digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Monday view: Cheap solar power poised to undercut oil and gas by half

telegraph.co.uk — The new power, solar power!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • acitizenofearth, on 10/12/2007, -156/+20PLEASE SUPPORT 1day - http://www.1day2007.org

    1day is a call to every person to take one day off on the 21 March 2007 and make the smallest possible carbon footprint.
    Do not drive, do not use any public transport, turn off all electrical appliances, do not cook, eat simple food. Just stay at home with your family and friends, go walking or plant a tree, but use no as little energy as possible.

    Turn off the TV, turn off the Internet, turn off the phone.

    Right now we are faced with the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced. This is a fact, no matter what anyone says, in our hearts we know that it is the truth. Any person in this world that is 20 years old will probably have seen changes in their climate in that short time.

    Climate change and global warming is not something that is going to happen, it has started, it is happening right now.

    1day is our day to celebrate our home, to pay thanks to it. Every year in every country of earth, we have hundreds of different holidays to remember and celebrate things of the past. 1day is a day to celebrate things of the future. It is a day that we give to today's children.

    1day is a message to governments that we support their recent positive actions on climate change and we need more.

    1day is a choice, not a protest.

    PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN 1day! Please tell everyone and ask your friends and family to participate in 1day - after all it is only one day.

    • TheKMan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+69Turn off the Internet? This might be the worst place to advocate that.
    • SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -18/+43this sounds like one of those moronic don't buy gas for a day things.
    • HamsterOfDeath, on 10/12/2007, -7/+39Good luck convincing all the factories and other serious carbon emitters to shut down, they love throwing away money. Voluntary one day conservation efforts are totally pointless in the scheme of things. Long term, permanent changes will be required if we want to make any sort of progress on this issue.
    • azAZ09, on 10/12/2007, -18/+13You can't turn of the internet--"its a series of tubes"
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10Turn off the internet. What sort of a sick bastard are you. That would like destroy the entire world. What would like be like without my tubes.
    • Arachnivore, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28so you're going to cut your carbon footprint by (at most) 1/365th? That's your plan to send a message to the government? Good luck man, I don't think they're listening.
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -8/+65On March 21, 2007, I will be enjoying a nice fast internet, unclogged by those idiots who are boycotting for a day.
    • zcreem, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Don't drive you say, well I would have to start driving again after 7 years without a regular car, to give up for a day. I live in Berlin and a car here is a pain in the arse, when I need a car I rent, so up yours and your one day enviromentathon.
      As for turning off me appliances I use only low energy bulbs, to compensate for my heavy computer use, it is my work tool!
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8acITizenofmirth: Remember to shut off your power from the breaker box. Don't want you to be a hypocrite for letting your TIVO record something for you to watch the next day. Nor let you have hot water or heat in your house. Do it 100%. Go live in a tent for 24 hours on your front lawn. Who am I kidding, you're probably living in your mom's basement. Well then, go over and flip the main breaker switch now.

      lamer.
    • kurtu5, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9Quick join 1day and overnight become a collectivist social slave. Do what they tell you! Listen to the experts! Feel bad.
    • jmkiii, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6"On March 21, 2007, I will be enjoying a nice fast internet, unclogged by those idiots who are boycotting for a day."

      The tubes will be almost empty!
    • beardedswede, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Heh heh.. I'll be in the north Georgia mountains on a 5 day hike for Spring Break on March 21st. Aren't I a trooper?
    • Massif, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24"do not use any public transport"

      Buses run regardless of whether there's people on them or not...
    • diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Next we'll read that Exxon has patented the sun.
    • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3>1day is a choice, not a protest.
      Protests are usually by choice. If you want to distinguish it from a protest, you should choose a different way.
    • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10It's unfortunate that the first comment derailed the importance of this story.
    • ellolazo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0if i dont jump in the World jump day" for decrease the global heating, why i would do this??. or better i will do it , and i will stay connected to keep in touch with the stats of how many people do it :P
    • JonGalt, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Dude your a retard. The scientists that support this ***** = your priesthood. You = Thier flock. Nice faith you got there maniac. you sound like some doped up hippie the way you talk. idiot.
    • kam4pal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6My house runs on a Solar !!!!!...so I cant turn it off :(
    • DNABeast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2>>This is a fact, no matter what anyone says, in our hearts we know that it is the truth.

      I'm always extra careful when people say something like this. It's important to note that brains are for thinking about truth. Hearts are for pumping blood. Also, Don't let your penis think too much for you either. That'll just get you in trouble.
    • Richggs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3 @ acitizenofearth
      yeah because turning off for ONE day will make a difference, nope it needs to be a change in the materials we use in daily life.
      Carbon emissions arnt just for march 21st.
  • iDragonFly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23I'm looking to install solar on my greenhouse, so the film described would seem ideal for this application.
    Even if it's comparatively pricey, I'd only require a small amount.
    Right?
    • SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2RTFA?
    • jordanday, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I'm not a horticulturist, nor a solar-cell-ologist, but don't you want the sunlight to actually make it into the greenhouse? Solar cells are going to be opaque, aren't they? They would either absorb or reflect the sunlight that struck them, which I imagine would hurt your plants growing ability.
    • zweben, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11"I'm not a horticulturist, nor a solar-cell-ologist, but don't you want the sunlight to actually make it into the greenhouse? Solar cells are going to be opaque, aren't they? They would either absorb or reflect the sunlight that struck them, which I imagine would hurt your plants growing ability."

      He's going to use the solar panels to run flood lights, duh.
    • kurtu5, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Well solar cells don't convert 100% of the incoming light into energy.

      From snell's law, a certain percentage is reflected, a certain percent is absorbed and a certain percent is transmitted through. The percentages are determined largely by frequency and angle of incidence and of couse by the optical properties of the material.
    • aveyuen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@jordanday

      You can coat glass with this technology because it is 'semi-transparent'. For the case of an office building, it makes sense because not only does it act as a partial shade, reducing the need for A/C, it also provides power. I am in the similarly marketed polymer solar cell research area, and we use 'semi-transparent' as a selling feature, when in reality it is actually a sign of a crappy cell that doesn't absorb all the light. Just don't tell the silicon solar cell guys our dirty little secret.

      However, that being said, it makes no sense for a greenhouse because you want ALL the light to go in. Shade makes no sense in a greenhouse...
    • wbeavis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Some times you don't want "the Man" seeing what you are growing, dude.
    • iDragonFly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@ jordanday "They would either absorb or reflect the sunlight that struck them, which I imagine would hurt your plants growing ability."

      You bring up a valid point. I think I confused my point by say "install ON my greenhouse." Sorry about that.

      Traditional solar panels are normally placed on a roof, and as you’ve stated, this might not be the best thing for structures such as a greenhouses.
      But since I need to run an exhaust fan in there, (it gets entirely too hot without one) I’m seriously looking at small solar systems.

      And as for the house I’m building right now, I’ve decided against installing panels roof.
      First of all, I have a metal roof with an 8/12 pitch, so it would be quite difficult to install, especially on the second floor level.
      And secondly, I want to minimize putting holes in the metal.

      So for me, the assets of this product is in its versatility.
      This film can work more effectively in more locations than it's predecessor.
      Therefore, I would be more inclined to invest in it, as I’d hope others would as well.
    • 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Flisom might arrive too late to the party.

      CIGS technology is already being used anf manufactured by other companies.

      http://www.daystartech.com/terrafoil.cfm

      http://www.nanosolar.com/index.html


    • Plant11, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1If you put solar panels on your greenhouse, how would the sunlight get in? Or would the solar panels power grow lights inside? That would be pretty funny.
    • iDragonFly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ plant11 "If you put solar panels on your greenhouse, how would the sunlight get in?"

      In my situation, the greenhouse in question, has more of a problem with heat - not light availability. So being able to power an exhaust fan is key to the prevention of cooking my little green buddies.

      Also, the size of a solar collector required would be small because the demand will also be small.

      And as I've already stated, the attraction for the photo voltaic film discussed in this article is its installation/placement versatility. I would NOT need to put it directly on the structure.
    • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"However, that being said, it makes no sense for a greenhouse because you want ALL the light to go in."

      Sigh. No you do not want "ALL the light to go in". How much direct sunlight you want or need in a greenhouse depends on how it is situated, climate, season, ventilation and how much natural shade it has. Many greenhouses get too much direct light and benefit from screening on the roof or sides. Many greenhouses do well with a solid, non glass roof. There are far too variables and you clearly aren't someone with a vast knowledge of horticulture.

      Your statement is the thing that makes no sense.
  • wheresmyreagan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Please participate in one day without global warming death threats!

    Solar power, stickin' it to the terrorists since (whenever solar power was created?).
  • kravex, on 10/12/2007, -20/+9Laws need to be passed so all new houses must have solar power panels fitted as standard, all we need to do is convince the oil millionaire politicians to.... ahhh
    • Wargalas, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10And who's going to pay for it? You can't just tell someone "you need to have this" and make them pay for it unless it's for safety such as a decent foundation, or a roof that won't collapse. While it would be excellent to have this as an option on new homes, requiring it simply won't work.
    • dotorg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9wargalas:

      Go pick up a copy of the Universal Construction Code and read through it. Then go ask your town what code requirements they have beyond the UCC.

      Then ask yourself again if its possible to mandate things in construction.
    • Dogdirt, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4"You can't just tell someone "you need to have this" and make them pay for it unless it's for safety"

      It is for safety, safety of generations to come.
    • majortom1981, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Actually you dont pay attention to the news. My town here o nLong Island ahs already done this.

      The town of babylon here on Long Island is one of the first towns in the us to require all buildings with 4000 square feet or more of space to be built gree.

      Tanger outlet in deer park will be the first building built with this in mind. They will have solar power on the roof, geothermal heat and everything.
    • gamerage, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12If it was more cost effective than other forms of power then people would do it. People want to be green, it just costs too much for too little right now.
    • buckrogers1965, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I agree. With reservations.

      The reason that I agree with you is because an energy policy is part of a National Security Policy and because global warming and dependence on foreign energy supplies are real threats to our nation. These threats to society require that sometimes people have to make some sacrifices. Sure it's not as romantic as going off to fight a war in the middle east and coming back with post traumatic stress syndrome, but it is a lot less harmful to society to have a sane energy policy than to fight wars for energy all over the world.

      However I do not think that the technology is there yet. What I would like to see is a system that will pay back the house owner inside of 10 years. The cost of building and maintaining the system must be paid off by the energy the system creates inside of 10 years.

      Once we get to that point then I fully support requiring all new houses to be equipped with a tested and certified solar power system.

      I think that the pay back is already there for a hot water heater system and would really like to see a nation wide requirement for all new houses to have a solar water heater scaled to the geographic region and the number of occupants the house is designed for, along with the waste water heat re-claimers that rewarms the incoming cold water to showers.

    • jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@dotorq
      "Then ask yourself again if its possible to mandate things in construction."

      It's possible to shoot myself in my foot. That doesn't make it a smart thing to do.
  • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33Sweet. Now that's the type of product I've been looking for. I only hope it lives up the the hype. I'd love to make an investment when I buy a house and then not have to worry about electricity bills ever again!
  • cfazzini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16This stuff sounds incredibly interesting. A solar film would be ideal for lots of places.
    • Langford, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I wonder how close we are to having solar film efficient enough that I can skin an electric car with it and not worry about refueling.
    • Hubris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Langford - I think that's still a long ways off....an electric car needs a huge amount of power, and has a relatively-small area for solar power. It's more realistic to need to supplement any on-car generation with power generated at your house, or sent through the grid to electric refueling stations. The time associated with recharging the batteries would be one potential issue.
    • slowbo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Langford

      Short answer: never.

      Long answer:
      The density of solar power on a flat surface on the edge of the atmosphere is 1kW/m^2. Your car is, let's say, 5m long, 3m wide and 1,5m high....and that's a pretty big car. Also, it has no windows, so the total area is: 5*3(top)+2*1,5**5(the sides)+2*3*1,5(front and back)=49m^2. That would of course give you 49kW or ca. 68bhp to power your very large, windowless car. Would you buy something like that?
      To add insult to injury consider the following:
      - that 1 kW/m^2 is actually only 80% of that value on the earth's surface(clear sky), or 20-30% (cloudy), or even 0% (at night)
      - the real world efficiency of Si PV cells is just south of 20% (for the best and dearest of them). The thin foil ones are much worse (like 5%) and actually degrade quite fast (down to 4% in a few months)
      You could of course store the solar energy, but it would still put severe limitations on the usability vs. the 'turn the ignition and drive' nature of fossil fuel powered ones (assuming you manged to increase the energy density of electrical storage something like 10 times - basically win at least one Nobel prize).
  • szembek, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5Vaporware.
    • bobcrotch, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Wasn't solar power supposed to be our main source of energy like 20 years ago?
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4No. Where'd you get that idea? 20-30 years ago is when it became well understood that solar power would inevitably become cheaper and cheaper over the decades and would supplant fossil fuels.
    • bobcrotch, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Yeah dumb ass, thats what I said. Wasn't solar power supposed to be our main energy source like 20 years ago?

      I'm saying that just like global warming they're rolling out stories like this as if no one has heard them before.

      Save us the ***** news stories and give us the goods already.
    • szembek, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2I'll say it again. Vaporware. Bury me again. It's not a viable source of energy. We should be focusing on other ideas.
    • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@bobcrotch
      You don't seem to understand at lest one of what you said or what d00ley said in the way that most writers of English I've been exposed to would seem to. What you said would be understood by most English readers to mean that 20 years ago solar power was supposed to be the main source of energy at that time. However, 20 years ago they may have projected that at some time future to then solar power would be cost efficient enough to be a main source of energy, which is what d00ley expressed.
    • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6>It's not a viable source of energy.
      Well if you would explain why you think that, you wouldn't get modded down. Expecting the sun to extinguish soon?
    • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It really isn't about replacing conventional fuel sources. If we can keep from using more and more of the stuff, we'll release ourselves from the vulnerable position we are in at the hands of those who control our current energy sources.

      This is important.
    • szembek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Vaporware bitches. Vaporware, vaporware, vaporware! It'll always cost more than it's worth.
  • uberchaoslord, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4I think I'll cut down a boreal rainforest tree and burn it just to make up for everyone else cutting back that day...
  • Spelvin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I was just looking at what is involved with a grid tie photo voltaic system and it really is not that bad. With a MTB of 25 years on the currently available panels, you can work it into a mortgage and end up paying a lot less for power plus the cost of the system than you would for just grid power on a monthly basis. Not to mention that over the years the price or grid power will continue to rise...Unless cold fusion happens...

    Found this site to be very informative about the technology: www.solarhouse.com, and it is in my neck of the woods...
  • dvddesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12They need a transparent film, and then peddle that to every window manufacturer in the world.

    That's your step 2 to profit.

    They already push the "energy saving" double paned windows hard, think of the money to be made off of "energy-creating" window treatments.
    Hell, I'd almost take solar enabled shades and keep the windows drawn closed during the day.
    • Dogdirt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I always wondered what step 2 to making profit was. I already knew the first step was to steal underpants.
    • iDragonFly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I like your idea.
      Wondering if anyone is working on that.
    • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If it's completely transparent, it can't collect light energy. It'll pass it.

      Semi-transparent, or variable transparency - now you're talking.
    • bigiced, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Step 3: Put your junk on that Solar Film...
    • PhantomZmoove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So is the amount of transparency directly related to panel efficiency then?
  • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5So, if I live in a part of the world where it is overcast and snowing or raining for 6 to 7 months out of the year... Would this new way of generating solar power help me when I need it the most?

    I hope so... But this article seems more like a guy with a start up company trying to find financial backers.
    • dvddesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11You can still get a sunburn on a cloudy day as well. Unless cloud cover has it pitch black outside there is generally ALWAYS some sunlight to be had from solar panels.
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3So, when it's dark from 4:30PM to 7:30AM on Dec 21st, I need to go up there with a flashlight and shine a light on some solar receptors to make sure I've got heat for my house at night.

      Seriously, I would love for solar power to take over, but I don't live in Sunny California. It gets DARK here, and I want the lights, heat/AC, etc to be on at night as well as during the day.
    • drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@h00paj00

      Ever hear of batteries?

      What if the surplus energy from the film was used to produce hydrogen by electrolysis? The hydrogen could then be used to power a generator.

      just because you can use this as *A* power source doesn't mean it has to be your *ONLY* power source.
    • PaulC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7h00paj00,
      Just because you have solar panels doesn't mean you have to be completely off the grid. You would use the solar panels during the day when sunlight is available, and then buy power off the grid at night. Or perhaps they will be efficient enough to charge batteries during the day, which could be used during the night for heating and lights.
    • johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@hoopooj: There is a technology called a "battery". That would suffice for some part of the night time. The goal in most areas (unless you are so rural you don't have plumbing) is to live off the grid as much as possible. If the US was 50% solar (I know - pipe dream, but work with me) with the majority of day-to-day cars on electricity powered by solar, then we would reduce carbon emissions, frustrate most of the terrorist funding nations, and have cleaner air.

      So yes, at night, you might have a problem if you are totally disconnected from the grid. But I imagine that is a very small part of the populace. Personally, I look forward to a time when my electrical bill is only $50 instead of $150.
    • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@h00paj00:

      If only we had some way to store the energy captured by the solar panels, like in your flashlight.
    • arpad, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2This would be a little more useful if there were an inexpensive, efficient way to store the electricity. But right now there are only a few ways to store the power and all of them cost plenty. For you nobs that casually toss off "ever heard of batteries", maybe you ought to grab a calculator and figure out what the cost of electricity storage does to your greenie-weenie fantasy.

      A more honest way to measure the *value* of solar cells would be to quote a price/watt that included storage, installation and amortization. Without knowing the fully-loaded cost you don't know whether people will want to buy PV power or have to be bribed or forced to do so.

      I'll wait until I start seeing paid advertising before I give this stuff any consideration. That'll mean someone is making money on the technology which means they have a viable product.

      Of course, if you live in your mom's basement you don't have to worry about stuff like that.
    • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I live in Arizona. If I could knock 400 watts of energy consumption off that AC refrigeration monster in my back yard on a typical 107 degree summer day, even just during the daylight hours, I'd jump at the chance. So would a few million of my neighbors.
    • duffman5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@drmangrum

      "What if the surplus energy from the film was used to produce hydrogen by electrolysis? The hydrogen could then be used to power a generator."

      You expect there to be surplus energy? That'll take a lot of solar panels. There are thermodynamic limits on the efficiencies of solar panels, so a given area (i.e. your roof) has a maximum amount of energy it can produce if filled with solar cells. I know someone with his entire roof covered, and he can barely keep the lights on and the place heated. Don't expect to disconnect from the grid if you want to be able to run your computer, router, tv, and dishwasher at the same time--especially if you're banking on having surplus energy.

      Search to buy some solar panels online, and you'll find some that give you 50-100 W for a few hundred dollars. I don't know about yours, but my computer alone takes 450 W, without the monitor, router, cable modem, printer, etc. Maybe you'll save some money on electric bills in the long run, but solar won't get you off the grid any time soon.
    • drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@duffman

      Most homes are empty during the day. Your AC/Heating SHOULD be set to higher/lower temperatures respectively. Your TV's are not on. Your appliances are not on. the power consumption for a house is LOWEST during typical work/school hours and between 10pm - 6am. Yes, you should have surplus power.
  • DearSergio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Wait! The sun has energy....that we can HARNESS?! Amazing.
  • Arachnivore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8There's a company called Nanosolar that's opening its first thinfilm production plant this year. They claim their cells will go for about $0.50/Watt.
    http://www.nanosolar.com/
  • vesendak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Xerum 525
  • RealHyperX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7These types of articles give me wood. I spend close to $300 a month in electricity bills. Having 8 servers, a hot tub, 2 big fish tanks doesn't help - but I would love to off set some of these costs.
    • jordanday, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I hope you have a 20000 sq. ft. roof to put all the solar cells you'll need. Not dissin' solar power, I think it's great, but that's a lot of energy you're using!
  • Sparkster185, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Somehow the Bush administration will make it not happen. After all, he's gotta give kickbacks to his oil industry buddies.
    • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Notice there is an indirect reference to this in the article.
  • codesuidae, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Don't forget that the solar power available from roof-top solar is not sufficient to run a typical power-hungry household, particularly if you are using low efficiency thin film as described in the linked article.

    Reduce your energy demands first, then consider a switch to solar.

    This is not to say that additional surface area couldn't be utilized to provide the necessary power to allow you to keep wasting energy, just that you shouldn't expect to be able to generate power to waste solely from your own urban or suburban land. If you've got an acre or more and some outbuildings though, my all means, plaster everything with PV panels so that you can continue with your conspicuous consumption.
    • Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I'm not sure that's true any more. I looked into it for my house with a grid-tied system (sell power back to the grid when you've got it, take power from the grid when you need it), and it the square-footage required to break-even (produce in 1 year what my electric bill claims I use in that same time) was very definitely doable. Actually, with the size of my roof, I could produce about 4x the energy we use and we're not all that conservative (lots of lights, just recently converted many to CFL).

      No, I think if you are willing to lay out the investment for it today (for me, I think it was $14K USD), you could definitely power a house filled with gadgets (in my case, all the usual trappings plus a server and several laptops). However, I'm going to hold off just a little longer. I'm definitely sold though...
    • rtini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Do both at once. As they burn out, replace incandescent bulbs with fluorescent ones. When you buy appliances, pick ones that will conserve energy and save you money in the long run. Turn your computer off when you're not using it. Stop watching TV all the goddamned time and read a book or go outside or something.
  • meshman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"The "tipping point" will arrive when the capital cost of solar power falls below $1 (51p) per watt, roughly the cost of carbon power. We are not there yet. The best options today vary from $3 to $4 per watt - down from $100 in the late 1970s."

    That's a factor but not a major one. The real factor is the cost of installation and how long it will take you to pay for it. The other facor is that in places that support it, people that generate their own power via solar can feed any excess back into the main power grid and get paid for it. I would do this in an instant except the payback period is a bit high still. But with innovations like this that make solar power collection cheaper and more efficient, it would be worth sinking say, $10,000 into a system that would pay for itself and actually make you money in 5-10 years. It's getting there.
    • vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7If I could get a system that could break even in even 10-15 years, I would do it in a heartbeat.

      But as of about 6 months ago (las time I did all the calculations) ROI was still on the order of 25-30 years. And this was using the panels with the greatest $/watt ratio I could find, assuming a 2%/year increase in power costs, counting every possible tax break, and doing all the work myself. Even then I had to fudge the numbers a little bit to get it down that low. Using "honest" numbers (you know, the ones I would hide from my wife when trying to sell her on the idea), it was more like 35+ years.

      I have been casually looking at some of the newer wind options lately, and hopefully in the next 5 years or so I will be able to do a solar/wind setup that will break even in 10-15 years, or even less. But I really have to do some more research, and run the numbers on that.
    • vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I should also note, that not only does my power company buy back surplus power, they do so at a HIGHER rate than they sell it for. If I remember right they pay like $.21/kwh, but to buy costs like $.13/kwh.

      BUT... You have to be at a net surplus for the year, otherwise you are just trading a kwh now, for a kwh later. Like a free storage system.
  • HappyMax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2How long have they been claiming solar is just 5 years off? I hope its, true but I'll believe it when I see it.

    And aren't we all supposed to have personal jet packs by now.



    • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Well, the jet packs are supposed to be solar powered. You can see the problem.
  • byogman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I hope it works, I hope it's cheap enough to match, or beat burning dinosaurs.

    However, anyone can say in X amount of time... nothing to loose, a little free publicity, so everyone with something to sell, regardless of what it is, is making these sorts of claims.

    These stories are getting really boring. Show me something I can buy that ought to pay for itself and you'll have my attention. For now, I think compact fluorescents are about the only thing that does.
  • BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Clue in: Incredible claims about an energy source + start-up making the claim = scam. Always. When you see you, just roll your eyes and move on.

    • grinding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Video of the technology used:

      http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/CNNvideo.wmv

      Google is also an investor and "IBM's top manufacturing executive" has joined their team. Doesn't seem to be a scam.
    • BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Oh...well...they have a video...it has to be true then. This BS goes on all the time. Technology like that is simply not developed in jumps. It's very slow and incremental.
    • Arachnivore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Nanosolar has a lot more than just a video and some big wig investors. By the end of the year they're going to have by far the largest photo voltaic production facility in the world.
  • HalfGiraffe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4One problem with the technology described in the article is that it relies on a copper-indium film. Indium is relatively rare and in heavy demand for LCD displays and other tech toys. There aren't many viable indium deposits in the world. In North America, the only potential mine that I know of is in New Brunswick owned by a company called Geodex (yes I'm a shareholder).

    Most of the available indium in the world comes from the processing of other ores.
    • freddo411, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There's quite a high percentage of Iridium in certain asteroids. In fact, some of the terrestrial deposits are meteorite debris.
  • MindStalker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@wargalas You'd be surprised the amount of crap thats required in building codes nowadays. Either way it really depends upon the requirement. A full solar system can run as much as 30 grand, while a solar water heater can be had for 3-6 grand.
    • betacmag4u, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Search Google for DIY solar hot water plans.......can be done very cheap
  • aveyuen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This article smacks of unbridled and somewhat unjustified optimism. They've been talking about CIGS technology for years (if not decades), and the main problem is that CIGS stands for Copper Indium Gallium Selenide. Other than copper, do you know how we get the other 3 elements? Indium comes from zinc mining (and is required in making thin displays, causing the price of both metals to skyrocket in the last few years), and I believe gallium and selenium come from precipitators from coal fired power plants. The base material is very, very expensive, which is why I believe that organic solar cells (nanocarbon-conductive polymer nanocomposites) are the way to go for low efficiency, ultra low cost large area applications, and crystalline solar (Si, GaAs) is the way to go for tight area, high efficiency applications (satellites, concentrators).
  • BGPEREIRA, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Crummy digital solar power watches dont work or last long. One single oil company made $39 Billion profit! More than 10 nations eat and drink oil!! Solar power ? Dream on!!!
  • Larofeticus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Oh look, human ingenuity and the free market is going to find an efficient and viable solution to the drawbacks of fossil fuels within a decade.
    • freddo411, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Of course, anyone that knows economics would not be surprised. Markets and products aren't static.

      Economical solar tech could arrive even sooner if the price of oil edges up as main doomsday advocates have been predicting for decades.
    • nick111, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Dude, the planet is in a terminal state of ***** - because governement has failed to impose regulation on the markets.

      This is not an opportunity to perform contortions of spin to try to make free-market fundamentalism look good. Un-fettered markets are inherently irresponsable - and they've done horrific environmental damage.

      Rules for Corporations, Rights for People.
    • freddo411, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@nick111
      > Dude, the planet is in a terminal state of ***** - because governement has failed to impose regulation on the markets.

      No, the world is quite fine, and we are headed toward cleaner technology everyday. To take one example of many, per capita CO2 production in the US is less today than it was in 1998 -- without any gov't rules on the subject.

      >This is not an opportunity to perform contortions of spin to try to make free-market fundamentalism look good. Un-fettered markets are inherently irresponsable - and they've done horrific environmental damage.

      No, government socialism has a horrific record not only of destroying the environment (take a look at the former soviet republics) but of enslaving people and/or depressing their standard of living. So presented with a choice here in the US should we emulate the Soviets' policies or embrace successful market strategies?

  • fuzzynyanko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I remember some dude putting solar cells on a hybrid car getting very high mpg. Also, I would love to put solar cells on a house in the future as well.
    • swordedge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The dude was lying. You can charge a plugin hybrid with one in your back yard
  • JayTee44, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3>>>Somehow the Bush administration will make it not happen. After all, he's gotta give kickbacks to his oil industry buddies.
  • swordedge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I will believe in cheap solar cells when I see them. Efficiencies MUST improve.
  • Rodzirra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8" "We don't need subsidies, we just need governments to get out of the way and do no harm. ...," [Sethi] said."

    I like this guy. I gotta figure out how to invest in his company.
    • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's a pretty amazing statement, when you look at it.
  • davidg11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I trade the stock market for a living....I find it interesting that all these revolutionary commercial applications are always...ALWAYS 2-3 years away. Then once the release is out, you never hear about it again for another 5 years. I think the candidate that should win the presidency should pledge to pump obscene amount of money into research labs for alternative energy (and nuclear). Solve energy and no one is going to give a rats ass about the middle east...everything in the world becomes cheaper for the consumer..there is no reason this needs to wait till 2010, 2015, 2020 to get the cost of scale down. PUMP MONEY INTO IT!
    • freddo411, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Pumping money into what exactly? It is not known which particular approach will succeed. Gov't money tends to flow to large organizations that have a single idea (think Synfuels from the Carter days). Just because the tech is there doesn't mean that the economics will be.

      The thread above shows several links to different solar technologies. The market will produce many alt energy products and the marketplace will figure out when/where/how much/how fast/ to adopt them.
  • ckying, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I GOT IT. Put the solar films on wind turbines! Two birds with one stone. We'll make BILLIONS! No... MILLIONS!
  • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The story behind this article is one of the most important developments of our lifetimes.

    If only we could get the energy interests (who have a lot to lose) to stay/get out of the way.
  • jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2From the article:
    "We don't need subsidies, we just need governments to get out of the way and do no harm. They've spent $170bn subsidising nuclear power over the last thirty years," he said.

    Dare I hope?
  • Boognish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hope it works. The solar thing, not the day one thing
  • lettruthout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Umm... Putting this into perspective... If we consider the health costs of living downwind of coal power plants and the environmental damage caused by CO2/mercury pollution, then solar already must be cheaper than coal. If we consider government subsidies for nuclear plants (to get them built) and the yet to be determined full cost of waste disposal, solar must be cheaper than nuclear energy. Taking in the full picture, even $4/watt systems look good. (And yes, I've installed one on my house already.)
  • onetimeuse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"We don't need subsidies, we just need governments to get out of the way and do no harm."

    Don't "we the people" put the government there? So are we getting in our own way? Unless of course one would say "we the people" aren't in control of the government anymore.
  • marius404, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3imagine where we could be if instead of spending billions of dollars in Iraq we spent billions researching alternative energy sources.
  • DavidDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"We don't need subsidies, we just need governments to get out of the way and do no harm. They've spent $170bn subsidizing nuclear power over the last thirty years," he said.

    AMEN!!!

    FWIW the California legislature completely ***** up the roll out of the electric car. One of those cases where a teaspoon of stupidity can undercut a tsunami of innovation. See the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" for details.
  • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Problem : Solar Power is vastly inefficient when it comes to space usage

    What should happen is all power generation should go nuclear/geothermal and all gas/coal/fossil fuel facility's closed. With this the cost of power production would fall and there would be great amounts of excess power, then the cost to power consumers could be dropped to near nothing and everyone would benefit. Hate nuclear power if you want, but the truth is that nuclear power is the cleanest - most efficient power source that is practical for mainstream deployment. The waste is harmful but can be stored in secure locations instead of dumping tons and tons of waste into the atmosphere.
    • HappyMax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If there's one thing we have in excess in the U.S. it's space. We have millions of square miles of nothing but empty space out West.
    • ChiTownEnergy, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0Nuclear power plants are far from clean. Radiation leaks are documented at almost every facility. Uranium extraction requires lots of diesel equipment. Storing waste in secure locations is totally unfeasible at this point. Yucca Mountain doesn't really make any sense and neither does onsite storage. Nukes have some advantages over fossil fuel technology but that is like saying one broken arm is better than two.
  • bahaal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Any one know of educational kits that use the flexible solar technology we could buy?
  • tobleronian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great news.

    If this stuff takes off and is as easy and cheap to produce as they say, as well as being waterproof and fairly durable it could shift the entire energy sector in a matter of a few years.
    It should be made standard for every new house to have its roof covered in the stuff... which according to this article would render that house energy self sufficient :)

    Think about it... electric cars havn't taken off because they lack the range of standard cars (they're also kinda pricey). If they built electric cars with the same kinda motors as those Tesla Roadsters, but cheaper heh... and pasted a load of that film on the roof... we may never again have need for refueling stations. However they could have depots within petrol stations that charge cars also.

    What I'd like to know is.. IF that all happened within the next ten years, on a worldwide scale.. for houses and transport. So the amount of greenhouse gases being produced was cut by a large margin... what would happen to the environement... What would happen if we just stopped producing ANY greenhouse gases. Its a model thats not really been thought through. Everyone's just assumed the world would be all happy and good.
  • lettruthout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ davidg11 and mirunit

    I'm amazed that people still think of nuclear energy as a good thing. Even with...
    - huge government support to keep the industry going
    - the fact that each plant is a significant terrorist target
    - the US domestic uranium supply is dwindling (less than 14 years available per the US Corp of Engineers)
    - the risk of widespread devastation when the next plant fails
    - uncalculated costs involved in decommissioning each plant, guarding the waste for thousands of years and loss of use for the damaged property involved.
    - unknown effect of thermal pollution

    More info:: Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations
    by: US Army Corps of Engineers, Sept 2005
    http://www.energybulletin.net/13737.html

    Why should we accept these risks? Instead we should be transitioning to a wide variety of sustainable sources. Solar is just one of them.
  • GuyverII, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This kind of stupidity has been coming out for thirty years now.
  • wolfkeeper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I for one welcome our powerful new photonic overlords.

    Oh wait did I say that out loud? :-)
  • dancurranjr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Another project Mr. Begly is into is Free Solar Gear which is a very interesting program:

    Citizenrē REnU program packages solar power for you in a simple and smart way. Plainly put, the Citizenrē Corporation pays for, installs, owns and operates the solar installation. You don’t have to worry about maintaining the equipment or any of the other concerns that come with making an investment into solar power. All you are required to do is pay for the electricity generated from these panels, at a fixed rate that is at or below your current electricity price, for up to twenty-five years.

    Free Info at: www.FreeSolarGear.com
  • surfspike, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0Solar power costs are really the only thing thats been stopping large scale integration, the technology is well proven and effective. I can see no "good" reason why we should not all be using this technology in some of its forms!
    http://www.energyconservation.org.uk/solar-lightin ...
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.