Re:Cheap, spray-on solar cells developed by Canadian researc...
by cunninghamd on Friday October 04, 2013 @05:05PM
(#6497993)
OK, great, where can I buy a spray-can's worth?
Now, as facetious as that may sound, I'm quite serious. I've been watching Nano Solar and their promise of $1/watt solar energy for years, and I have yet to see it in practice. I'd honestly love to be able to drop $50 on solar cells and know that I can produce 50 watts of power (at peak), but since Nano Solar is only selling to industry, the end consumer is left in the (coal) dust until this stuff catches on.
I guess ultimately, I'll be watching this company now, too. Maybe I can become Walter White, and start "cooking" solar cells at home based on their article.
Re:Cheap, spray-on solar cells developed by Canadian researc...
by grannyg00se on Friday October 04, 2013 @06:08PM
(#6498349)
"The fact that they’re “so cheap to make,” she added, means they will only have to reach 7.5 per cent efficiency before they will be commercially competitive with conventional energy sources such as coal-electric generation."
How does that make sense? If I have to cover my entire yard with this stuff to get a decent amount of power that doesn't compete well.
Re:Cheap, spray-on solar cells developed by Canadian researc...
by eigenvector on Friday October 04, 2013 @06:17PM
(#6498387)
They're clearly referring to commercial energy production (i.e. solar farms) not DG applications like rooftop solar. People don't commonly have coal-fired thermal plants in their yards either.
Re:Cheap, spray-on solar cells developed by Canadian researc...
by jccooper on Friday October 04, 2013 @06:37PM
(#6498486)
And what efficiency are they at now? Must be really terrible. University press release doesn't say, and article is paywalled (for science!). Maybe at the scale they're currently at they don't even know.
Good luck to them getting it higher; thin film silicon can get up to 20% cell efficiency, and should eventually be pretty cheap, so they'll have to get it reasonably efficient to be useful.
Re:Cheap, spray-on solar cells developed by Canadian researc...
by contingencies on Friday October 04, 2013 @11:21PM
(#6499247)
Space inefficiency is an issue in an era where more and more people live in apartments and have no yard. While Canadians can revel in spatial wealth, meanwhile in the realistic future-preview world (over here in Asia) every square meter of land is in use. Usually at multiple levels in a high vertical stack.
Re:Cheap, spray-on solar cells developed by Canadian researc...
by mapt on Saturday October 05, 2013 @02:06AM
(#6499636)
Space inefficiency is an issue that ubiquitous low-efficiency solar power does not have at all: Land is simply not a particularly scarce commodity somewhere within a few hundred kilometers of your house. Space inefficiency is only an issue for the concept of the power infrastructure being 100% distributed as some kind of local self-sufficiency element. May as well be growing your own wheat.
Even so, an average-sized residential roof will generate quite a lot of power relative to what the inhabitants use on all but apartment towers - and those are usually surrounded by enough parking, on which we can build sunshades with solar panels, to compensate.
Re:Cheap, spray-on solar cells developed by Canadian researc...
by contingencies on Saturday October 05, 2013 @03:09AM
(#6499810)
Land is simply not a particularly scarce commodity somewhere within a few hundred kilometers of your house
"Got rice?" Not here in Asia, where most people live.
Even so, an average-sized residential roof will generate quite a lot of power relative to what the inhabitants use on all but apartment towers - and those are usually surrounded by enough parking, on which we can build sunshades with solar panels, to compensate.
The developing world is rapidly urbanizing and moving in to - you guessed it - apartment towers. The world at large is also moving away from cars.
What is your idea of an 'average sized' residential roof, anyway? Perhaps you are aware that US houses have the largest floorspace per capita of anywhere in the world, except Australia?
No offence but it looks like you have a very North American (chiefly US) perspective.
Re:Cheap, spray-on solar cells developed by Canadian researc...
by mapt on Saturday October 05, 2013 @10:52AM
(#6500806)
The latter part of my argument, about neighborhood and building-scale self-sufficiency (a concept I believe to be somewhat silly) was indeed premised on Western living patterns... but not the rest.
Show me a city in Asia, and I will show you land 100-200km (often 25-50km) away that is barely used, having been given over to scrub or wilderness or low-value agriculture. Only in the centers of the most dense cities do land prices even eclipse solar panel prices when considering this power generation method. This has to be the case, for transportation reasons: a city can only grow where it has access to significant amounts of land to feed itself. The amount of land required to feed a person tends to vastly overshadow the amount of land required to power that person's share of the generation infrastructure.
200kg of rice staple a year per person (estimate from Burma of strict rice consumption diet) / 4 tons rice per hectare (world average) = 500 square meters per person, for a no-protein diet. Replace rice with wheat, and add some meat + dairy, and you increase that figure by several times.
...
Napkin Math (Guaranteed to one order of magnitude):
China uses about 500 watts per person.
Beijing's region gets about 5kwh/m^2/d of insolation
At 10% efficiency that's 500wh/m^2/d
That means 1 person needs 24m^2 of land given over to solar panels
Beijing has 20M people
That's 480 km^2 (a square plot of land 20km x 24km) that Beijing would have to find to place solar panels; Compare with, for example, the size of Beijing.
...
The Chinese province of Inner Mongolia has sufficient unused desert scrubland to power the entire world several times over, if:
A) The solar panel price problem is solved
B) The energy storage problem is solved
C) Electrical distribution infrastructure is approached in a systematic manner
Re:Cheap, spray-on solar cells developed by Canadian researc...
by contingencies on Sunday October 06, 2013 @03:06AM
(#6503399)
The latter part of my argument, about neighborhood and building-scale self-sufficiency (a concept I believe to be somewhat silly) was indeed premised on Western living patterns... but not the rest.
Thanks for the admission of poor premise. I'm just not clear what "the rest" was.
You continue to talk about "unused" land near major population centers, then combine rice-yield statistics from tropical, water-rich environments with an example of Beijing, an arid climate with relatively extreme temperature fluctuation making it a very poor yielding area for rice (though it is grown, you get only one instead of two and often three crops per year in tropical/subtropical zones).
I admire your optimism with regards to solar and share your concerns around world energy usage and the need to actively consider alternative energy generation, but I think the sad reality is that cities are a lot less space-rich than you assume and that solar yields in places like Beijing are too space inefficient to give the types of returns you are looking for.
You will have, of course, noticed that right next to Beijing (>21 million) are also the cities of Chengde (173km; ~4 million), Datong (265km; ~3.5 million), Tianjian (112km; >13 million), Shijiazhuang (267km; >10 million), Tangshan (157km; ~8 million), Zhangjiakou (160km; ~4.5 million)?
Despite this density, Chinese are well fed, a fact which derives from very high efficiency land use with strong government support for agricultural research and technology. Huge projects such as the Grand Canal[1] have supported these populations for millenia.
It's great to discuss these things, but the reality on the ground is very different to napkin-world. In short, I'm sorry but you're probably more than one magnitude out... "guaranteed".
Now, as facetious as that may sound, I'm quite serious. I've been watching Nano Solar and their promise of $1/watt solar energy for years, and I have yet to see it in practice. I'd honestly love to be able to drop $50 on solar cells and know that I can produce 50 watts of power (at peak), but since Nano Solar is only selling to industry, the end consumer is left in the (coal) dust until this stuff catches on.
I guess ultimately, I'll be watching this company now, too. Maybe I can become Walter White, and start "cooking" solar cells at home based on their article.
You'll have to spring for over 150 watts to get that price range.
How does that make sense? If I have to cover my entire yard with this stuff to get a decent amount of power that doesn't compete well.
If it would cost you $1k to purchase and install, but it would save you $1k in 5 years, wouldn't it be worth it?
I thought of it more in terms of "baby steps" instead of covering my entire yard.
Good luck to them getting it higher; thin film silicon can get up to 20% cell efficiency, and should eventually be pretty cheap, so they'll have to get it reasonably efficient to be useful.
Even so, an average-sized residential roof will generate quite a lot of power relative to what the inhabitants use on all but apartment towers - and those are usually surrounded by enough parking, on which we can build sunshades with solar panels, to compensate.
"Got rice?" Not here in Asia, where most people live.
Even so, an average-sized residential roof will generate quite a lot of power relative to what the inhabitants use on all but apartment towers - and those are usually surrounded by enough parking, on which we can build sunshades with solar panels, to compensate.
The developing world is rapidly urbanizing and moving in to - you guessed it - apartment towers. The world at large is also moving away from cars.
What is your idea of an 'average sized' residential roof, anyway? Perhaps you are aware that US houses have the largest floorspace per capita of anywhere in the world, except Australia?
No offence but it looks like you have a very North American (chiefly US) perspective.
Show me a city in Asia, and I will show you land 100-200km (often 25-50km) away that is barely used, having been given over to scrub or wilderness or low-value agriculture. Only in the centers of the most dense cities do land prices even eclipse solar panel prices when considering this power generation method. This has to be the case, for transportation reasons: a city can only grow where it has access to significant amounts of land to feed itself. The amount of land required to feed a person tends to vastly overshadow the amount of land required to power that person's share of the generation infrastructure.
200kg of rice staple a year per person (estimate from Burma of strict rice consumption diet) / 4 tons rice per hectare (world average) = 500 square meters per person, for a no-protein diet. Replace rice with wheat, and add some meat + dairy, and you increase that figure by several times.
...
Napkin Math (Guaranteed to one order of magnitude):
China uses about 500 watts per person.
Beijing's region gets about 5kwh/m^2/d of insolation
At 10% efficiency that's 500wh/m^2/d
That means 1 person needs 24m^2 of land given over to solar panels
Beijing has 20M people
That's 480 km^2 (a square plot of land 20km x 24km) that Beijing would have to find to place solar panels; Compare with, for example, the size of Beijing.
...
The Chinese province of Inner Mongolia has sufficient unused desert scrubland to power the entire world several times over, if:
A) The solar panel price problem is solved
B) The energy storage problem is solved
C) Electrical distribution infrastructure is approached in a systematic manner
Thanks for the admission of poor premise. I'm just not clear what "the rest" was.
You continue to talk about "unused" land near major population centers, then combine rice-yield statistics from tropical, water-rich environments with an example of Beijing, an arid climate with relatively extreme temperature fluctuation making it a very poor yielding area for rice (though it is grown, you get only one instead of two and often three crops per year in tropical/subtropical zones).
I admire your optimism with regards to solar and share your concerns around world energy usage and the need to actively consider alternative energy generation, but I think the sad reality is that cities are a lot less space-rich than you assume and that solar yields in places like Beijing are too space inefficient to give the types of returns you are looking for.
You will have, of course, noticed that right next to Beijing (>21 million) are also the cities of Chengde (173km; ~4 million), Datong (265km; ~3.5 million), Tianjian (112km; >13 million), Shijiazhuang (267km; >10 million), Tangshan (157km; ~8 million), Zhangjiakou (160km; ~4.5 million)?
Despite this density, Chinese are well fed, a fact which derives from very high efficiency land use with strong government support for agricultural research and technology. Huge projects such as the Grand Canal[1] have supported these populations for millenia.
It's great to discuss these things, but the reality on the ground is very different to napkin-world. In short, I'm sorry but you're probably more than one magnitude out... "guaranteed".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canal_%28China%29