Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: Don Klipstein on 10 Aug 2010 18:23 In article <3l6266h863neef2lh9jflmfpceaogu10qq(a)4ax.com>, CIC wrote: >On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:01:14 +0000 (UTC), don(a)manx.misty.com (Don >Klipstein) wrote: > >>In article <74i166l7nrg692b8g57j5jgmsnigaa8ono(a)4ax.com>, CIC wrote: >>>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:02:33 +0000 (UTC), don(a)manx.misty.com (Don >>>Klipstein) wrote: >>> >>>>In <ojc1669gal5p6l83l45p54m8e1pi6c6lva(a)4ax.com>, CIC wrote in small part: >>>> >>>>>50% conversion efficiency on solar panels is achievable. >>>> >>>> Can you give a cite for this? >>>> >>>> Especially should it be more practical than a layer of indium gallium >>>>nitride or relative-thereof cells, over layer of a gallium arsenide or >>>>gallium phosphide or relative-thereof cells, over a layer of silicon ones. >>>> >>>> The LED manufacturing industry is doing little with die sizes much >>>>larger than a 1 mm square, despite efficiency of InGaN varying generally >>>>inversely with current density for die sizes and amounts of current >>>>generally mostly used. I am aware of only one manufacturer making dice >>>>of that chemistry in a size so monstrous as roughly a 3 mm square, and >>>>one other ramping up production of something likely smaller but much >>>>bigger than a 1 mm square. And InGaN LEDs have been around since about >>>>1996, and ones with roughly 1 mm square dice have been around since around >>>>2001. >>> >>>Check this: >>> >>>http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/PV/pv_tech/Evolution%20of%20 >>>Multijunction%20Technology.pdf >> >> Starts with a "cherleader-style" photo, and the next graphic afterwards >>is a "global warming hockey stick". >> >> I am already in a bad mood to be sold on whatever whoever is trying here >>to sell. >> >> A few graphics afterwards, a useful one shows up. That has one curve >>getting to about 44% for "best research cell efficiency" as of approaching >>2010. That one also broke past 30% around 1991. >> >> I have yet to see on the market any PV items much more than roughly 11% >>efficient. >> >> (If you can tell me where and how to buy so much as 15% efficient means >>of converting sunlight to electricity - pleaase put up or shut up!) >> >> LED technology appears to me to having its cabability doubling every >>3.5-4 years, slow in comparison to computer technology mostly at least >>doubling every 2 years on average from sometime in the 1960's to 1 or 2 >>years ago. >> >> LEDs were on the slower pace from 1960's to now... >> >> "Laboratory prototype" solar according to above had a little over half a >>doubling (on log scale) in about 18 years! >> >> When do I get to buy 20% or 15% efficient solar cells (preferably >>practical) from Digi-Key or Edmund Scientific or any likes of either of >>these? > >And really... do you think Digi-Key or Edmund Scientific would be the >best place to shop for solar cells and solar panels? > >Ha Ha... I see now what an "expert" level user you are in this area! I am not an expert solar cell shopper, since I have not been much in the market for them. However, I have been a regular reader of this newsgroup since 1994, and I have yet to hear of available solar cells having efficiency much past the ~10-11% typical of monocrystalline silicon. Should you know something I don't about where to get solar cells better than that, preferably where any old hobbyist can get them, please tell! -- - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 10 Aug 2010 18:27 On 10/08/2010 23:06, Joel Koltner wrote: > "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:8cdvj2F9hjU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> Well, we know where the prices are heading by looking at a mature >> comparable technology that is being mass manufactured - PC PSUs. I >> have seen retail 200W PSUs for $10 > > ...although you have to keep in mind that the cost of replacing a PC's > PSU is rather less than the cost of replacing a busted solar panel... > > You can bet that the power supplies used in, e.g., most web servers are > rather more durable, reliable and costly than the $10 units. > > (With Google being a notable exception: They're striving to maintain the > highest performance per dollar, and often find that, e.g., "consumer" > grade hard drives, motherboards, etc. are still cheaper overall even > when factoring in the labor required for replacement -- they can get > away with this since they have massive redundancy and many servers can > go down without any impact on their service... whereas most people's web > sites are not at all redundant and one physical machine going do > completely removes their web presence...) > > ---Joel > Even top quality PSUs are available for less than 10c per Watt. I would eventually expect raw panels to be producing at around 20c/W As another poster said, it will come down to land price and metalwork costs. If solar is making nuclear marginal now, where will it be in 10 years? -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Michael on 10 Aug 2010 18:27 On Aug 10, 2:53 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/08/2010 22:45, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > > > > > On 10/08/2010 19:30, Charlie E. wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:02:15 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > >> <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> On 10/08/2010 16:26, Jim Thompson wrote: > > >>>> The naivete, and ignorance (), of tree-huggers is stunningly > >>>> profound. > > >>>> I suspect it's because they're not engineers... they think arm-waving > >>>> and warm and cuddly feelings are what make things work. > > >>>> ...Jim Thompson > > >>> So you have some reason for believing that solar panels are going to > >>> remain at around $400 per sq m when at least one company is > >>> manufacturing them at a third of that price? And that manufacturing cost > >>> will never fall below that value? > > >> Dirk, > >> Yes, the panels MAY drop in price, by a third or even more. > > >> The mounting hardware and similiar infrastructure won't drop that > >> much, if at all. > > > True. > > That price will come to dominate. > > >> Installation for them will only go up, at least for a while. > > >> Inverters and other grid tie or other uses SHOULD go down, but they > >> haven't yet! > > > Well, we know where the prices are heading by looking at a mature > > comparable technology that is being mass manufactured - PC PSUs. I have > > seen retail 200W PSUs for $10 > > >> BTW, the trend in industry for residential panels is to include the > >> inverter and grid tie equipment ON THE PANEL! That way, the actual > >> interconnections are all done as standard electrical connections as > >> per NEC, meaning a standard electrician can wire them up without a lot > >> of special training. Also makes passing code easier. > > > I think that is definitely the way to go for small domestic installations. > > >> But right now, as a home owner, I can't buy Nanosolar panels. They > >> are shipping everything they can produce either to Germany or to large > >> industrial installations. When their production increases to the > >> extent that they can sell to residential installers, MAYBE we will see > >> less expensive home panels... > > >> Charlie > > > The price reductions will be small over the next few years, then > > precipitous as over capacity hits. Right now just about everyone is > > getting into PV manufacture. And selling all the can make very > > profitably. Installed PV capacity worldwide doubled in 2009 (in the > > worst recession for 70 years!) > > Just saw this as an example of what's happening:http://www.physorg.com/news200631202.html > > "Norwegian company EnSol AS has patented a ground breaking, novel thin > film solar cell technology which they seek to develop commercially by 2016. > The company is now working with experts in the University of Leicester > Department of Physics and Astronomy to develop the revolutionary new > type of solar cell material that could be coated as a thin film on, for > example, windows in buildings to produce power on a large scale. > ... > A spokesperson for EnSol AS said: "The basic cell concept has been > demonstrated, and it will be the objective of this research and > development project to systematically refine this PV cell technology to > achieve a cell efficiency of 20% or greater. > > "A thin film deposition system with nanoparticle source, will be > designed and constructed in collaboration with the University of > Leicester for the fabrication of prototype cells based on this design. > > "This experimental facility will be designed to produce PV cells with an > active area in excess of 16 cm2 (40 mm x 40 mm) deposited onto standard > glass substrates. These prototype cells will subsequently be > characterised and tested in collaboration with our academic partners. > > "EnSol's next generation PV cell technology has tremendous potential for > industrial scale, low environmental impact, cost effective production > via standard "spray on" techniques."" > > -- > Dirk Metal nanoparticles. Sure, why not. Anyone know what kind of metal? http://inventorspot.com/articles/sunlight_through_your_windows_might_help_heat_house_more_ways_on
From: Don Klipstein on 10 Aug 2010 18:37 In article <8ccp7bFutvU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: >On 10/08/2010 09:29, CIC wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:02:33 +0000 (UTC), don(a)manx.misty.com (Don >> Klipstein) wrote: >> >>> In<ojc1669gal5p6l83l45p54m8e1pi6c6lva(a)4ax.com>, CIC wrote in small part: >>> >>>> 50% conversion efficiency on solar panels is achievable. >>> >>> Can you give a cite for this? >>> >>> Especially should it be more practical than a layer of indium gallium >>> nitride or relative-thereof cells, over layer of a gallium arsenide or >>> gallium phosphide or relative-thereof cells, over a layer of silicon ones. >>> >>> The LED manufacturing industry is doing little with die sizes much >>> larger than a 1 mm square, despite efficiency of InGaN varying generally >>> inversely with current density for die sizes and amounts of current >>> generally mostly used. I am aware of only one manufacturer making dice >>> of that chemistry in a size so monstrous as roughly a 3 mm square, and >>> one other ramping up production of something likely smaller but much >>> bigger than a 1 mm square. And InGaN LEDs have been around since about >>> 1996, and ones with roughly 1 mm square dice have been around since around >>> 2001. >> >> Also check: >> >> http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/PV/pv_tech/msce.pdf I saw that one, and had to scan past plenty of pages on global warming stuff before they started talking about this better solar cell. Although they did say early on 70% efficiency in theory, 50% efficiency in practice. As exotic as the diagram of the cell looks, that "50% efficiency in practice" looks to me like a laboratory prototype. The structure is a GaInP cell over a GaInAs cell over a germanium one, all in one die. >http://www.physorg.com/news199962208.html Interesting - another new material, so new that there is yet to be a solar generaltor using it. But there hopes that it will be cost-effective, due to usefulness in solar concentrators. However, that article did say that there is now 20% efficient solar power generation. -- - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Joel Koltner on 10 Aug 2010 18:57
"Don Klipstein" <don(a)manx.misty.com> wrote in message news:slrni63kbi.b88.don(a)manx.misty.com... > I am not an expert solar cell shopper, since I have not been much in the > market for them. However, I have been a regular reader of this newsgroup > since 1994, and I have yet to hear of available solar cells having > efficiency much past the ~10-11% typical of monocrystalline silicon. Most of the effort in indsutry today seems to be towards making moderately efficient cells dirt cheap to manufacture rather than significantly improving the raw efficiency of the cells. Granted, people play fast and loose with the word "efficiency" -- they often do mean "cheaper overall system cost" and not much more... |