5 ms·

Solar panels are already good enough that they are used in developed countries such as USA and UK. Are they perfect? No, they cost too much, and they don't gene

by corin_ 16y ago

Solar panels are already good enough that they are used in developed countries such as USA and UK. Are they perfect? No, they cost too much, and they don't generate enough electricity, but they are used none-the-less. By the sound of it, this new creation would be more efficient, either in price, electricity generation, or both, than traditional solar panels - if that wasn't the case, why on earth would any project use them in third world countries, when they could instead use solar panels. So, based on those two facts, surely anyone who would be using solar panels ought to look to be using this product in the next few years? (And, depending on how much better than traditional solar panels it is, possibly more people/companies would want to use it than are willing to use solar power right now.)

berntb 16y ago
>>Solar panels are already good enough that they are used in developed countries such as USA and UK. Are they perfect? No, they cost too much, and they don't generate enough electricity, but they are used none-the-less. Does no one follow energy news, except for oil prices and the Polywell project?! :-) Many estimates talk about soon reaching "grid parity" in large parts of the world. If this leaf isn't good enough, there will be some other solar variant soon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity It seems to go faster than this prediction from 2009: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8386460.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8386460.stm (Kurzweil argued in 2008 that solar energy will take over http://www.livescience.com/4824-solar-power-rule-20-years-futurists.html http://www.livescience.com/4824-solar-power-rule-20-years-fu... )
- puredemo 16y ago
  Where do you get your energy news from?
  - berntb 16y ago
    I don't really follow it either, just some tech/science news outlets that waste my time by covering [edit: Energy], too... :-)
- ars 16y ago
  BTW one reason that Grid Parity is a moving target is that one of the input costs to making solar power is energy. When energy (hydrocarbon fuel) becomes more expensive, instead of making solar power cheaper in comparison, it has no real effect. Instead, regular power becomes more expensive, which makes building solar power also more expensive, and the net result is a wash.
  - DannoHung 16y ago
    That seems weird. That would imply that the lifetime energy capture of a solar panel is roughly equivalent to the creation and installation energy cost.
    - GFischer 16y ago
      Indeed. That used to be said of eolic energy (wind power). For example you can see a cost breakdown in 2005 here: http://www.mnforsustain.org/windpower_schleede_costs_of_electricity.htm http://www.mnforsustain.org/windpower_schleede_costs_of_elec... I believe the energy costs are now competitive (but wind still cannot serve as "base" power), but my yet-unresearched hunch is that solar is still at the same stage that wind was: only viable due to the massive tax breaks.
    - randallsquared 16y ago
      Doesn't seem weird at all, I think. Solar just barely passed breakeven in the last decade, unless you factor in subsidies. I notice that for a random zip code in Maine, http://bpsolar.cleanpowerestimator.com/bpsolar.htm http://bpsolar.cleanpowerestimator.com/bpsolar.htm shows that absent federal and state subsidies, you'll save only about $4600 over 25 years with their default settings. It's phrased as saving $36K, though, due to subsidies and interesting presentation. :) But BP Solar really wants you to buy solar panels, of course.
tesseract 16y ago
I don't see, in the linked article, a comparison of the efficiency of this device to that of existing solar panels (which are quite a bit more efficient than natural leaves).
- mryall 16y ago
  > [solar panels] are quite a bit more efficient than natural leaves ... Got a citation for that? I'd be interested to learn more.
  - tesseract 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency vs 10% to 30%+ for solar cells (depending on technology/price).
anamax 16y ago
> Solar panels are already good enough that they are used in developed countries such as USA and UK. Are they perfect? No, they cost too much, and they don't generate enough electricity, but they are used none-the-less. Subsidy and vanity explain a lot of economic activity. Plus, energy costs are not very uniform. It's much easier/cheaper to get power to the next house in a suburb than it is to get power to a freeway sign 10 miles from the nearest town. That's why solar is cost effective in some situations even when it doesn't make sense in general.

by corin_ 16y ago

berntb 16y ago

>>Solar panels are already good enough that they are used in developed countries such as USA and UK. Are they perfect? No, they cost too much, and they don't generate enough electricity, but they are used none-the-less. Does no one follow energy news, except for oil prices and the Polywell project?! :-) Many estimates talk about soon reaching "grid parity" in large parts of the world. If this leaf isn't good enough, there will be some other solar variant soon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity It seems to go faster than this prediction from 2009: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8386460.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8386460.stm (Kurzweil argued in 2008 that solar energy will take over http://www.livescience.com/4824-solar-power-rule-20-years-futurists.html http://www.livescience.com/4824-solar-power-rule-20-years-fu... )

puredemo 16y ago
Where do you get your energy news from?
- berntb 16y ago
  I don't really follow it either, just some tech/science news outlets that waste my time by covering [edit: Energy], too... :-)
ars 16y ago
BTW one reason that Grid Parity is a moving target is that one of the input costs to making solar power is energy. When energy (hydrocarbon fuel) becomes more expensive, instead of making solar power cheaper in comparison, it has no real effect. Instead, regular power becomes more expensive, which makes building solar power also more expensive, and the net result is a wash.
- DannoHung 16y ago
  That seems weird. That would imply that the lifetime energy capture of a solar panel is roughly equivalent to the creation and installation energy cost.
  - GFischer 16y ago
    Indeed. That used to be said of eolic energy (wind power). For example you can see a cost breakdown in 2005 here: http://www.mnforsustain.org/windpower_schleede_costs_of_electricity.htm http://www.mnforsustain.org/windpower_schleede_costs_of_elec... I believe the energy costs are now competitive (but wind still cannot serve as "base" power), but my yet-unresearched hunch is that solar is still at the same stage that wind was: only viable due to the massive tax breaks.
  - randallsquared 16y ago
    Doesn't seem weird at all, I think. Solar just barely passed breakeven in the last decade, unless you factor in subsidies. I notice that for a random zip code in Maine, http://bpsolar.cleanpowerestimator.com/bpsolar.htm http://bpsolar.cleanpowerestimator.com/bpsolar.htm shows that absent federal and state subsidies, you'll save only about $4600 over 25 years with their default settings. It's phrased as saving $36K, though, due to subsidies and interesting presentation. :) But BP Solar really wants you to buy solar panels, of course.

tesseract 16y ago

I don't see, in the linked article, a comparison of the efficiency of this device to that of existing solar panels (which are quite a bit more efficient than natural leaves).

mryall 16y ago
> [solar panels] are quite a bit more efficient than natural leaves ... Got a citation for that? I'd be interested to learn more.
- tesseract 16y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency vs 10% to 30%+ for solar cells (depending on technology/price).

anamax 16y ago

> Solar panels are already good enough that they are used in developed countries such as USA and UK. Are they perfect? No, they cost too much, and they don't generate enough electricity, but they are used none-the-less. Subsidy and vanity explain a lot of economic activity. Plus, energy costs are not very uniform. It's much easier/cheaper to get power to the next house in a suburb than it is to get power to a freeway sign 10 miles from the nearest town. That's why solar is cost effective in some situations even when it doesn't make sense in general.