Thread: A breakthrough in solar technology?

Enlightening Of course easy to replace Hermans at 18 euros an hour with 3rd world labour Another sort of energy transfer

Originally Posted by Soi Source

Enlightening Of course easy to replace Hermans at 18 euros an hour with 3rd world labour Another sort of energy transfer

Well, it's not that easy. Many german companies who have outsourced to low cost countries are now coming back because they have found it is difficult to run efficient high tech production of their products in third world countries. Maybe China could do it but they get access to information on production that way and they are great at copying.

But yes, outsorcing part of the production may be part of strategies to bring cost down.

I want to add that Germany jumped on the solar cell thing too early and the german companies are working with more expensive processes. But the expertise in making long lasting reliable Panels out of cells is really well developed here. So I think bringing the assembly plants here is a good idea.

Interesting solar developments on the horizon

And another...

Power Your Car With Pee | Autopia | Wired.com

I wonder what the energy return on energy invested is for these. One of the problems with renewable energy is that the extraction and processing of the raw materials and then the production process consume large amounts of energy, massively reducing the overall efficiencies.

I hope it's true, solar and wind power really is two energy sources that should be utilised to the maximum.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Interesting solar developments on the horizon

You find that kind of report almost every week. They regularly disappear into the dustbin because they don't work in a real environment. They are just lab results and would need to be developed into a product. At this stage usually something goes wrong, it cannot be produced in large quantities with reliable quality or the cost goes through the roof or the life span is too short as with organic solar cells which seemed to be promising and cheap but don't have a sufficient life span.

The difference why I thought this company is worth a thread is they don't offer some idea and a lab result. They have a product with a price tag they can sell today.

Originally Posted by Muadib

And another... Power Your Car With Pee | Autopia | Wired.com

Totally nonsensical, not even worth openig the link. But I have read a short article on that a few weeks ago, ridiculous, as was to be expected.

Originally Posted by Dan

I wonder what the energy return on energy invested is for these. One of the problems with renewable energy is that the extraction and processing of the raw materials and then the production process consume large amounts of energy, massively reducing the overall efficiencies.

That applies mainly to the silicone based cells. You produce a silicone crystal using a lot of energy, then cut it into wavers and produce the cell. That cell requires a lot of expensive silicone because much of it gets wasted by cutting and the waver is quite thick.

Thin film cells like the one I pointed to require much less material because they work with micrometer thin active layers. And applying the active layer by printing has almost 100% usage of the material. The other materials like the aluminium foil base and the glass of the Panels can be recycled increasing energy efficiency in the long run. Those cells are also certified to work at their nominal efficiency for 20 years that means in reality they will perform much longer. That gives them a good energy balance.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

I hope it's true, solar and wind power really is two energy sources that should be utilised to the maximum.

Depending upon the environment and local climate. Using the US as an example, solar is practical in many parts of California and the West because there are a high percentage of days that are not overcast. Efficiency of conversion drops off significantly on overcast days. You really have to do your homework to calculate if you are going to save money long term.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

I hope it's true, solar and wind power really is two energy sources that should be utilised to the maximum.

I agree. Unfortunately, even if those panels perform as announced this solves only one of many problems. The main obstacle remaining is storage. Solar cells and wind don't produce energy 24 hours a day.
The one solution for that would be producing hydrogen using solar electricity. I have just googled that the efficiency for the process is now up to 70% and maybe further progress is possible. But there are big losses again when the hydrogen is used to produce electricity so the overall cost goes up substantially.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Depending upon the environment and local climate. Using the US as an example, solar is practical in many parts of California and the West because there are a high percentage of days that are not overcast. Efficiency of conversion drops off significantly on overcast days. You really have to do your homework to calculate if you are going to save money long term.

Agree, that's why I believe that solar cells on the roof of your home are not the best solution in most places. Those cells should go where the sun is and the energy should then be fed into the grid. Of course many environmentalists don't agree because they have that dream of self sufficiency and getting rid of the big power companys but it doesn't work that way.