Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Solar sham - Page 9

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Jeff on January 28, 2008, 4:19 am
 
Mauried wrote:

Well the electric demand is greatest during the day. And there are ways
to store energy such as pumping up to a reservoir.

<URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity>

  As far as the electric conversion. I understand that high voltage DC
transmission lines are getting popular as they have advantages such as
easy syncing to a different power net. The cost of the conversion hasn't
stopped that.

<URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission>

   The limiting factor is the cost of generation.



   So's the Iraq war, the foreign oil debt... If there's a will it can
be done. Certainly not more challenging than going to the moon.

   I'm inclined to think we'll see more thermal solar power generation.


   What's the latest estimate on that florida nuclear plant BTW?

   Jeff


Posted by Steve O'Hara-Smith on January 27, 2008, 10:51 pm
 
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:57:12 GMT
mauried@tpg.com.au (Mauried) wrote:


<snip>


    From this page:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/29/solarpower.renewableenergy

-------------
"This is the world's lowest-cost solar panel, which we believe will
make us the first solar manufacturer capable of profitably selling solar
panels at as little as 99 cents a watt," said Roscheisen yesterday.
--------------

    A clear claim from a Nanosolar spokesman of a selling price of less
than $ per watt.


    Various reports put the manufacturing cost at $.30 per watt, see
for example:

http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheaper-than-coal/

    I think all the reports with this figure stem from the same press
release.


    The claim on their site is 12 months.


    No it has not - all that has been said is "capable of profitably
selling solar panels for as little as 99 cents a watt", they might be
charging more, charging less or even giving them away and taking a loss. I
haven't seen the contracts.


    Of course it doesn't - but where did you get the idea that the
manufacturing cost was $ per watt ?

--
C:>WIN                                      |   Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins.                | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    licences available see
                                            |    http://www.sohara.org/

Posted by Jeff on January 28, 2008, 3:43 pm
 Mauried wrote:

You are right, it is $.90/watt:

<URL:
http://www.celsias.com/2007/12/23/nanosolar-update-first-panels-now-shipping/>

   Now at that price, over the 25 year guaranteed life of the panel you
are at 1 cent/kWhr, not including inverters (for a line tie). At 10
cents/kWhr that's a payback period of around 2 1/2 years.

   Now, I don't forsee the cost of conventional energy falling. But it
is entirely expected that the cost of solar PV will fall further. (Who
remembers the cost of data storage a decade ago?) If you could buy at
around $.30/watt within the decade, and it may go lower, it's foolish
not to defer at least some of your electric costs when you have ~1 year
paybacks.

   Of course, we are still talking wholesale cost, but what will be the
markup when solar becomes yet another commodity?

   Jeff




Posted by Steve O'Hara-Smith on January 28, 2008, 6:00 pm
 On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:43:04 -0500


    Indeed - this is after all only the first to market with a roll to
roll printing style approach. Now that is proven possible I expect there
will be others along in due course doing their best to undercut and/or
outperform Nanosolar.


    I'd expect there to be some cheap reject (for utility panels) and
offcut film around at some point.

--
C:>WIN                                      |   Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins.                | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    licences available see
                                            |    http://www.sohara.org/

Posted by J. Clarke on January 28, 2008, 3:25 am
 Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:

In subsidized pilot programs or when there are tax incentives to do
so.


However if it's not carrying the baseload then it's not having any
kind of major effect.


However direct solar thermal also is site dependend and often requires
extensive upgrading of the building in order to be viable.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)



This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread