Another Solar Record - according to the article

[dieselfox]

Gentlemen / Ladies
I read this article which some of you might find very interesting.  I am waiting for these inexpensive and highly efficient panels, or something like them, to hit the market before I jump in.
Diesel Fox


http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/37871/?p1=A2

[bschwartz]

They may get more effecient (smaller per output), but I can't imagine much cheaper than this....
http://sunelec.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1652

[dieselfox]

Here is another article on this, which gives some clarification.  They say 50 cents a watt. 
They have the team the patents and now the results.  I hope.
Diesel Fox

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/alta-devices-next-gen-pv-update/

[LowGear]

Sometimes Watts per dollar isn't as important as footprint.  I can barely squeeze 6.5 KW onto my Menehune Energy Laboratory (MEL) roof. 

We spent $2.61 ($640/245) a watt and they'll probably never pay for themselves even at 42 cents a KW (last month)  That means, I think, that after (2.61 / .42) 6.2 thousand hours we break even.  Lets see, in a perfect world (and I assure you even paradise is not perfect) that 6 hours a day would net me 6 thousand hours in only 1000 days or three years.  Hold it.  Wheres my math wrong?  One of these statements is not valid.  OK!  Many of the hours these panels are running at only 25% of their rated power so that is where the "never-never land" comes into solar energy when you're paying $2.61 a watt.

And yes we're putting the balance of the 6.5 in this year.  As you may know, I consider it to be part of the war effort.

I'm more excited about watts per square inch.  Of course, at 50 cents a watt I'd start looking at my other South facing roofs.  My neighbors South facing roofs.

Casey

[WStayton]

dieselfox:

  Solar panels for $0.50 per watt???  I'll take 4 kW worth please!

  I have a couple of questions:

1)  I couldn't figure out what the datge of publication of either article was  -  but, in one of them, they were 2011 in the future tense, so it must have been not later that 2010.  Any idea whne, exactly, it was published.

2)  One of the commentors, who I have no idea if he has any expertise or not, suggested that it will take at least 20 years for these to go into production!  He WAS the only person that had this misgiving as to the timing of the enterprise - So, do you think I should off purchasing solar panels hoping that this will happpen soon???  I could stand 6 or 9 months but NOT twenty years!  I would have a lot of hours on my generator by the end of 20 years!!!  <grin>

  Thanx for digging this up for us - I, at least, am VERY interested!

Regardz,

Wayne Stayton

[dieselfox]

Gentlemen / Ladies

I will try to answer just a few of your questions from what I can gather.

First - the news broke on this technology five days ago.  The reason I posted it was because this is not a silicon cell, but a GaAs panel which should be cheaper.  The efficiency makes it so it has a smaller foot print.

Second - Silicon cells degrade with use.  Yes, their output goes down with age.  I don't like that idea much so I look for other things.

Third - I read the research which is "breaking news."  Of course that means it will take some time to scale it up from the laboratory to production.  If it is true, they have done what they claimed, this is dramatic and they will easily find the funding to bring it to market.

Fourth - I am looking for something I can use in the long run.  When the money is worthless (thanks to Bernanke) and society goes the way of Rome....., I am looking to survive.  Forget the payback.  I want to live.  Maybe some of you feel the same way.

Dieselfox.

[lowspeedlife]

Don't forget to buy guns & bullets, you will need them to protect your solar panels when the shat hits the fin. (you move the vowels)

   SR