Article

2005-07-24 Home Front: Tech

Progress on Photovottaics - Closer than Generally Thought

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mhw 2005-07-24 08:14|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 They also seem not to want to talk about what it takes, to include toxic materials, just to create the cells and what its going to take to dispose of them at the end of their useful lives.

Posted by Hupavith Gletle6588 2005-07-24 08:38|| 2005-07-24 08:38|| Front Page Top

#2 I'll grant you the point that the manufacturing will generate some nasty stuff. But so does the manufacture of hundreds of items. One of the worst by the way is the manufacture of pickles - the waste is very acidic and there is a lot of it.

Posted by mhw 2005-07-24 08:44|| 2005-07-24 08:44|| Front Page Top

#3 So what is the efficiency of currently commercially available photovoltaic cells? And how long is their useful life? I can't judge without comparisons. ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2005-07-24 09:02|| 2005-07-24 09:02|| Front Page Top

#4 If they ever get this right, it could really crater natural gas and coal prices.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-07-24 09:05|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-07-24 09:05|| Front Page Top

#5 Even if they do 'get this right' it will take so long to manufacture and deploy that the only effect on gas & coal prices will be to ease the escalation and allow those commodities to continue to be used as chemical (& fertilizer) feed stocks.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2005-07-24 09:21|| 2005-07-24 09:21|| Front Page Top

#6 IIRC back when I was in grad school in the early/mid 90s solar arrays were along the lines of 10-12% efficient and perhaps five years later we were targeting 15-20% as our design goal for spacecraft application though those were somewhat $pendy in comparison to the garden variety commercial stuff.

Posted by AzCat 2005-07-24 09:42|| 2005-07-24 09:42|| Front Page Top

#7 When companies find them profitable to install without subsidies or tax credits, then I'll be interested.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2005-07-24 09:52|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-07-24 09:52|| Front Page Top

#8 I wouldn't be surprised to see genetic engineers modify existigng solar collectors (plants) to provide some sort of economic, non-polluting energy source first.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-07-24 10:03|| 2005-07-24 10:03|| Front Page Top

#9 Great idea Mrs Davis, but I think the enviro's would have a fit if that were to happen (not that that is a bad thing!)

Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-07-24 10:28|| 2005-07-24 10:28|| Front Page Top

#10 One of the worst by the way is the manufacture of pickles - the waste is very acidic and there is a lot of it

That's why gawd invented ribs, pickel tan is good for children ribs and most every thing else.

Posted by Shipman 2005-07-24 10:44|| 2005-07-24 10:44|| Front Page Top

#11 236 suns? 10 suns? Uh, what's the operating temperature of these semiconductors? And how long can they last? I always get a little suspicious when a press release gives only one (highly optimized) parameter. Granted that much needed progress may be being made, but such progress is typically made slowly. Misleading âbreakthroughâ reports are unseemly, though the MSM seem to like them.

Posted by Dave 2005-07-24 11:02|| 2005-07-24 11:02|| Front Page Top

#12 It's all meaningless until the life-cycle cost becomes competitive with large-scale generation using coal and nuclear fuel. Right now, solar is not even close.

Posted by Neutron Tom 2005-07-24 11:43|| 2005-07-24 11:43|| Front Page Top

#13 Wishful thinking. They are describing incremental improvements in efficiency, which are pretty much irrelevant to delivering low cost solar power. That will only come from technology that is cheaper to manufacture and deploy by several multiples.

Posted by phil_b 2005-07-24 15:10|| 2005-07-24 15:10|| Front Page Top

#14 They are describing incremental improvements in efficiency, which are pretty much irrelevant
----------------------------

Well the only way progress is made is by increments (unless you define big increments as breakthroughs).

Some PV applications are practical at $10/watt, e.g., light away from transmission lines in wilderness areas (to power remote sensing).

Some PV applications become practical at $5/w (highway applications such as low power lighting).

Etc.

Posted by mhw 2005-07-24 15:29|| 2005-07-24 15:29|| Front Page Top

#15 It's all meaningless until the life-cycle cost becomes competitive with large-scale generation using coal and nuclear fuel.

As measured by what costs? If you include the capital costs of starting a new nuclear plant, and amortize over 10-15 years instead of 25 or so, the cost profile looks a LOT different.

That's not to say that solar is a viable alternative for major power generation at this point. But, as mhw points out, there are a lot of different applications. For many, just the effort of running transmission lines might be very costly or impractical. In these cases solar is MUCH more cost effective and the issue becomes one of capacity and reliability.

Given the value of remote sensors in security now, that is an important point I think.

Posted by too true 2005-07-24 16:06|| 2005-07-24 16:06|| Front Page Top

#16 I'm going to have an attack of pendantry here. 'Incremental' has 2 overlapping meanings. One is in steps, the other is in small steps/changes (ref Oxford dictionary). General usage is the latter.

Anyway, my point was that any improvement in efficiency will not make it significantly lower cost than other sources of electricty (at current prices) over the mains distribution system. Never mind lower than the cheapest sources of electricity, generally Hydro. That would require efficiences well in excess of 100%, clearly impossible.

Where I live, Western Australia, is about as ideal as it gets for solar. Very high and reliable levels of sunshine. Very long distances and low population densities making electricity distribution expensive. Yet solar (PV as opposed to passive which is widespread) power is non-existent here, except for some telecoms applications, for the very simple reason costs are not even in the ballpark.

Posted by phil_b 2005-07-24 16:29|| 2005-07-24 16:29|| Front Page Top

#17 Re #14 & #15: Why would I amortize a nuclear plant over 10-15 years? That's as silly as claiming PV is "practical" just because it's cheaper than running poles and wires into a wilderness area to power a remote sensor. This article is talking about PV being "competitive with mainstream electric generation systems". That's pure BS.

Posted by Neutron Tom 2005-07-24 16:42|| 2005-07-24 16:42|| Front Page Top

#18 Several San Diego homes have been set up with rooftop solar and local news has been carrying stories with their electric meters going backwards - they're selling juice to SDG&E, and at peak usage periods. IIRC the setup cost was $10-15K

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-07-24 16:45|| 2005-07-24 16:45|| Front Page Top

#19 I don't dispute that PV makes genuine electricity. I just dicpute that the true unit cost is anywhere near competitive with coal or nuclear.

Posted by Neutron Tom 2005-07-24 16:48|| 2005-07-24 16:48|| Front Page Top

#20 Amonix is working with DOE and California grants according to the Amonix website. You can thus expect optimistic predictions at least until the funds run out. Especially on optimistic sites like NREL's. This is not objective -- this is self-serving press releases posing as news. The folks at NREL are about as objective as the folks working on fusion at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. It is the market that rules the energy future, not the energy bureaucrats and their subcontractors.

Posted by Neutron Tom 2005-07-24 17:01|| 2005-07-24 17:01|| Front Page Top

#21 Why do people who think that socialism doesn't work turn around and think that the government is the defining source for new technology and predicting the future?

Posted by Neutron Tom 2005-07-24 17:04|| 2005-07-24 17:04|| Front Page Top

#22 When I can afford to put this stuff on my roof and run my heavly energy dependent house call me. Other wise it's BS. By the way I own abot 28 ARCO mud cells I have yet to hook up, I will have to build my own Charge controler and I might be able to run my ham gear off of the power. This is still pie in the sky as far as I am concerned.

Posted by Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-07-24 17:57|| 2005-07-24 17:57|| Front Page Top

#23 By the way, Ship, your pickle shipment will be on the way this week. Dill, bread & butter, and pickled squash.
I ahve done a bit of design with photovoltaic cells. I used a bank of surplus batteries from Ma Bell and a small bank of photovoltaic cells to provide 12 volt power to a small house. We ran the refirgerator, well pump, and lights. Of course, finding 12 volt appliances was not the easiest thing. This was back in 1986 and the house is still working today. The hot water is solar as well. Heating is a whole 'nother problem but as this was in South Alabama it wasn't as much of a problem as it would be here in east Tennessee. A propane heater worked wonders.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2005-07-24 18:06|| 2005-07-24 18:06|| Front Page Top

#24 Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees!

DB turn out to be a tick hippy. ;>

Posted by Shipman 2005-07-24 19:23|| 2005-07-24 19:23|| Front Page Top

00:02 an dalusian dog
00:01 .com
23:59 Steve White
23:54 trailing wife
23:52 bonanzabucks
23:50 Frank G
23:50 .com
23:48 AgentProvocateur
23:48 JosephMendiola
23:45 Pappy
23:44 smn
23:43 trailing wife
23:42 muck4doo
23:42 .com
23:36 Atomic Conspiracy
23:35 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
23:34 AgentProvocateur
23:34 True German Ally
23:33 JosephMendiola
23:33 .com
23:31 trailing wife
23:30 .com
23:28 Frank G
23:27 AgentProvocateur