[Biofuel] Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

[Darryl McMahon]

http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities-according-to-u-s-utilities/

Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

[Not if U.S. utilities had a functioning brain.  In fact, there is a new 
fortune to be made here if they are prepared to think about this for 
about 5 minutes.  Darryl]


By David Roberts



Solar power and other distributed renewable energy technologies could 
lay waste to U.S. power utilities and burn the utility business model, 
which has remained virtually unchanged for a century, to the ground.


That is not wild-eyed hippie talk. It is the assessment of the utilities 
themselves.


Back in January, the Edison Electric Institute — the (typically stodgy 
and backward-looking) trade group of U.S. investor-owned utilities — 
released a report [PDF] that, as far as I can tell, went almost entirely 
without notice in the press. That’s a shame. It is one of the most 
prescient and brutally frank things I’ve ever read about the power 
sector. It is a rare thing to hear an industry tell the tale of its own 
incipient obsolescence.


I’ve been thinking about how to convey to you, normal people with 
healthy social lives and no time to ponder the byzantine nature of the 
power industry, just what a big deal the coming changes are. They are 
nothing short of revolutionary … but rather difficult to explain without 
jargon.


So, just a bit of background. You probably know that electricity is 
provided by utilities. Some utilities both generate electricity at power 
plants and provide it to customers over power lines. They are “regulated 
monopolies,” which means they have sole responsibility for providing 
power in their service areas. Some utilities have gone through 
deregulation; in that case, power generation is split off into its own 
business, while the utility’s job is to purchase power on competitive 
markets and provide it to customers over the grid it manages.


This complexity makes it difficult to generalize about utilities … or to 
discuss them without putting people to sleep. But the main thing to know 
is that the utility business model relies on selling power. That’s how 
they make their money. Here’s how it works: A utility makes a case to a 
public utility commission (PUC), saying “we will need to satisfy this 
level of demand from consumers, which means we’ll need to generate (or 
purchase) this much power, which means we’ll need to charge these 
rates.” If the PUC finds the case persuasive, it approves the rates and 
guarantees the utility a reasonable return on its investments in power 
and grid upkeep.


Thrilling, I know. The thing to remember is that it is in a utility’s 
financial interest to generate (or buy) and deliver as much power as 
possible. The higher the demand, the higher the investments, the higher 
the utility shareholder profits. In short, all things being equal, 
utilities want to sell more power. (All things are occasionally not 
equal, but we’ll leave those complications aside for now.)


Now, into this cozy business model enters cheap distributed solar PV, 
which eats away at it like acid.


First, the power generated by solar panels on residential or commercial 
roofs is not utility-owned or utility-purchased. From the utility’s 
point of view, every kilowatt-hour of rooftop solar looks like a 
kilowatt-hour of reduced demand for the utility’s product. Not something 
any business enjoys. (This is the same reason utilities are 
instinctively hostile to energy efficiency and demand response programs, 
and why they must be compelled by regulations or subsidies to create 
them. Utilities don’t like reduced demand!)


It’s worse than that, though. Solar power peaks at midday, which means 
it is strongest close to the point of highest electricity use — “peak 
load.” Problem is, providing power to meet peak load is where utilities 
make a huge chunk of their money. Peak power is the most expensive 
power. So when solar panels provide peak power, they aren’t just 
reducing demand, they’re reducing demand for the utilities’ most 
valuable product.


But wait. Renewables are limited by the fact they are intermittent, 
right? “The sun doesn’t always shine,” etc. Customers will still have to 
rely on grid power for the most part. Right?


This is a widely held article of faith, but EEI (of all places!) puts it 
to rest. (In this and all quotes that follow, “DER” means distributed 
energy resources, which for the most part means solar PV.)


Due to the variable nature of renewable DER, there is a perception 
that customers will always need to remain on the grid. While we would 
expect customers to remain on the grid until a fully viable and economic 
distributed non-variable resource is available, one can imagine a day 
when battery storage technology or micro turbines could allow customers 
to be electric grid independent. To put this into perspective, who would 
have believed 10 years ago that traditiona

Re: [Biofuel] Solar panels may cost all households

[Darryl McMahon]

Hi Zeke,

for most for-profit power generators, their emissions (heat, CO2, 
conventional pollutants, noise, toxins, carcinogens, etc.) are just 
'externalities' they impose on society.  Thus, the lack of these things 
are also an externality.  Unless they can find a way to generate revenue 
from the damage not being done, these benefits are by definition of no 
value (cannot be 'internalized' for profit).


The concept of the 'triple-bottom-line' is a nice construct for trying 
to score something for reduction of environmental costs.  However, in my 
experience, the only thing that really matters to a corporation is 
money.  So, if you want to encourage a particular direction or action, 
the incentive needs to be financial.  That's what governments and mass 
action by consumers is supposed to do.  (Government interventions, tax 
structures and effective consumer boycotts are amazingly effective, 
sometimes amazingly so.  Our federal government seriously damaged the 
residential real estate market recently with a couple of measures, one 
of which should have resulted in the resignation of the Finance Minister).


That's why I favour things like a carbon tax, environmental surety 
performance bonds and serious fines for violations (that get enforced).


Once the owners of those solar panels that are grid connected get to the 
point they are producing a substantial amount of power, I wonder what 
impact they would have if they all elected to shut off their connection 
(supply to grid) on a hot summer weekday afternoon when demand is high? 
 I wonder if a group action would get the utility's attention.


Darryl

On 02/04/2013 10:58 AM, Zeke Yewdall wrote:

Lots of talk of the costs imposed on other people by people who install
solar panels, but no mention of the benefit that people who install solar
panels are giving to all of society by reducing pollution and greenhouse
gas emissions

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Tony  wrote:





--
Darryl McMahon

Author, The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] Solar panels may cost all households

[Zeke Yewdall]

Lots of talk of the costs imposed on other people by people who install
solar panels, but no mention of the benefit that people who install solar
panels are giving to all of society by reducing pollution and greenhouse
gas emissions

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Tony  wrote:

>
>
>
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/**thewest/a/-/newshome/16410796/**
> solar-panels-may-cost-all-**households/
>
> Solar panels may cost all households
>
> Daniel Mercer, The West Australian Updated March 21, 2013, 2:10 am
>
>  18kjmp7-18kjmpb.jpg
> >
> Solar panels may cost all households
>
>
> Solar panels
>
> WA households could have to pay a higher fixed charge for their
> electricity bills under a shake-up that would be aimed at recouping the
> spiralling cost of solar panels to the network.
>
> Amid concern from Western Power that households with solar panels are not
> paying their share of the grid's upkeep costs, it is understood the State
> Government may look at reforming the structure of bills.
>
> One option likely to be considered is charging a higher service fee, which
> currently amounts to 41.5 a day, or about $150 a year, for household
> customers of Synergy and Horizon. To offset the increase, the Government
> would lower variable charges, which according to last year's State Budget
> account for $1443 of the typical household electricity bill a year.
>
> However, though households which cut their electricity use would not
> necessarily be worse off under such a change - and might be better off -
> those unable to cut their use could be slugged even more.
>
> The possible reform is expected to be discussed as part of the energy
> roundtable convened by former energy minister Peter Collier to consider
> ways of reforming the State's electricity sector.
>
> Although the forum has met only once since it was established in October,
> there were predictions it would be maintained under Mike Nahan as Energy
> Minister.
>
> The boss of Western Power, Paul Italiano, warned in October that
> households with solar panels were able to shirk paying their fair share for
> the upkeep of WA's network of poles and wires.
> Mr Italiano said households with photovoltaic cells drew less energy from
> the grid and so had lower electricity bills, despite needing the same level
> of service as people without the systems.
>
> __**_
> Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
> Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.**sustainablelists.org
> http://lists.eruditium.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**
> sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] Solar panels may cost all households

[Tony]

Hi Doug
Some 10 years ago here in the West  ( 100km N/E of Perth)
when the Shire was Putting in Deep sewage down my street
I said I didnt want it I would rather have a Clivus Multrim Composting Toilet
and Grey water system  the Response was it is GOING PAST YOUR PLACE
so you pay for it ! wether you hook into it or not

The same Feed back was for the Rubbish removal as 
well I would have rather paid a nominal fee

and take i to the Tip my self when needed

In our society you get fined if you DO OR DON'T look after the environment
either way they win !

Tony


At 10:16 PM 2/04/2013 +1100, you wrote:

Yikes!

 There have also been rumours in Australia that 
households could be charged for ´service 
availability´, where you would be charged even 
if you go off grid. Hopefully it will remain a rumour
 There is a Solar Company here in Lismore that 
is using LiPo cells to cut the draw at peak 
charge times too. Apparently it is very close 
to cost effective now (with power prices still rising in Australia)


regards Doug


On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 08:16:02 +0800
Tony  wrote:

>
>
>
> 
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/16410796/solar-panels-may-cost-all-households/

>
> Solar panels may cost all households
>


___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] Solar panels may cost all households

[Doug]

Yikes!

 There have also been rumours in Australia that households could be charged for 
´service availability´, where you would be charged even if you go off grid. 
Hopefully it will remain a rumour
 There is a Solar Company here in Lismore that is using LiPo cells to cut the 
draw at peak charge times too. Apparently it is very close to cost effective 
now (with power prices still rising in Australia)

regards Doug


On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 08:16:02 +0800
Tony  wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/16410796/solar-panels-may-cost-all-households/
> 
> Solar panels may cost all households
> 
> Daniel Mercer, The West Australian Updated March 21, 2013, 2:10 am
> 
> 
> Solar panels may cost all households
> 
> 
> Solar panels
> 
> WA households could have to pay a higher fixed charge for their 
> electricity bills under a shake-up that would be aimed at recouping 
> the spiralling cost of solar panels to the network.
> 
> Amid concern from Western Power that households with solar panels are 
> not paying their share of the grid's upkeep costs, it is understood 
> the State Government may look at reforming the structure of bills.
> 
> One option likely to be considered is charging a higher service fee, 
> which currently amounts to 41.5 a day, or about $150 a year, for 
> household customers of Synergy and Horizon. To offset the increase, 
> the Government would lower variable charges, which according to last 
> year's State Budget account for $1443 of the typical household 
> electricity bill a year.
> 
> However, though households which cut their electricity use would not 
> necessarily be worse off under such a change - and might be better 
> off - those unable to cut their use could be slugged even more.
> 
> The possible reform is expected to be discussed as part of the energy 
> roundtable convened by former energy minister Peter Collier to 
> consider ways of reforming the State's electricity sector.
> 
> Although the forum has met only once since it was established in 
> October, there were predictions it would be maintained under Mike 
> Nahan as Energy Minister.
> 
> The boss of Western Power, Paul Italiano, warned in October that 
> households with solar panels were able to shirk paying their fair 
> share for the upkeep of WA's network of poles and wires.
> Mr Italiano said households with photovoltaic cells drew less energy 
> from the grid and so had lower electricity bills, despite needing the 
> same level of service as people without the systems.
> 
> ___
> Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
> Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel


-- 
Doug 
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

[Biofuel] Solar panels may cost all households

[Tony]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/16410796/solar-panels-may-cost-all-households/

Solar panels may cost all households

Daniel Mercer, The West Australian Updated March 21, 2013, 2:10 am


Solar panels may cost all households


Solar panels

WA households could have to pay a higher fixed charge for their 
electricity bills under a shake-up that would be aimed at recouping 
the spiralling cost of solar panels to the network.


Amid concern from Western Power that households with solar panels are 
not paying their share of the grid's upkeep costs, it is understood 
the State Government may look at reforming the structure of bills.


One option likely to be considered is charging a higher service fee, 
which currently amounts to 41.5 a day, or about $150 a year, for 
household customers of Synergy and Horizon. To offset the increase, 
the Government would lower variable charges, which according to last 
year's State Budget account for $1443 of the typical household 
electricity bill a year.


However, though households which cut their electricity use would not 
necessarily be worse off under such a change - and might be better 
off - those unable to cut their use could be slugged even more.


The possible reform is expected to be discussed as part of the energy 
roundtable convened by former energy minister Peter Collier to 
consider ways of reforming the State's electricity sector.


Although the forum has met only once since it was established in 
October, there were predictions it would be maintained under Mike 
Nahan as Energy Minister.


The boss of Western Power, Paul Italiano, warned in October that 
households with solar panels were able to shirk paying their fair 
share for the upkeep of WA's network of poles and wires.
Mr Italiano said households with photovoltaic cells drew less energy 
from the grid and so had lower electricity bills, despite needing the 
same level of service as people without the systems.


___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

[Biofuel] Solar Panels and the Quest for $1/Watt

[MH]

I'm running out of steam here ;-) hoagy
---

Solar Panels and the Quest for $1/Watt
Written by Michelle Bennett
March 31, 2008
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/03/31/solar-panels-and-the-quest-for-1watt/comment-page-3/
 



If solar panels cost $1/watt, you can sell them (installation included) for
$2/watt. Coal (installation included) costs $2.10/watt. To date, solar is
still reaching to compete with coal, but the margins are closing. To
(over)simplify how this works, you need to ignore issues like subsidies,
qualitative costs, or kinks in the supply chain, and boil it down to money.
Two hurtles that must be jumped before photo voltaic solar cells become
cheaper than coal: efficiency and production cost. Fortunately the solar
industry has already made important gains in both. Today, we’re going to
talk about two types of solar panels: silicon and thin-film, and solar’s
quest for $1/watt.

Silicon Solar Panels

Silicon panels are the most recognizable form of solar, in part because
they’ve been around the longest. Unfortunately, until the end of 2007,
they’ve always had some issues with cost. Popular Mechanic summarizes this
much better than I could:

“Traditional solar cells require silicon, and silicon is an expensive
commodity (exacerbated currently by a global silicon shortage). What’s more,
says Peter Harrop, chairman of electronics consulting firm IDTechEx, “it has
to be put on glass, so it’s heavy, dangerous, expensive to ship and
expensive to install because it has to be mounted.” And up to 70 percent of
the silicon gets wasted in the manufacturing process. That means even the
cheapest solar panels cost about $3 per watt of energy they go on to
produce. To compete with coal, that figure has to shrink to just $1 per
watt.” - courtesy of Popular Science’s Michael Moyer

To clarify on that statement, the global silicon shortage has eased
slightly, but supplies are still tight so the price of silicon is still
relatively high. The bonus behind silicon solar panels is efficiency and
lifespan. Silicon panels tend to be about 20%-27% efficient, reliable, and
they last for over twenty years. That means with silicon panels you earn the
cost of your investment back in the long term. Depending on where you live
and what kinds of panels you buy, “long term” can mean 10-40 years. With
cheaper solar panels, obviously, you would regain your investment sooner.

B.P. Solar offers a calculator to estimate your solar panel investment based
on location, solar system, and home energy use. Just keep in mind that their
calculator can’t adjust for fluctuating variables like energy costs, public
policy, or B.P.’s competition; it’s a ball-park estimate at best. Divide the
total cost by annual energy savings to calculate your return-investment time
frame. (Mine was 35 years in an inefficient house)

In order to approach the magic $1/Watt goal, solar producers have tried new
manufacturing techniques to reduce waste, boost efficiency, and lower
prices. 1366 Technologies aims to come close to the $1/watt mark. They want
to innovate manufacturing processes to reduce cost without sacrificing
efficiency. With some investment money in their pocket, they’ll be working
hard to bring their silicon panels to market in the future. Until then, or
until more government support crops up, traditional solar panels are still
best reserved for commercial (buy in bulk) and long-term investment.

Thin-film Solar Panels

These days thin-film technologies are all the rage in the solar industry.
The benefit of thin-film solar technology is cost. By cutting the silicon
out of the equation, companies remove a huge price barrier. One of the
issues with thin-film technology is that it tends to be less efficient with
a shorter lifespan. A new thin-film record was recently set at 19.9%
efficient, which matches silicon panels. But unlike silicon solar, in this
field the $1/Watt barrier has been successfully breached. Two companies can
boast the achievement:

Nanosolar has already begun production of their famed solar product, which
uses an innovative printing technology. They literally print the solar
panels onto sheets of metal, like ink on paper. This technique allows for
mass-production at an 80% reduction of manufacturing cost. They didn’t just
reach the $1/watt mark, they surpassed it. Even the Department of Energy
agrees: they compete with coal. For now, Nanosolar is sold out into the
foreseeable future. In time we’ll no-doubt see their products become
increasingly common as they diffuse through the solar market. So what’s the
catch? Critics point out that the technology relies on indium, which has a
finite supply. You can read some interviews, or watch a video for more
information.

AVA Solar Inc. is another forerunner as they prepare to mass-produce their
stream-lined solar panels. Their technique requires fewer raw materials,
causes less waste, and maintains high efficiency–11%-13%. At under $1/watt,
AVA Solar has nearly completed a production facili

Re: [Biofuel] Solar panels

[Marty Phee]

What about organic cells?  I can't find the website of the company 
working on them right now, but I believe they were talking well below a 
$1/watt.  I just saw a link that said $0.40/watt.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041220005834.htm


Joe Street wrote:

> Yeah but as the story goes it all depends on marketability.  The 
> $1.00/Watt barrier is what stands between us and a world of 
> alternative energy.  (for some reason people hang on to this idea that 
> everything should be available for as little as possible?? -one of the 
> reasons capitalism is doing what it is doing to the world,  but I 
> digress) One important factor is defect density as pointed out in the 
> article.  In semiconductor crystals lattice defects act as traps for 
> charge carriers and ruin efficiency.  That is why those cheap (well 
> not so cheap actually) amorphous panels you find in stores are only 8 
> to 10 percent efficient.  The defect density in amorphous materials is 
> astronomically high.  But amorphous silicon is relatively low cost and 
> lends itself to mass production.  The problem is the efficiency is so 
> low it still kills you on the dollars per watt front.  BTW in case 
> anyone is considering amorphous panels caveat emptor because the 
> panels initially produce more output and then the UV from the sun 
> degrades the junction and the efficiency drops off.  They do 
> eventually stabilize and some manufacturers specify the wattage of the 
> panel at this lower stable level (the reputable ones) and some other 
> less reputable companies rate their panels at the higher output level 
> and then you get a surprise a few months down the road. So don't 
> forget to inquire about this if you buy them.  Recently a local 
> company began producing panels using a novel process involving silicon 
> spheres bonded onto a foil substrate which results in a flexible panel 
> and since the spheres are monocrystaline they do not suffer the fate 
> of amorphous cells.  The leverage of this idea is that metrological 
> grade silicon (basically ground up leftovers and junk from the silicon 
> industry) can be used to make the silicon balls and thus a huge cost 
> savings results.  It is still not below the dollar per watt mark but 
> is a substantially better product for roughly the same money.  I 
> should mention that I do have some involvement with this company but 
> do not stand to gain anything.  I have no shares nor do any of my 
> family members, I am involved with the research only and I post this 
> for information only.
> The GaInN process I don't expect will ever be comercially viable 
> unless a way is found to grow the material without the ultra high 
> vacuum process.  You never know. However, I think there is the 
> distinct posibility that everything will be turned upside down by the 
> organic semiconductor angle.  Just as the photovoltaic application of 
> GaInN was a logical extension of the blue LED technology so I think we 
> will see research in photovoltaics spring from the exploding feild of 
> organic LED's or OLED's  These are the super bright whiteLED's that 
> run for ever on little batteries because they have an encredibly high 
> conversion efficiency. These devices are made by entirely different 
> processes and have the potential to be really cheap and mass 
> producible. Hang on to your hats.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> Manzo, Emil wrote:
>
>> Hi Joe, thanks for the link. On page 2 it states: "Indium gallium 
>> nitride solar cells could be made approaching the maximum 
>> theoretical efficiencies of better than 70 percent." The article I 
>> read centered on the patent of a deposition process. I don't remember 
>> the elements used though. Definitely a good read! With R&D going on 
>> worldwide, there's bound to be more energy breakthroughs in our 
>> lifetime.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Emil
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Joe Street
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2005 2:33 PM
>> *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] Solar panels
>>
>>  
>>
>> I wonder if it had to do with Gallium Indium Nitride?  Check this 
>> link   
>> http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-perfect-solar-cell.html
>> In a nutshell it works by varying the doping level of indium in 
>> Gallium Nitride so as to smoothly taper the bandgap of the material 
>> from low to high energy.  This is a step beyond the multijunction 
>> cells which are the highest efficiency (25-35%) and extremely 
>> expensive used in the satellite

Re: [Biofuel] Solar panels

[Joe Street]

Yeah but as the story goes it all depends on marketability.  The
$1.00/Watt barrier is what stands between us and a world of alternative
energy.  (for some reason people hang on to this idea that everything
should be available for as little as possible?? -one of the reasons
capitalism is doing what it is doing to the world,  but I digress) One
important factor is defect density as pointed out in the article.  In
semiconductor crystals lattice defects act as traps for charge carriers
and ruin efficiency.  That is why those cheap (well not so cheap
actually) amorphous panels you find in stores are only 8 to 10 percent
efficient.  The defect density in amorphous materials is astronomically
high.  But amorphous silicon is relatively low cost and lends itself to
mass production.  The problem is the efficiency is so low it still
kills you on the dollars per watt front.  BTW in case anyone is
considering amorphous panels caveat emptor because the panels initially
produce more output and then the UV from the sun degrades the junction
and the efficiency drops off.  They do eventually stabilize and some
manufacturers specify the wattage of the panel at this lower stable
level (the reputable ones) and some other less reputable companies rate
their panels at the higher output level and then you get a surprise a
few months down the road. So don't forget to inquire about this if you
buy them.  Recently a local company began producing panels using a
novel process involving silicon spheres bonded onto a foil substrate
which results in a flexible panel and since the spheres are
monocrystaline they do not suffer the fate of amorphous cells.  The
leverage of this idea is that metrological grade silicon (basically
ground up leftovers and junk from the silicon industry) can be used to
make the silicon balls and thus a huge cost savings results.  It is
still not below the dollar per watt mark but is a substantially better
product for roughly the same money.  I should mention that I do have
some involvement with this company but do not stand to gain anything. 
I have no shares nor do any of my family members, I am involved with
the research only and I post this for information only.
The GaInN process I don't expect will ever be comercially viable unless
a way is found to grow the material without the ultra high vacuum
process.  You never know. However, I think there is the distinct
posibility that everything will be turned upside down by the organic
semiconductor angle.  Just as the photovoltaic application of GaInN was
a logical extension of the blue LED technology so I think we will see
research in photovoltaics spring from the exploding feild of organic
LED's or OLED's  These are the super bright whiteLED's that run for
ever on little batteries because they have an encredibly high
conversion efficiency. These devices are made by entirely different
processes and have the potential to be really cheap and mass
producible. Hang on to your hats.

Joe



Manzo, Emil wrote:

  
  
  
  
  Hi Joe, thanks for the
link. On page 2 it states: “Indium
gallium nitride solar cells could be made…. approaching the maximum
theoretical efficiencies of better than 70 percent.” The article I read
centered on the patent of a
deposition process. I don’t remember the elements used though.
Definitely
a good read!
  With
R&D going on worldwide,
there’s bound to be more energy breakthroughs in our lifetime. 
  
  Regards,
  Emil
  
  -Original
Message-
  From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Joe Street
  Sent: Tuesday, August
30, 2005
2:33 PM
  To:
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel]
Solar
panels
   
  I
wonder if it had to do
with Gallium Indium Nitride?  Check this link   http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-perfect-solar-cell.html
In a nutshell it works by varying the doping level of indium in Gallium
Nitride
so as to smoothly taper the bandgap of the material from low to high
energy.  This is a step beyond the multijunction cells which are the
highest efficiency (25-35%) and extremely expensive used in the
satellite
industry.  This approach could potentially use a graded profile of
indium
doping in a stack of junctions so that photons from the entire energy
spectrum
will find their home at some point within the device.  I don't think
this
approaches 90% (is that an exaggeration) but 75% may be doable.  This
technique would require an MBE (molecular beam epitaxy) which is a
ridiculously
expensive ultra high vacuum deposition tool and material growth rates
are
painfully slow so although it has the potential to make super PV cells
don't
hold your breath to see them on the market.  General consensus is that
the
viability point for the comercialization of solar power is somewhere at
the
dollar per watt mark.  However these predictions were made based on
some
standard economic benchmarks.  Due to what peak oil could do all bets
are
off on this figur

Re: [Biofuel] Solar panels

[Manzo, Emil]

Hi Joe, thanks for the link. On page 2 it states: “Indium
gallium nitride solar cells could be made…. approaching the maximum
theoretical efficiencies of better than 70 percent.” The article I read centered on the patent of a
deposition process. I don’t remember the elements used though. Definitely
a good read! With R&D going on worldwide,
there’s bound to be more energy breakthroughs in our lifetime. 



Regards,

Emil



-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Joe Street
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005
2:33 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Solar
panels

 

I wonder if it had to do
with Gallium Indium Nitride?  Check this link   http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-perfect-solar-cell.html
In a nutshell it works by varying the doping level of indium in Gallium Nitride
so as to smoothly taper the bandgap of the material from low to high
energy.  This is a step beyond the multijunction cells which are the
highest efficiency (25-35%) and extremely expensive used in the satellite
industry.  This approach could potentially use a graded profile of indium
doping in a stack of junctions so that photons from the entire energy spectrum
will find their home at some point within the device.  I don't think this
approaches 90% (is that an exaggeration) but 75% may be doable.  This
technique would require an MBE (molecular beam epitaxy) which is a ridiculously
expensive ultra high vacuum deposition tool and material growth rates are
painfully slow so although it has the potential to make super PV cells don't
hold your breath to see them on the market.  General consensus is that the
viability point for the comercialization of solar power is somewhere at the
dollar per watt mark.  However these predictions were made based on some
standard economic benchmarks.  Due to what peak oil could do all bets are
off on this figure for the future.

Joe

Manzo, Emil wrote:



About 8-9 months ago I
read a report about a man who invented a process that yielded a high-efficiency
solar panel. Like 90%. The process reminded me of the way they make super high
density integrated circuits. His website was ardev.com and when I went back
again it went down (I think it’s some kind of flower site now). The
announcement said he refused to just sell off the patent because he wanted it
to actually be produced. He was teaming up with Westinghouse to produce the
solar panels. Anybody hear something more about this? Perhaps it was BS. 

 

Regards,

Emil

 

 



 ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/   




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Solar panels

[Hakan Falk]

Emil,

I think that you ca assume that it was BS, because to only to get a 
surface to absorb 90%, would be very difficult.  If you managed to 
absorb 90%, your conversion process to electricity would then have 
100% efficiency at always? Maybe the site do better in selling 
flowers. The highest serious numbers I have seen is 35-38% 
efficiency. The efficiency of currently mass produced common panels 
is 8-12%. This is lab data at 90 degree angle.

Hakan


At 19:02 30/08/2005, you wrote:
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C5AD84.A4B9BB88"
>
>About 8-9 months ago I read a report about a man who invented a 
>process that yielded a high-efficiency solar panel. Like 90%. The 
>process reminded me of the way they make super high density 
>integrated circuits. His website was ardev.com and when I went back 
>again it went down (I think it's some kind of flower site now). The 
>announcement said he refused to just sell off the patent because he 
>wanted it to actually be produced. He was teaming up with 
>Westinghouse to produce the solar panels. Anybody hear something 
>more about this? Perhaps it was BS.
>
>Regards,
>Emil
>



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Solar panels

[Joe Street]

I wonder if it had to do with Gallium Indium Nitride?  Check this
link  
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-perfect-solar-cell.html
In a nutshell it works by varying the doping level of indium in Gallium
Nitride so as to smoothly taper the bandgap of the material from low to
high energy.  This is a step beyond the multijunction cells which are
the highest efficiency (25-35%) and extremely expensive used in the
satellite industry.  This approach could potentially use a graded
profile of indium doping in a stack of junctions so that photons from
the entire energy spectrum will find their home at some point within
the device.  I don't think this approaches 90% (is that an
exaggeration) but 75% may be doable.  This technique would require an
MBE (molecular beam epitaxy) which is a ridiculously expensive ultra
high vacuum deposition tool and material growth rates are painfully
slow so although it has the potential to make super PV cells don't hold
your breath to see them on the market.  General consensus is that the
viability point for the comercialization of solar power is somewhere at
the dollar per watt mark.  However these predictions were made based on
some standard economic benchmarks.  Due to what peak oil could do all
bets are off on this figure for the future.

Joe

Manzo, Emil wrote:

  
  
  
  
  About 8-9 months ago I read a report about a
man who invented a process
that yielded a high-efficiency solar panel. Like 90%. The process
reminded me
of the way they make super high density integrated circuits. His
website was
ardev.com and when I went back again it went down (I think it’s some
kind
of flower site now). The announcement said he refused to just sell off
the
patent because he wanted it to actually be produced. He was teaming up
with Westinghouse
to produce the solar panels. Anybody hear something more about this?
Perhaps it
was BS. 
   
  Regards,
  Emil
   
  
  

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

  



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Solar panels

[Michael Redler]

I haven't heard of anything much higher than 30 percent efficient.
 
Mike
 
See also:
 
"An unexpected discovery could yield a full spectrum solar cell"Nov 18, 2002  http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-full-spectrum-solar-cell.html A Step Closer to the Optimum Solar Cell March 24, 2004  http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb-MSD-multibandsolar-panels.html"Manzo, Emil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:





About 8-9 months ago I read a report about a man who invented a process that yielded a high-efficiency solar panel. Like 90%. The process reminded me of the way they make super high density integrated circuits. His website was ardev.com and when I went back again it went down (I think it’s some kind of flower site now). The announcement said he refused to just sell off the patent because he wanted it to actually be produced. He was teaming up with Westinghouse to produce the solar panels. Anybody hear something more about this? Perhaps it was BS. 
 
Regards,
Emil
 ___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Solar panels

[Manzo, Emil]

About 8-9 months ago I read a report about a man who invented a process
that yielded a high-efficiency solar panel. Like 90%. The process reminded me
of the way they make super high density integrated circuits. His website was
ardev.com and when I went back again it went down (I think it’s some kind
of flower site now). The announcement said he refused to just sell off the
patent because he wanted it to actually be produced. He was teaming up with Westinghouse
to produce the solar panels. Anybody hear something more about this? Perhaps it
was BS. 

 

Regards,

Emil

 






___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

RE: [Biofuel] Solar Panels Might be Obligatory in Spain

[Michael Redler]

Solar Panels Might be Obligatory in Spain

Check it out...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/spain_energy_environment

Mike

___
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/

[biofuel] solar panels was Re: Australia - home brewers have to pay excise

[Kim & Garth Travis]

I think your statement is reasonable, except that you have a very wrong 
reason for why many people do not use solar panels.  What has happened in 
Houston, Texas and probably elsewhere is that the homeowners boards in most 
areas won't allow the panels as they are considered "unsightly".  I own the 
list for Houston Renewable Energy Group started by a couple of NASA 
Engineers and this is a real problem.

My second problem with solar panels is the amount of pollution created and 
energy used in creating the panels.  Trying to find numbers on this is not 
easy, but if someone is going to put for solar panels as a solution, then 
this information should be presented as part of the case, IMHO.  Let us see 
the whole picture, please.

You are correct, that AC should only be needed on extremely hot days, that 
is, if your place was designed for the climate, properly.  After all it is 
summer, and suppose to be warm.  The number of people that walk around with 
summer colds from over air conditioning is ridiculous.  Me, I use a 
sprinkler on my roof and it does 50% of my cooling.

Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 02:41 PM 6/17/2004, you wrote:
>Recycling is interesting from a variety of levels. You are likely correct 
>that it may be there primarily to assuage guilt. But the interesting thing 
>is governments are paying for it to happen. It was a first step and it 
>proves that we are capable of moving further. Packaging legislation 
>decreasing packaging in the first place is another example of how we have 
>moved forward. The key is finding baby steps.
>
>The energy problem is of course huge and there are few solutions in site 
>that look intelligent.
>
>Here is an interesting idea:
>Solar power is not commonly used on housing because the panels are cheap 
>but the batteries are expensive and environmentally unfriendly. Stop using 
>batteries. Instead of shingles I put panels over my entire roof. This 
>produces enough power for my entire house including air conditioning when 
>it is sunny. Any extra power I get I pump back into the grid. I don't 
>really care what I get back for it. I just need to bleed it and hey that 
>was less burned coal. If there is some deal where I get something for it 
>all the better. When I need normal power I buy it from the electricity company.
>
>I may produce as much solar energy as I consume ending up net zero and cut 
>my electric bills in half. And I may just be more comfortable for example 
>my air conditioning is generally turned off at the moment. I only use it 
>for rediculously hot days. Hot days are generally sunny so more power 
>means more air conditioning. Possibly in the winter I use electric heat 
>which only is fed from the solar panels to bleed energy.
>
>So does anyone think this is viable?
>
>  - bfn - JAW
>
>-- Original Message --
>From: "Bruce Colley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
>Date:  Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:59:27 -0700
>
> >>I still think there are ways to protect our future without 
> projecting >the ultimate doom of the planet. I look around at the 
> recycling programs >today and they astound me considering our lifestyle 
> of 20 years ago. We >need to find ways to change things for the better 
> that are easily >acceptable by all of the public like recycling. That is 
> the battle for >the here and now. Don't stop working the world is getting 
> better.
> >
> >>  - bfn - JAW
> >
> >>From a U.S. perspective, I see the present level of recycling as simply 
> indicative of our huge level of consumption, and I think that at least a 
> significant reason for its increasing popularity is that it serves to 
> soothe the conscience of the over consumers.  On my street, a huge, noisy 
> truck, which deteriorates the road,  comes by and unloads the recycle 
> bins and then carts this off to a plant 20 miles away where it is sorted 
> and then eventually reprocessed, all using predominantly non renewable 
> energy..  (I have doubts as to how much the material in my recycling bin 
> really even gets recycled.)  Even if all of this adds up to be better 
> than not recycling, I think that we must set the bar a bit higher for 
> ourselves.  While not "projecting the ultimate doom of the planet", why 
> not set our sights on other "R" concepts like Reduce and Reuse, while 
> simultaneously moving in the direction of sustainability.  Even 
> sustainability is, at best, a break even concept, so how to undo the 
> damage already done?  That is the final "R" - Restore.  When we are at 
> that point then we can relax and say that the world is literally getting 
> better.
> >
> >Bruce Colley, Sustainable Energy Project; 1997 Jetta TDI running on SVO 
> http://www.sustainableenergyproject.org
> >
> >
> >
> >  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> >  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >
> >  Biofuels list archives:
> >  h

Re: [biofuel] Solar panels in Israel

[Hakan]

MM,

Yes, Israel have advanced technology and also a very practical
outlook to engineering. I am impressed that they already several
years ago realized the hot water production with solar panels
and when the rest of the world are still to a large extent only talking,
they have a nation wide implementation of a "ready for use"
technology. Solar heated hot water have a payback period of
3 to 5 years and a life span of 10 to 15  years. A fantastic
investment and they did something about it, that is practical
and professional engineering.

Hakan .


At 05:58 PM 7/24/2003 -0700, murdoch wrote:
>Though the country is small in population, it does seem to show
>evidence of technological expertise and implementation in a number of
>alternative-energy areas.  There is an Israel-US connection in the
>corporate culture of tiny little
>probably-won't-make-it-but-I-follow-them companies like Medis (ethanol
>fuel cells) and I think one or two others such as ARTX (Zinc-Air
>batteries, etc.)  A side-note on Medis is that their Israeli engineers
>are basically Jewish-Russian emigres and that some of their
>innovations take advantage of what they learned working in Russia.
>
>Also, I seem to recall an alternative-energy conference of some sort
>being held there relatively recently.
>
>I had a high school history teacher who, in speaking of the Middle
>East, often used to point out that with Israeli technological ability
>and Arab-world Natural Resources, there could be great
>technological-business partnerships that could bring prosperity and
>growth to all.  I have kept hoping this over the years for such
>situations, for example, as Saudi Arabia's inadequate electric power
>situation (there was an article a few years back discussing their lack
>of sufficient electric power in keeping with their growth dunno
>how true this is any longer).  I wish that folks could work together
>to real mutual advantage.
>
>
>MM
>
>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:32:08 +0200, you wrote:
>
> >
> >Israel is advanced in implementation of hot water production with solar
> >panels. If you have been in Israel, it is almost on every house a combined
> >hot water deposit with a solar panel. The techniques are not superior, but
> >the common implementation is. Because of geographical location and
> >abundance of sun, the panels as such can be somewhat simpler and the cost
> >comparative low. Israel is already exporting this solar units to other
> >countries. Israel have recently installed more and more PV technology for
> >natural reasons, but they are of the type with 11% efficiency and as far as
> >I can understand, it is imported technology from US.
> >
> >Hakan
> >
> >At 04:42 PM 7/24/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >>This could long have been realized as a point of competitive pride between
> >>the Arabs and the Israelis.
> >>
> >>There's plenty of sunshine there - much of the time. The business
> >>prospects of perfecting the technologies there and then exporting superior
> >>solar technologies to the rest of the world are outstanding.
> >>
> >>Israel seems to be quite advanced in this area.
> >>Is sharing these advanced but decentralized technologies (mutually)
> >>advantageous?
> >>
> >>msc
> >>
> >>Barbara Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>Does anyone know of a campaign to restore electric power in Iraq with
> >>solar panels?
> >



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Free shipping on all inkjet cartridge & refill kit orders to US & Canada. Low 
prices up to 80% off. We have your brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark & more.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5510
http://us.click.yahoo.com/GHXcIA/n.WGAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/