[gnm]

OK I read the whole article. It sounds like they are trying to drum up venture capital.. Thin foil PV has been around for a while.

the solar ballz guy was going to have a product now too that would change the world... hmmm where did they go?

Late 70's PV was NOT $100.00 /watt - more like $10.00

"you won't have to get down on your hands and knees to find a plug" - what kind of idiotic statement is that? Does he plan on doing away with AC?

Economy of scale and conversion efficencies have not been "galloping ahead" - more like a snails pace...

Yes Europe and Japan have recently deployed huge PV projects. Either these are greenie feel good boondoggles or I guess they didn't learn that grid distribution line loss approaches PV efficency. Oh and why would they spend billions on those using current "heavy" panels if these were going to be 40 cents a watt by 2010?

I call hype....

And yes boyz... I am running PV myself...

Go build your PV house. but expect to spend $....

-G

[grink1tt3n]

My concern is that the technology is relatively cheap now... and getting cheaper in the future, but what happens when energy/resource costs rise?

Will building solar strips on a grand scale still be cost-effective?

[bonjaski]

i am sure that we will see 1.5 - 2$ per Wp in 5-10 years,

and thats already cheap enough for some places like italy, south USA, mexico, china and so on ...

to wait for that is hard

at the moment i don't have the money to buy a 10kwp pv system,
even if i will get around 0,45 eurocent/kwh
:/

maybe in 5 years

[gnm]

I bought PV at $4/watt back in 1998-99... Its now over $5.00.... I see no reason to believe it will be $2 in 5 years... But if it is I'll be buying!

-G

[Clouseau2]

"you won't have to get down on your hands and knees to find a plug" - what kind of idiotic statement is that? Does he plan on doing away with AC?

Read the article again, he's talking about adding a small solar cell to a phone cheaply so that it charges in sunlight.

Like a solar powered calculator.

[Clouseau2]

BTW, no one jumped on this gem in the article?

"We have invested a bit in all forms of renewable energy ourselves and maybe we'll find a winner one day. But the reality is that in twenty years time we'll still be using more oil than now," he said.

Might he be wrong?

What do you think, Might he be wrong? LOL!

[gnm]

"you won't have to get down on your hands and knees to find a plug" - what kind of idiotic statement is that? Does he plan on doing away with AC?

Read the article again, he's talking about adding a small solar cell to a phone cheaply so that it charges in sunlight.

Like a solar powered calculator.

Well then hes still an idiot. Wireless devices consume a lot more energy than a calculator. It will take more than the backside of your razor phone to power it... especially with low output thin cells and being in your pocket and all... I felt he was referring to laptops. Still not going to happen....

LOL yeah I think he might be wrong about the using more Oil than now thing...

-G

[lardlad]

"you won't have to get down on your hands and knees to find a plug" - what kind of idiotic statement is that? Does he plan on doing away with AC?

Poor reading comprehension is a terrible thing. The statement you deride was in connection with powering laptop computers, which run on DC.

[lardlad]

As a general comment on the comments do far posted: 90% of them are doomer twaddle. The quality of posts has fallen over the past few years. The educated posters seem to have dispersed. It's pretty depressing to see every positive development scorned and belittled with phrases like "I call hype" and uneducated derision and speculation, rather than informed comments by experts in the topic area.

[gnm]

"you won't have to get down on your hands and knees to find a plug" - what kind of idiotic statement is that? Does he plan on doing away with AC?

Poor reading comprehension is a terrible thing. The statement you deride was in connection with powering laptop computers, which run on DC.

And a poor attempt to insult me... unless you think he was referring to a DC plug under the desk in the wall? Hmmmmmmm?

-G

[grabby]

We shouldn't get off track, there is no workable answer that will solve this problem we will never ever wever stop the using up of every drop of oil we can suck out of the ground
so we can run our go carts and pickups.

We are making it expensive, and basically you cannot have a futuristic society without lotsa cheeeeepoil.

And startrek is NEVER going to happen, too much power involved.

If we found 9 ttrillion barrels of sweet crude that runs under pressure, we could all drive cars. build computers and move mountains, but soon we wont even be able to build any new roads.

what is doomerish about that?

so we walk, so what. Still alive.

The funniest post I ever read on this web site is when someone said
"The MIT boys will save us!"
I laughed a lot. They don't even know we are in trouble yet.

[WisJim]

I have been hearing and reading about imminent new technology that would make PVs a LOT cheaper, ever since buying my first panels back in 1981 (for about $10 a watt), and it hasn't yet, to the extent promised. But, if you consider inflation, those $10 a watt panels were more like $20 or more a watt in today's dollars, so the current $5 a watt approximate cost is a bargain. The prices have gone up since 1998 or so, probably due to demand and inflation.

[zoidberg]

I cant comment on the technical viability of these proposed solar cells, but i will comment on the hype aspect of it.

If they live up to the hype and the numbers quoted on that link, then yes it will be a terrific technology and will greatly ease the transition from an oil based economy. Therefore I would say a little hyping is perfectly fine if it'll help raise funds to develop it. The market runs on fear and greed, and this type of article stimulates greed certainly. The ends justify the means. I dont think the hyping necessarily means they're trying to sucker investors and take their money. And if the investors lose their money, well its no worse than buying SUVs and vacations with it or even investing in oil companies, IMHO.

I will also comment on Germany and Japans investments in solar technology. As the losers in WWII they're leadership is keenly aware that they're lack of access to oil resulted in their defeat and slaughter under oil powered bombers. So that they're investing in solar power when its not the most economical choice, has to be seen as a GAMBLE that the next time TSHTF they will have a chance. Its not a boondogle. Its a wise choice, they're best bet, but not guaranteed. I admire it.

[gnm]

Germanys massive PV plant will do nothing to offset the kind of power they use. Thats why I would say it is a boondoggle. Its not a real solution. PV works best at the usage site because you will lose power in distributing it. So basically they are wasting a bunch of PV's on heating miles of power line....

-G

[zoidberg]

Germanys massive PV plant will do nothing to offset the kind of power they use. Thats why I would say it is a boondoggle. Its not a real solution. PV works best at the usage site because you will lose power in distributing it. So basically they are wasting a bunch of PV's on heating miles of power line....

-G

At this point in time, that is quite true. However its still early and awaiting new technologies and wider adoption. This is where the gamble part comes in because if further adoption and technology is stymied then it was a waste.

As for on site usage, I dont really know how the solar power is distributed. They do have a big plant at Hemau, according to this link

http://www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsGermany.htm

it generates 4 of Germany's 145 megawatts of solar installations as of 2005. That suggests to me it is fairly widely distributed. Also further adoption would suggest that the localized power distributors would have less distance to transmit their power before another local power generator would take over.

So this 'boondoggle', imho, cant get worse and can only get better, perhaps exponentially so as PV and battery tech improves, and adoption keeps increasing. I like those odds.

I just hope they dont go overboard and really decommission all their nuke plants.

[gnm]

Well batteries are the worst link in any PV system. I would hope that they are not incorporating that. If they are then the net power to the user after distribution would be almost none. Widely dispersed daytime PV feeds _might_ help lessen the load on daytime grid usage but I still think distribution losses would cut into the efficency quite heavily. I suspect that a lot of this is installed in exchange for "carbon credits" or other government subsidies. Neo-green profit taking.

-G

[zoidberg]

Well the battery idea was all mine, I didnt actually read it anywhere, I just thought big batteries are a good match for intermittent renewables like solar and wind. If the losses of storing it in batteries are too much for small PV systems, then so be it. Thats why its good to have the nukes around, pouring out all sorts of power.


Again the point about profit taking for carbon credits is valid, but thats part of the plan...to get people to start building and installing PV systems it has to be profitable right? Eventually, hopefully, with better/cheaper/more numerous PV panels, it will pay for itself. I think its analogous to Dubya's ethanol vision. In that he's subsidizing inefficient production from corn, betting on cellulosic technology to take over once a big market is made for it. Whether or not it works, the jury's still out. But serious money and people are on it, and really what else can people do but try? So similarly with current technology PV is still not viable. But whats the other option? Watch everything crumble as oil and gas production drops every year? If its peaking, now is really the last shot we have to make it big with PV(and other renewables), so I dont think it matters if it works or not, because the end result is the same if we dont try or try and fail.

Unless of course a powerdown and reversion to pre-industrialism is your goal. Its not mine.

[gnm]

Nope not my goal either... but I fear it may be our fate... I agree everyhting needs to be tried, but we must first remove subsidies that blind us to the real effectiveness of the application. These solutions must be tried standing on thier own. I am afraid that even with a mad rush to renewables, biofuels and even if we were building a bunch of nukes (which we aren't) That the one which will win will be coal... I fear a dark, hot and polluted future....

If the peak was indeed Dec. 2005, and the Hirsch report is anything more than toilet paper... then we are in big trouble...

-G

[lardlad]

...to get people to start building and installing PV systems it has to be profitable right?

A new paradigm: Rent your PVs!

[zoidberg]

but we must first remove subsidies that blind us to the real effectiveness of the application.

Ultimately that is true. In the meantime however the tech is still evolving, and the existing energy suppliers are, shall I say, determined. Energy exporters are usually hopelessly dependent on energy exports and deathly afraid of losing their markets. They will and have over produced in order to undercut emerging competitors. I'm thinking mainly of Saudi Arabia and oil of course, but theres no reason why natural gas guys cant start that game too. (Is that whats happening now?)

The point is that PV is an ideal tech - no pollution or moving parts, and everyone has solar resources to some degree. I strongly believe it will become viable without subsidies, given some development and steady demand. But we need to give it room to grow, because if its left to the market, its massive competitors can do much to damage its growth. The only entities that have the power to provide this protection are national governments, so they must take the lead in providing a positive environment.

So really if you dont believe PV is viable, then yes subsidies are pointless. Otherwise leaving it to the market is a surefire way to have it ignored until rolling blackouts start. Then it'll be too late.