3 ms·

Sure it is. Lower efficiency means you need more panels, larger panels, and more support infrastructure. It limits where it can be deployed and makes it less co

Sure it is. Lower efficiency means you need more panels, larger panels, and more support infrastructure. It limits where it can be deployed and makes it less competitive.

epistasis 7y ago
And the need for more/larger panels and support structures will only be a win if overall, the costs decrease. The cost is what makes the decision for deployment, not the efficiency. Perhaps this efficiency makes 2-axis tracking economical enough to justify, and then it gets deployed, but in the end the efficiency wasn't as important as the improved costs.
- joshribakoff 7y ago
  I'm no expert, but if the panels now generate additional energy/money that offsets the cost of adding these nano-tubes, doesn't that mean you can meet your power needs with less hardware, or generate extra money to sell back to the grid? It seems like what matters is whether these nanotubes generate more value than they cost.
- qroshan 7y ago
  To use a Computer Science paradigm. Performance (Efficiency) is not the end goal, but performance (efficiency) acts like currencies so that you can 'buy' other things from it.
sp332 7y ago
Yes, and since installation of home solar panels is a small fraction of the total installation cost, reducing the overall size of the project could save money even if the panels themselves are a lot more expensive. https://earthtechling.com/solar-panel-cost/ https://earthtechling.com/solar-panel-cost/ estimates they are only 15% of the total cost of a home solar power system.
crumpets 7y ago
Not really. The difference in the land cost is effectively negligible. At this point (and it has been this way for many years), the limit in solar deployments is cost of panels and storage limitations. There are vast chunks of empty land in AZ, NV, NM, TX, CA that could easily fit enough solar panels (each) to power all of the US. The issue is cost of panels and no base load supply.

Sure it is. Lower efficiency means you need more panels, larger panels, and more support infrastructure. It limits where it can be deployed and makes it less competitive.

epistasis 7y ago

And the need for more/larger panels and support structures will only be a win if overall, the costs decrease. The cost is what makes the decision for deployment, not the efficiency. Perhaps this efficiency makes 2-axis tracking economical enough to justify, and then it gets deployed, but in the end the efficiency wasn't as important as the improved costs.

joshribakoff 7y ago
I'm no expert, but if the panels now generate additional energy/money that offsets the cost of adding these nano-tubes, doesn't that mean you can meet your power needs with less hardware, or generate extra money to sell back to the grid? It seems like what matters is whether these nanotubes generate more value than they cost.
qroshan 7y ago
To use a Computer Science paradigm. Performance (Efficiency) is not the end goal, but performance (efficiency) acts like currencies so that you can 'buy' other things from it.

sp332 7y ago

Yes, and since installation of home solar panels is a small fraction of the total installation cost, reducing the overall size of the project could save money even if the panels themselves are a lot more expensive. https://earthtechling.com/solar-panel-cost/ https://earthtechling.com/solar-panel-cost/ estimates they are only 15% of the total cost of a home solar power system.

crumpets 7y ago

Not really. The difference in the land cost is effectively negligible. At this point (and it has been this way for many years), the limit in solar deployments is cost of panels and storage limitations. There are vast chunks of empty land in AZ, NV, NM, TX, CA that could easily fit enough solar panels (each) to power all of the US. The issue is cost of panels and no base load supply.