Google's RE cheaper than Coal scheme

[DamonHD]

Sounds like a plant will be running next year, so not vapourware, hopefully...

http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheaper-than-coal/

Of course, it's thin-film, so there'll be mixed views here on how well it might work.

While the USD is low against GBP maybe I should buy a garden-full!

Rgds

Damon

[wooferhound]

Google to pour 10's of millions of dollars next year on research and development and related investments in renewable energy.

http://weblog.infoworld.com/sustainableit/archives/2007/11/google_green_en.html

Analists don't understand googles intentions when investing in Renewable Energy

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/google/google-investing-in-renewable-energy-analysts-miss-the-point-32735
9.php

Search engine giant Google Inc. is devoting some of its vast fortune to the search for renewable energy sources, pledging tens of millions of dollars to finding ways of generating electricity in 2008.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/11/27/tech-google.html?ref=rss

 Google said Tuesday that it'll spend "tens of millions" to research clean-energy alternatives to coal-fired power plants and "hundreds of millions" to cut the costs of this power.

http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_7578072?nclick_check=1

and many more google search results about these stories

http://www.google.com/search?q=google+invest+renewable+energy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&
;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[spinningmagnets]

I'm hopeful this will really work out. It sounds very doable, and Google certainly has the financial resources to make it happen sooner, rather than later. I hope they sell the solar PV panels direct, to cut out the retail cost, which is anywhere from 20%-50% of the consumer price.

Too often a much cheaper production method, or a much better performing new design is sold for just 10% less that the nearest competitor.

Anytime someone does an RE installation cost analysis today, they don't emphasize enough that the cruched numbers just barely make sense "at todays energy prices".

There hasn't been a refinery built in the US in the last 30 years. If we pumped more oil from controversial areas, there's nothing we could do with it. The refineries are working 24/7. The US has actually begun importing finished gasoline and diesel for lack of refinery time available. If a new modern refinery was approved today, it would take years before it produced its first sellable gallon. This means the cost of fuel, products made with plastics, products where raw material and finished products are transported by fuel consuming vehicles, will...go...up. Guaranteed.

Tampa, Florida is now distilling sea water because of water shortages (more expensive)

Polk County, Florida has a new "clean coal" electrical plant (the US is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal reserves). Feeding pure oxygen instead of air to the burn has eliminated NOX. Sulphur is separated before the burn and sold as a product. The plant was designed before CO2 and radon emissions were a concern, but they are also being worked on. The bottom line is, coal CAN be made clean, but...it will be noticeably more expensive. (A lot of coal is going to get used whether we like it or not)

I hope RE gets cheaper and more available, because electricity and water are going to become a very big problem, very soon.

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value for us to invest in" - Western Union internal memo, 1876.

[dinges]

Damon,

I've been on this board for only 3-4 years but have seen a lot of these stories. 'Soon PV will become much cheaper!'.

Yeah.

I think this Dutch proverb says it best:

'Veel beloven en weinig geven doet gekken en dwazen in vreugde leven'

(promising lots and giving little lets fools and idiots live in joy)

Let me know when I can actually buy those cheap panels. Then I may be interested.

Till then...

Peter.

[Volvo farmer]

I read not a single one of those links (sorry), though the general gist of the situation worries me somewhat, because I am slightly familiar with the storyline.

There are 6.5 billion of us humans here on this earth. All (almost all) of these people want heated homes, Escalades, paved roads, swimming pools, eight burner stainless steel ranges, air conditioning, HDTV's, KFC, DirectTv, internet access, etc.

Now my opinion is that this is simply not possible with RE on a worldwide basis. There will be haves, there will be have-nots, even with the current energy grid as it stands. Put the whole thing on RE, and there will be a hellovalot more have-nots.

If some ambitious person here wants to calculate up all the gigawatt hours of electricity used in the world today and figure out what it would take to  convert all oil, coal and natural gas plants to solar, geothermal, wind, and hydro plants, I believe that the numbers would be dismal.

Google has an agenda, as does any profit-seeking company. Wanna know why Fieldlines pages consistently rank extremely high on Google search? There's five clickable links on your post that show their agenda. Nothing wrong with profit mind you, I make some every day, else my family goes hungry and uninsured. Just know your master, that's all I'm saying.

[RP]

Fieldlines was on the first page of google hits for RE topics back before there was any advertising on this site.

[Chagrin]

Best answer I can find is around 97.9 quadrillion BTUs of energy.

https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/LLNL_Energy_Chart300.jpg

The notable thing to look at there is the lost energy in electrical transmission. It's huge, and it's one of the main advantages to having your energy source (your solar cells or windmill) right at your house.

[BigBreaker]

Your point about calculating PV payback period (or other economic measure) using today's energy prices is spot on.  I constantly gag on those figures in popular press.  At the very least, a reasonable cost increase should be applied.  It has a HUGE impact on the viability of solar.  As a "for instance" $.10/kwhr/yr power in perpetuity using a non-inflation adjusted discount rate is worth about $1.60/kwhr or 16x (a 6% discount rate).  Using real interest rates (~3%), or inflation adjusted (3% increases) or indexing energy prices (increasing by 3% per year) it is worth $3.20!!!!  So the inflation adjustment doubles the break-even value of a PV panel.

I'll put in lay terms as well.  Google is rich.  Rich companies and rich people want to own, not rent their lifestyle, business inputs, creature comforts, etc...  Once you OWN enough perpetual power sources to do your thing you are immune to having those wants and needs repriced.  The dollar can plummet in value, oil can soar to $200 a barrel, China can sink our carriers and blockade the middle east.  You will stil be living high on the hog.  That kind of immunity has huge value.  It is an independence that motivates lots of people on this site as well.

Your average Joe rents almost everything and lives day by day, week to week.  The "rent" is the utility bill, the card card payments, a mortgage or apartment lease, insurance, car payments, etc...  There is no ownership, no getting ahead.  If that is your mindset, you are missing a huge reason why Google wants this tech...  they want to own the power they use and they don't want to buy inputs like coal, oil or natural gas from someone else that can change the price.  Google has no debt and has a franchise that hoovers in cash daily.  This is cheap insurance for them and great PR.

[ghurd]

Nobody would even blink if they spent $10s of millions on a nice home or 2 in Sedona to entertain each other...

Throw in a few catch words (with a high Google hit count I'm sure), and free good press is everywhere.

Their numbers seem a wee bit off.  Apples to lug nuts.

"reducing the cost of production from $3 a watt to a mere 30 cents per watt".  

If that is true, then how can some China brands currently sell panels for $3 a watt in quantity.

Or the flip side is they intend to sell an 80W panel for $24, which will have more than $24 in labor, glass, aluminum, shipping materials and freight.

Of all the stories of "cheap new tech solar", only one made it to the point where I could actually (in theory) buy one, but by then it was more expensive than established and proven brands, and had gone to the "expensive old tech" solar everybody else uses.  So I don't think that counts.

G-

[LeissKG]

I read various articles about the google scheme. What i got from them, is that the fasted way to get electricity cheaper than coal would be thermo solar. Thermo solar is proven technology, but like all solar has a cost problem. This is mostly from the high cost of the concentrators. The recently developed fresnel trough concentrator may be able to change that.

Klaus Leiss

 

[Jrmobb]

 aten solar does sell for $3 a watt. ive heard good reviews so it is getting cheaper.

[howlet]

 If solar is getting cheaper, its not showing up in the price of cells. I'm glad I bought in bulk almost 2 years ago. Prices are well over $3 watt, especially for class A's.

 Makes me think that there isnt a whole lot of love for the DIY guys!JB

[DamonHD]

Nanosolar reports shipping token commercial panels today:

After five years of product development - including aggressively pipelined science, research and development, manufacturing process development, product testing, manufacturing engineering and tool development, and factory construction - we now have shipped first product and received our first check of product revenue.

...

Rgds

Damon