Wind power is great. I live near the Altamont Pass in Calif. It provides a lot of power for the region. I would also like to see more decentralised windmills...private people powering their own needs with solar and wind. But the windfarms, wave generators and thermo-solar plants all have a place in public utilities. I once thought that we needed more modern nuclear plants (like much of the rest of the world uses), but if we can generate sufficient power with solar, wind, and wave...then screw the nuclear!.

PS...funny story....some friends of mine once convinced their visiting British relatives that the windmills at Altamont Pass were actually fans , placed there to cool off the hot central valley!

To be just a bit of a spoilsport... solar power by itself won't affect the oil industry (the Saudis and others) very much. Solar power generates electricity. Oil is largely used for transportation; very little oil is used to generate electricity. Conversely, very little electricity is used for transportation (you have a few electric vehicles, and things like light rail or electrified trains). So the two resources are not in competition all that much.

Now, a technology like plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) will enable electricity to displace oil to some degree. If you have a PHEV40, with 40 miles of all-electric capacity, then most of a typical daily commute can be powered by electricity. For longer road trips, you still have the gasoline engine for range. The combination of PHEV and Nanosolar's product would enable solar power to displace oil. Similarly, an expansion of electricity-powered light rail would enable solar power to displace oil.

But in general, solar power is going to be displacing the conventional forms of electricity generation. As it happens, coal (the dominant source of electricity in the U.S.) is dirty and dangerous. CO2, SO2, mercury, black lung disease, mining accidents, slurry lagoon failures, and more radiation than an active nuclear plant. So solar will be displacing coal, which is probably as good as displacing oil. But "suck my solar power, Wyoming" might not resonate quite as well.

Reminiscent of the episode of The Beverly Hillbillies where a con-man gets Jed to invest in a huge fan in the Hollywood hills to blow away the smog covering Los Angeles.

Yeah, okay, but what happens when we suck up all the sun's light? HUH? What then? This is truly the work of the devil.

Jesus loves oil, that's why he put so much of it in all the lands around his hometown. Jesus will make sure, just as he did with the fishsticks and baguettes, that there will always be enough for everyone. He told me himself.

I really, really wish these guys would sell bonds or otherwise open themselves to public investment. They can't build the factories to make these fast enough, as I see it. I'm really not happy waiting on the sidelines while they do a staged roll out.

Hmmm so Googles curious solar cell venture gets some actual media exposure, though given the information available that I have found so far(though I havent found the Q&A with the company's president mentioned by ohash) VS what I know about the solar powered technology, no body should be dancing on the graves of investors in oil , coal and Natural gas just yet......

Thank you for correcting the mangling that colonism did to the economics facing this new product, but I would still support the objection that technology is still a major obstacle(for economic displacement of current carbon based energy sources), on several points:

1st in the fact that they have merely increased the efficiency in manufacturing the solar collectors rather then increase the efficiency in solar collectors themselves.
I havent found anything showing an equal surface area comparison of Sillcon solar panels that this product can collect more energy per space.
If this is indeed the case I have no more reason to be any more excited by this development then the announcement by IBM finding they have found a way to utilize deffective sillicon fab chips for Sillicon solar arrays, by rationalising sillicon solar production with proccessor production would result in a dramatic drop in per panel cost of Sillicon solar production and has a much better potential to meet increasing market demands for solar energy in the present.

I bring this point up 1st because if people didnt already know solar energy capture and transfer to electricity is quite inneffiecient, wasting some 80% of the light captured to heat and thus the surface area has to be quite large in order to get a substantial amount of electricity generation or the smaller the surface is, the increasing length of exposure to light for an equivalent amount of electricity.

Thus Ohash's observation about the limited market availability stands correct and are backed up by the linked articles themselves, they are comparing the cost per watt of coal electricity generation to solar energy, ergo the target market are Megawatt large scale energy providers, not the average suburban household (except of course for those wealthy enthusiasts who have the neccessary money to *burn*> *burning environmentally friendly conceptual money, not literally paper cash heheh*).
As far as I can tell, they are not proposing developing products for new markets at this point, but competing with markets that have already been developed by sillicon solar panel and that would only make sense because of the limits on energy performance are similar to sillicon would also handicap the advantages of the new products lighter weight and flexibility.

2ndly on the incentive for this target market itself the costs of building a complete array are possibly 10 cents a watt cheaper then a coal plant, thus it is the price of coal VS the variable costs of making a complete array that will sink or sell developing solar plants in their various commodifide forms, combined with the physical limits on distribution or additional costs and limits for storage hinder the potential capabilities that solar energy should have in displacing fossil fuels.

On the other hand an International socialist system of organising production can overcome the walls that capitalism has put up in integrating solar energy into the world economy and actually create a credible plan to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in the near future.
In this respect I am very optimistic about the development of this technology.

As for capitalism and the envirionment, one only needs to take a trip down nightmare lane to Bali

There is ample reason to be excited about this breakthrough. Today, there are two primary sources for the production of electricity: coal and natural gas. Coal fired plants were most popular for many years but environmental concerns have made them expensive to construct. Natural gas fired plants are cleaner, but most residential energy concerns have managed to ensure that natural gas used for heating purposes takes precedent over the production of electricity AND natural gas is subject to wild price swings in the commodities market translating into inflation pricing at the consumer.

There are approximately 30 coal-fired power plants under consideration or some form of construction in the US - and many more planned worldwide. Many of these are replacing older, less efficient, smog producing facilities. Not so bad...except for three major issues.
1. If we enable the continued construction of coal-fired plants we still spew shit into the air AND for those countries participating in the Kyoto agreement, they give up carbon credits. That's a big deal for developing countries.
2. Those old coal fired plants don't simply rust away. No, the bright CEOs of those companies have figured out how to dismantle them and resell them to - yes, you guessed it - developing countries or regions.
3. Capital investment in infrastructure in this country is languishing. Look around at your bridges, your roads, your water treatment, etc. No one wants to raise money or spend money on the development of infrastructure; yet, out needs for things like electricity continue to grow.

So, while the excitement surrounding the use of this technology to rationalize our dependence on oil is warranted, that is a very long way off I'm afraid. I've heard estimates that 40% or more of the oil we purchase goes toward the production of plastic-like materials and has nothing to do with automobiles.

However, the company appears ready to demonstrate the ability to beat the cost per watt of coal fired plants by 20% at a minimum and perhaps as much as 30 or 40% when capitalized infrastructure costs are included. That is a very big fucking deal all by itself.

We gain access to lower cost electricity, we may be able to develop a virtual grid instead of relying on the antiquated model currently in use, and we stop wasting our time and money building plants that pollute our earth.

I may have my language terms incorrect, but I am struck by the irony that the first facility to produce electricity on a broad scale using this technology will be located on a former landfill. What do you think are the chances that a coal-fired power plant could make a similar move?

Also, biofuels biofuels from algae seem very promising.

Nation Geographic did an interesting look at the issue.

Excerpt from NatGeo:

Funny because I seem to remember a certain communist country or two that have caused MASSIVE environmental damage. Hrmmmmm I guess that nuclear plant that melted down in the former Soviet Union, they were communists right? Union of soviet socialist republics I think it was called? Anyhow they had that hardly mentionable nuclear disaster a while back. But I can only imagine had they been capitalists it would have all turned out like that devastating three mile Island disaster......


In all seriousness and yes I ask this of everyone who claims to be a communist or socialist or whatever, what makes you think that socialism will work any better than any other system?

As a Canadian, I would like to point out ot all the US bashers out there, that the US came up with this invention.

I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

Then this happened:

hmmm.

Great article.
One suggestion.
When mentioning solar power, always mention what the Germans are up to, and how they are succeeding at it.

To cut the naysayers off at the pass.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2001/07/45056
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/07/30/cloudy_germany_unlikely_hotspot_for_solar_power/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402466.html

the future rulz!

I can't wait.

Four years ago when I bought my house, it would have almost doubled my thirty year mortgage to go solar. This was for a 1400sqft house needing under 2000 kilowatts of juice a month (not a large house).


Look at your electric bill and see how much you are using. Check the price of current tech accordingly. 10th to a third of the price? Yes please.

"You know what's fun about scientists? Nothing."

Hey now!
Scientists can be fun...