Toyota officially goes Plugin

Solar stirling engines are already as cheap as coal-power, soon to be cheaper. They will be the real cost benchmark for nanosolar to reach.

http://www.stirlingenergy.com/solar_overview.htm

I think it's difficult to appreciate the scale of the Nanosolar announcement. Their single new factory can produce 430 MW of solar cells per year. That means that every 2.3 years, they make 1 GW of solar power. That's the same output as an entire nuclear power station! From one factory!

If there were 20 NS factories around the US on this scale, they would be able to produce the equivalent of 9 new nuclear power stations output every year! That could lead to replacing a BIG chunk of existing energy generation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett @ Aug 2 2006, 05:12 AM) [snapback]296151[/snapback]</div>

Clett,

Total agreement here. I can't quite grasp it. I'm an economist and not prone to flights of fancy, but a flood of cheap solar cells will change the world. Hence my prior though-experiment of Astroturfing my yard. Concepts that are ludicrous at current prices become completely feasible.

I see a trade source that puts total 2005 solar cell production at 1400 MW. So their one factory is proposing to increase world solar cell output by (say) a quarter.

At a quoted bulk rate 1/10th of existing cost. This article (http://www.greenprogress.com/alternative_energy_article.php?id=231) asserts that the total average cost of production for this process is less that the depreciation cost alone for vacuum deposition, although its Nanosolar that's making that assertion. If their cells last 20 years, then ignoring the cost to maintain a solar facility, their quoted bulk rate (0.25/peak watt) would work out to under $0.01/KWH in Virginia, cheaper in the Soutwest.

Short term, I believe I'll spend the weekend working through the ramifications with an eye toward reconfiguring assets. There must be an existing white paper that I could start from - "Implications of Inexpensive Solar Cells". Bet there are several. Believe I'll start with a search for that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett @ Aug 2 2006, 03:12 AM) [snapback]296151[/snapback]</div>

clett, wheere did you get cost figures for CSP sterling? I know that So Cal Edison has contracted to have over 1 GW installed over the next few years. The annoying thing was that the cost was not publicly disclosed. I've been curious about what the cost/kWh is for sterling CSP. I wish that the germans would have gone this route instead of the PV route for their solar parks. Seems like it would make a lot more sense and wouldn't drive up the cost of PV panels, which are already so bloody expensive.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett @ Aug 2 2006, 05:12 AM) [snapback]296151[/snapback]</div>

Clett,

I've looked into this a little more and would like to restate a couple of items.

First, while this factory would boost world solar cell production quite a bit, it looks like the standard in the solar cell industry is to measure the quantity of cells in terms of peak watts (watts produced at peak sun intensity). In Virginia, the rule of thumb is to expect average sunlight equivalent to 3.5 peak hours per day. That means 24/7/365 average output would be about 15% of peak. Traditional power plant size is also measured at peak, and for the US, average output is about half of peak. So, roughly speaking, in practice 1 GWe of solar cells will produce maybe a third of the total electricity (.15/.50) that 1 GWe of traditional generating capacity would. Clearly depends on where you install the cells, and so on. This means that in practice the net impact on total electrical generating capacity for new solar cell plans is smaller than the GWe capacity would suggest, compared to traditional plants.

Second, there are naysayers. You never can tell about the quality of what's being said, but this thread suggests something I saw nowhere else, that this is the second time Nanosolar has announced that they are just about to go commercial with their product.

http://blog.monkeysign.net/2006/06/nanosol...acturing-plant/

On the other hand, DARPA gave them $10M in 2004. That's a positive indication. (Of course, if they make it, we are required to forget that this ever happened - that Uncle Same lent them a hand at a critical juncture. )

http://www.benchmark.com/news/sv/2004/08_16_2004.php

I suppose this will resolve itself one way or another within a year or so.