The key issue with solar cells econmic justification rests with the integrity of those who state the solar cell will be 40 % more effective due to less cost in panel producion. unfortunately may be believed in obama/chu/pretense of understanding the complexity of materials when they make their selection, based on donars to obamas continuation in fraudulent government, or the idea to use a faulty solar power as energy backup when the terrorists within detonate the transistor station on our electric grid, when the war breakes out, from within and without, as our armed forces are dismantled to a point no loger capable of protecting us from invasion, while terminating our collective rights to bear dangerous arms, in an effort to haste our vulnerability
The significant element of that claim is life of panel, which isolates the metal backing on back of glass/silicon/metalfoil stamped out sheet, pressed into the mounting frame. Which like most other products of the probal who like both EV's and rockets gets funds to build products untested in the field. The more complex foil tend to have a shorter life span depending on the number of materials in the foil alloy, as each metal has a different resonant wave frequency, and breaks (vibrates) apart at an acellerated rate faster than, separated foils than compounds, when subjected to the bundle of resonant waves involved in the suns energy bombardment onto the solar panel---while its difficult to predict without actual field testing, I would venture an estimate the solar panels will probably fall into disuse before they become the key component of energy for the militay installation, where the petrochemical backup generators are probably removed with the explaination they are unecessary with the solar panel in place, in an concerted effort to disarm us. as our military youth, mangitudes of intellect above obama/obama/lawyers who make these key issue decisions, without qualifications tp make their opinions of reliability or justification of replacing petrochemical powered backup generators, as we draw closer to war undera speudo electorate, having cut our military more than out last 3 presidents combined, who cut it to near 30 % of its power, as we are now a military based on reserve backups who are equipped for domestic crisis, which go unabated, like the summer of arson we now experience, as our nation now approaching 200 surface naval vessals of randon specification, while our pentagon advise obama/panetta that 317 naval surface vessels of exact specification are required to protect our shores from even primitive assault, as obama hastens to end the american way of life, economically, militarily, educationally, while allowing our infrastructure to hasten in its failure as the fed steal now 40 % of taxation, while obama loots our tresury under the charade of stimulus, where he gives our taxpayer dollars remaining in our ending treasury to fingers of the fed.
Pretending that wind and solar are the answer to energy or clean energy he claims, fails to address wind and solar provide 2 1/2 % of our energy requrments, while coal fired power plants provide 85 % of our electrical grid, which inceases if we were to changeover to the pseudo-cleaner EV's when the buyer has not adopted to EV's, because of our reality that coal gasoline which costs well below our imported oil based gasoline oligopoly.
In the pretense of sound government currently bring america, as we know, it to an end, rapidly approaching s he prepares to attack iran while inciting religious war, in an effort to get another term, like clinton did.
who knows if he will pull it off or be rejected from government, by a mass display which marches on DC in such droves he cannot deny the people without killing several hundred thousand,which he presumes the military will actually do to protect his treasonist regime
I've seen this technology [and probably this company] promoted for many years. If it really is cost effective, they should have captured the lion's share of the PV market by now. I agree that the revolving door management of this company have been riding the venture & government grant capital trains for several years. When their production process can compete with utility rates for commercial installations without government "Green" incentives, they can say they have a cost effective technology. I'll admit it requires $$$ invested to bring technology changes to market, but 3-4 years should be enough in our rapidly accelerating development environment.
Thanks rdelaplaza, I follow the advancement on solar panel technology pretty closely and if all the ' advances' announced over the past 25 years were remotely true, solar energy would be about 2 cents a KW today. The best way to capitalize on solar lately is to wait for the bankrupcy of a solar company and buy their inventory cheap! (Evergreen solar panels were a great deal)
Nanosolar was started in 2002, and 5 years later, on December 12, 2007 the company announced that it had started solar cell production in its San Jose factory, with its German facility slated to go into operation in the 1st quarter of 2008.
For one thing; something smells fishy about this company and their technology, it seems like they are using the idea of a simple, fast manufacture, economic solar panel as a cash cow to endlessly collect money from Government AND investors...
" The company has received financing from a number of technology investors including Benchmark Capital, Mohr Davidow Ventures, and Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google. Nanosolar received the largest amount in a round of Venture Capital technology funding amongst United States companies during Q2 2006, with 100 million USD of new funding secured. It also received the largest amount of financing of any private company in 2008 (USD 300 million in Q1)."
"As of 2008 Nanosolar has raised about 500 million USD in total funding by private investors Benchmark Capital, Mitsui Ventures, Mohr Davidow Ventures, OnPoint, Capricorn Management, Firelake Capital Management, GLG Partners, Grazia Equity, Swiss Re, Beck Energy, Omidyar Network, Lone Pine Capital, Energy Capital Partners, Riverstone Holdings, EDF, The Skoll Foundation, EDS (HP) and The Carlyle Group"
As today they keep raking in more investors money... San Jose, Calif. – June 1, 2012 – Nanosolar Inc. today announced that it has raised $70 million in new capital. The over-subscribed round was funded by current and new investors, including OnPoint Technologies, Inc., Mohr Davidow Ventures, and Ohana Holdings LLC, and international Family Offices... their explanation : The financing will be used to expand production of thin film solar cells and panels, support research and development... more money thrown on to the money pit/black hole of R&D, aren't they ready for production yet?
Inexplicable Management musical chairs? On Jan. 19 2012 former EVP of Engineering & Operations Eugenia Corrales was named CEO following CEO Geoff Tate returning to retirement. Tate had been CEO of Nanosolar since March 22, 2010 having been hired out of retirement as an interim CEO. Tate replaced co-founder Martin Roscheisen who had been the company's Chairman & CEO for the past eight years; no reason was given for Roscheisen's exit.
In September 2009, Nanosolar announced the launch of production at a rate of 640 MW annually; however actual production in 2009: an estimated 4 MW...
So far I have never seem their panels in the market; their full production was going to .
"..Nanosolar's solar cells have been verified by NREL to be as efficient as 14.6% in 2006, 15.3% in 2009, and 17.1% in 2011.." ... but the NREL : The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is a government-owned, contractor-operated facility; it is funded through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). This arrangement allows a private entity to operate the lab on behalf of the federal government under a prime contract.
Suddenly a BIG LIE becomes evident when you read:
"Efficiencies for current production panels are said to be 8-9%"
I think they lost the boat when the price of silicon was high, now with lower prices per silicon KW, the extra cost resulting from the inefficency of this panels, that take more space, mounting hardware and installation labor, per KW; increases the competitive cost putting them in disadvantage.
I think they are doomed, to be a sleeper technology or die of financial imposibilitiy.
What is going on ?? One reason could be that, their contracts with the military, or BIG OIL with their paws lobying in congress is keeping them unther the water until they die of natural causes.
Lou, you're right, I am interested in the uses of "printing" like processes for a variety of different apps. Electronic circuits have been laid down by "lithographic" processes for many years, but lithography originally referred to traditional printing on paper. Regarding the fact that the first apps are military bases, I think that's primarily a matter of available funding.
Ann, this is a very positive development. As I know you are a fan of "printing", that this is right up your alley. RFID circuits have been printed for a while. These are low density, low power semiconductor devices, and the printing process is perfect for such high volume applications. Solar cells are in the same ballpark. They do not require the high density of current semiconductor processes used for CPUs or Memory. Thus, a different technology is probably indicated.
It is interesting, as well, that the first appications are military bases. This is useful and appropriate. The military needs and should research secure supplies of energy. This is a great step forward for them.
A composite based on a high-performance PEEK-like resin we told you about two years ago when it was still in R&D has now been licensed by the US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) for commercial manufacturing.
Microsoft, HP, Dassault, and other industry heavyweights in 3D printing have launched a new 3DP file format, 3MF. The consortium says the spec will more fully describe a 3D model and will be interoperable with multiple applications, platforms, services, and printers.
NASA's been working on several different ongoing projects for 3D-printed rocket engine components in metals and now it's reached another first in aerospace 3D printing: a full-scale, 3D-printed rocket engine component made of copper.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.