What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
169 Comments
- RicktheBrick, on 12/24/2007, -1/+145I would think that the first customer for this product would be the factories where the product is being produced. If these panels can produce electricity cheaper than coal than the best incentive to buy would be that they are reducing the cost of manufacturing them in the first place. The best demonstration of these panels would be producing power to manufacture future panels.
- CraigMac, on 12/24/2007, -1/+67Totally agree with you in concept. It annoys me when ethanol plants try to promote their wares as superior, yet they run all their machinery/vehicles, etc. on diesel and gas like everyone else. If it was actually economically superior (not even getting into the environmental impacts), they'd use the fuel they're creating.
Having said that - in the case of Nanosolar in particular, after years of investment, I'm sure they're hungry for some immediate cashflow. - jjb123, on 12/24/2007, -2/+27No, that is the point of a grid.
Also, that pun sucked. - omgstfu, on 12/24/2007, -0/+18Profit margin. Root for these guys to make a ***** load of money and the rest will take care of itself.
- chuckpoole, on 12/24/2007, -0/+16The cheapest Solar power storage available is by selling your excess power back to the power company. Most power companies are required by law to "trade" power with you. You will always have a power company for the foreseeable future so why not lighten their load a little during the the day, and then buy back what you sold them at night. It greener than any other currently available solution because most storage devices use chemicals in their active state or during the manufacturing process.
- SeethisPass, on 12/24/2007, -10/+26It's the energy storage system that is currently* the problem.
* ( hah!, take that pun haters! ) - thepatster, on 12/24/2007, -2/+17That would be pretty smart. Your right that would be great advertising for them to put it up on their own factory. It shows a lot of confidence in their product.
- jjb123, on 12/24/2007, -0/+14They said no one really knows but it is estimated at 13.95%
- Tusa, on 12/24/2007, -0/+12Who needs an advertising demo when on your first day running, you have already pre-sold 18 months worth of production without even making the panels publicly available?
- JudgeWinchester, on 12/24/2007, -7/+17Good comments....When Solar Cells are starting to be made with Solar Power we know we will be getting Green.
I wonder what the CO2 equivalent output is from other parts of the processing that goes into making these cells... does anyone know? - slvrbullet87, on 12/24/2007, -2/+12The reason is that ethanol isnt workable. Acording to the history channel it takes 1 gallon of oil to produce 1.3 gallons of ethanol. Then when you figure in that you have to mix it with gas you end up using more oil to make it than it is worth
- Spelvin, on 12/24/2007, -2/+12Again I will ask, How large is a 1 watt panel?? Please for the love of man give us something to work with so I can determine if I can power my house using the square footage on my roof!
This plus a grid tie system and Maine's energy incentives and I could worry less about the huge jump in oil prices. - MacEnvy, on 12/24/2007, -0/+10The average house uses about 2 KWh (2,000 Wh) per day. The median is actually less, but when you add in mansion-style houses and inefficient older places, it bumps up the average. For infrastructure purposes, they usually estimate 4 KWh per home per day to provide for surges in use and storage capability.
4,000 Wh * $0.90 = $3,600 one-time cost of the panels, plus the extra hardware (inverters, personal storage banks, etc). The average cost of a household solar setup is currently about $15,000-20,000, so this is a significant decrease in up-front costs if they can keep up production. If they can put together a typical household system for under $10,000, and have it built into the mortgage, that's feasible for a lot of people. - chingy1788, on 12/24/2007, -0/+9so... where do we get our hands on some of these panels for this 90c/watt price?
- fr34k5h0w, on 12/24/2007, -0/+7Ok here's what I'll do for you. I'll buy them and resell them to you for $1/watt. Sound like a plan?
- Ramble, on 12/24/2007, -2/+9Total idiot.
- EXreaction, on 12/24/2007, -2/+8Ethanol is just a scam to get people to buy new cars because they think they will be helping the environment. In the end it uses more gas than driving a regular car does.
- CodeCobalt, on 12/24/2007, -0/+6They didn't say it was 19.5% efficient. They said the film coating is capable of up to 19.5% but that does not mean the entire efficiency is 19.5%. Its roughly 13.95% efficient.
- MacEnvy, on 12/24/2007, -0/+6If you're using corn to make ethanol, you're correct. If you're using algae or grasses, that's not accurate. Corn is a political choice - the rational choice is to use other crops, which have orders of magnitude higher yield.
Still, ethanol is not the best choice. Electric via wind/solar/hydro (if the dam is already in place, don't want new dams) is ideal. - SeethisPass, on 12/24/2007, -0/+5Maybe you mean that the newly developed, high capacity capacitors would be better, longer lasting and even possibly cheaper than batteries for solar energy storage?
- qwertydvorak, on 12/24/2007, -1/+6this article was linked in the comments on that page, and highlights that problem along with other metals shortages. one line from the article mentions that if all of the current cars today were converted to fuel cell, it would exhaust all of the worlds platinum. fuel cells aren't looking too promising after reading that. maybe internal combustion hydrogen engines are the real answer.
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/027ns_ ... - Ferretman, on 12/24/2007, -3/+8This is a great thing, but let's face it....it won't matter much until it hits Lowes and Home Depot.
Glad to see the advancement though. - CasaMan, on 12/24/2007, -0/+5"Nanosolar Secures 647,000 Square Feet of Space in the San Francisco Bay Area and in Germany"
http://nanosolar.com/pr7.htm
And secondly
"For instance, our first 100,000 panels are set to go into a very small number of private commercial installations where we deploy them in fenced or otherwise secured environments."
"All of the remainder of our 2008 product allocations are spoken for already too (for quite some time already in fact). This means that if your local system integrator has not secured any quantities from us, which typically will be the case, the next opportunity is in 2009"
http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/2007/09/08/how-to-g ...
I don't think this is going to disappear anytime soon - zyox, on 12/24/2007, -1/+6cool, always wanted to worship the sun...now i actually can!
- Gazoo2001, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4Take a look at this "white paper" from NREL from 2004: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf
I don't think it's exactly what you're looking for, but it covers a lot of bases of avoided CO2/NOx/SOx output, and energy payback times for various PV technologies....the good news is that they calculate that energy break-even points on PV modules range from 1-2 years (thin film) to 4 years (polycrystalline).
Hope this is helpful. - krnldmp, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4Just buy some solar power and vote.
- CrazyDave303, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4Lets not forget the largest demand for power is during the day and lucky for us this is when sun is shining. The power grid is built not for the average of the day or year, but it's build for that very second the power usage is at it's max. To reduce the demand of peek time reduces the size and complexity of the power grid. All saving energy on continent wide scale.
I have read up on a smart way of load shifting, for example big industrial coolers would cool their warehouse/factories at off peek hours by a few extra degrees, and then at peek hours they would let the temperature raise. Smart systems like this could be done with water heaters at home, where during the day when solar energy is at it's maximum the watter is heated the most. The apparent temperature of the watter at the taps would be the same because of intelligent taps that would respond change of the hot watter side of the plumbing.
Heating or cooling large metal and concrete blocks in side of buildings will work like compact quick running 'seasonal thermal store' with out the huge cost involved with installation of such systems. These would work especial well in cold areas of the world like Canada. There will be less of need for cold temperature shifting because peek demand for cooling directly corresponds peek out put of energy by solar arrays.
Also going on the small localized version of system, could be micro hydrogen converter plants. Rather then building large complex community infrastructure a single building sized unit could be installed. The hydrogen gas could be used to power your car, and during the night converted back to power, heat and a source of ultra clean and pure watter. - CodeCobalt, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4all hail Ra.
- MWeather, on 12/24/2007, -0/+41. That number is from Wikipedia.
2. It says "up to 19.5%"
3. The German translation said 13.95%
4. None of this contradicts a 8-12% AVERAGE - CodeCobalt, on 12/24/2007, -1/+5It depends man. Unfortunately this technology is so new that there isn't much information on it. But there are 10 watt panels the same size as a 1 watt panel, hell even smaller.. So it all depends... but in general, with just your roof, I would say you probably couldn't cover your entire roof. Especially since you want to be able to tilt the panels to absorb as much of the sun as you can.. so half the panels on your roof would be useless.
- TrevorPace, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4This is true...It leaves a great opportunity for someone to solve the problem and get a PHD at the same time.
- TJ11240, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4Hey idiot, the nanosolar factory they just built will make 430 MW of these things per year once it gets moving.
- torontoliam, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4And consider the alternative. How much heat is the oil that's under the ground adding to the temperature of the planet? --- nil.
How much heat is released when oil is burned? --- 100% of the energy in the oil.
Sure, some of that energy is turned into electricity; but it all turns into heat at some point.
If we cover existing dead (i.e. non-vegetation) with these cells, then certainly we will only gain from it! - chuckpoole, on 12/24/2007, -0/+4Lets get to 20% and then worry about it. The fact is, we aren't even at 1%.
- omgstfu, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3Good question. In my case, I've got a black-tar flat roof so I can't imagine solar panels absorbing any more heat than my roof already absorbs. Speaking of roofs, I wonder that if with the advent of practical and affordable solar energy upon us - will certain roof types/construction be preferable over others in order to maximize solar energy efficiency? For example, flat roofs over pitched.
- alex1015, on 12/24/2007, -2/+5*waits for IPO*
- burningmanstan, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3Companies like Konarka are working on what will be the new dawn mankind. They are developing polymer based solar power. No silicon or rare metals needed, just organic chemistry and an inkjet printer. Problem solved, and I think they already got their PHD.
http://www.konarka.com/ - buckrogers1965, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3Payback would include the money you are no longer paying to the electric company for the power you are using for your own home. So half that estimate.
- inactive, on 12/24/2007, -2/+5You couldn't be a touch more specific for the benefit of all the readers who WILL read this, could you, please...?
We are talking about Nanosolar and when they first arrived...any information from people in the know would be much appreciated and documented as such.
The first reports of Nanosolar shipping their first production was up in the top 3 reported environmental science articles in 3 days: believe it, people are excited! - Gazoo2001, on 12/25/2007, -0/+3MacEnvy, I think you're on the right track but I question your household electricity numbers. The one I got from DOE, for 2001, showed 10,656 kWh/house/year, which works out to (10656/365) = 29 kWh per household per day. Link is here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_us_ta ...
If you have another source, I'd be interested to read it. Your number just seems very low compared to what I see at my home, and I am by no means an extravagant electricity user. If you can get by on 2 kWh per day, good for you!
From my reading into renewable energy, almost nobody achieves 100% offset of their electricity usage, except for off-grid systems, and in those cases they severely curtail their electricity usage through lighting/appliance choices and offsetting large loads by using propane and/or wood (space heat, water heat,...). Some off-grid applications have to use backup generators part of the time, esp. in the winter months when the solar resource is at its lowest.
Also, you may run into space limitations if you try to put 4 kW of NanoSolar modules on your roof. "Standard conditions" of optimum sunlight are taken to be 1000 W/square meter, so if NanoSolar material is say 10% efficient that brings you down to 100 W/square meter effective...to capture 4 kW at peak you'd need 40 square meters = about 430 square feet. Possible on a big roof I guess. - CasaMan, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3"Nanosolar Secures $100,000,000 in Funding"
http://www.nanosolar.com/pr5.htm - jsmith39, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3Completely clueless of me I know, but: How many W does the average family use? 90c/watt sure sounds great but I don't have a frame of reference for what I personally consume.
- VAXcat, on 12/24/2007, -4/+7 Please, let's not have a lot of complaining about this pun. I'm positive that we can run this negative energy to ground.
- dn11, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3I wish this company would go public - I've been hearing about them for years. Where did I first hear about them? Art Bell! Say what you will about Art Bell's wacky show - but he's ahead of the curve on some stuff
- whodathunk, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3Umm.... What are the typical mineral concentrations in a gallium and/or indium mine? I'd guess a lot lower than in a used panel... Get it? The magical word is recycling. The difference with oil/gas/coal is that in this case the metals are not gone after the fact, they can be recycled, and probably even with less effort than getting new metals from the mine...
- KingGorilla, on 12/24/2007, -1/+4I for one welcome our self-replicating overlords
- cfuse, on 12/25/2007, -0/+3Just an alternative view (from the evil corporation headquarters) - the best use of the first panels is to sell them for as much as they can get for them. That is going to considerably more (economic) value to nanosolar than wallpapering their factory.
Business is always about money, and most decision makers consider high cost a considerable show stopper - you never get the more expensive option past management unless there is a damn good reason (ie. it cannot be done any other way). Nanosolar's business model recognises this - cheaper product equals more sales for them. But initially they should recoup as much money as possible from customers who are willing to pay a premium to be first - this is basic business sense. - hutectro, on 12/24/2007, -0/+3I thing that is great for world
Read this comic strip ---->http://www.celsias.com/2007/12/23/nanosolar-update ... - coleki, on 12/24/2007, -0/+2only after the humans blotted out the sun with global cloud cover
-
Show 51 - 100 of 171 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is