What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
104 Comments
- Feep, on 05/10/2008, -0/+23The wide-eyed optimist in me wants to believe.
- biotch, on 05/10/2008, -0/+17"Sunrgi has built and tested working prototypes, and has announced plans for commercial production in 12-15 months."
The catch is its the same prediction as all the articles Ive seen for about 7 years now each claiming a year to two before they are on the shelves... And yet here we are with no affordable solar power.
Wake me up when they are in stores... otherwise dont waste my damn time - spyd3rweb, on 05/10/2008, -4/+18People should buy their own solar panels and go off the grid.
- freshyill, on 05/10/2008, -1/+11They can't do any better? The last time I checked, the cost of fossil fuels was through the ***** roof.
- gowolverines, on 05/10/2008, -0/+9But the cost of FF is going up. The cost of solar has nowhere to go but down.
- laserdog, on 05/10/2008, -0/+7Energy company Sunrgi recently issued a press release!
Seriously, I've see at least 2 of these "OMG new breakthrough in Solar Power efficiency!" posts every month for the past 3 years.
At this point, people making promises about solar are no longer news.
Wake me when someone starts delivering on any one of those promises. - nullcodes, on 05/10/2008, -1/+8Maybe for natural gas (15% of world energy?), but most fossil fuels are not 3-5 cents per kW anymore, coal prices have increased a lot. Furthermore, it's definitely not 3 to 5 cents when you include the cost of detox. That is, the cost of cleaning up the changes to the environment.
Now you can say you don't mind extra CO2 and whatever other crap in the air or whatever, but if other people want the damn thing removed, since you put it you may have to pay for its removal. And again, even without paying for that .. coal itself has gotten more expensive. - masterm1nd, on 05/10/2008, -0/+8Whats the catch?
- HaloZero, on 05/10/2008, -0/+7Whats the capital cost though?
- videographer, on 05/10/2008, -0/+7Hey, I already have solar panels. Got a $114 rebate credit this month from my utility.
I love the idea, but why is it eternally 12 - 18 months away from production?. - anfld05, on 05/10/2008, -4/+10This isn't new technology. Buried for false hope.
- yodaj007, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Dugg down for turning a conversation about oil and solar energy comparisons into racism.
- trolleyfan, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6Seven years now? More like thirty-five, forty...
- brettmurf, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5I've heard your peepee falls off.
- bluesatin, on 05/10/2008, -1/+8Since when does a magnifier reduce the amount of light going to something by much, I mean, cameras isn't ridiculously dark when they use lenses.
- prisoner24601, on 05/10/2008, -1/+7There's so much talk about how panel technology is changing, but half the cost of getting solar is installation. There should be incentives for homebuilders to put basic mount locations and wiring pass-throughs in the designs of EVERY new house they build. Of course they won't actually install panels, but that's fine. The homeowner can have that done later.
If DR Horton/Pulte/etc. all spent a few hundred bucks to leave the hookups and hardware in place on a new home, installing a system wouldn't cost $10,000 for panels + $10,000 for installation, but basically just the panel cost.
I don't like regulation, but this is a perfect example of an easy fix. Homebuilders right now want to save $500 on the hardware and time it would take to do this on every home they make, so buyers later have to spend $10,000 to have tiles ripped up, holes drilled, mounts installed, etc. - yodaj007, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4That's why you charge batteries during the day and use them during the night. Use your brain.
- uhhNo, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6Technically it's even cheaper because we wont have to spend money trying to eliminate the pollution caused by burning fossil fuels. I'm sure that in a few years/decades we will have to spend a lot trying to eliminate pollution... I have heard that in some parts of China, if you walk outside your eyes will burn because the pollution is so bad...
- inactive, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4We are still somewhere below Type I. Hopefully we will reach Type I within my life time.
- Fordi, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Fossil fuels have a fixed cost per kilowatt HOUR. Solar has a fixed cost per kilowatt. Comparing cost of solar vs. fuel is an apples::oranges comparison. You'd do better to calculate the cost of a solar panel to the cost of a generator.
- Enasni1212, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5But the narrow-eyed pessimist wouldn't be surprised if the fossil fuel industry decided to ***** this up somehow.
- controltheweb, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Great information in comments at site.
- philmck, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3"...a PV cell composition that doesn’t depend on the world’s depleted silicon reserves...."
Which depleted silicon reserves are they? We're short of *sand* now?? - ellisgl, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5I think I'll wait till the actual photocells are more efficient, greater than 60 percent (Current is 40% for the top end). Also what they are showing needs a cooling system. I would use the heat from the cooling system to heat my water heater.
- jstad, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3I will believe it when I see it....
- DiggLive, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5Sunrgi, very clever.
- julianrod, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Poor Sun, they're abusing and exploiting it. =(
- guitarmaster, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4lol at "new solar system"
- jimjacks, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4I will pay an extra penny a kwatt if it will keep my money here instead of going over seas!
- tnoy, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4The catch is, they're made from the bones of baby seals.
- inactive, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4Buried for cynicism, despair and lack of faith
- nullcodes, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Capital cost of what? The panel themselves?
When talking about Solar power costs, most of the cost _is_ capital cost. because no solar panels "consumes" fuel it barely costs anything to run. To arrive at that 5cents a kW .. it's the capital cost is the total amount of kilowatts generated over its lifespan (or sometimes 5 years) divided by the capital cost. If it is expected to last a very long time and you are storing some of the energy in batteries the cost of replacing the batteries in X many years is sometimes incliuded. - gossipninja, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Well cloud cover is not a huge concern, Germany produced over 60% of the worlds solar power, but much of that is not thru photophotaic power( typical solar panels) but through solar thermal, where the sun heats up water/molten salt. In arizona the big solar plant does not use photophotaic, but solar thermal to heat molten salt, and use the heat to heat water and power a steam turbine, which is much more efficient, and it is easier to store heat during the night, then it is electricity in batteries.
- Wakkyweed, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Be sure to read the comments at the bottom of the article. They raise some very interesting points about whether this is viable or not. I would love to see a solar system that works as well as they claim, but I'm rather skeptical at this point.
- Twenty, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Way way way more efficient than current solar panels. They even have the pretty graphs, come on. (Seriously, you have to admit the graphs are pretty awesome).
- gamemaker, on 05/11/2008, -0/+220% is an EASY price to pay for:
- Renewable energy, forever
- Non-polluting, non-greenhouse gas (worth it for this price alone)
- Eliminates reliance on foreign energy - all our troops and military bases come back from the middle east, we can cut taxes with the savings
- The 20% is a temporary, short term disadvantage, because a) fossil fuel is by definition scarcer and therefore more expensive over time and b) if this tech really works, it's not at all hard to imagine mass-production bringing costs down by far more than 20%
20% for that? Sounds like a bargain! - biotch, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2haha for you maybe :)
I must be a relative newbie....but 7 or 35 doesnt really make a difference in now being completely jaded to "solar breakthrough" stories - famousdave, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Why not just change the design of the panels so that they can easily be added to any house?
- ezdiggin, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Yeah, I don't know exactly how they expect to deliver the energy to the consumer in any amount of time. These things don't happen overnight! I applaud their effort and hope it can become a reality. Until we can truly harness the energy of the sun, check out this guy using solar power to melt a brick! It's simple, but a small-scale version of what we can do!
http://www.filmtoob.com/watch/136987561/Solar-Powe ... - inactive, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Read "The Hydrogen Economy" by Rifkin and S M I L E
- Peko, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2For optimal coaxing, scientists study the proper length of stick and the size of the carrot.
- freezeout, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3thats just $60,000 for 1.21 gigawatts!
- gossipninja, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Every few months there is a"solar revolution" and it never goes very far but a lot of that is everyone is playing "wait and see" hoping that next year, the breakthrough in cheap solar will come. I think if any government was serious about the energy crisis, they would take a handful of these "revolutionary" ideas and do test roll outs in cities that receive a ton of sun.
Solar concentration, concentrating panels, and what i think is very ideal, those solar balloons (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/cool_earth ...
You use these tests to see what does and doesn't work, then instead of rebates and crap (which not all states in the US even have) you have the govt buy and sell the systems. Which is to say, the govt could place such a large order, that the unit cost would plummet, making it cheaper, then the government would sell you the system for roughly your current electric bill each month for x amount of years (ideally 10). And mark the units up 3% and have 3% interest on this 10 year loan, to cover the overhead, then there is no barrier to getting green.Ideally the system will have no batteries and just use the grid as a giant battery, that way you save much of the system cost and maintenance, and reduce overall grid load, the actual power plant cost would be more (prob go to 20-30 cent a kwt) but you only pay for what you use above what you produce in a month, and current rules, if you make more, they gotta buy it, so you could make money each month. This is not perfect but its a digg post not a proposal. - yodaj007, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2"how well does their system work at night?"
Batteries, or continue to use power from the grid when solar isn't sufficient. - lopla, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Fantastic news!!! Steorn Orbo will also be out in 12-15 months!! A new era is upon us!!
- Fordi, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2It's not the panel design that's the problem; you can't pump power into your house without drilling a hole into a wall or roof. As for mounting, it's the exact same problem as sticking on a dish; there aren't mounting brackets built on, so you always end up building one.
- BeefBaron, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Dugg down for unfortunately high likelihood of KhanneaNL spawning more idiotic progeny.
- mysticalone, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Their going to need protection from oil companies, countries, and space colonies. Sign me up to test pilot your mobile suits...
- Fordi, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Hm.
Well, I'd say that take the existing design (concentrating sunlight onto smaller photocells, and diffusing the resultant heat), remove those ***** air-cooled heatsinks, add a watersink, and put a stirling engine at the hot end. I'd love one of these to play with to experiment towards even higher efficiencies. - DeadPanDan, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Hey! Finders keepers! The sun threw away those photons!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is