SOLAR ENERGY MAY SOON GET MUCH CHEAPER
in [Physics]
|
Prev: neutrino oscillation
Next: math solution, fyi
From: usenet on 11 Jun 2010 19:49 Solar Energy May Soon Get Much Cheaper By Brian Westenhaus oilprice.com Thursday, June 10, 2010 Scientists from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have developed a new solar cell that they hope will cost a tiny fraction of current production. The new cells consist of tiny silicon wires that measure a mere 1-micron in diameter. These wires are embedded lengthwise and perpendicular into plastic plates where they convert light into electricity at an exceptional rate of efficiency. Any light that is leftover bounces around inside the wire matrix until it finds another wire that can absorb it, thus nearly all the light is captured and converted into electricity. Professor Harry Atwater at his namesake research group at Caltech explains the new solar material made of tiny silicon wires could "dramatically reduce the cost of making a silicon solar cell. Instead of the expensive process of making a wafer and slicing it up with a saw, throwing away two thirds of it," says Atwater, "We grow the material and literally peel it off. The plastic sheet is peeled off like scotch tape off a tape dispenser." The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component. The other 98% is made from inexpensive plastic, which should translate into significantly lower prices for consumers compared to existing solar cell technologies. That lower price is in inverse proportion to the rate at which the cells convert sunlight to electrical power. More at: http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Solar-Energy-May-Soon-Get-Much-Cheaper.html Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi Om Shanti o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read, considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number. o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article. FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Since newsgroup posts are being removed by forgery by one or more net terrorists, this post may be reposted several times.
From: jimp on 11 Jun 2010 20:32 In sci.physics usenet(a)mantra.com wrote: > Solar Energy May Soon Get Much Cheaper <snip> > The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is > composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component. The other > 98% is made from inexpensive plastic, which should translate into > significantly lower prices for consumers compared to existing solar > cell technologies. That lower price is in inverse proportion to the > rate at which the cells convert sunlight to electrical power. Material costs for anything other than jewelry is typically not a particularly significant part of delivered cost. <snip rest> -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: usenet on 11 Jun 2010 21:27 In article <d61be7-3pe.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com>, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted: > In sci.physics usenet(a)mantra.com wrote: > > Solar Energy May Soon Get Much Cheaper > > <snip> > > > The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is > > composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component. The other > > 98% is made from inexpensive plastic, which should translate into > > significantly lower prices for consumers compared to existing solar > > cell technologies. That lower price is in inverse proportion to the > > rate at which the cells convert sunlight to electrical power. > Material costs for anything other than jewelry is typically not a > particularly significant part of delivered cost. > > <snip rest> So they don't know what they are talkng about at the URL below? http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Solar-Energy-May-Soon-Get-Much-Cheaper.htm Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi Om Shanti
From: jimp on 11 Jun 2010 22:16 In sci.physics usenet(a)mantra.com wrote: > In article <d61be7-3pe.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com>, > jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted: > >> In sci.physics usenet(a)mantra.com wrote: >> > Solar Energy May Soon Get Much Cheaper >> >> <snip> >> >> > The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is >> > composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component. The other >> > 98% is made from inexpensive plastic, which should translate into >> > significantly lower prices for consumers compared to existing solar >> > cell technologies. That lower price is in inverse proportion to the >> > rate at which the cells convert sunlight to electrical power. > >> Material costs for anything other than jewelry is typically not a >> particularly significant part of delivered cost. >> >> <snip rest> > > So they don't know what they are talkng about at the URL below? > > http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Solar-Energy-May-Soon-Get-Much-Cheaper.htm They wrote a breathless press release, nothing more. The delivered cost of just about any manufactured item has little to do with the raw material cost to build it. Add to that the fact that a solar energy system is far more than just a PV cell of some sort and requires permits and licensed installers. In all the systems I seen to date the cost of the solar panel is about a third of the installed system cost and the material cost is a tiny fraction of the panel cost. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: jimp on 11 Jun 2010 22:18
M.P. Android <me(a)privacy.com> wrote: > jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >>Material costs for anything other than jewelry is typically not a >>particularly significant part of delivered cost. >> >><snip rest> > > Google the OP and be enlightened... You think material cost is a significant percentage of the cost of a $30,000 car or a $1,500 TV? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |