if M$M will have ANY credibility left...