Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Solar Cells for Cheap
Technology Review (MIT) ^ | September 12, 2006 | By Kevin Bullis

Posted on 09/12/2006 9:29:36 AM PDT by aculeus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
To: aculeus; RedStateRocker; Dementon; eraser2005; Calpernia; DTogo; Maelstrom; Yehuda; babble-on; ...
Renewable Energy Ping

Please Freep Mail me if you'd like on/off

21 posted on 09/12/2006 1:26:01 PM PDT by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

I'm all for the products you mentioned, and the sentiment of getting off oil, but fyi oil is hardly used to generate electricity in this country: It's mostly coal and nat gas with some nukes & hydro. Oil is used for transportation, industrial purposes and heating in the NE.


22 posted on 09/12/2006 1:36:07 PM PDT by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
Does this mean that free silicon solar cells would not make us energy independent or that free silicon solar cells would not be economically competitive with existing electric generation.

Both.

23 posted on 09/12/2006 1:36:59 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235

I thought the energy cost was the issue.

I am thinking for mundane things like outside lighting and secondary lighting like signage.


24 posted on 09/12/2006 1:42:00 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I thought the energy cost was the issue.

Energy density is a large part of ultimate cost. 60 square meters to run a hair dryer is huge!! The average household would need hundreds of square meters of cells to say nothing of industrial energy needs. Even if the cell were free you still have energy storage costs, you still need people to come and shovel snow off the cells or wipe dust off of them, you still need real power generation capacity for when its cloudy, and you would need to cover several States with solar cells.

I live in the mountains and have modest power needs. I've run the numbers on solar and quickly concluded that even the battery banks required for modest power were cost prohibitive. Of course, one of my neighbors claims to be 100% solar with 20 square meters of cells....But late at night...there is this mysterious humming sound.

25 posted on 09/12/2006 1:52:58 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
I'm all for the products you mentioned, and the sentiment of getting off oil, but fyi oil is hardly used to generate electricity in this country: It's mostly coal and nat gas with some nukes & hydro.

I believe the big ConEd generating plant on the East Side of Manhattan runs on bunker fuel ... heavy oil similar to that burned in ships. Not sure about other NYC plants but doubt they burn coal and know they're not nuke.

26 posted on 09/12/2006 2:30:22 PM PDT by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: aculeus; Bob Ireland

Great article! Thanks for posting it. Good investment possibilities with it.................FRegards


27 posted on 09/12/2006 2:40:31 PM PDT by gonzo (.........Good grief!...I'm as confused as a baby in a topless club!.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
(m^2 / 406 W) * (2300 W) ~= 5.7 m^2

Not 60 m^2. Where is the error?

28 posted on 09/12/2006 2:57:52 PM PDT by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235

You compared it to hair dryers (1200W each) which by their nature use a lot of power for a short period of time. Why didn't you say that 2.3kW could power 35 60W light bulbs? I only have three 60W light bulbs on in my house at night. My TV only uses 300W. 2.3kW would power seven of them. My computer runs about 160W and my refrigerator about 700. 2.3kW would go a long way towards satisfying my electrical demands.


29 posted on 09/12/2006 3:36:54 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

ping


30 posted on 09/12/2006 3:44:55 PM PDT by southland (Isaiah 17:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...

"I wonder .... if it is affected by the temperature that it operates at."

Not as much as silicon, according to the inventor. It's in the story.


31 posted on 09/12/2006 3:49:11 PM PDT by Kahonek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

I have read several reports of people who either used their own money entirely or counted on subsidies and converted their homes to near-total solar. This costs from $20,000 to $50,000
and results in usually roof-mounted photovoltaic panels delivering from 4 to 6 kw.Large battery banks and inverters are also part of the package as is buying the most energy effiecient appliances.

Frost free refrigerators and freezers use lots more electric than the earlier models of our parents. There are a couple of companies that make rather high priced units which use a small portion of the usual ones.

Anyone who thinks oil isn't subsidized should check his reality meter. The military cost alone to keep it flowing are enormous.Not to mention the political deals with less than stellar personages.

You really can't convince me it is good for the U.S. to be dependent on others for food,fuel,fiber, or anything else.


32 posted on 09/12/2006 4:17:10 PM PDT by hoosierham (Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a creditcard?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze
(m^2 / 406 W) * (2300 W) ~= 5.7 m^2 Not 60 m^2. Where is the error?

You left out the 10% efficiency of the Si cells and so you need to scale the area of the cells by nearly 10X.

33 posted on 09/12/2006 4:26:53 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
You compared it to hair dryers (1200W each) which by their nature use a lot of power for a short period of time. Why didn't you say that 2.3kW could power 35 60W light bulbs? I only have three 60W light bulbs on in my house at night. My TV only uses 300W. 2.3kW would power seven of them. My computer runs about 160W and my refrigerator about 700. 2.3kW would go a long way towards satisfying my electrical demands.

You need to throw your washer,dryer,over AC and heat into the mix as these are your primary power needs (which are small compared to those needed to operate our industry and infrastructure) Also that is 2.3 KW is peak production. I shot the photo around 1 pm. Take a 50% hit for the 12 hours of darkness. Take another 25% hit for nonideal angles of the sun. Take another hit for storage.

You can't live in the modern world on <1 KW average power draw with a footprint the size of a house.

34 posted on 09/12/2006 4:37:24 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

$5 a watt is still the price. What is the price for this new tech?


35 posted on 09/12/2006 4:40:48 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

ping for later.


36 posted on 09/12/2006 5:16:16 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
"Er, silicon cells are a lousy 10%."

What do you mean by that?

"It would take a month for a 1 meter silicon cell to produce the energy in 1 gallon of gasoline."

Once that gallon of gasoline produces it's energy the gasoline is gone. I don't know if it takes "1 meter" of silicon cell to produce the energy of gasoline or not, but those solar panels are going to continue working for years and years and even after a couple of decades they'll still be working even if they will be converting less sunshine into electricity than they were when they were first made. That gallon of gasoline will be long gone.
37 posted on 09/12/2006 7:58:55 PM PDT by TKDietz (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
"If Silicon cells were *FREE* they would NOT be a viable alternative for our energy needs."

What a load of nonsense. I'd be happy to cover my entire south roof with free solar panels. I'd plop down a couple of grand for an inverter and have my electric company install a net metering meter so I'd still be connected to the grid and my meter would turn backwards when my system produces more power than I'm using. I wouldn't even worry about batteries because I'd use grid power when my system wasn't producing enough for my needs. For just a few grand for the installation, the inverter and a few other things I'd need, I'd have a system that produces more than enough electricity for my needs in the winter (gas heat) and most of what I need in the summer with my air conditioner running most of the time. I'd save enough money in a few years to pay off my entire investment and every penny I saved after that would be gravy.

The problem with solar power is not that the energy density sucks, it's that the panels cost way too much. The energy density isn't great, but provided people live somewhere that gets plenty of sun, most who own homes have enough space to install enough panels to cover all or most of their electricity needs. The problem is that such a system would end up costing them a fortune and it would take decades to pay off their initial investment. The biggest part of the initial investment by far would be the cost of the panels.

Solar panels, films, shingles, etc., are getting cheaper, but they're still several times more expensive than the need to be before the masses start buying into that technology to power their homes. The cheaper this technology gets though, the more people we will see using it if anything to reduce their ongoing electric bills. Think about it. If the prices dropped significantly and you could get a low maintenance grid-tied solar elecrictric system installed for say, seven grand, that saves you an average of $100 a month in electric bills, it would pay for itself in less than six years. After that you'd have an extra $100 a month, or more as electric rates rise, to invest or spend on something you might enjoy. If you could spend a little more and increase the amount of sunshine you convert into electricity, you could save even more after you cover your investment. Take a few other steps to reduce your energy consumption and you could have several hundred dollars a month more in disposable income. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Send some of those free solar panels my way.
38 posted on 09/12/2006 11:45:02 PM PDT by TKDietz (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
I wouldn't even worry about batteries because I'd use grid power when my system wasn't producing enough for my needs.

Which is to say you would have added power (a very small intermittent and expensive amount) but not capacity to the grid. You still require that real power plants capable of on demand generation be built.

The problem with solar power is not that the energy density sucks, it's that the panels cost way too much.

Uh, if the energy density was higher you could get by with a single small panel.

I'd have a system that produces more than enough electricity for my needs in the winter (gas heat)

So again, when it comes to important matters, like not freezing to death, you choose an energy source with a much, much higher energy density.

Take a few other steps to reduce your energy consumption and you could have several hundred dollars a month more in disposable income. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

An advancing civilization requires increased energy consumption, energy supplies should be getting denser and cheaper not more diffuse. The only time US energy consumption declined was during the Great Depression. Solar is a cute feel good trick but is primarily a diversion from the main issue of securing our nation's access to energy.

39 posted on 09/13/2006 9:09:28 AM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
Once that gallon of gasoline produces it's energy the gasoline is gone. I don't know if it takes "1 meter" of silicon cell to produce the energy of gasoline or not, but those solar panels are going to continue working for years and years and even after a couple of decades they'll still be working even if they will be converting less sunshine into electricity than they were when they were first made. That gallon of gasoline will be long gone.

One could also argue that a system driven by the background radiation of the universe would provide power far longer than solar energy but like solar the stuff is rather diffuse and difficult to harness.

Folks start looking at the energy content of a kilo of uranium vs. a train full of coal. We have centuries worth of uranium if not hydrocarbons. If we could find a way to store fission energy conveniently such as nuke powered coal gassification or a nuke driven ethanol production process we could break free of the ay-rabs.

40 posted on 09/13/2006 9:17:50 AM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson