8 ms·
License to Print Money
- nhebb 16y agoI'm making a lot of assumptions here, but you could argue that the solar panels do not need a long lifespan. What they need is a mounting framework that has a long lifespan, including robust hardware that interconnects with the electrical system. If the conversion efficiency of the panels will improve every few years, the cheapest panel possible would be a better benefit, as long as they are easily replaceable and recyclable. This would provide a more cost effective system in the long run.
- sdfx 16y agoThe cost of installing new panels can be quite high, depending on where they are installed. Also I'd be worried of a format war - I bet that each manufacturer comes up with his own standard, which would lead to higher prices for the replacement and the possibility that your format disappears from the market in a couple of years.
- bluedevil2k 16y agoI think your arguments ignore many of the actual economic costs of a solar panel installation. The mounting framework is the cheapest part of the structure. The solar panels themselves are expensive, but the major issue with your idea to re-install them every few years would be the labor costs. It takes a few hours and a few men to install the panels, so throwing in $1000 every 2-3 years would make this type of quick-replace plan non-cost effective. I'm not an expert in solar panels by any stretch, but my understanding that the two major breakthroughs we need are a) how to make the solar panels themselves more efficient over a long life-span. Typically they lose 2-4% of their efficiency every year, meaning 20 years down the road, they've lost 50% of their energy power. b) a more efficient converter from the DC generated by the solar cells to the AC we put back into the grid.
- nhebb 16y agoLet me re-iterate: as long as they are easily replaceable In others words, design it with replacement by do-it-yourself homeowners in mind. I looked up the spec for one and it was 1250x800 mm (~4x3 ft) and weighted 12 kg (~25 lbs). That's a little awkward for one person to cart up a ladder, but what if they were half the size and had a strap handle on the side? What if they used quick disconnects for mounting? If you set out with these as design goals, then I'm sure a feasible solution could be found.
- hugh3 16y agoMost people don't especially like going up on their own rooves to install things. Some folks don't mind, but it's still a big disadvantage.
- rdtsc 16y agoBut most people probably know someone who doesn't mind or who can help them do it. In other words it doesn't have to be a $1K job for everyone. Smaller panels can make it easy to replace gradually, acouple here, a couple there...
- ars 16y agoI agree. You either make things last a long time and not fail, or you make them very easy and cheap to replace.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoHow common is it for homeowners to have a friend replace roofing tiles for them? Such a job is as easy or easier (and cheaper in terms of materials) than replacing solar panels. In practice such things are not common at all, people don't have friends who will just go up on roofs and do serious work. The best you can hope for is something as easy as installing Christmas lights (which doesn't even require getting on the roof itself, just up to the eaves).
- CognitiveLens 16y agoSounds great, except for the fact that every inch of this stuff will be in a landfill after 10 years of use, where it will essentially never break down, and likely leach whatever exotic compounds it uses into the soil/water, trading one form of pollution for another. It seems like a "disposable society" solution to solar power, and I'm not convinced unless it comes with a clear recycling program.
- ukdm 16y agoThey say its organic plastic solar cells being used. Does anyone know how quickly they break down? Maybe that's part of the reason why these panels only last 10 years?
- oiuhjygtfghjnmk 16y ago'organic' doesn't mean the same in chemistry as it means in Trader Joe's
- hugh3 16y agoFrinstance all plastics are organics, but they'll last a helluva long time in landfill.
- jws 16y agoIt has 40% of a crystal solar cell's service life, but I'll also wager it has far less than a crystal solar cell's mass, being a printing press technology. That should be a net gain for landfilling. Not to worry though. If these are used in any kind of large installations then the scrap value of the expired cells will be part of their profit. At the very least they might be fuel for cement kilns. If they can burn tires (when not in anyone's backyard) then thin sheets of plastic should be easy.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- zeteo 16y agoNot really. According to this link http://www.konarka.com/index.php/power-plastic/material-characteristics/ http://www.konarka.com/index.php/power-plastic/material-char... the materials used are 100% recyclable.
- brc 16y agoLook I like the sound of this but please : get it into production! I was reading these stories 4 years ago. They need to launch the product in a specific niche (camping? boating?) and iterate and learn. It's like a startup that never gets to launch.
- nihilocrat 16y agoBig, boxy datacenters would probably benefit from carpeting their roofs with this stuff.
- joeag 16y agoNot really. Most big users of power pay incredibly low per kwhr rates (in the US anyway). Without a realistic feed in tariff (meaning the utility buys the power generated, not the data center) the deal won't be economic (unless the data center agrees to pay more than grid for solar, which they won't).
- davidj 16y agoSolar is a scam. Every solar technology advancement turns out to be a lie. I'm willing to bet money that this technology will never actually work or if it does will cost 100x and be 1/100 as efficent as they say it will be. (reference: nano solar, or any solar company since the 70s) Commence the down voting.
- eru 16y agoSolar worked fine on my pocket calculator.
- davidj 16y agoyour pocket calculator uses solar technology that was invented 40-50 years ago, and my point is the technology hasn't advanced a lot since then.
- eru 16y agoThanks. That sounds more reasonable than your original comment.
- anamax 16y agoFor most of us, paying $5 for a solar cell to replace a $0.50 battery in a calculator. However, that doesn't imply we can afford the same sort of tradeoff when real money is involved.
- recampbell 16y agoIf it's so obvious, can you at least link to some backup data?
- davidj 16y agosure just google 40% efficient solar, and then replace 40% with 50% 60% 70% 80% and then actually try to buy one.
- 16y ago
- hugh3 16y agoThat's fine, but a bit of mathematics... Roof area of an average new house: maybe 100 m^2? Peak solar flux: 1 kW/m^2 Take into account the existence of night, cloudy days, and the fact you're probably not at the equator: divide that by four. Efficiency of these solar cells: they have a "goal" of 10%, so let's optimistically assume they make it. So we're collecting, on average, 0.11001000/4 =2.5 kW. Actually, y'know, when I started this calculation I was anticipating something ridiculously small, but that's a not-insignificant fraction of your usage. Am I missing a factor somewhere?
- MikeCapone 16y agoIt's especially "not insignificant" if you have batteries and can store the excess power generated during the times of day when you aren't using much power. Most houses are empty a large fraction of most week days.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- ars 16y agoUsing batteries is not sustainable, they just don't last long enough and use too many resources to make. Use the power grid as your battery.
- fraserharris 16y agoIf you are storing the energy in Li-ion batteries, you'll have an added 10 - 20% loss.
- davidj 16y agothe numbers work out pretty well when you disregard the reality . Only in fantasy land the sun is always at peak, technology that claims to be 10% efficient is actually 10%, DC-AC conversion and storage is 100% efficient, and if you disregard the government subsidies and the energy needed to manufacture.
- 16y ago
- ph0rque 16y agoFlexible plastic solar cells will go everywhere the sun shines, produced in long rolls, covering roofs and even windows (the cells can be made transparent). How would transparent solar cells work? Would the light coming in be part of the <90% of the light not being converted to electricity?
- mseebach 16y agoI don't know, but presumably the solar cells would primarily absorb light from the invisible part of the spectrum, ie. infrared. Your cats are going to hate you for it, though (no more hot spots in the sun..).
- Vivtek 16y agoFirst thing I noticed, yeah.
- ph0rque 16y agoThe next step would be to have the solar cell also be an automatic shade: more light --> less electricity, and vice versa.