Thin-Film Solar Startup Debuts With $4 Billion in Contracts
wired.com
wired.com
What happens at night?
What happens when its cloudy?
What happens during the winter-time?
Does Nanosolar’s $1 per watt investment guarantee a consistent 24/7/365 source of electricity?
Does Nanosolar’s $1 figure include the cost of installing transmission lines?
Does Nanosolar’s $1 figure include the cost laying cement for a power plant, assembling the cells into solar panels, installing the panels, and commissioning the power plant?
Does Nanosolar’s $1 figure include the cost of building base-load generating capacity to provide electricity for when the sun doesn’t shine?
Installing electrical transmission lines costs about $1 million per mile. Most PV power plants are located far away from demand centers.
This sounds like vaporware.
This is precisely the problem with the Obama administration's plan for a "green energy" future -- trying to shoehorn high-cost intermittent power sources into low-cost high-reliability applications.
Nanosolar is ignoring what solar sells are good for.
Photovolatics have traditionally enjoyed a niche market in applications where cost is not a factor, where weight is at a premium, where there are no other power sources, and where frequent fuel delivery is not an option -- orbital telecommunications satellite solar panels, remote radio transmission towers, offshore oil and gas platforms, mobile power sources for forward-deployed military units, etc...
Utility scale power generation is extremely cost-sensitive, demands high-reliability, has no weight constraints, and has no constraints on mobility and/or fuel delivery -- the exact opposite of applications in which photovolatics make sense.
Nanosolar's emphasis on cost-per-watt suggests that their target market is utility-scale power generation -- a dubious proposition at best, considering the cost and reliability problems with renewable energy sources.
Marc Andreesen has famously argued that the number one job of a startup is to achieve product-market fit.
Nanosolar, like most renewable energy companies, has a product which they are trying to force unto a market that does not want it.
That's the trouble with government subsidies -- they allow people to operate outside the constraints of reality. At taxpayer expense.
Good point, I guess the company will get lots of returns from customers, after they realize the sun doesn't shine at night.
(Not even nuclear gets anywhere close to 24/7/365.)
>>That's the trouble with government subsidies -- they allow people to operate outside the constraints of reality. At taxpayer expense.
That is true, of course.
But $1/Watt is the often quoted threshold where solar cells get economically viable for more solutions.
For example, it means that there will be relatively few years to get back the investment for solar cells to drive air conditioners.
(I've only read about air conditioners' energy use. I live where there are no problems with lots of sunny and warm weather, sigh.)
Posted by: quilner | 09/10/09 | 12:28 am Some questions about Nanosolar’s $1-per-watt claim: What happens at night? What happens when its cloudy? What happens during the winter-time? Does Nanosolar’s $1 per watt investment guarantee a consistent 24/7/365 source of electricity? Does Nanosolar’s $1 figure include the cost of installing transmission lines? Does Nanosolar’s $1 figure include the cost laying cement for a power plant, assembling the cells into solar panels, installing the panels, and commissioning the power plant? Does Nanosolar’s $1 figure include the cost of building base-load generating capacity to provide electricity for when the sun doesn’t shine? Installing electrical transmission lines costs about $1 million per mile. Most PV power plants are located far away from demand centers. This sounds like vaporware.