2 ms·

Why do they keep saying things like "$1-per-watt"? What does that mean? $1 per 1-watt maximum power production? $1 per 1-watt/hour maximum or estimated output?

Why do they keep saying things like "$1-per-watt"? What does that mean? $1 per 1-watt maximum power production? $1 per 1-watt/hour maximum or estimated output? A power plant has a MW rating, like this: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/beavervalley.html http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reacto... About 810 MW/reactor. If they are rating a cell at 1-watt maximum output, it is probably dishonest unless they are accounting for clouds and nighttime, etc. What is the cost of infrastructure to maintain energy at night? Are millions of flywheels or batteries cheaper than a power plant? It's weird how the NYT will spend 9 pages on baloney, but only give something like this a tiny article.

ph0rque 19y ago
In order to compare apples to apples, electric power analysts use the (maximum, I assume; or maybe average) cost per unit of power that can be produced from a given technology. This lets analysts not have to account for the operational efficiencies of the powerplant, solar cell, etc. As far as cloudy days/nighttime, most of the energy use occurs in the afternoon and early evening, when everybody comes home and turns on their stoves, washing/drying machines, TV's, etc. This corresponds to the average peak solar production. So these solar cells would, if they find widespread use, get rid of the need for "peakers", which are peak generating units, and are the most expensive in terms of the cost of energy produced.
pingswept 19y ago
It's a ridiculous metric. They're talking about the power at which the panel peaks in full sun. If you buy a panel that peaks at 200 W for $600, that's called 3 $/W. It's dumb. A better metric would be $/kWh. Some related calculations here: http://pingswept.org/2007/12/20/i-retract-all-scoffing-remarks-regarding-nanosolar/ http://pingswept.org/2007/12/20/i-retract-all-scoffing-remar...

ph0rque 19y ago

In order to compare apples to apples, electric power analysts use the (maximum, I assume; or maybe average) cost per unit of power that can be produced from a given technology. This lets analysts not have to account for the operational efficiencies of the powerplant, solar cell, etc. As far as cloudy days/nighttime, most of the energy use occurs in the afternoon and early evening, when everybody comes home and turns on their stoves, washing/drying machines, TV's, etc. This corresponds to the average peak solar production. So these solar cells would, if they find widespread use, get rid of the need for "peakers", which are peak generating units, and are the most expensive in terms of the cost of energy produced.

pingswept 19y ago

It's a ridiculous metric. They're talking about the power at which the panel peaks in full sun. If you buy a panel that peaks at 200 W for $600, that's called 3 $/W. It's dumb. A better metric would be $/kWh. Some related calculations here: http://pingswept.org/2007/12/20/i-retract-all-scoffing-remarks-regarding-nanosolar/ http://pingswept.org/2007/12/20/i-retract-all-scoffing-remar...