Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar efficiency 9-10%, installed cost $3/W
Jones wrote, The best solution for using solar is probably algae (aquaculture). Billions of years of evolution has taught those >little buggers a thing or two about converting sunlight into storable energy efficiently. Sure is Jones. Consider a municipal wastewater treatment plant is a liquid fertilizer plant on a massive scale. Biological reduction plants each have their own " culture" adapted to the plant to improve efficency. Some of these cultures are unbelievable in action, having been carefully nurtured. Major US cities can have several huge plants, some massive, capable of treating a billion gallons of wastewater per day. For some years we have watched this resource "going down the toilet". The problem is compounded because the existing treating processes still allows compounds to enter the nation's streams including drugs, hormones etc. Combining treating process with aquaculture makes sense. The most efficent process remains the smaller "lagoon" systems where ponds are used for cascading the process downhill until the final pond effluent is ready to return to nature. A type of bamboo can grow in this culture at the rate of a foot or more per day. The root systems on these bamboo species are unreal and near perfect filters. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar efficiency 9-10%, installed cost $3/W
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:29:24 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Michel Jullian wrote: > >>9 to 10% efficiency for Nanosolar's current production (they target >>15% ultimately). Installed cost of 1MW German plant panels $3/W. > >If they really can achieve $3/W, perhaps despite the problems >described by Jones Beene, than this would be a remarkable >breakthrough. This is $3000 / kW which is cheaper than wind >turbines, nuclear or hydroelectricity. I think only gas and coal have >cheaper installation costs, and of course they require fuel over the >life of the plant. [snip] Note that like wind turbines, installed capacity doesn't mean that it's available 24 hours a day (whereas for e.g. coal that is (almost) the case). You have to divide by 2 to get real maximum capacity, and this assumes both that the array tracks the Sun, and that there are never any clouds. Actually it's a little more than 2, because the atmosphere is thicker at dawn and dusk, which filters out more light. If it doesn't track the Sun, then you have to divide by Pi (approx.) in the tropics, or by 4 if you average over the whole surface of the planet. This is what the manufacturers are not advertising. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar efficiency 9-10%, installed cost $3/W
Michel Jullian wrote: 9 to 10% efficiency for Nanosolar's current production (they target 15% ultimately). Installed cost of 1MW German plant panels $3/W. If they really can achieve $3/W, perhaps despite the problems described by Jones Beene, than this would be a remarkable breakthrough. This is $3000 / kW which is cheaper than wind turbines, nuclear or hydroelectricity. I think only gas and coal have cheaper installation costs, and of course they require fuel over the life of the plant. A higher percent of efficiency improves the cost per watt, but other than that it doesn't matter. In other words, it would be better to make it 5% efficient for $200 per square meter than 10% efficient for $500. For most applications, you can always take up more space. (There are some apps, such as roadside collectors, in which a small, compact collector is an advantage.) To put it another way, collection space is usually cheaper than the cost premium for higher efficiency. At least that's how it worked out a few years ago when I checked the numbers. Ed Storms first pointed this out -- on this forum, I think. Another critical issue with PV is how quickly they degrade over time. Many years ago, the half-life was something like 5 or 10 years as I recall, and the energy payback time for some types was infinity. That is to say, they never generated as much energy as it took to fabricate them. They were useful only as a sort of "storage battery" that you could deploy to a remote location. You can think of it as transferring energy from the factory to the remote site. I think the energy payback time has improved considerably. PV is still growing by leaps and bounds in Japan. Here is a solar-thermal plant installed in Arizona last year, for $6,000 / kW of capacity, which is a promising number: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=44696 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar efficiency 9-10%, installed cost $3/W
- Original Message From: Michel Jullian > "9 to 10% efficiency for Nanosolar's current production (they target 15% > ultimately). Installed cost of 1MW German plant panels $3/W" ... Well, they will tell you almost anything when, as this Company president was telling potential investors, it needs to raise $100 million in private equity ... ... and in a field which is already over-crowded; and in which the raw materials issues (indium? gallium?) have not been solved; and which raw materials problems are conspicuously absent from mention ... like Cervantes, I smell another rat - of the 'promise them anything' variety, especially since: In 2003, the price of indium was less than $100 per kg. which is not cheap (and you will see a price in that range mentioned by some of these high-flying thin-film companies trying to lure investors). Lately, the surge in demand for indium due to LCD computer and TV screens, has resulted in a price which broke through the $1,000/kg level and is still on the rise. There is only a limited supply. IOW - demand for indium will continue to increase if thin film solar technology gets into production. The best solution for using solar is probably algae (aquaculture). Billions of years of evolution has taught those little buggers a thing or two about converting sunlight into storable energy efficiently. The next best solution may involve titania - TiO2 - which is a common ceramic produced in largequantities, which is a factor of well over 100 times cheaper than indium will ever be. Itis used as the white pigment in house paint, for instance. Anyway, perhaps a decent solution for using "thin film" or printed solar cells would involve the following implementation of the *cheaper semiconductor* approach, which is the cell being immersed in water, and with the advantage of a storable form of energy, like H2. http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9894373-54.html?tag=nefd.top : ... if nothing else, it takes a lot less money to develop this technology. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/solar-hydrogen.html http://www.nanoptek.com/ I really hate to see good money from conscientious investors being poured into this kind of dead-end technology, which can be made to look pretty in a slide-show, but when far better solutions for that capital exist now.
[Vo]:Nanosolar efficiency 9-10%, installed cost $3/W
Copy of the article below. 9 to 10% efficiency for Nanosolar's current production (they target 15% ultimately). Installed cost of 1MW German plant panels $3/W. Michel http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9894373-54.html?tag=nefd.top : <>
