[Vo]:Re: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer
- Original Message - From: Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 3:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer Michel Jullian wrote: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer presented by CEO Martin Roscheisen here, with a video: http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/ If they sell the panels at $1/W as announced, they are aiming at a $1B annual income, not too shabby :) Michel Note also its not just the cells their selling but their selling the machine that makes the cells. Are you sure? Where do they say so? Its not the only machine they have running and there's one in germany. Their plant in Germany only assembles panels from cells made in their US plant AFAIK. The US plant also produces some panels. Did you see how much empty space the factory has? They could build a few more yet in just that factory alone. Awesome! Indeed! Michel
[Vo]:Re: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer
- Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer On Jun 21, 2008, at 3:12 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer presented by CEO Martin Roscheisen here, with a video: http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/ If they sell the panels at $1/W as announced, they are aiming at a $1B annual income, not too shabby :) Michel Yes, but that is just for one 1GW CIGS coater, which cost $1.65 million. On that basis, Nanosolar should be financially capable of sustaining 10x to 100x per year growth rate - until resources, like supplies, staff, land, or customers run out. True, their growth rate promises to be astronomical (Jones wouldn't agree ;) The major impediments to going all solar are bulk energy storage, i.e. large battery or hydrogen generating systems, and low cost energy transmission systems. Storage is improving, latest lithium ion batteries for electric cars with tens of thousands of cycles lifetime e.g. altairnano seem promising, couldn't utilities give rebates to customers accepting to store energy for them in their sometimes underused car batteries? As for transmission, what's wrong with current electric power transmission lines? Michel
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer
On Jun 23, 2008, at 1:31 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer On Jun 21, 2008, at 3:12 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer presented by CEO Martin Roscheisen here, with a video: http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/ If they sell the panels at $1/W as announced, they are aiming at a $1B annual income, not too shabby :) Michel Yes, but that is just for one 1GW CIGS coater, which cost $1.65 million. On that basis, Nanosolar should be financially capable of sustaining 10x to 100x per year growth rate - until resources, like supplies, staff, land, or customers run out. True, their growth rate promises to be astronomical (Jones wouldn't agree ;) The major impediments to going all solar are bulk energy storage, i.e. large battery or hydrogen generating systems, and low cost energy transmission systems. Storage is improving, latest lithium ion batteries for electric cars with tens of thousands of cycles lifetime e.g. altairnano seem promising, Actually, A123 has them already beat to market it appears, and Toshiba has some interfering patents. Altair stock (ALTI) is in the dumps now, under $2/shr. couldn't utilities give rebates to customers accepting to store energy for them in their sometimes underused car batteries? Many existing utilities will be slow to adapt smart meters, and many already resist having to manage power coming from residences. Major solar power generation utilities, however, if not hindered by regulation, are highly motivated for fast growth and innovation. As for transmission, what's wrong with current electric power transmission lines? Michel They don't ship power well across oceans, and don't ship energy in stored form, i.e. as hydrogen, nitrogen, or silicon compounds. The biggest cost item may soon be land itself, and 3rd world desert will be ideal for power generation. The major problems for global renewable energy production are energy storage and shipping, but these problems may be solved now the economics are right. The content of some of my old posts on the subject are here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BigPicture.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EnergyCosts.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Hpipeline.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HotCold.pdf Similar problems will exist specifically for the USA - because land and sun are best in the southern desert areas, but adequate long distance transmission facilities, in terms of either price or capacity, are not available. High voltage DC systems may provide an answer for that, but not overnight. Room temperature superconducting transmission at a low capital cost would be good, but that is not in sight yet. Hydrogen transmission systems would work well, but are probably decades off. Electrolysis itself needs a lot of improvement, though it is a viable technology now, depending on the competing cost of energy. I expect the biggest problems and roadblocks to renewable energy development will continue to come from governments. Money for energy research and development has been allocated in mere token amounts, enough to give politicians talking points, but at less than one percent of what is needed. LENR or ZPE or other solutions might even be at hand now if enough money were spent on research, solutions which bypass the storage and shipping problems altogether. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer
On 23/6/2008 4:31 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer On Jun 21, 2008, at 3:12 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer presented by CEO Martin Roscheisen here, with a video: http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/ If they sell the panels at $1/W as announced, they are aiming at a $1B annual income, not too shabby :) Michel Yes, but that is just for one 1GW CIGS coater, which cost $1.65 million. On that basis, Nanosolar should be financially capable of sustaining 10x to 100x per year growth rate - until resources, like supplies, staff, land, or customers run out. True, their growth rate promises to be astronomical (Jones wouldn't agree ;) The major impediments to going all solar are bulk energy storage, i.e. large battery or hydrogen generating systems, and low cost energy transmission systems. Storage is improving, latest lithium ion batteries for electric cars with tens of thousands of cycles lifetime e.g. altairnano seem promising, couldn't utilities give rebates to customers accepting to store energy for them in their sometimes underused car batteries? don't forget ultra-capacitors. harry
[Vo]:Re: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer
- Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer On Jun 23, 2008, at 1:31 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer On Jun 21, 2008, at 3:12 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer presented by CEO Martin Roscheisen here, with a video: http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/ If they sell the panels at $1/W as announced, they are aiming at a $1B annual income, not too shabby :) Michel Yes, but that is just for one 1GW CIGS coater, which cost $1.65 million. On that basis, Nanosolar should be financially capable of sustaining 10x to 100x per year growth rate - until resources, like supplies, staff, land, or customers run out. True, their growth rate promises to be astronomical (Jones wouldn't agree ;) The major impediments to going all solar are bulk energy storage, i.e. large battery or hydrogen generating systems, and low cost energy transmission systems. Storage is improving, latest lithium ion batteries for electric cars with tens of thousands of cycles lifetime e.g. altairnano seem promising, Actually, A123 has them already beat to market it appears, and Toshiba has some interfering patents. Altair stock (ALTI) is in the dumps now, under $2/shr. Indeed several working technologies are in competition, which is an excellent thing for the end user! couldn't utilities give rebates to customers accepting to store energy for them in their sometimes underused car batteries? Many existing utilities will be slow to adapt smart meters, and many already resist having to manage power coming from residences. Major solar power generation utilities, however, if not hindered by regulation, are highly motivated for fast growth and innovation. As for transmission, what's wrong with current electric power transmission lines? Michel They don't ship power well across oceans, and don't ship energy in stored form, i.e. as hydrogen, nitrogen, or silicon compounds. The biggest cost item may soon be land itself, and 3rd world desert will be ideal for power generation. The major problems for global renewable energy production are energy storage and shipping, but these problems may be solved now the economics are right. The content of some of my old posts on the subject are here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BigPicture.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EnergyCosts.pdf Doesn't seem to include solar PV (e.g. Nanosolar: $2/W installation cost, 25 yr lifetime, negligible running costs, right?) http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Hpipeline.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HotCold.pdf Similar problems will exist specifically for the USA - because land and sun are best in the southern desert areas, but adequate long distance transmission facilities, in terms of either price or capacity, are not available. Who needs deserts? Land _outside cities_ is cheap, and insolation acceptable, in most places, so in most cases it isn't necessary to carry the energy over long distances. So the existing power grid is already adequate for large scale deployment of municipal PV plants, which is indeed occurring as we speak, limited only by panel supply I guess. Michel High voltage DC systems may provide an answer for that, but not overnight. Room temperature superconducting transmission at a low capital cost would be good, but that is not in sight yet. Hydrogen transmission systems would work well, but are probably decades off. Electrolysis itself needs a lot of improvement, though it is a viable technology now, depending on the competing cost of energy. I expect the biggest problems and roadblocks to renewable energy development will continue to come from governments. Money for energy research and development has been allocated in mere token amounts, enough to give politicians talking points, but at less than one percent of what is needed. LENR or ZPE or other solutions might even be at hand now if enough money were spent on research, solutions which bypass the storage and shipping problems altogether. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer
On Jun 23, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Nanosolar's 1 GW/yr solar cell printer The content of some of my old posts on the subject are here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BigPicture.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EnergyCosts.pdf Doesn't seem to include solar PV (e.g. Nanosolar: $2/W installation cost, 25 yr lifetime, negligible running costs, right?) It does on page 3. See Update Feb, 2007 for note on First Solar (FSLR). http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Hpipeline.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HotCold.pdf Similar problems will exist specifically for the USA - because land and sun are best in the southern desert areas, but adequate long distance transmission facilities, in terms of either price or capacity, are not available. Who needs deserts? Land _outside cities_ is cheap, and insolation acceptable, in most places, so in most cases it isn't necessary to carry the energy over long distances. So the existing power grid is already adequate for large scale deployment of municipal PV plants, which is indeed occurring as we speak, limited only by panel supply I guess. Michel This strategy applies only to small towns, and only to a partial energy supply. It doesn't work well for cities like New York, where typical commutes are over an hour and land prices even 50 miles out are incredible, and land use is highly regulated by many very small patchwork communities, often literally only a mile square. It also doesn't work well where there is a lot of snow or overcast conditions. It doesn't work well for high power demand manufacturing areas. Farm land near cities is being snapped up by funds and investors, so it may not be long before regulations are made to stop the practice, or at least regulate the conversion of farmland to other uses, possibly though tax regulations. There is also the matter of energy storage, which could amount to the equivalent of an industrial process, and thus involve other regulations and limitations. It is notable that there is already a rush for California desert land by solar power providers, despite all the regulatory risks present for even that land. I expect initially some of the big products for 3rd world manufacturing using solar energy will be fertilizer and water. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
