Our Magazines Article Archives
 

Welcome to the Revolution: Emanuel Sachs and Frank van Mierlo

The founders of Cambridge MA-based 1366 Technologies discuss their groundbreaking work.

Do you like this magazine?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
10 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 10
August 17, 2010
Solar is already cheaper than new coal according to Florida Power and Light. Old coal will get very expensive in the next 18 months once EPA requires upgrades to all existing coal facilities. Congrats on your progress!
Comment
2 of 10
August 17, 2010
The sunlight energy that falls on the earth is huge, as stated in the article. BUT, the energy falls in the sea (3/4 of the earth surface) and on irrecular terrain (mountains and jungles) not suitable for energy "cultivation" based upon current technology. While I believe renewable sources can and should be developed, I do not believe the magnitude of our energy needs can be addressed with renewable energy sources alone. Every article I have seen fails to address the obstacles of these sources, i.e., the foot print of the power plant (which is huge compared to fossil or nuclear power plants of comparable capacity), the maintenance requirements of the collectors (or wind towers in the case of wind turbines), the capacity of the the base installation relative to the availability of generation. I have no direct data on solar PT or PV, but wind turbines are only 30% available. The storage capacity, back-up power, etc. is never discussed. PV collectors require a large array of panels which must be cleaned regularly to maintain generation efficiency. How much water or equal is required to clean the panels, what is the cleaning procedure, how long will panel cleaning take, what size is the cleaning crew, is this a 24/7 operation, how vulnerable are the panels to cracking or warping, dothe panels have to track the sun due to the rotation of the earth, what if the tracking fails, given the size of the foot print will the panels be divided into sections for safety and reliability, what about wind damage given the air-foil effect of the panel size, can the panels get too hot, or too cold, if so what are the protections to assure the continuation of generation, how long to replace a damaged panel, and the beat goes on. The energy generation in the US is 1000 GW per year; while solar generation will be a complement, it will not supplement fossile and/or nuclear generation. I would like to hear commentary on these concerns.
Comment
3 of 10
August 17, 2010
Great Article, 1366 is going in the right direction working to lower the cost of manufacturing solar panels.

It will be a long time before it is competitive with the new technologies coming out.

Such as the MAFG Thermal Reactor. It makes Electricity, Hot water and Industrial Steam. The average cost to manufacture these units is less then $0.40 per watt. Its foot print less than a tennis court. Units can go as high as 5 mega watt for 1/4 the cost of solar.

Disruptive technologies like making solar panels cheaper to make is a strong challenge however NEW technologies like the MAFG Thermal Reactor made in mass like Solar Panels will bring the cost to less than $0.10 per watt. Thats disruptive technology.

It will be a long time before solar is that cheap to make.

www.electric-energy-today.com
Comment
4 of 10
August 17, 2010
Your light capturing busbar, and Self-Aligned Cell are neat ideas.
Light Capturing Busbar (http://www.1366tech.com/v2/products-mainmenu-59)

For areas with less indirect sunlight or for residentail fixed plate systems, that will help. For areas with a lot of direct sun (most of the southwest US) tracking concentrators (like Sol Focus www.solfocus.com or Amonix www.amonix.com) are more economical. We are just entering the equivalent of the model T for cars. There are still a LOT of innovation yet to do. I think the Rainbow Concentrator by Sol Solution (www.sol.solution) also looks very promising.
Comment
5 of 10
August 17, 2010
The main problem is that the solar industry is too focused on the minute parts of the whole PV solar package which are projected to have minuscule improvements in the future. The cell/array and the inverter are the iconographic center of the solar installation, but they constitute barely 1/3rd of the total cost of an installed solar panel. Conversely, when challenged by a DOE director, I developed and have patent pending on an attractive BIPV system that will accept most solar manufacturer's products; has the option of all 6 forms of solar; and best of all, the PV portion is projected to cost slightly less than a non-solar residential roof and less than half that of a commercial roof.
Wouldn't you like your utility company to be sending you a check each month that covers a major portion of your mortgage?
Being omni-directional (every direction but North), studies show that if the entire roof is covered in PVe BI-SOLAR, the excess will provide the electricity needed by at least 4 to 6 adjoining residences right where your utility needs it, not hundreds of miles of transmission lines away. Only old hydro can produce electricity at a lower kW cost.
Since it is less expensive than a conventional roof, if all new buildings in America were to incorporate it, it is figured that dozens of polluting coal plants would be eliminated every year.
You can see it and a whole lot more at www.enlighten.us.
technotard
Comment
6 of 10
August 18, 2010
Great, but not revolutionary. The German government used the exact same argument when developing the Renewable Energy Law (introduced in 2000 and updated in 2004 and 2008). The hotly debated FiT Tariff (which till recently was in the USA often misunderstood as a subsidiy, which it is not) is in the design of the law annualy decreased with the underlying argument that volumes drive costs down and grid parity will be reached around 2015. Currently kWp for installed systems have been pressed down to 3.000 Euro/kWp (therefore recently lower FiTs for NEW installations were adapted). It means, that depending on assumptions of depreciation and returns costs for produced electricity will be somewhere between 25 to 35 cts/kWh over 15 to 25 years. I pay around 20 cts/kWh for grid delivered electricity, it was 16 cts/kWh 4 years ago. So the 2015 goals as argumented in the rationale for the FiT based renewable energy law in 2000 & 2004 seems quite feasible now.
Comment
7 of 10
August 18, 2010
I found no mention anywhere of the simple fact that the cost/kW-hr of solar pv must depend upon the weather. Why ignore the obvious.
China makes very low-priced pv - about 500Eu for 250Actual (not "rated") Watts, here in Bulgaria - all day, most days. Sadly, what enables China to do this is the "limitless" quantities of coal they have - and don't flinch from burning. When will someone quote me a figure - in kW-hr per watt - which is required to produce solar pv. This will enable a self-sustainability" figure to be made. i.e. how long must a system run for to supply the energy which went into making it. At present all the figures are related to purely "business" - or today's profitability" viewpoint, and the whole purpose of any solar-enrgy system is that it be SELF-sustaining - i.e. can carry-on without input from other energy sources. Otherwise it is simply another way of burning COAL ETC. !!
Comment
8 of 10
August 18, 2010
Jigar is right about coal. Plus all the numbers you see on the price of coal fired electricity do not include the environmental costs. Check out the Department of Interior's report on Methyl Mercury contamination http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/mercury/. And these ash pits, how much longer?
Soon these coal fired plants owned by publicly traded companies will have to comply with federal accounting standard 143 on proper reporting of environmental liability to the SEC and put that into the cost /kWh.
Ask your local coal fired plant if they will sign a 30 year fixed price contract around $.12/kWh? Factor in the current solar incentives and see what happens. Coal receives 3X the subsidies as solar. And ask your local coal fired plant what they did for your property value lately. Solar helps it a lot.

Bottom line is coal fired electricity cannot compete with solar today when proper accounting and time are applied to the equation.
Comment
9 of 10
August 18, 2010
There is enough water on the planet to insure mankind never has a problem with shortages and droughts. Unfortunately, economically extracting fresh water from seawater is a bit of a problem.

So to for extracting energy from sunlight.

When touting "solar at the cost of coal", I trust that all you economic wizards take into account the limited hours of operation of solar. That means a higher price per MWh must be charged to make a profit and pay-off debt, relative to coal plants that run around-the-clock. True solar costs are actually well north of $200/MWH, versus coal at around $70/MWh.
Comment
10 of 10
August 22, 2010
For all you nay-sayers, you know who you are, your comments are just repetition of the issues that the solar industry has been dealing with for the last 40 years. Of course they have thought about the cost of maintenance, water consumption, land use, and on and on. If they hadn't, then the industry would not be growing year after year at more than 30%. There would not be billions of dollars, and euros, and any other currency you care to name, of investment flowing into projects and manufacturing. As with most things and particularly with large-scale electricity purchases by utility companies, the money talks and there are thousands of projects cueing up and coming on line worldwide. Unfortunately, our leaders continue to buy into, literally, the threat of insufficiency from the fossil and nuclear industry and subsidize them at orders of magnitude greater levels than renewables. I believe that consumers are slowly waking up to the reality that fossil fuels are finite, conservation is a good thing, and its just wrong to hand our nuclear waste to the next few hundred generations of our descendants and this trend toward clean energy technologies will continue and accelerate.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
ISSUE COVER IMAGE: About Renewable Energy World North America

With 30,000 subscribers, Renewable Energy World North America serves the renewable energy industry, including power generating utilities, local or central governments, energy advisory or planning agencies, manufacturers of... more »

 

David Wagman

View David Wagman's Profile
About:

David Wagman is Chief Editor of Power Engineering magazine and Renewable Energy World North America magazine. He is also conference committee chairman for PO... more »

Advertise With Us

FRONIUS USA LLC  Solar Electronics Division Trojan Battery Company Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group SolarTech Solar Leadership Summit 2012 Helios Solar Works Rich Hessler Solar Business Development LORD Corporation
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters