backtop


Print 88 comment(s) - last by Procurion.. on Oct 14 at 9:16 AM


Solyndra's curvy roofs use thin-film solar cells to generate more power and have less wind resistance, all helping to make solar more cost competitive.  (Source: Solyndra)

Solyndra's key tech, seen here, is a tube shaped solar panel. The tube is manufactured with connections similar to a fluorescent lighbulb, with the inner tube coated in a thin film of semiconductor, which generates the solar power.  (Source: Solyndra)
New cheap and curvy roof is aerodynamic, generates more power, and lasts longer

Solar power is an incredibly promising tech.  With efficiencies constantly improving over the last couple decades and costs dropping every year, solar is likely to become very competitive with fossil fuels in coming years.  Some states and cities are offering incentives to citizens purchasing panels and some businesses are buying them as well

Critics say that solar power isn't ready for primetime and the unsubsidized savings are negligible.  A new startup is looking to silence those critics by improving solar rooftop installation.

Solyndra is turning heads with its cheap, curvy solar roofs.  The new roofs are composed of a series of tubes, as opposed to the traditional blocky flat shingles.  The company is brewing up the new cells using a mixture of copper, indium, gallium, and selenium.  The company deposits this semiconductor mix on an inner glass tube, then encases it in another glass tube, complete with electrical connections, similar to those found in fluorescent lights.

The resulting solar device has two key advantages.  First it generates more power over the course of the day, improving its total output.  This is due to the fact that part of the of tube's solar material is normal (at a right angle) to the incoming sunlight throughout the day as the sun changes position in the sky.  The second key advantage of the cells is aerodynamics.  The new cells are less wind resistant, so they are cheaper to install.

Chris Gronet, Solyndra's CEO says the cells will help to further cut solar power's costs bring unsubsidized solar energy closer to fossil fuel cost equivalence.  While the company won't say exactly how big an improvement it’s talking about, that’s not stopping it from generating some huge business. 

Solyndra has raised $600M USD in venture capital and has received orders for $1.2B USD of solar panels.  Currently, Solyndra sells exclusively to commercial entities.  It is currently in the process of ramping up its production.  Currently it produces 110 MW worth of solar panels yearly -- it will soon open a new 420 MW-per-year factory.

The new solar panel form factor comes courtesy of thin film solar cells.  The U.S. government and private entities have poured hundreds of millions into researching thin film solar cells, and the research is finally starting to pay off.  Miguel Contreras, a senior scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, in Golden, CO, worked with a team at his lab that designed the mix that Solyndra uses.

He states, "There's a lot more flexibility with thin films than there is with [conventional silicon] wafer technologies."

While normal solar cells must be bolted down, Solyndra's new design allows wind to pass freely between the tubes.  It is perfectly secure on rooftops under its own weight, even at winds as high as 130 MPH.

The only downside of the new cells is that the bottom half of the cylinder is in the dark.  However, by painting the roof in a reflective color, such as white, the bottom half can produce power as well, driven by reflected light.  Mr. Gronet further says that by optimizing the manufacturing processes and volumes, his company will be producing unsubsidized cells at or below the average cost of electricity in the United States (about 10 cents per kilowatt-hour) within a few years.

Unfortunately Solyndra, as of yet, has no plans to move outside the commercial roofing business.  For now curvy residential solar roofs and utility-scale solar farms will have to wait.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Reality
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2008 2:36:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
http://www.chooserenewables.com/estimator_start.ph...


In my area, it would take 49 years to pay back a 3kW solar setup. It would take over 110 years to pay back a 3kW wind installation. In my parents area, it would take 19 years to pay back a solar installation and 89 years to pay back a wind installation.

And the sites rising cost of standard power sources obviously is related to coal. If you have nuclear, those price rises won't exist.

And the flat cost of wind and solar doesn't take into account the fact that wind and solar do have maintenance costs and that solar cells do not last forever.




RE: Reality
By GeorgeH on 10/8/2008 2:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
Stop being reasonable and just drink the Kool-Aid already; the ice cubes are starting to melt.


RE: Reality
By headbox on 10/8/2008 7:40:45 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, solar tech isn't 110% efficient so we shouldn't invest in it. It's not virtually free yet, so we shouldn't invest in it. We should keep going down the same road, giving trillions to the middle east, and polluting the air.


RE: Reality
By RamarC on 10/8/2008 8:33:31 PM , Rating: 3
hmmm. folks will spend $6500 or more on a new roof that will never pay itself off. likewise, a $20,000 kitchen remodel may not raise your home's value the same price. a new $5000 AC unit probably won't pay for itself in savings until 6+ years. so, 19 years doesn't sound too bad on a $15K expenditure.

and a solar system may increase the price/saleability of a home depending on area (definitely in CA and AZ). depending on roof layout, the solar panels can reduce heat buildup in the attic and make the house cooler. and when $20K is rolled into the mortgage, the extra $200 monthly mortgage cost could come close to being offset by the lowered utility bills in hot areas where bills can average $200 a month.


RE: Reality
By theapparition on 10/9/2008 10:19:41 AM , Rating: 3
Problem is, that site above is just a generalization. Try buying one. I did.

From BP Solar.......total cost for a large solar installation on my house was over 70K!


RE: Reality
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2008 9:52:27 PM , Rating: 1
I'm saying invest in it. When its ready, then use it. But it will never replace coal, hydro, and nuclear. Variable sources of power will never be able to be the main source of power for a nationwide power grid. It doesn't matter how efficient and cheap they are. They take space, don't work 100% of the time, and require an insanely expensive infrastructure to store energy. But there's no way you can build enough capacity to have essentially a battery backup for the entire country.


RE: Reality
By FraG AU on 10/9/2008 7:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
This is the most short sighted tripe I have read in a long time. If people had your way of thinking we would be likely living in caves and hoping for lightning strikes to get fire.

Using the word never in respect to technology is sheer stupidity at its best...


RE: Reality
By DanoruX on 10/9/2008 8:56:58 AM , Rating: 2
It's not always stupid to say "never" when it comes to technology - I can say the following:

quote:
Current propulsion methods will never allow us to travel faster than the speed of light.


Perfectly valid statement.


RE: Reality
By cornelius785 on 10/9/2008 9:00:49 AM , Rating: 2
How is it short sighted? He is speaking the truth. The power grid CAN NOT handle sources that fluctuate after some much percentage (maybe 15%?). There are has been a lot of research done by the people who design and operate the power grid (power electrical engineers) and from what I can tell, they all put some sort of limit on how much power solar power and wind power in particular can supply to the grid. I know who I believe has actually done their 'homework', has yours?


RE: Reality
By ZmaxDP on 10/9/2008 12:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
He is not "speaking the truth", his comment is a statement of opinion, not fact. Had he prefaced it (as another poster did) with the "Given current technologies, we will never..." then it would have been a lot closer to the truth. Though, still it would have required a follow up statement of "... in a cost effective manner" as it is technically possible to build enough battery capacity even with current technology. It just wouldn't make any sense - which was the point of his comment I assume, and what he should have said probably.

Despite my own bias in favor of renewable energy, I completely agree with him that the only reasonable future for our energy supplies comes from a mixed source methodology. We need a diverse and flexible energy portfolio, not a renewable only one.

However, I don't remember anywhere in the article or other posts that anyone claimed solar was going to provide 100% of our energy, so I'm not clear why anyone needed to bring that up in the first place.


RE: Reality
By CommodoreVic20 on 10/9/2008 9:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
It will never be 'ready' unless we start taking a hit now. Like all industries and technologies, it is expensive at first but once it gets into full swing with everyone on board the prices will come way down and the technology will greatly improve. But we can't wait around for a small group of scientists to research and perfect a technology in a vacumm for 100 years, that simply doesn't work.


RE: Reality
By DLeRium on 10/8/2008 2:47:00 PM , Rating: 4
Most people should understand that solar power comes in many forms. I know people in my neighborhood that have solar panels. They use SunPower. Do you know what SunPower does? They use monocrystalline Si and then they build their cells so all the electrical connections are on the back side and thus you have maximized area on the front. This is like the high end of Si solar cells.

Solyndra and many other companies in the Bay Area work on CIGS cells (Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide). These are thin film cells that are not only lighter but easier to mass produce and cheaper. Si cells are easy for now because have in place a huge semiconductor industry already and wafer fabrication is technology already realized.

If you're talking about costs, Si cells are expensive, but these thin film cells are supposed to drop costs. Now Solyndra has a problem in that when they were asked questions yesterday they refused to give a dollar per watt figure. We really need to be in the $1 per watt figure to be very competitive. Well of course that's still a long ways away but it's everyone's dream in the solar industry.


RE: Reality
By Screwballl on 10/8/2008 2:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
19 yrs solar and 89 yrs wind here as well in my stretch of FL


RE: Reality
By Tsuwamono on 10/8/2008 3:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on the type.


RE: Reality
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2008 4:09:07 PM , Rating: 1
My parents live in Orlando.


RE: Reality
By Samus on 10/8/2008 6:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, who's parents DON'T live in Florida ;)


RE: Reality
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2008 9:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
My parents are likely moving to Texas. They don't want to retire in Florida. And they're at least 10 years from retirement.


RE: Reality
By Doormat on 10/8/2008 3:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
No one should by a solar power system at $9+/W.

Prices will come down once the solar boom is caught up - SunPower and FirstSolar recently got downgraded because of an expected oversupply of panels in the next few years, due to lower subsidies from falling government tax revenue in Europe, the number of thin film manufacturers coming online, and the credit crunch.


RE: Reality
By headbox on 10/8/2008 7:44:57 PM , Rating: 1
Not everyone is as broke as you. Some people think getting off foreign oil and polluting the air is a higher priority than waiting for costs to keep going down. With your poor man's logic, prices won't fall, because no one will make any investment in the technology.


RE: Reality
By Ringold on 10/8/2008 11:12:14 PM , Rating: 4
The only problem with the "poor man's logic" as you call it is that it requires people, apparently like you, who don't give a damn about economics and just really, really want something. Like people who bought LCD monitors early on, or plasma TV's or digital cameras.

If ever there was an area of the world unencumbered with concerns about silly things like economic efficiency, it would be Europe. So, in that sense, the world (and the businesses making a killing) thanks you for your price insensitivity towards environmental indulgences.

I'd also argue that it'd still come to market in a commercially viable price point eventually, though. I'd say the market already exists; subsidies and government mandates are simply inflating it. Investors would still be toiling to lower prices and naturally expand their market. But if being a trail-blazer makes Europe feel better, hey, whatever.


RE: Reality
By Doormat on 10/9/2008 1:19:28 AM , Rating: 2
Heh, I had written this part in my original reply and then removed, I guess I should have left it...

Large commercial and utility scale PV projects are still around $7/W, even lower. The reason why residential systems are so high in terms of $/W is because there is (was?) a lot of capital looking for green energy projects. Three years ago I was involved in a 23M USD solar power project - the biggest in the US at the time. Now that $23M project is dwarfed by the average project price of $100-250M. If we showed up with $25M as a new customer most large solar companies wouldn't give us the time of day.

So what does that mean, from PV manufacturers to inverter companies like Xantrex? They don't want to deal with the small stuff like residential PV systems. There is so much money out there looking for big PV projects, the small 3 and 5kW systems are chump change, even bundled together its not worth it to address it. So the price goes up because they'd rather sell large lots of tens and hundreds of thousands of panels rather than have these small 100 and 250 lot panel orders.


RE: Reality
By michael2k on 10/8/2008 5:59:51 PM , Rating: 4
In my area it costs about $15k to get the power company to wire your house up if you live outside city boundaries...

In which case the payback period (normally 22 years) goes down to 4.8 years...

It really does depend on circumstances.


RE: Reality
By Keeir on 10/8/2008 6:06:05 PM , Rating: 2
Except that the average US home uses 11,000 kwh of electricity... are you sure the wind/solar option price provides enough power for your home? How about the batteries required to store Solar Enengy to be used at Night? Not quite as simple as it seems...


RE: Reality
By Xenoterranos on 10/9/2008 9:24:42 AM , Rating: 1
A lot of utility companies will actually pay you for electricity your solar grid produces. So if during the day when when you're at work your solar cells make more electricity than your fridge can eat, you'll be making money of that extra power you're not storing. With an efficient enough house, you can have near net-zero electricity bills.


RE: Reality
By Procurion on 10/9/2008 12:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
Fridge? It isn't unusual for my A/C to run almost 24 hours a day for 2 or 3 months in the summer. Typically we spend 60-90 days with temps over 38C, some summers reaching 43C regularly. Hard to sell me a system that can feed this beast!


RE: Reality
By Keeir on 10/9/2008 5:33:53 PM , Rating: 2
mmmm... the original poster was implying that if he built/used a solar/wind system he might not have to pay 15,000 dollars to be hooked up to the main grid. Therefore, he payback period would be alot less.

However, if your not on the grid, you can't A. sell power back or B. draw additional power at times when output is low

Therefore, it seems unfair to compare a ~28,000 solar installation to the 15,000 to attach to the power grid. The solar system will not provide even power through the day or year, thus requiring exensive (several thousand dollars) of battery storage. Additionally, the 28,000 solar system is unlikely to provide 100% of his power needs over the course of a year. Most likely, it will be need to be doubled or even tripled in size. Before incentives, a lived in average US home solar system for true off-grid living might be in the range of 75,000-100,000 dollars.


RE: Reality
By Doormat on 10/9/2008 5:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming you live a lifestyle commensurate with the average American.

However if he ditched TV, got a laptop instead of a desktop, used CCFL lights, woodburning stove, etc. He could have an easier time running off solar/wind system, combined with batteries of course.


RE: Reality
By Keeir on 10/9/2008 6:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
Sure thing... if he reduced he consumption of electricity by 66%, invested in batteries, and was willing to freeze (Wood is typically an expensive form of heating, especially if you consider the labor involved), he might be able to live off the grid for 35-50k. From a purely economic standpoint, he could reduce his power usage by 66%, pay for the grid connection and still be "richer" for 50+ years. At which time he would probably have needed to perform extensive maintaince/replacement costs to maintain his systems and batteries.

Note: I am not argueing that a person could place a value of living off the grid at an insanely high level. I am just pointing out, as the market current stands, it nearly impossible for personal alternative energy to be "economical". Which is sad, since the power from the wall contains alot of additional charges above and beyond generation.


RE: Reality
By FredEx on 10/10/2008 5:51:19 AM , Rating: 2
Some of you need to do more checking and not assuming. I've written here before about a friend in Washington state with a $30,000 system powering his place. That is in a lousy weather area. He heats his place using solar water heating panels and gets his domestic hot water via the system.

Tune into The Green Channel sometime. There are stories on there all the time of people saving massive amounts of money having gone solar and wind. There are also extreme systems, like Larry Hagman (formerly J.R. Ewing on Dallas)...he spent about $300,000 on his system, but he has a massive house and gives power to about 8 neighbors, less fortunate than him financially. He puts power on the grid too. His is all solar, he wants to add wind.

Do some research. Large battery back-up systems are now replacing back-up generators in power failure prone areas. The battery back-up systems can vary widely in size and are modular, so more battery capacity can be added. A disadvantage is they can't provide power indefinitely like a natural gas power back-up generator, but they will cost you up to 10 times less. The average system can provide power for 2 to 3 days. Combining with a moderate solar system can make that time double or triple. The big two advantages of the battery back-up system is, it is totally silent and it switches over nearly instantly. You won't notice the change it is so fast.

Many going solar are now learning about the efficiency of going to DC systems. New LED DC lighting for one thing. No waste of power using a DC to AC converter. Some don't go totally DC, but they can use a much smaller converter for the AC items. I see people going laptops for their computers, so all they have to do for example is have a 48V DC to 15V DC converter (basing that on them having a 48V system). I can convert a desktop PS to DC to DC very easily.

Some of you remind me of some of the guys at Motorola I worked with when I told them we designed and built a 64K SS50 board for our Motorola Computer Club computer. "WHAT!? You'll never use all that memory!" If your in the tech industry, get out, you all are too short sighted to be in it.


RE: Reality
By CommodoreVic20 on 10/9/2008 9:30:49 AM , Rating: 2
Most solar installations do not use batteries, they simply sell what they generate back to the utility company. Battery setups are for remote locations off the grid.


RE: Reality
By Procurion on 10/14/2008 9:16:45 AM , Rating: 2
You are right, but have you ever checked out how much the electric company wants to charge you for a two-way meter? The steall any profits you might make in the next couple of years with exhorbitant charges to install one.


RE: Reality
By Spuke on 10/9/2008 12:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
It's closer to 12kWh and that's per YEAR . Where I live (CA), it will cost you somewhere around $70k to $100k for a system that provides 100% of your power needs and that's just for the solar system. A co-worker spent $50k on his system which provides 70-75% of his power needs for a 3700 sq ft house.

I live in a 2000 sq ft house and it would cost us somewhere between $35k-$40k for 70% system.


RE: Reality
By roastmules on 10/8/2008 6:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
In order to help the cost of solar/wind pay for itself, consider business continuity/disaster recovery - i.e. emergency power.

Emergency power in the form of diesel costs about $0.30-0.70/kWh. If you need to have reliable power, then auxiliary inputs with solar/wind can decrease the costs of emergency power. This would be a HUGE cost savings for places like server farms, hospitals, emergency facilities (police, fire, ems stations) and such.

I see no reason why every one of these types of locations would not want to do solar/wind for auxiliary emergency power (and day-to-day operations as well) - particularly in the "sun belt" and "wind belt" areas.

Bang for the buck...


RE: Reality
By Keeir on 10/8/2008 6:09:50 PM , Rating: 2
The main problem with Wind and to a lessor degree Solar is that they are not dependable sources of power. IE, you can't grab a system and say it can and will provide X kWh every hour of every day. This makes the use as emergency power sources very iffy... Unless your willing to spend the money on battery capacity AND still keep/maintain the generator equipment


RE: Reality
By Suntan on 10/9/2008 4:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see no reason why every one of these types of locations would not want to do solar/wind for auxiliary emergency power


Yes, yes. This makes perfect sense… Use solar cells for emergency backup power… Like when you lose power right in the middle of a big thunderstorm…

With the exception of the screen door I just installed on my submarine, this is the best idea ever.

-Suntan


RE: Reality
By nah on 10/9/2008 4:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you have nuclear, those price rises won't exist.


That's incorrect--over time. costs of ore will go up from the current USD 110-130 kg to almost double that--however, even a doubling of costs will raise prices by only 7-15 %


RE: Reality
By The Irish Patient on 10/9/2008 11:04:18 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the link. I wouldn't have found this one.

The predicted price rise for electricity was actually conservative. However, the estimate does not include any costs of financing, and you have already pointed out that there is no allowance for maintenance or replacement costs.


Anti-Capitalists
By Ringold on 10/8/2008 6:34:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Solyndra has raised $600M USD in venture capital and has received orders for $1.2B USD of solar panels.


That's $600 million that some people would have the tax payer spend instead of willing private individuals who have a vested interest in only picking the technology that is likely to pan out.

So over the next year when the Bolshevik's try to wage Jihad on the very idea of how effective capitalism is in creating jobs, wealth, and resource allocation, I'd hope some people keep in mind its huge successes and positive roles and not just how some people dropped the ball on mortgages. People often ask for more subsidies for solar, but the billions that've flown in to private renewable energy R&D and startups rarely gets reported. A good number of people in the solar and wind industries (I've got a couple CEOs in mind) even loudly say that subsidies should be ended entirely, because it distorts the market they are competing in, allowing presumably inefficient competitors to live on. Credit to Jason for pointing out venture capital helped make this possible.




RE: Anti-Capitalists
By JS on 10/8/2008 8:43:48 PM , Rating: 3
You managed to play the commie card AND the muslim card in one sentence. Bravo! Joseph McCarthy would have been proud.


RE: Anti-Capitalists
By Ringold on 10/8/2008 10:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, replace Jihad with Crusade. There will be, and really already is, a holy Crusade against capitalism.

Is that more politically correct for you? I know, Catholics are largely viewed as white, and it's always acceptable to slight white people. Jesse Jackson would be proud.


RE: Anti-Capitalists
By Yossarian22 on 10/8/2008 11:07:44 PM , Rating: 1
A shame that you still sound like an insufferable ass.


RE: Anti-Capitalists
By Ringold on 10/8/2008 11:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks.

So, I point out we face in the near future a repeat of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, where in our zeal to avenge the 'greed' of Enron we simply sent a lot of new marginal business to London, and all you guys can do is jump on my delivery and political incorrectness? Well, I guess perhaps that's a good thing if we at least don't disagree on the original issue itself.


RE: Anti-Capitalists
By JS on 10/8/2008 11:44:28 PM , Rating: 2
You didn't point out we were facing a repeat of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

You used words like "Bolshevik", "Jihad" and "Crusade" to describe people and actions that have nothing to do with what you are talking about. Guilt by association, just like the accusation of not being patriotic when you disagree with the administration's foreign policy.

Either you are deeply ignorant of the connotations of the words you use or you are deliberately trying to take the focus off your arguments.

It is not communism when a government wants to regulate some aspects of the economy. There is no global attack on capitalism. Capitalism has never been more dominant globally, even the self-declared communists are capitalists nowadays.

Please, travel the world some and discover that there are other valid takes on reality than Ann Coulter's.


RE: Anti-Capitalists
By Ringold on 10/9/2008 12:10:44 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
You used words like "Bolshevik", "Jihad" and "Crusade" to describe people and actions that have nothing to do with what you are talking about.


You're being over-sensitive. I suggest never leaving your basement, as people often use "Jihad" and/or "Crusade" to describe any impassioned movement, siege, attack, etc.

quote:
Either you are deeply ignorant of the connotations of the words you use or you are deliberately trying to take the focus off your arguments.


I don't care on the former, and on the latter, you didn't bother to respond to them until now, so if dodging an issue that I bothered to bring up myself was my objective, apparently it worked. Why I'd want to dodge an issue that I brought up myself I do not know.

quote:
It is not communism when a government wants to regulate some aspects of the economy. There is no global attack on capitalism.


I never said we don't need regulation. We do need some regulation. I should've talked about the examples of Sarbanes-Oxley in my first post, since apparently people have to be held by the hand when looking at the dangers of the hot rhetoric coming from Washington. If the rhetoric does not cool down, and the public at large doesn't calm down, we clearly face the risk of an equity and credit market regulatory equivalent to Sarbox. You talk of traveling the world, but if you'd travel to Wall Street, you'd know that there is a great deal of concern that the politicians will do the politically expedient thing yet again and deal long term damage to the US markets in the process. Given some of the wild things I've heard from out of both parties over the last few weeks, I have to agree with the Wall Street guys. If cooler heads do not prevail when the new Congress takes the reigns next year, then the regulatory back-lash will do more harm to America than this recession will.

As far as a global attack on capitalism, I did not say that, though some European papers I read are reporting a shift to the left in Europe. The Economist openly told its readers to prepare to defend capitalism over the next year in Europe, the UK, as well as the US. But frankly, I don't care what Europe does, I vote in US elections, not European ones. They've long since gone down the path of supposed economic stability in exchange for growth, that is their own business.

quote:
Capitalism has never been more dominant globally, even the self-declared communists are capitalists nowadays.


I'd take it a step further and say self-declared communists and former Soviet states are more capitalist than the so-called capitalists.

quote:
discover that there are other valid takes on reality than Ann Coulter's.


Well, got the first letter right, but not the rest. I prefer Ayn Rand, not Ann Coulter.


RE: Anti-Capitalists
By Ringold on 10/9/2008 12:42:44 AM , Rating: 2
There's no way I could fit all this in to comments, so instead, I'll just direct you here, JS, which I think lays out the case I'd make at length if I could, if this were the forum.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9696

As for if the attacks are real, I just spent a few minutes with Google, and everyone from a number of churches to Harry Reid, and of course a great number of newspaper columnists, appear ready to burn an effigy of Adam Smith. Like inflation expectations, such things have a bad tendency of becoming reality.


RE: Anti-Capitalists
By JS on 10/9/2008 11:24:28 AM , Rating: 2
Your concerns may be valid, even if I think they are greatly exaggerated. The point is that it took several posts to actually state them without using stupid and inflammatory rhetoric, that you would probably never dare use if you were confronted with one of "the Bolsheviks" (which includes republican politicians) in real life.

Using language like that makes you look like an narrow-minded idiot instead of as an informed person, that's all.


RE: Anti-Capitalists
By Yossarian22 on 10/9/2008 2:49:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You're being over-sensitive. I suggest never leaving your basement, as people often use "Jihad" and/or "Crusade" to describe any impassioned movement, siege, attack, etc.

So you admit your statement was nothing more disgusting, rhetorical drivel which should be looked upon with disgust?

quote:
As far as a global attack on capitalism, I did not say that

And what the bloody hell is a Crusade, or a Jihad? A happy merry go round of joy between two groups? If you don't know what connotations a word has, don't use it.
quote:
Well, got the first letter right, but not the rest. I prefer Ayn Rand, not Ann Coulter.

AHAHAHAHAHA.
Oh, this explains a great deal. I kind of feel bad for you now. Ayn Rand is unique in that she simultaneously because a laughing stock in no fewer than three separate fields simultaneously. Her prose is garbage, her philosophy is one of the biggest piles of shit ever put to paper, and her pathetic attempts at psychology are still openly mocked. Hell, even her economic views beyond Capitalism is Good has been soundly thrashed. How could you possibly think highly of her views? She doesn't even understand half the things she writes about.

This is a writer who thinks Kantian Ethics advocates self sacrifice, when it does exactly the opposite. She has a view that is extremely similar to Kant's, yet she spends all her time launching idiotic ad hominem attacks against him for his supposed belief.

And her argument for Capitalism as an ideal system is laughable. Just read it for Christ's sake. According to Ayn Rand's view, the firefighters who rushed into the towers on Sept 11 were acting immorally when they risked their lives to save others. That is a purely emotional dismissal of her position, but her entire argument is based off the following premise "it follows from the existence of values that there must be an ultimate value, life." The problem is that Rand never made a decent argument as to why one could not rationally prefer dying, and thus be valueless. I could go on and on about how Rand is sophomoric drivel, but then I would be writing pages upon pages. If you believe in Ayn Rand's view, you are either young and naive, or an old fart with a ton of money.


RE: Anti-Capitalists
By Ringold on 10/9/2008 3:33:05 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
So you admit your statement was nothing more disgusting, rhetorical drivel which should be looked upon with disgust?


Yes. I also enjoy eating puppies, but only on Sunday's.

quote:
her philosophy is one of the biggest piles of shit ever put to paper,


I guess you never read Marx then.

Anyway, I think you've revealed what your specialization is here, and that is not economics. Philosophy perhaps; I only know who the hell Kant is because of a certain hippy I had for a history teacher once upon a time. You've apparently got a philosophical view of capitalism, but unfortunately modern economics is built on the basis of calculus and marginal analysis, not abstract babbling about the true nature of the universe or the human spirit. Thats for politicians to babble about. My concern is credit markets; TED Spreads, 2 year treasury swap spreads, etc., not god or human greed. Kant, Voltaire, none of them probably has anything to say about the merits of mark-to-market accounting vs. mark to model, the success of venture capital, etc.

As for reading, I don't know, I thought Atlas Shrugged was entertaining reading, but if you're going to nitpick, I think I'll fall back to Milton Friedman. Much easier to defend, at least on economics.


RE: Anti-Capitalists
By Yossarian22 on 10/9/2008 10:18:58 AM , Rating: 2
Have you actually read Marx? Most of his stuff is not political philosophy at all, and focuses on human nature. A great deal of Marx's image of a radical revolutionary was stuck there by historians. He was certainly nowhere near as radical as Hume was.

And I'm not against capitalism. I'm against Rand, who is one of the most intellectually bankrupt authors in the past two centuries. It is sad and pathetic that so many people actually find her appealing. The only reason any schools teach her, unless it is to mock her, is because they received funding from a bunch of rich old guys who like the idea that only smart people get rich, which is a trivially untrue assertion.

I sympathize with her political and economic views, but she has fundamentally failed to support them, instead providing a terrible solution to the aforementioned Hume's is-ought problem and an attempt at justifying selfishness as a moral position.

I would have talked economics, but you didn't really put forth an argument of sorts. Friedman is one of my academic heroes of sorts, so yes. A much better fallback position. If you want, I can post a little dissertation about why Rand sucks. I sent it to one of those Rand institutes essay contests as a joke. Nothing destroys credibility like saying "I am an objectivist" Or "I like Ayn Rand".

And how did you manage to get through that 100 page monologue? I can finish terrible books, but that made me throw away the book in disgust.


RE: Anti-Capitalists
By Procurion on 10/9/2008 12:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
Ringold, you read like a person who would like to sound educated, but aren't. Your writing is rhetoric based on what you read on CATO websites? You use large words to impress and they ring hollow. If you really understood economy and had the education you purport to have, you would know that most of your arguments are baseless and mislead.

Take AIG...please, someone take AIG! Are you not aware that AIG has/had been under investigation for over much of this millenium? Are you not aware that the majority of the top excutives bailed on the company many years ago once Sarbanes-Oxley was required? Why? Because they saw the writing on the wall. AIG was a long time coming and at least it wasn't a surprise like Enron. The answer was to ignore their invalid business practices? The answer was to hope they would succeed in spite of deliberately inappropriate behavior?

Absolutely not, my friend....companies must follow rules also. You have no problem pointing at the non-affluent and implying (incorrectly) that THEY are responsible for this mess. They should have known better than to buy houses that they couldn't hope to keep if things didn't go perfectly, right? Well, why aren't you holding a corporation full of professionals to the same standard?

Fanny and Freddie weren't forced to lend to "underpriviledged". There were incentives put in place and they EXPANDED their business. What they did later was to re-write the paper down from high-risk to "good" paper and sell it. This was a shell game that these investment companies played. It fell apart and now you want to imply that it is minority borrowers and low-income people who are to blame? Coupled with the rest of your inflammatory rhetoric, I would sincerely get a reality check because you are so far off base on this that I question you ability to function normally in society.


RE: Anti-Capitalists
By Suntan on 10/9/2008 4:33:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fanny and Freddie weren't forced to lend to "underpriviledged".


Please read paragraph 3 from this article. Also note the date of the article...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0...

The issues being delt with now are not problems that cropped up overnight, nor problems that occurred solely due to the greed of the corporate "fat cats." There is blame a-plenty to go around for all.

-Suntan


RE: Anti-Capitalists
By JS on 10/8/2008 11:29:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not entirely sure we live on the same planet. But it might just be that I forgot to put on my tinfoil hat, and the Bolshevik Orbital Mind Control Lasers got to me.


Being normal to sunlight angle isn't the point
By Solandri on 10/8/2008 6:23:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The resulting solar device has two key advantages. First it generates more power over the course of the day, improving its total output. This is due to the fact that part of the of tube's solar material is normal (at a right angle) to the incoming sunlight throughout the day as the sun changes position in the sky.

I'm sorry but that sounds like marketing drivel. The goal is to capture the maximum amount of sunlight using the least amount of surface area. This is achieved when the sunlight hits the entire surface at a normal angle. If you do the integral, the gains of having some of a rounded panel being normal to incident sunlight are more than offset by the parts that are less normal.

Think of it this way. A "wedge" of sunlight illuminates a 1x1 meter patch of ground. The total energy of that sunlight is always the same - the shape of your collector is irrelevant. It could be flat, round, buckyballs, or a miniature of the the NYC skyline. It's still receiving the same 1x1 meter swath of sunlight, and the most energy it can absorb is 1x1 meter's worth.

If the sunlight is coming in at an angle, then the 1x1 meter area on the ground can be reduced by tilting the entire panel. e.g. if the sunlight is coming in at 45 degrees and lights a 1x1 meter patch of the ground, if you tilt your collector so it's normal you can capture that entire wedge using only a 0.707x1 meter collector. Essentially, your 0.707x1 meter collector when tilted creates a 1x1 meter shadow. But that still requires you to tilt the entire collector. If you put rounded collectors flat on the ground, it still needs to cover 1x1 meters.

And in fact the rounded surface means you need more PV surface area to cover a 1x1 meter patch (pi/2 times more, about 1.57x) than a flat PV. Maybe there are some manufacturing advantages to rounded panels. Maybe they function better in the wind like the article claims. Or maybe their electrical production is non-linear so they're more efficient the greater the intensity of the sunlight (more than 1.57 times as efficient). But the rounded shape does not allow you to capture more sunlight, and in fact captures less sunlight per unit area of PV.




RE: Being normal to sunlight angle isn't the point
By GeorgeH on 10/8/2008 6:34:05 PM , Rating: 1
More power over the course of the day. Unless you are moving your flat panels to follow the sun, the claim doesn't seem outlandish to me at all.


By DLeRium on 10/8/2008 7:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares if you get more over the course of the day. Power can be stored, and in CA at least where Solyndra is based you sell your power back to PG&E at peak rates if you're not using it. Based on a few calculations it SEEMS that the curvy panel gets less sunlight than a flat panel. So power over the day is actually less.

Why is this good? It's not, but Solyndra's advantage probably lies in its manufacturing and back end. Installation prices can be reduced without having to bolt down on roofs and stuff. I'd imagine that cutting down on the hardware needed to use this panel is how they aim to succeed.

Oh yes and I'm in the CIGS field so I know what I'm talking about when it comes to these companies.


RE: Being normal to sunlight angle isn't the point
By Solandri on 10/8/2008 7:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
You're still covering a 1x1 meter patch of the ground. Doesn't matter if the panels are flat or rounded. For the rounded panels, the best case is at sunrise or sunset, where the flat panels have zero production, while the rounded panels poke up a few cm and thus catch a few cm worth of sunlight. Hardly worth it.


RE: Being normal to sunlight angle isn't the point
By GeorgeH on 10/8/2008 8:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
You both are considering only the ideal case, where the entire roof area is vertically covered by a single, movable flat panel that follows the sun. In that case, you're both correct. In the real world, however, fixed flat panels could easily net you less daily power than these.

The gains aren't just at sunrise/sunset, and total daily power is very important precisely because of energy storage. If you want to talk about economic viability (a fixed installation might very well produce more power at peak rate times), great, but that's another subject entirely.


RE: Being normal to sunlight angle isn't the point
By DLeRium on 10/8/2008 9:42:42 PM , Rating: 3
Do you realize that the area being hit by sun is far less than a flat panel and that if you do calculation for hemispherical solar panel, while you get the full perpendicular rays hitting it, the area is so little that you HAVE to have a full day's of light for it to be even remotely worth it. A flat panel gets large area although not direct sunlight for the whole day.

I'm not saying the flat panel has to track the sun, the tracker is irrelevant. The fact is that if you're not hitting your panel perpendicularly then the power is very minimal, and that happens with a rounded solar cell. Trust me, if rounded solar cells were that good, no one would be producing flat cells at all.

The benefit of a rounded cell is that you get sunlight all day, but the drawback is that not ALL of it is capturing sunlight at a time. Whether it's better than a flat panel I'm sure you can try to shape it so it's about the same or better. If it's better, I'd say its marginal, and if its worse its marginal also. However, I would not jump to the conclusion that power is more from a rounded cell simply because it gets sunlight ALL DAY because that's stupid thinking and not realizing that area being hit at any moment determines how much power you get too.

One way to look at this is:
Flat cell: At direct sunlight, you get many watts, but you don't get direct sunlight all day. High watts * few hours

Round cell: You get direct sunlight everyday but each cell doesnt net that much power because not all of the cell is being used with direct sunlight. Low watts * many hours

A few of us have done calculations to show that rounded solar cells can't match flat cells. The Solyndra BACK END of the cell itself helps it attain lower installation costs and thus allows it to make more sales than say flat tiled solar cells. If you can show me how, that would be great.

The fact of the matter is, it's DOLLAR PER WATT that determines the effectiveness of a solar cell. Sure power is great too but


By Suntan on 10/9/2008 4:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
Don’t try and explain physics or geometry to the “true believers” its not worth your time, what’s more the CEO of this company would prefer it if you didn’t either.

-Suntan


Fragility
By Goty on 10/8/2008 2:26:23 PM , Rating: 3
The only concern I'd have about this design is the fragility of the tubes. If their construction is similar to that of fluorescent lights, one would think they'd hold up about as well, too. What's going to happen when there's a hail storm?




RE: Fragility
By Screwballl on 10/8/2008 3:06:49 PM , Rating: 2
says it can hold up against 130mph winds... thats much stronger than ordinary fluorescent tube bulbs


RE: Fragility
By Oregonian2 on 10/8/2008 3:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
And rocks thrown on 'em by neighborhood kids who'd think it funny to hear them crash at night?


RE: Fragility
By awer26 on 10/8/2008 3:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
Plexi-glass cover?


RE: Fragility
By mindless1 on 10/8/2008 4:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
In many areas a cover would seem necessary, though possibly polycarb or another material less brittle than plexiglass.

Hail could be a significant concern, as could far more common problems like leaf buildup. How are leaves easily cleaned out, is a homeowner supposed to remove every tube multiple times a year to sweep off their roof?

Similar applies to snow and ice, having large sheets of ice could tend to brake the tubes as it slides down the roof and what was once a snowfall that melted in a few days on a conventional non-solar roof might now take much longer. During that period we would expect drastically reduced energy generation which combined with the shorter days of winter result in an even longer period for ROI.


RE: Fragility
By Oregonian2 on 10/9/2008 2:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't that effect efficiency? Reflective surface -- perhaps cutting down on the feature that it's surface is at right angles to the sun at all times -- other than when it's overhead a plastic protector would be reflector.

Probably still better than broken glass though. :-) :-)


.
By tim851 on 10/8/2008 4:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
Solar power might not be ready for prime time now. But it needs to be subsidized, because that's the only way the technology is going to be ready when it needs to be.

Coal and oil are finite, as are plutonium and uranium. And I think it's smart to start thinking about replacements while it's convenient and not when oil is at 500$ per barrel and the first world is fighting wars over conventional ressources.

Also, solar power is clean. Coal is being subsidized by all of us accepting the environmental damage (although most of the proponents of coal and oil live far away from them smoking chimneys).

Nuclear is being subsidized by the government, because no power plant is even remotely covered by insurance for the case of a meltdown. Granted, the chances of a meltdown are slim, but should something like Chernobyl happen, those 500 million bucks that nuclear power plants are typically insured with, will do sh*t.
So once again, nuclear is being subsidized by all of us, because it will be our taxpayer money that will clean up after a meltdown. Kinda like the global banking crisis, just with more glowing.




RE: .
By mindless1 on 10/8/2008 5:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
Subsidizing solar power seems a poor alternative since most installations will not generate enough power over their functional lifetime to break even. Better to leave subsidy for nuclear and it does have a good track record. We can play the "what if... meltdown" but what if energy becomes too expensive to travel to work, heat your home, etc?

What if our economy can't stand continual increases in foreign oil spending so we have to put more nuclear plants online?

We should use other alternatives as well but we need to look at where subsidy produces the best bang for the buck, the funds aren't infinite.


RE: .
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2008 9:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
Oil has nothing to do with power generation. Oil is barely used at all for generating power.

But yes nuclear is the way to go.


RE: .
By mindless1 on 10/9/2008 12:26:21 AM , Rating: 2
Generating power also means transportation, it's still power that we have to import or generate ourselves.


RE: .
By Spuke on 10/9/2008 1:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Generating power also means transportation, it's still power that we have to import or generate ourselves.
Not the same at all. Transportation does not equal power generation.


RE: .
By mindless1 on 10/10/2008 12:30:04 AM , Rating: 2
It certainly does, because one way or the other our automobiles require power. Either we tap reserves (which we aren't), send money to other countries (which we shouldn't) or generate power here for electric vehicles whenever viable.


Just like the internet...
By Marlin1975 on 10/8/2008 2:03:46 PM , Rating: 5
Its "a series of tubes".




RE: Just like the internet...
By Spookster on 10/8/2008 5:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Replying To: Just like the internet...
by Marlin1975 on October 8, 2008 at 2:03 PM

Its "a series of tubes".


You means we can has the internets on our roofs?


RE: Just like the internet...
By jlips6 on 10/8/2008 11:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
you completely beat me to it.
Ted Stevens, who is, completely by chance, going to prison at this moment.


white?
By Screwballl on 10/8/2008 2:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
why white? Why not a more reflective anti-corrosive tin or sheet metal that can reflect more light than standard white paint and lasts longer?

If they want a test run on my house, come on over and put it on the entire southwestern face of my roof (the northeastern portion faces too many trees and only gets sun from 11AM-3PM).
I would be willing to test this for them in a residential setting for free. *smiles*




RE: white?
By fic2 on 10/8/2008 6:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
I was wondering why they even bother to coat the bottom quarter or so. Unless the coating is done using a spinning process or something similar.


RE: white?
By Harkonnen on 10/9/2008 4:14:36 AM , Rating: 2
The roof being white itself would probably save you more money on cooling costs than the solar panels would.


RE: white?
By Suntan on 10/9/2008 4:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would be willing to test this for them in a residential setting for free.


Hmmm, let them drill a bunch of holes thru my roof then bolt a bunch of tube fixtures to it, no thanks. I prefer my attic/ceiling dry.

-Suntan


how hard is this to scale?
By cherrycoke on 10/8/2008 2:29:02 PM , Rating: 4
I love hearing about technological advances through design, but these ideas never really seem to take off as fast as they should.

How great would it be to put these on the roofs of homes (especially in places like Phoneix, AZ where I am from) and drive a plug-in hybrid similar to the Chevy Volt? You would lower your electric bill and all but erase your fuel costs if you were just commuting to work each day.

Then if we started drilling more here in the US to lower our dependency on foreign oil.. and supplied the rest of our energy by implementing advanced and safe Nuclear power.. ahhh well one can dream right?




RE: how hard is this to scale?
By RabidDog on 10/8/08, Rating: 0
Was wondering when this would be posted...
By DLeRium on 10/8/2008 2:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
The CIGS field is quite interesting and Solyndra's finally come out of the dark to explain what they have. This was on ABC morning news yesterday and wouldn't you know, working at another CIGS company our whole company was buzzing about it for the rest of the day. I'm interested to see how they save on costs of installation and the backend because clearly fabrication on a large scale process for Solyndra is tougher than say for a company like Nanosolar.




By TheOtherBubka on 10/8/2008 9:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
You guys need more people? I'm in solar (dye and Si)...been itching to get back to traditional thin films


what if they
By boredg on 10/8/2008 4:08:25 PM , Rating: 2
When i look at the shape is looks to me like the big tube should be rotating. what if this system were modified to rotate and add some fins/something to catch the wind. This rotation could then be channelled into a turbine to collect power. So it would generate solar power during the day when the sun is up, as well as wind generated power throughout the day




RE: what if they
By mindless1 on 10/8/2008 4:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
To rotate the wind resistance has to increase, making them more susceptible to damage if the glass isn't thicker, increasing weight, requiring stronger wind to rotate at all.

The fins would have to be of sufficient size that the tubes are spaced further apart, and they'd interfere with the solar performance by reducing light hitting the coating. They would tend to trap leaves at a higher rate and make cleaning environmental residue like jet fuel or dust/dirt accumulation more laborious.

Decent bearings at each end that last for years on a hot roof are an added expense, as would be the generator(s). Odds are that making them wind generators would be an even lower cost:power ratio when the current cost:power ratio is already one of the primary things slowing adoption of solar cell power generation.

It might be more cost effective to just add more traditional wind generators to the 'site if there is enough wind to make this viable.


wind resistant
By greyammit on 10/8/2008 2:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
I guess the new cells are more wind resistant.

I wonder how they hold up to flying debris, hail, collecting leaves, and/or birds nests?

Seems like a great way to allow replacement of broken cells, and upgrading to newer tech.




key phrases
By phxfreddy on 10/8/2008 2:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
"thanks to" "looking to" ... you guys need to read each others works. You recycle phrases so often its hard to take. Maybe point out how the other author over uses this type of simple phrase.




"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki