New solar-panel technology 'more than oilsands': Researcher

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Good news!

Has anyone every tried to install solar panelling on their home in Calgary? I've heard Enmax kinda c*ckblocks you if you try.

Grid Tie systems are now possible in Alberta as of January 1, 2009.

http://www.auc.ab.ca/rule-developmen...s/default.aspx

[octothorp]

Here's the cost equation as I understand it: the new plastic panels will operate between 1 and 5 percent efficiency, but are as cheap as $15 a meter, and last three years. So let's say you've got about 50 square meters of roof space with solar panels; you've spent $750. I think our insolation here in Calgary is around 3 kWh/m2/day (1 in Jan, peaks at near 6 in July). So assuming a optimistic 5% efficiency, you can get 7.5 kWh per day total, or 8213 kWh over the life of the solar panels. You're looking at a kWh cost of 9.132 cents, which is pretty close to Enmax prices, I think.

Now, that calculation assumes 5% efficiency which is far from a given, but it shows how important innovations like this are; getting the efficiency up to the 5-8% range rather than the 1-5% range makes a massive difference in the cost equation.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Thanks, Colbert.

I see what you did there!!

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by DESS

Didn't read the article, but I doubt there's a future in the solar technology. I'm just not feeling it.

You're 12 years old and starved for attention aren't you?

[corporatejay]

There was someone on here awhile ago that mentioned that as good as solar can be, it can't be "stored" and pulled on demand to meet things like power spikes. Perhaps someone remembers that?

[DESS]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

There was someone on here awhile ago that mentioned that as good as solar can be, it can't be "stored" and pulled on demand to meet things like power spikes. Perhaps someone remembers that?

Can it not be stored in batteries? My inlaws had a cabin running off solar power and they stored it in car batteries. This was a decade ago, mind you, so I'm sure there is a similar way now to store at least some quantity of solar energy.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Good news!

Has anyone every tried to install solar panelling on their home in Calgary? I've heard Enmax kinda c*ckblocks you if you try.

You also need a development permit from the City, although this is supposed to change apparently.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Not to be dismissive of this news, but researchers at MIT already came up with something that sounds pretty much the same, except the MIT guys boast a 50% increase in efficiency.

30+50 = 80% increase.

me > MIT + UofA.

QED.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

There was someone on here awhile ago that mentioned that as good as solar can be, it can't be "stored" and pulled on demand to meet things like power spikes. Perhaps someone remembers that?

Yeah, that's definitely an issue, but it's more a problem with the way that our grids are set up, as opposed to anything inherently wrong with solar power. Grids simply can't store power: you basically need to produce energy when it's needed. But it's much easier to control coal or hydro or nuclear or even wind to match spikes than solar. It's more of a problem for a cool climate like ours, where peak solar energy periods tend to also be low consumption. For this reason, even if solar power was cheap and insanely high efficiency (which it's not), it could never be anything more than a supplementary source for a city like Calgary.

In the next fifteen or twenty years, there will be massive changes to the way that power is used on a grid, and we should start to see what are essentially power batteries, especially in grids that use a lot of solar or wind. Some of these are really cool technologies, like where a wind farm can use it's surplus energy to pump compressed air into a reservoir such as an empty gas well. And then when there's no wind, the compressed air is released into special turbines which generate power; if even half the energy that was currently lost within the grid was captured and stored and turned back into power when needed, the increased efficiency would be more significant that decades of solar power advances.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

There was someone on here awhile ago that mentioned that as good as solar can be, it can't be "stored" and pulled on demand to meet things like power spikes. Perhaps someone remembers that?

It can be stored in batteries, but batteries are a really dirty technology...acids, lead, useless plastic boxes, etc.

However, the grid can be used to effectively "store" electricity. This requires three concepts:
1) Net Metering - when you make more than you need, you sell it onto the grid. When you make less than you need, you buy it off the grid.
2) A robust, well interconnected grid.
3) Central power plants that can easily swing up and down to offset the swingy nature of solar cells throughout the day.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by octothorp

...Grids simply can't store power: you basically need to produce energy when it's needed.

Physical storage, this is correct. A grid is just like a set of roads, not a parking lot. However with the above concepts I listed (namely swingy power plants), you can "effectively" store power. But in your later points, storage locations are certainly a way of the future.

Originally Posted by octothorp

it could never be anything more than supplementary source for a city like Calgary.

True. And never will be more than that really. You just can't have a swingy power source be the main one on a grid. I'd say a safe limit is 20% of production.

Originally Posted by octothorp

In the next fifteen or twenty years, there will be massive changes to the way that power is used on a grid, and we should start to see what are essentially power batteries, especially in grids that use a lot of solar or wind. Some of these are really cool technologies, like where a wind farm can use it's surplus energy to pump compressed air into a reservoir such as an empty gas well. And then when there's no wind, the compressed air is released into special turbines which generate power; if even half the energy that was currently lost within the grid was captured and stored and turned back into power when needed, the increased efficiency would be more significant that decades of solar power advances.

As I said above, this is a very good concept and the way grids will look as swingy sources (wind, solar) become more prevalent.

The nice thing about solar is that it has a very small ongoing variable cost (solid state pieces mean no friction, no one needs to operate them, etc.). They just require an initial capital expenditure to install them. After that, power is virtually "free".

[Frequitude]

With respect to the cost of installation, which is currently prohibitive...

What we'll see in the future are business models not centered around the customer paying the 10's of thousands to install up front. It will be a financing based industry. So long as the cost to service that debt is less than what your electricity would have cost off the grid, you come out ahead. Think mortgaging a house to rent it out. Except instead of incurred rental income, its avoided electricity costs.

[Shazam]

Enmax is supposed to be offering solar panels for lease soon. The second this happens, I'm signing up. One step closer towards surviving the zombie invasion!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Here's the cost equation as I understand it: the new plastic panels will operate between 1 and 5 percent efficiency, but are as cheap as $15 a meter, and last three years. So let's say you've got about 50 square meters of roof space with solar panels; you've spent $750. I think our insolation here in Calgary is around 3 kWh/m2/day (1 in Jan, peaks at near 6 in July). So assuming a optimistic 5% efficiency, you can get 7.5 kWh per day total, or 8213 kWh over the life of the solar panels. You're looking at a kWh cost of 9.132 cents, which is pretty close to Enmax prices, I think.

Now, that calculation assumes 5% efficiency which is far from a given, but it shows how important innovations like this are; getting the efficiency up to the 5-8% range rather than the 1-5% range makes a massive difference in the cost equation.

And once they make them even more efficient, which they will, with time....a lot more people are going to go for it.

Its only a matter of time.

[Titan]

I am in no way qualified to comment but Popular Mechanics ran an article about going off the grid and what was involved:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/1820211.html

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by ken0042

That might not be the best analogy. I think coal is in the 70% efficiency range right now; so increasing that by 30% would make take it from 70% efficient to 91% efficient.

Solar is in the 5% efficiency range now, so a 30% increase would bring it from 5% to 6.5% efficient.

I first read the article as saying they had achieved 30% efficiency, which for solar would be a huge leap.

I believe there is some confusion here (not targetting your particular post ken). From this article, they attained 30% per cell, not per panal. Each cell will have a different efficiency, based on things like how they are connected to other cells (to form a panal), as IIRC some cells will generate energy while some will load them as impedences if they arn't properly connected.

Here, what they achieved is something cheap, not something better. Silicon typically sucks for making solar cells IIRC because of an indirect quantum bandgap (the valence band isn't directly below the conduction band, its a bit off to the side) - thats why silicon sucks for making lasers too. However, silicon is in large supply and the CMOS fabrication techniques are well understood, so thats why we make silicon.

I belive the highest efficiency on a cell was something like 60-70%, but when connected into a configuration to form a panal, the highest was 16-17% (IIRC).

This is nice for science, but I'm not sure if its going to be what causes the breakthrough of solar energy. The breakthrough IMO will be the political/economical impact of the USA and Obama, China and their ecocities and subsidized implamentation for solar panals, and demand will inevitably drive cheaper fabrication. Maybe we could also see them make use of the crashing memory industry, as memory companies/fabs like Micron/Quimonda et al close fabs, lay off staff and/or go out of business, and the resources will be there for solar panals to come in. After all, it was the high tech crash and the oversupply of silicon that really gave solar energy its push earlier this decade.

In Canada - I don't believe in solar energy, I don't think we have the amount of light per day to make it worthwhile, and the harsh climate of Canada will make solar panals even more inefficient. Someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but at low temperatures (i.e. freezing and below) the efficiency exponentially decreases as cold slows the movement of charges that are creating electrical energy. Wind is a better option for Canada.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by DESS

Didn't read the article, but I doubt there's a future in the solar technology. I'm just not feeling it.

Either you forgot to use green, or you are one of the Glen Beck's of the world that has an uneducated, random opinion that really just clouds reality.

[QuadCityImages]

Originally Posted by tkflames

Either you forgot to use green, or you are one of the Glen Beck's of the world that has an uneducated, random opinion that really just clouds reality.

Thereby making him qualified to be a Republican President of the US.

[Claeren]

One thing being left out in the viability debate is how byproducts of production are accounted for.

Coal is FAR cheaper than solar if you do not account for pollution. If you assign a high price to pollution things like solar become far more affordable comparably.

(In short, Coal moves its 'cost' from the production ledger and moves it over to the lingering effects ledger. Gas same thing. Nuclear same thing although split slightly differently -- higher production cost, less immediate lingering effects but more super-long term effects. Solar has all of its cost in production but none in long term lingering effects).


Also, the eventual 'alternative clean energy' world will not be centered around just one technology. Solar doesn't have to provide 100% of our energy needs. The question is can we find a mix of energy use reduction (<by far the cheapest and most practical step), solar, wind, geothermal, etc so that the average family can provide enough energy to live at a high enough quality of life generation after generation in a sustainable way.

If you look at the average energy use in a home (100%). Can we reduce 40% from that right off the top in conservation. Solar 20%. Wind 20%. Geo-thermal (home heating) 20%? Just an example, but the point is that when split up the task is not as daunting.

I think that is fairly attainable in our lifetimes with continues small steps in the right direction.



Claeren.

[SeeGeeWhy]

What about capacitors vs bartteries, Frequitude/Octothorp?