happythoughts 0 #1 February 21, 2006 Is this real news or promotion? clicky QuoteIn a scientific breakthrough that has stunned the world, a team of South African scientists has developed a revolutionary new, highly efficient solar power technology that will enable homes to obtain all their electricity from the sun. This means high electricity bills and frequent power failures could soon be a thing of the past. The unique South African-developed solar panels will make it possible for houses to become completely self-sufficient for energy supplies. If you only drive 10-12 miles to work in a hybrid that you could plug in ? I'm liking it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dropoutdave 0 #2 February 21, 2006 Wow! ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #3 February 21, 2006 The writing is so bad it's either a small town newspaper that published it or one of the 'scientists' wrote his own press release. Either way it looks like you shouldn't hold your breath. "Nothing else comes close to the effectiveness of the SA invention" as a pull-quote? Where are the numbers? Where is there even a business name to google? All it's missing to be an Onion article is a punchline. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,384 #4 February 21, 2006 >will make it possible for houses to become completely self-sufficient for energy supplies. Well, I already did that; you can do that with modern panels no problem. The big issue is cost. A system right now will run you about $6-7 a watt; more than half of that is panel cost. If they can pull it in below $2 a watt they might have a good product. Right now demand for panels is through the roof. They are hard to get, and any company that has a viable product will have no problem selling their panels. Unfortunately most new companies are better at issuing press releases than building panels. (Evergreen Solar is a recent exception.) We'll see if these guys can deliver. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #5 February 21, 2006 Right in my town (Frederick, MD) I've seen a place that manufactures solar panels & is owned by British Petroleum, of all things. BTW, I was reading this book about nanotechnology. It mentioned using nanotechnology to develop solar panels that are WAY more efficient than current panels. I wonder if this an example of that. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,384 #6 February 21, 2006 >I've seen a place that manufactures solar panels & is owned by British Petroleum, of all things. Yep, a few oil companies have 'seen the light' (no pun intended) and have started to get into solar. The BP590's were, for a while, the most efficient panels on the market. Sadly they now only sell BP585's, which aren't quite as efficient. >It mentioned using nanotechnology to develop solar panels that are >WAY more efficient than current panels. Another thing I will believe when I see. Nanotechnology is a fancy word for "very small things." The bandgap area of a traditional silicon solar cell is pretty small (microns) and the manufacturing methods used now allow you to make a massive area of them at once, which is a lot easier than making them a few atoms at a time. If you use nanotech assembly methods you have to make the panels a micron at a time in all dimensions; that can take a _long_ time. Self-assembly may let them get beyond that but we're not there yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #7 February 21, 2006 Random quotes QuoteOne of the leaders in solar energy, German company IFE solar systems, has invested more than R500 million in the South African invention and is set to manufacture 500 000 of the panels before the end of the year at a new plant in Germany. Production will start next month and the factory will run 24 hours a day, producing 1000 panels a day to meet expected demand. That investment sounds serious. It gives it a little more credibility. QuoteInitial projections predict that locally-produced CIGS panels could supply electricity at a production cost of 50c per kW-h, possibly less. QuoteWork done over the last two years indicates that panels can be produced in commercial volumes at a cost of about R 500 for a 50 Watt panel. This is much cheaper than existing solar panels available on the market. CIGS is a remarkably stable material and conversion efficiencies should be sustainable for 15-20 years in any given panel. We shall see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,384 #8 February 21, 2006 >a cost of about R 500 for a 50 Watt panel. If that's true it's about $80 for a 50 watt panel, which comes in at about $1.60 a watt. If they can really do that in large quantities they may have a viable product. Other issue is areal efficiency. Generally it has to be over 10% efficiency, which comes in at about 100 watts per square meter. That allows a house with a typical roof to power itself without having to cover the backyard with panels too. Unisolar (modern amorphous panels) run about 8% efficient, and haven't done that well for that reason. Modern crystalline panels run 14-16% efficient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #9 February 21, 2006 I have two considerations. The hurricane that killed my power for 6 days. The hurricane took the cap off my roof. As thin as the material is described to be, I don't want to buy something that gets taken off my roof every August. However, it would be nice to run my refrigerator and take hot showers all year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,384 #10 February 21, 2006 >As thin as the material is described to be, I don't want to buy >something that gets taken off my roof every August. If they are anything like the Unisolar amorphous panels they will be stronger than the roof (with the proper mounting of course.) If they are glass-covered like modern crystalline panels they may be vulnerable to debris damage. >However, it would be nice to run my refrigerator and take hot showers all year. That's definitely doable, but note that the article is specifically talking about grid-interactive batteryless converters; they shut down when power goes out. However, the same panels can be used with battery-based inverters for backup power so not a big deal. They're just a bit more expensive (and of course you need the batteries.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #11 February 21, 2006 Quote(and of course you need the batteries.) That's not very cheap either, unfortunately....but it sure is nice knowing that you've got x hours of power available when the grid fails...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites larsrulz 0 #12 February 21, 2006 QuoteRight in my town (Frederick, MD) I've seen a place that manufactures solar panels & is owned by British Petroleum, of all things. The company is actually no longer British Petroleum they are just BP or have referred to themselves as Beyond Petroleum now. This is one of many reasons for that name change. Don't think the major oil companies will die with the end of oil. They'll still be just as big. In fact BP is the leading producer of solar panels throughout the world. I got a strong urge to fly, but I got no where to fly to. -PF Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nopullmike 0 #13 February 21, 2006 My electricity bill is typically pretty small. The natural gas I use to heat my house on the other hand is threw the roof. Hell I just spent nearly 6,000 dollars on a "high efficiency" furnace and my bills are more than ever. I hope the time comes when this technology is available. I will take that new furnace out back and use it for target practice. It would also be nice not to cringe every time a number crunching egghead on CNBC speculates that the price of gas in going to rise. Which is all the gas company needs to raise the price of the gas anyway. Sorry, I know I was a little off the topic here... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dropoutdave 0 #14 February 21, 2006 Quote"In fact, we are currently investigating building what will probably be the largest solar power plant, in the Northern Cape - a 100-megawatt facility." Can anyone tell me what this is comparible too? How many homes would this power? ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,384 #15 February 21, 2006 >Can anyone tell me what this is comparible too? How many homes would this power? A typical house that does not pay much attention to efficiency uses an average of about 1000 watts during the day. 100 megawatts would power 100,000 such homes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dropoutdave 0 #16 February 21, 2006 Quote>Can anyone tell me what this is comparible too? How many homes would this power? A typical house that does not pay much attention to efficiency uses an average of about 1000 watts during the day. 100 megawatts would power 100,000 such homes. Cheers for that. Anyone know how much 100 megawatts would produce in CO2 emissions? Full of questions I am. ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #17 February 21, 2006 Depends - solar or nuclear? None Coal or gas-fired.... would depend from plant to plant due to efficiency ratings, age, etc...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,384 #18 February 21, 2006 >Anyone know how much 100 megawatts would produce in CO2 emissions? No equivalent. How much gasoline does it take to generate 100 horsepower? There's no answer to that question because it's about energy, not power. Now, if you asked how much CO2 is created when you generate 100 megawatt-hours, you can answer that. A coal fired power plant produces about 2 tons of CO2 per megawatt-hour, or 200 tons for 100 megawatt-hours. For a natural gas plant it would be about 120 tons. For nuclear, it's zero. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #19 February 21, 2006 "A typical house that does not pay much attention to efficiency uses an average of about 1000 watts during the day" Bill, thats only 1 kilowatt are you sure about that? Maybe in Cali it might be the case (lucky you but you'd probably use more than me on the freezer). In mid winter, cold and damp Auchenblae I need about 6 kw just to heat the living room, good job I run that on renewable wood! For Dropoutdave, 100MW is about 134,000 horsepower, or a squillion (342 million) BTU/hr. If I remember tomorrow, I'll look out some CO2, Nox, Sox, and Tox numbers for a 25 MW gas turbine for comparison.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #20 February 21, 2006 Quote That's definitely doable, but note that the article is specifically talking about grid-interactive batteryless converters; they shut down when power goes out. However, the same panels can be used with battery-based inverters for backup power so not a big deal. They're just a bit more expensive (and of course you need the batteries.) So, Bill, what does this mean if solar goes past niche status, say more than 10% of the homes? Right now it integrates in nicely, sending power back during the day, drawing at night. Doesn't get around outages, but those aren't too common and in any event, solar makes outages due to demand less likely. But if we got to 50% and still not using power storage, what does that do to the power generation side? Plants are most efficient running at full capacity, so there's a pretty big swing. Best case would be the homes power the business world during the day, and the plants take care of the night need. But spinning up plants for PM only seems clumsy. You also have the seasonal issues - more plants needed in the winter, but not in the summer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,384 #21 February 21, 2006 >Bill, thats only 1 kilowatt are you sure about that? Pretty sure. Most houses use oil or natural gas for heat, and the pumps that run those systems don't take much power (a few hundred watts.) Homes peak out at about 5 kilowatts, but that's a peak, not an average load. Most homes have 10 kilowatt service (100 amp service.) Homes with electric heat are another story, but they are pretty rare in the US due to energy costs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,384 #22 February 21, 2006 >But if we got to 50% and still not using power storage, what does >that do to the power generation side? Plants are most efficient >running at full capacity, so there's a pretty big swing. Right, but right now most can't run at full efficiency. The variation in power from day to night is almost 2:1 in California, and they have to keep plants on standby in case there's a surge in demand. Some plants, like big nukes, run continuously. Other plants, like hydro, can be throttled easily. Combined cycle thermal plants, like big natural gas plants, can be throttled with difficulty, and often are. One of the good things about solar is it matches the demand graph pretty closely, especially if you aim the arrays southwest. In other words, it produces power when demand is highest. This helps with peak loading issues. As more generation moves from central to distributed, though, there will be more control problems. Right now the allowable amount of distributed, uncontrolled generation in CA is 1% - that will have to change if distributed generation is to really help. Some technologies that may help include distributed control networks, pumped hydro storage (i.e. when excess power is available, water is pumped back into dams) and superconducting magnetic storage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #23 February 21, 2006 Ah, okay I'm with you. So we still need to factor in the heating power consumption to get a decent 'energy picture', what about air con, is that a big power user too?.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #24 February 21, 2006 nice bit about air conditioning is a lot of it is during the day when the solar power is being generated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,621 #25 February 21, 2006 Quotenice bit about air conditioning is a lot of it is during the day when the solar power is being generated.\ Couldn't you make a nice evaporative A/C using solar power directly rather than indirectly though electrical power from solar panels?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
dropoutdave 0 #2 February 21, 2006 Wow! ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #3 February 21, 2006 The writing is so bad it's either a small town newspaper that published it or one of the 'scientists' wrote his own press release. Either way it looks like you shouldn't hold your breath. "Nothing else comes close to the effectiveness of the SA invention" as a pull-quote? Where are the numbers? Where is there even a business name to google? All it's missing to be an Onion article is a punchline. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #4 February 21, 2006 >will make it possible for houses to become completely self-sufficient for energy supplies. Well, I already did that; you can do that with modern panels no problem. The big issue is cost. A system right now will run you about $6-7 a watt; more than half of that is panel cost. If they can pull it in below $2 a watt they might have a good product. Right now demand for panels is through the roof. They are hard to get, and any company that has a viable product will have no problem selling their panels. Unfortunately most new companies are better at issuing press releases than building panels. (Evergreen Solar is a recent exception.) We'll see if these guys can deliver. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #5 February 21, 2006 Right in my town (Frederick, MD) I've seen a place that manufactures solar panels & is owned by British Petroleum, of all things. BTW, I was reading this book about nanotechnology. It mentioned using nanotechnology to develop solar panels that are WAY more efficient than current panels. I wonder if this an example of that. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #6 February 21, 2006 >I've seen a place that manufactures solar panels & is owned by British Petroleum, of all things. Yep, a few oil companies have 'seen the light' (no pun intended) and have started to get into solar. The BP590's were, for a while, the most efficient panels on the market. Sadly they now only sell BP585's, which aren't quite as efficient. >It mentioned using nanotechnology to develop solar panels that are >WAY more efficient than current panels. Another thing I will believe when I see. Nanotechnology is a fancy word for "very small things." The bandgap area of a traditional silicon solar cell is pretty small (microns) and the manufacturing methods used now allow you to make a massive area of them at once, which is a lot easier than making them a few atoms at a time. If you use nanotech assembly methods you have to make the panels a micron at a time in all dimensions; that can take a _long_ time. Self-assembly may let them get beyond that but we're not there yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #7 February 21, 2006 Random quotes QuoteOne of the leaders in solar energy, German company IFE solar systems, has invested more than R500 million in the South African invention and is set to manufacture 500 000 of the panels before the end of the year at a new plant in Germany. Production will start next month and the factory will run 24 hours a day, producing 1000 panels a day to meet expected demand. That investment sounds serious. It gives it a little more credibility. QuoteInitial projections predict that locally-produced CIGS panels could supply electricity at a production cost of 50c per kW-h, possibly less. QuoteWork done over the last two years indicates that panels can be produced in commercial volumes at a cost of about R 500 for a 50 Watt panel. This is much cheaper than existing solar panels available on the market. CIGS is a remarkably stable material and conversion efficiencies should be sustainable for 15-20 years in any given panel. We shall see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #8 February 21, 2006 >a cost of about R 500 for a 50 Watt panel. If that's true it's about $80 for a 50 watt panel, which comes in at about $1.60 a watt. If they can really do that in large quantities they may have a viable product. Other issue is areal efficiency. Generally it has to be over 10% efficiency, which comes in at about 100 watts per square meter. That allows a house with a typical roof to power itself without having to cover the backyard with panels too. Unisolar (modern amorphous panels) run about 8% efficient, and haven't done that well for that reason. Modern crystalline panels run 14-16% efficient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #9 February 21, 2006 I have two considerations. The hurricane that killed my power for 6 days. The hurricane took the cap off my roof. As thin as the material is described to be, I don't want to buy something that gets taken off my roof every August. However, it would be nice to run my refrigerator and take hot showers all year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #10 February 21, 2006 >As thin as the material is described to be, I don't want to buy >something that gets taken off my roof every August. If they are anything like the Unisolar amorphous panels they will be stronger than the roof (with the proper mounting of course.) If they are glass-covered like modern crystalline panels they may be vulnerable to debris damage. >However, it would be nice to run my refrigerator and take hot showers all year. That's definitely doable, but note that the article is specifically talking about grid-interactive batteryless converters; they shut down when power goes out. However, the same panels can be used with battery-based inverters for backup power so not a big deal. They're just a bit more expensive (and of course you need the batteries.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #11 February 21, 2006 Quote(and of course you need the batteries.) That's not very cheap either, unfortunately....but it sure is nice knowing that you've got x hours of power available when the grid fails...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
larsrulz 0 #12 February 21, 2006 QuoteRight in my town (Frederick, MD) I've seen a place that manufactures solar panels & is owned by British Petroleum, of all things. The company is actually no longer British Petroleum they are just BP or have referred to themselves as Beyond Petroleum now. This is one of many reasons for that name change. Don't think the major oil companies will die with the end of oil. They'll still be just as big. In fact BP is the leading producer of solar panels throughout the world. I got a strong urge to fly, but I got no where to fly to. -PF Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nopullmike 0 #13 February 21, 2006 My electricity bill is typically pretty small. The natural gas I use to heat my house on the other hand is threw the roof. Hell I just spent nearly 6,000 dollars on a "high efficiency" furnace and my bills are more than ever. I hope the time comes when this technology is available. I will take that new furnace out back and use it for target practice. It would also be nice not to cringe every time a number crunching egghead on CNBC speculates that the price of gas in going to rise. Which is all the gas company needs to raise the price of the gas anyway. Sorry, I know I was a little off the topic here... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #14 February 21, 2006 Quote"In fact, we are currently investigating building what will probably be the largest solar power plant, in the Northern Cape - a 100-megawatt facility." Can anyone tell me what this is comparible too? How many homes would this power? ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #15 February 21, 2006 >Can anyone tell me what this is comparible too? How many homes would this power? A typical house that does not pay much attention to efficiency uses an average of about 1000 watts during the day. 100 megawatts would power 100,000 such homes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #16 February 21, 2006 Quote>Can anyone tell me what this is comparible too? How many homes would this power? A typical house that does not pay much attention to efficiency uses an average of about 1000 watts during the day. 100 megawatts would power 100,000 such homes. Cheers for that. Anyone know how much 100 megawatts would produce in CO2 emissions? Full of questions I am. ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #17 February 21, 2006 Depends - solar or nuclear? None Coal or gas-fired.... would depend from plant to plant due to efficiency ratings, age, etc...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #18 February 21, 2006 >Anyone know how much 100 megawatts would produce in CO2 emissions? No equivalent. How much gasoline does it take to generate 100 horsepower? There's no answer to that question because it's about energy, not power. Now, if you asked how much CO2 is created when you generate 100 megawatt-hours, you can answer that. A coal fired power plant produces about 2 tons of CO2 per megawatt-hour, or 200 tons for 100 megawatt-hours. For a natural gas plant it would be about 120 tons. For nuclear, it's zero. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #19 February 21, 2006 "A typical house that does not pay much attention to efficiency uses an average of about 1000 watts during the day" Bill, thats only 1 kilowatt are you sure about that? Maybe in Cali it might be the case (lucky you but you'd probably use more than me on the freezer). In mid winter, cold and damp Auchenblae I need about 6 kw just to heat the living room, good job I run that on renewable wood! For Dropoutdave, 100MW is about 134,000 horsepower, or a squillion (342 million) BTU/hr. If I remember tomorrow, I'll look out some CO2, Nox, Sox, and Tox numbers for a 25 MW gas turbine for comparison.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 February 21, 2006 Quote That's definitely doable, but note that the article is specifically talking about grid-interactive batteryless converters; they shut down when power goes out. However, the same panels can be used with battery-based inverters for backup power so not a big deal. They're just a bit more expensive (and of course you need the batteries.) So, Bill, what does this mean if solar goes past niche status, say more than 10% of the homes? Right now it integrates in nicely, sending power back during the day, drawing at night. Doesn't get around outages, but those aren't too common and in any event, solar makes outages due to demand less likely. But if we got to 50% and still not using power storage, what does that do to the power generation side? Plants are most efficient running at full capacity, so there's a pretty big swing. Best case would be the homes power the business world during the day, and the plants take care of the night need. But spinning up plants for PM only seems clumsy. You also have the seasonal issues - more plants needed in the winter, but not in the summer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #21 February 21, 2006 >Bill, thats only 1 kilowatt are you sure about that? Pretty sure. Most houses use oil or natural gas for heat, and the pumps that run those systems don't take much power (a few hundred watts.) Homes peak out at about 5 kilowatts, but that's a peak, not an average load. Most homes have 10 kilowatt service (100 amp service.) Homes with electric heat are another story, but they are pretty rare in the US due to energy costs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #22 February 21, 2006 >But if we got to 50% and still not using power storage, what does >that do to the power generation side? Plants are most efficient >running at full capacity, so there's a pretty big swing. Right, but right now most can't run at full efficiency. The variation in power from day to night is almost 2:1 in California, and they have to keep plants on standby in case there's a surge in demand. Some plants, like big nukes, run continuously. Other plants, like hydro, can be throttled easily. Combined cycle thermal plants, like big natural gas plants, can be throttled with difficulty, and often are. One of the good things about solar is it matches the demand graph pretty closely, especially if you aim the arrays southwest. In other words, it produces power when demand is highest. This helps with peak loading issues. As more generation moves from central to distributed, though, there will be more control problems. Right now the allowable amount of distributed, uncontrolled generation in CA is 1% - that will have to change if distributed generation is to really help. Some technologies that may help include distributed control networks, pumped hydro storage (i.e. when excess power is available, water is pumped back into dams) and superconducting magnetic storage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #23 February 21, 2006 Ah, okay I'm with you. So we still need to factor in the heating power consumption to get a decent 'energy picture', what about air con, is that a big power user too?.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #24 February 21, 2006 nice bit about air conditioning is a lot of it is during the day when the solar power is being generated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #25 February 21, 2006 Quotenice bit about air conditioning is a lot of it is during the day when the solar power is being generated.\ Couldn't you make a nice evaporative A/C using solar power directly rather than indirectly though electrical power from solar panels?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
