What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
274 Comments
- varun1s, on 02/28/2009, -3/+119Thats great news. Next step is making them available to individuals. I don't know about you, but I'm tempted to buy at this price point.
- akchrs, on 03/01/2009, -6/+98I can't wait til plutonium-239 drops in price so I can build a nuclear reactor. Imagine, powering all the appliances in your house for 6794 years.
- zephc, on 03/01/2009, -6/+81"But a study from the University of California and Lawrence Berkeley National Labs suggests that this might be the bottom for a price-point"
Yes, because technology never advances nor gets cheaper. That's pretty short-sighted of them to say - inactive, on 03/01/2009, -3/+64Even at $1.00/Watt it would still take a considerable amount of time to get a ROI, unless they release it quickly for an installed price less than $2.50/Watt.
Take my current usage of 2000KWh/month. A 5KW solar system generates roughly 500KWh/month in Dallas, Texas.
At the current contract rate floating around $0.11/KWh you are looking at a savings of $55/month. For 5KW the cost of production of the panels is roughly $5000.00. This would take roughly 90 months/7.5 years to have your solar panels pay for theme selves. This is not too bad, if you consider you can get a rebate from our Dallas electric delivery in the amount of $2.46/Watt. You could actually make money. You can also get a rebate in the amount of 30% from solar, from your taxes. My issue is to have an 'off grid' house. I would need roughly a 20KW system. The rebate from Oncore is maxed out to a 10KW. I suppose reducing my bill by half for free is not bad. But we need these for sale right now, you could actually make money. - motters, on 02/28/2009, -1/+41I would also buy at this price, but it still looks like being able to buy solar panels from a DIY store for 1$ per watt will be some years in the future. Still, I think solar power has a good future ahead, and investors should be thinking about more than just the next one or two gloomy years.
- Nerys, on 03/01/2009, -2/+39?? Hello Nano Solar did this last year. They are producing solar panels for 30cents a watt and SELLING THEM for 90cents a watt.
lax427
Do you know HOW MUCH power the sun places onto a square meter of the earth? Go Look it up.
If you can capture even a fraction of that power CHEAPLY. wow is all I can say. Panels typically last 20-30 years.
you could cover the roof of your house for a few grand and almost or more than completely offset your electric bill.
After initial investment its 100% FREE POWER. thats the part your missing out on lax427.
When the power is FREE you make back your money REALLY fast :-) At today's prices? NO not so fast.
at $1 a watt its going to pay back very fast. I pay .000136 per watt for power. That means these $1 per watt panels will PAY for themselves in power savings in just about exactly 2 years (assuming 10 hours daylight per day) And this is my CHEAPEST power at other times of the year I pay closer to 15cents a KW.
And the impact is immediate. Your electric bill gets smaller the very first month.
Cheap, Long Lasting, Free Power with ZERO pollution after creation for the next 20-30 years.
Solar is HALF the key.
the other half is Batteries. We need ultra cheap capacitor style batteries so we can STORE the solar power for usage at night.
Once we have both of those the cheap solar and the long lasting massive cheap capacitor batteries WE will be set. We might even be able to get rid of power plants all together. I could eventually see households being built with massive capacitor batteries right into the foundation that can hold enough power for say a full 2 weeks of powering the home. the solar panels fill them up the houses uses the power.
As long as the solar array is large enough that you average more power over 2 weeks than you use your fine.
Now with today's homes No way but as we get more and more efficient electronics LED lights etc.. it can happen.
Whats the problem with solar?
it LOSES money for the system. it saves money for the individual but other parts of society lose money. Tax revenue. Power creation revenue etc.. etc..
The end result is good. As we need left infrastructure and less government they get smaller.
the problem is these groups do not like getting smaller and they will resist. - acegi, on 03/01/2009, -4/+40i also would like to see decentralized energy production.
solar panels for every house, and no need for space eating solar farms. - enclaved, on 03/01/2009, -1/+26So 4 years isn't a fast enough recoup on a long term investment?
- CommonSense2k8, on 03/01/2009, -13/+35lets put some stimulus money towards this research... or subsidies...
- DirtyVicar, on 03/01/2009, -4/+22How about a $10,000 government voucher for solar power on the roof of every household in the southwest half of the country, with the provision that unused power is fed back into the grid? I mean as long as we're going to spend a lot of federal money...
- ChiffX, on 03/01/2009, -4/+19Uranium isn't renewable.
- inactive, on 03/01/2009, -5/+20haha! most definitely. its funny, they actually have small 'nuclear batteries' now which are small buildings that don't require an operator. They are beginning to power individual neighborhoods in Canada.
- kcasper, on 03/01/2009, -0/+15I would love this price too. Unfortunately as the article states that silicon is too expensive and we need to find alternatives.
A good reason everyone should have their computers running The Clean Energy Project. The seti@home like projects that identifies possible materials for further solar panel research.
http://cleanenergy.harvard.edu/ - Yez70, on 03/01/2009, -1/+13We might not be able to, but why can't the government? Let's spend 50 Billion to get 500Million Kilowatts of free power. We're already building the smart grid to handle it and I highly doubt the utility monopolies are going to do this, for the benefit of the country anyway.
That free power can go directly to power all our schools and other governmental power usage, freeing up a ton of money nationwide for local economies to spend on other infrastructure and short term needs. It would also bring the price down for the rest of us, due to the huge scale of purchases by the government. Plus it'll create even more green jobs.
Oh wait, that made too much sense - congress will never let it happen.... - cheeselord, on 03/01/2009, -1/+122000?!?!?!?! Holy hell. Please tell me you have a family of 10 or something. With a small 2 bedroom (+ roommate) in Ohio with electric everything and we hardly go over 350 in the winter.
- videographer, on 03/01/2009, -0/+11I already have 2.4Kw of PVs on my common, suburban ranch house, and I paid considerably more than a buck a watt, but guess what? Don't really care. I make about 33% of my electricity now (and I'm in Wisconsin, not the sunniest state in the country.) I'm researching expanding my array to 3Kw or greater.
Why did I do it? Hey, somebody has to go first. And it is an incredible buzz watching your electric meter go backwards. - Yez70, on 03/01/2009, -0/+11Oh NO! - we should let the banks be the stewards right?
/sarcasm - inactive, on 03/01/2009, -1/+12This is not the price point, it is the manufacturing cost. The actual cost of purchase will still be based on supply & demand and will not be affected by a reduction in manufacturing cost (that is, assuming they are already manufacturing them at maximum capacity).
- om3ganet, on 03/01/2009, -0/+9Dunno why you're being dugg down, info here:
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionI.htm - DaviDTC, on 03/01/2009, -0/+9But at the same time you are quickly dismissing this alternative energy (solar) and seem to be ok with. I'm glad you take pride in what you are doing, but solar is a great alternative energy form that is becoming cheaper and more reliable. It also doesn't take 20 years to get a solar project going.
- neozero497, on 03/01/2009, -0/+9Interesting you say that.
Consider that the best places to put solar panels are in deserts. So you are using space but it is not as if that space is useful to anyone or anything. The presence of solar panels is rather benign in said locations, even to the environment. - dtfinch, on 03/01/2009, -0/+9If they have a patent, and sell at market prices (same price as competing technology), they'll expand to take over the market in no time.
- inactive, on 03/01/2009, -0/+91. It costs about 20 billion to build a nuclear power plant. That is quite expensive, no denying that, but keep in mind that its operating costs are very low over its lifetime. In the long run, they beat out coal-fired power plants.
2. They take about 5 years to build with the long-awaited and updated licensing process. Asian countries build them in about 5 years.
3. NPPs generate literally 1 million times less waste than coal power plants. The LOW-radioactivity of the waste means it can be stored in metal drums and people don't have to wear much protection when handling. It would take thousands of years to have an overfilled Yucca Mountain of waste, and thats assuming future generations don't reuse the waste stored in the mountain. The waste can only be reprocessed so many times, but future generations will have better technology and can withdraw the waste from the mountain and reuse it. Think of it as burning the bark off of a log but not the log itself. All of this hype over waste is also assuming future generations don't find another source for energy. With todays trend in technology growth, I dont think we could possibly deal with nuclear for 2 thousand years.
I suppose spitting hundreds of metric tons of smoke into the atmosphere every year is healthier for our environment. And with solars current trend, we could have 100,000 square miles of expensive solar panels installed to power Chicago. Of course nuclear isn't perfect, but its a hell of a lot more effective than the other sources people keep debating. Would you rather have a little bit of waste stored up in a mountain for a couple thousand years, or an entire race destroyed by their ignorance? A couple thousand years may sound like a long time, but it is very VERY little. - Ebacherville, on 03/01/2009, -0/+9I'll believe it when i see this for sale.. this has been said many many many times before and it never comes .. ive been waiting for years to see this happen, show me the place I can order and ill be placing a $4000+ order at $1 a watt..
- inactive, on 03/01/2009, -0/+9You want solar to become a widespread reality? Give businesses a tax credit that will cover the costs of installing solar, and then have them pay back the installation with the money saved on electricity over a five to ten year period. Everyone wins.
- digid, on 03/01/2009, -3/+12Sounds like a much better investment than a car. People wouldn't even blink an eye to going to a car dealership and buying a car that they really don't even need. After 5 years the car has probably just been paid off and depreciated significantly.
On the other hand people would be reluctant to take out a 5 year loan on a solar panel system. - padd0016, on 03/01/2009, -0/+8Hmm, lemme see... $1.00/watt, x 1.21 jigawatts...
...Nope, still can't afford that time travel. :( - inactive, on 03/01/2009, -2/+10So disappointing to me to see people digging you down, lax. Check out how France is reaping the benefits of having 80 percent of their electricity coming from nuclear and how much of a boon it's been for their economy.
The anti-nuke fear mongers have done so much damage to this nation. - JohnFlux, on 03/01/2009, -1/+9Do you have double glazing? Maybe adding proper insulation to your house would be a better place to start.
- staticfire, on 03/01/2009, -0/+8FYI Bush went to Yale not Harvard
- inactive, on 03/01/2009, -1/+9RTFA. They were only talking about the current prevailing tech. When a non-renewable raw material is in short supply it is not going to get cheaper. FTA:
The question, though, is whether First Solar or any other solar manufacturer would be able to handle the flood of orders that would ensue if they reached competitive cost. At that point, it comes down to a matter of having enough of raw materials. That is where the real limitations come to bear, according to a paper that will appear in the March issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology. In the paper, Wadia and colleagues Paul Alivisatos and Daniel Kammen evaluated the global supplies and extraction costs for 23 promising photovoltaic semiconductor materials and found that the three materials that currently dominate the market—silicon, CdTe and another thin-film technology based on copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS)—all have limitations when ordered in mass. While silicon is the second-most abundant element in the Earth's crust, it requires enormous amounts of energy to convert into a usable crystalline form. This is a fundamental thermodynamic barrier that will keep silicon costs comparatively high. Both CIGS and First Solar's CdTe rank poorly in abundance and extraction cost, with CdTe ranking dead last in long-term potential based on current annual extraction rates. - Kyan, on 03/01/2009, -0/+7Of course you would. No-one else is going to pay for your nuclear generator.
- inactive, on 03/01/2009, -0/+7"But do you really want average taxpayers to be the steward of their own money?"
Fixed that for you.
The answer should be obvious. - buckrogers1965, on 03/01/2009, -0/+7You can get a 1500 watt power inverter for about $120 that simulates a sine wave. You can get full sine inverters in the 1500 watt range for about $600.
- rugabug, on 03/01/2009, -0/+7I live 35 miles north of Dallas and I used 303 kWh last month. My biggest usage of electricity is my old ass fridge and my hot water heater.
- jasdf, on 03/01/2009, -1/+8Please tell me that your business uses 2000KWh/month and not your home.
- Ebacherville, on 03/01/2009, -0/+7the average home uses way to much power, if you go solar you will also try to curt usage and use more efficient appliances , that will reduce the amount of panels you need.. most off grid homes consume 1/4 the amount of the average home.
- Ebacherville, on 03/01/2009, -0/+7I want to go solar simply for the fact that im in control of my power not the electric company or the government for that matter.. and free after the initial investment cant be beat.
As for batteries, for completely off grid system that what you do is store the power in battery banks, yeah they not perfect but it does work and if very proven...
Going solar is just one part of the equation, the other part is consuming less through better efficiency etc.. the average off grid home uses 1/4 the power of a on grid home, its a lifestyle that you just change the way you operate a bit.. most off girders done have a toaster for instance, and many have refrigerators that run on other power sources besides electricity, and ot are much more efficient than standard refrigerators. Little adjustments that make a big difference in power use - inactive, on 03/01/2009, -0/+6But you could do that and stay ON the grid and cut your expenses as well.
- 9bpm9, on 03/01/2009, -1/+7Nobody should be getting subsidies. Lets not spread that bull crap to the businesses that haven't been corrupted by it yet.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 03/01/2009, -1/+7I won't invest in it if the US Government is going to compete against me.
- inactive, on 03/01/2009, -0/+6production cost =/= retail price
- localzuk, on 03/01/2009, -0/+6Prices coming down on renewable energy systems is a good thing! But at the same time, people need to be looking at improving energy consumption efficiency. Some of the numbers being read out above by people are outrageous. I know I'm in a different country and all, and don't use air-con, but my electricity consumption last year averaged about 400kWh a month. Taking into account that it was one of the coldest years going over here, so heating was turned on way earlier than usual, and was on for a lot longer, I am shocked at how much people in the US use. 3000kWh??
Are your houses properly insulated? Are you using energy efficient equipment (fridge, using a washing machine at a low temp, filling your kettle with only the amount of water you need, energy efficient lightbulbs)? Double glazing? Dealt with all the draughts? I am 100% confident that with some effort, these people could reduce their energy usage. - Ebacherville, on 03/01/2009, -0/+6off griders typically use way less power than on grid people.. that and a bank of batteris and your set.. no power bills to worry about
- inactive, on 03/01/2009, -0/+6Sort of. They do LOSE efficiency and they are marketed as having a given production level guaranteed for 20-25 years but the drop off is gradual. A 50 yr old set of solar panels will still produce electricity, it just won't be as much as it did when it was 20 years old.
No one will be pulling down 30 yr old solar panels and chucking them in the garbage. If someone wants to upgrade their solar panels they will be able to sell their old ones to farmers or people with lots of roof space who don't mind having solar panels that are not as efficient as the cutting edge ones. - Ebacherville, on 03/01/2009, -0/+6yeah after 20-3- years they start to loose efficiency but still work... there are no moving parts to speak of so they don't really wear out , they just get less efficient.
- rtlampwork, on 03/01/2009, -1/+7don't always have to use batteries - can pump water up to a higher reservoir and run turbines during the night when it flows back down, or store thermal heat to use later, or maybe wind up a really big rubber band?
- MavRevMatt, on 03/01/2009, -3/+8This is amazing news for increasing adoption of solar panels. Can't wait for it to become something everyone does.
- jasdf, on 03/01/2009, -1/+6Moonlight would never be able to provide any useful power. A 1KW system might only produce 20 Watts during a full moon.
- inactive, on 03/01/2009, -0/+5Batteries are for people who live in the middle of nowhere. Normal solar panels are meant to be used in conjunction with the grid, feeding the grid during the day and draining it at night.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 280 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is