Grist - Comment Feed for The Solar Power Conference revealed no breakthrough solar tech—and that’s a good thing

Comment #1 by odograph

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 03:21:50 -0700

interesting

but there is a little conflict of interest possible here. Sellers of current $30-40K systems do not want people to wait, in hopes that $10-20K systems (from another vendor?) are around the corner.

Slashdot says a Method for $1/Watt Solar Panels Will Soon See Commercial Use

Who's right?

I guess you pays your money takes your chances.

Comment #2 by Gar Lipow

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 03:27:51 -0700

$1 a watt solar panel

$1 a watt solar panels have been "around the corner" for at least a decade. Of course some day the prediction will be proven right.

Another thing to consider is the cost of a solar system is more than the panel. You need inverters, installation, various types of safety equipment. And if you were really going to go "100% solar" you would need storage. (Or maybe they mean 100% NET solar - relying on the grid for storage). So even if $1 a watt panels occur soon, $1 a watt installed is further down the road.

Incidentally is 3,000 square feet really now the "typical" new home?

Comment #3 by odograph

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 03:34:05 -0700

for me

efficiency was a much easier buy than solar panels.

With a $15 electric bill this is kind of academic. But, if I had some large demand that I couldn't reduce through efficiency, I think I might view this as a special time. Right now we are exploring thin film and nanotech, and if they'll actually add anything of value.

I might give it a couple years to see.

Comment #4 by Delay And Deny

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:29:41 -0700

Asking The Climatemen

Here's a challenge to the editors of Grist (a.k.a. The Climatemen):

Assume that there will be no energy breakthroughs in the 21st Century.

Assume (for a second) that the ideal lifestyle for most people in the world is the industrialized American suburban sprawl style.

Assume (and we all do) that for 6 billion or more people, this lifestyle is "unsustainable".

Now -- tell me is it possible for any number of people to live the American lifestyle? For example, (and I mean worldwide) could 1 Billion people live like suburban Americans worldwide? Or 100 million?

Does it have to be all or nothing?

John Bailo
Sutext:

Comment #5 by scatter

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:44:55 -0700

USA + Canada + EU15 + Japan...

can't be far off 1 billion already.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the American lifestyle" (or do you mean the American quality of life?), but I'm sorry to say that I don't think the rest of the world sees the US lifestyle as ideal at all.

Can the author of the post explain what he means by cost effective solar power? Payback within its own lifetime?

What does PV typically generate per kWp in the US (a big range I'm sure), how much does it cost per kWp and what's the average domestic electricity bill?

Comment #6 by Kristina & Jason Makansi

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:59:57 -0700

average house size

The average American house size has more than doubled since the 1950s; it now stands at 2,349 square feet.

The rest of the world may not find "the American lifestyle" ideal, but economies that are modernizing are increasingly looking to enjoy many of the same energy-intensive "luxuries" that we enjoy...such as electricity that stays on more than a few hours a day, modern health care, meat for dinner, running water, bigger houses, cars, more roads, TVs, computers, cell phones, etc...

If the rest of the world is moving toward more modernized economies, their lifestyles will inevitably require more energy...maybe we should all Think About It
.

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

Comment #7 by Jon Rynn

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:35:54 -0700

Here's a "think less" link...

...about how the American homes are getting huge, from npr

Comment #8 by Jon Rynn

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:36:41 -0700

Sorry, same link

Comment #9 by scatter

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:42:15 -0700

Oh I do think about it.

I just took exception to the arrogant way John put it.

I know I'm preaching to the converted here but the whole point is that the quality of life that many aspire to doesn't have to come with the consumption.

The same mistakes don't have to be made again.

Comment #10 by trock

Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:46:34 -0700

huh

no news is good news?

What if somebody figured out how to reduce the cost of PV's by 2 or 3? What used to cost 30 000 dollars now costs 10 000 dollars. Wouldn't that be news and wouldn't that be good?

Are we so used to hype news, fake news, not real news that we think that not having any real news that would bring us farther along to cheaper PV's is now good news?

Is that it or am I missing something?

Comment #11 by Biodiversivist

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:41:16 -0700

House size is the fly in the ointment

The cost of powering a modern house with PV solar is prohibitive. It could be cut in half with half as much house.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Comment #12 by Kristina & Jason Makansi

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:01:12 -0700

and its not just house size...

...that we have to think about. As noted above, when economies modernize, people want more of bigger and more of more...of everything.

While we believe strongly (!!!) in the power of technology to create novel ways to improve efficiencies, it's also important that we just think about thinking LESS!

Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi Read Lights Out reviews

Comment #13 by odograph

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:25:20 -0700

on the other hand

the increasing house prices mean that a $30-40K solar system is a smaller and smaller fraction of total investment.

also, if you go with 'zero energy' design processes, does size become as much a factor as it would in 'zero insulation' homes?