Posted by jimp on June 11, 2010, 8:32 pm
In sci.physics usenet@mantra.com wrote:
> Solar Energy May Soon Get Much Cheaper
<snip>
> The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is
> composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component. The other
> 98% is made from inexpensive plastic, which should translate into
> significantly lower prices for consumers compared to existing solar
> cell technologies. That lower price is in inverse proportion to the
> rate at which the cells convert sunlight to electrical power.
Material costs for anything other than jewelry is typically not a
particularly significant part of delivered cost.
<snip rest>
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Posted by jimp on June 11, 2010, 10:16 pm
In sci.physics usenet@mantra.com wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com posted:
>
>> In sci.physics usenet@mantra.com wrote:
>> > Solar Energy May Soon Get Much Cheaper
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is
>> > composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component. The other
>> > 98% is made from inexpensive plastic, which should translate into
>> > significantly lower prices for consumers compared to existing solar
>> > cell technologies. That lower price is in inverse proportion to the
>> > rate at which the cells convert sunlight to electrical power.
>
>> Material costs for anything other than jewelry is typically not a
>> particularly significant part of delivered cost.
>>
>> <snip rest>
>
> So they don't know what they are talkng about at the URL below?
>
>
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Solar-Energy-May-Soon-Get-Much-Cheaper.htm
They wrote a breathless press release, nothing more.
The delivered cost of just about any manufactured item has little to do
with the raw material cost to build it.
Add to that the fact that a solar energy system is far more than just a PV
cell of some sort and requires permits and licensed installers.
In all the systems I seen to date the cost of the solar panel is about
a third of the installed system cost and the material cost is a tiny fraction
of the panel cost.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Posted by JD on June 12, 2010, 1:58 pm
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics usenet@mantra.com wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com posted:
>>
>>> In sci.physics usenet@mantra.com wrote:
>>>> Solar Energy May Soon Get Much Cheaper
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is
>>>> composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component. The other
>>>> 98% is made from inexpensive plastic, which should translate into
>>>> significantly lower prices for consumers compared to existing solar
>>>> cell technologies. That lower price is in inverse proportion to the
>>>> rate at which the cells convert sunlight to electrical power.
>>> Material costs for anything other than jewelry is typically not a
>>> particularly significant part of delivered cost.
>>>
>>> <snip rest>
>> So they don't know what they are talkng about at the URL below?
>>
>>
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Solar-Energy-May-Soon-Get-Much-Cheaper.htm
>
> They wrote a breathless press release, nothing more.
>
> The delivered cost of just about any manufactured item has little to do
> with the raw material cost to build it.
>
> Add to that the fact that a solar energy system is far more than just a PV
> cell of some sort and requires permits and licensed installers.
Are these permits and installers the price of
getting subsidies?
What if one can do the job with one's own funds
and labor?
> In all the systems I seen to date the cost of the solar panel is about
> a third of the installed system cost and the material cost is a tiny fraction
> of the panel cost.
The info that started this thread suggests a much
lower cost because of
the increased efficiency but, I guess as usual,
time will tell.
Posted by jimp on June 12, 2010, 2:27 pm
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics usenet@mantra.com wrote:
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com posted:
>>>
>>>> In sci.physics usenet@mantra.com wrote:
>>>>> Solar Energy May Soon Get Much Cheaper
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is
>>>>> composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component. The other
>>>>> 98% is made from inexpensive plastic, which should translate into
>>>>> significantly lower prices for consumers compared to existing solar
>>>>> cell technologies. That lower price is in inverse proportion to the
>>>>> rate at which the cells convert sunlight to electrical power.
>>>> Material costs for anything other than jewelry is typically not a
>>>> particularly significant part of delivered cost.
>>>>
>>>> <snip rest>
>>> So they don't know what they are talkng about at the URL below?
>>>
>>>
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Solar-Energy-May-Soon-Get-Much-Cheaper.htm
>>
>> They wrote a breathless press release, nothing more.
>>
>> The delivered cost of just about any manufactured item has little to do
>> with the raw material cost to build it.
>>
>> Add to that the fact that a solar energy system is far more than just a PV
>> cell of some sort and requires permits and licensed installers.
>
> Are these permits and installers the price of
> getting subsidies?
Umm, no, they are the price of having building codes to make sure your roof
doesn't blow away with the solar panel in the first windstorm.
> What if one can do the job with one's own funds
> and labor?
In the US and most first world countries, attaching to the local grid will
require a licensed electrician and in many places just running wires through
your house will require one unless you want to void your homeowners insurance.
If you just want to put lights in a barn, you could do it yourself.
>> In all the systems I seen to date the cost of the solar panel is about
>> a third of the installed system cost and the material cost is a tiny fraction
>> of the panel cost.
>
> The info that started this thread suggests a much
> lower cost because of
> the increased efficiency but, I guess as usual,
> time will tell.
Reread the first sentence of the quoted paragraph:
"The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is
composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component."
If in fact effiency goes up less panel area would be required and the system
cost should come down, if.
One day we may see something more substantial than yet another press release,
but personally I've been waiting for that to happen for several decades, so
pardon me if I'm a bit dubious.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Posted by M.P. Android on June 12, 2010, 10:24 pm
>The info that started this thread suggests a much
>lower cost because of
>the increased efficiency but, I guess as usual,
>time will tell.
You might want to google the OP to understand.
Email on polite request in newsgroup