[p2p-research] [Open Manufacturing] Addressing Post-Scarcity Pitfalls

[Ryan Lanham]

No, it isn't great news--yet.  Because you have to throw away old solar
films and you have to glue them down and you have to replace them when they
wear out.
Nano has some exciting stuff, but you can't change the laws of physics.  The
film technology discussion has been going on for a while and I'm sure it has
some exciting technology, but to suggest it augers easy, cheap and readily
available electricity is just hype...with very little likelihood of reality
to back it up.

What solar really needs is a skeptical NGO to attack the hype claims.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for research and development where it makes sense.
 But I am against industrial pollution, against systems that require
constant replacement and which then fill landfills with horrible stuff, and
I am against corporations making production claims they can never delivery
(nuclear was supposed to be too cheap to meter!)

I'd be willing to place a fairly large wager than solar photovoltaic will
not be more than 10% of total energy production of the planet in the next
100 years.  I know it can't be executed, but I seriously doubt--highly doubt
in the strongest terms--that solar is a player in the future of much
importance.

Cute toys for the rich and the know-nothing greens, maybe, serious human
technology, I doubt.

Ryan


On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 3:09 AM, Vinay Gupta <hexayurt at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Ryan,
> Normal solar panel manufacturing cost is $2.30 a watt.
>
> Nanosolar claim $0.30 a watt (and are retailing for $1 a watt in $1,000,000
> quantities they say.)
>
> Konarka is claiming $0.10 a watt this year or next year.
>
> Dropping the price of solar seven to twenty times changes everything.
> Anybody who's interested in the future owes it to themselves to get oriented
> to this - it's the most important technological development since the
> invention of the transistor, really. It means that in the future - within
> one generation - electricity is going to be as information is now.
>
> Isn't that great news?
>
> Vinay
>
>
> --
> Vinay Gupta
> Free Science and Engineering in the Global Public Interest
>
> http://bit.ly/flucode - please follow the Flu Code
> if you are in a flu-effected area. It protects us all.
>
> http://guptaoption.com/map - social project connection map
>
> http://hexayurt.com - free/open next generation human sheltering
> http://hexayurt.com/plan - the whole systems, big picture vision
>
> Gizmo Project VOIP : (USA) 775-743-1851
> Skype/Gizmo/Gtalk/AIM: hexayurt
> Twitter: @hexayurt http://twitter.com/hexayurt
> UK Cell : +44 (0) 0795 425 3533 / USA VOIP (+1) 775-743-1851
>
> "If it doesn't fit, force it."
>
> On Jun 14, 2009, at 2:08 AM, Ryan Lanham wrote:
>
> Vinay:
> Thanks, you are probably right that my solar data is 2-3 years old--the
> last time I had a real hard look.
>
> But I've also learned to not believe the marketing hype.  I have a number
> of questions...
>
> 1. MTBF (Mean time between failure)
> 2. Lifecycle costs on a significant-sized installation -- say, 75 KWe.
>
> I'd also like to know how they are holding the films down, with what, and
> what they do with them when they are finished.
>
> Glad you are on it.  I'd love to be a fan of active solar.  As I said, the
> last I looked, it wasn't very exciting.  Very small scale in very sunny
> places--probably yes.  Else, not so much.
>
> Do please keep us informed of the data as it evolves.
>
> Ryan
>
> Ryan Lanham
> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Vinay Gupta <hexayurt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ryan,
>> I suggest you _go and look at the data_ - Nanosolar is claiming 30 cents
>> per watt of panel (manufacturing cost) for a retail of $1. They sold about a
>> billion dollars of panels last year - this is not a lab operation.
>>
>> Konarka is claiming ten cents per watt of panel capacity with panels
>> shipping later this year at a substantially higher price.
>>
>> Even with conservative assumptions about the mapping from raw panel price
>> to price per kilowatt hour, this works.
>>
>> You're a few years out of data on solar, as far as I can tell.
>>
>> Vinay
>>
>>
>> --
>> Vinay Gupta
>> Free Science and Engineering in the Global Public Interest
>>
>> http://bit.ly/flucode - please follow the Flu Code
>> if you are in a flu-effected area. It protects us all.
>>
>> http://guptaoption.com/map - social project connection map
>>
>> http://hexayurt.com - free/open next generation human sheltering
>> http://hexayurt.com/plan - the whole systems, big picture vision
>>
>> Gizmo Project VOIP : (USA) 775-743-1851
>> Skype/Gizmo/Gtalk/AIM: hexayurt
>> Twitter: @hexayurt http://twitter.com/hexayurt
>> UK Cell : +44 (0) 0795 425 3533 / USA VOIP (+1) 775-743-1851
>>
>> "If it doesn't fit, force it."
>>
>> On Jun 13, 2009, at 8:24 PM, Ryan Lanham wrote:
>>
>> Highly unlikely.  I think something like .50 cents a kilowatt hour is more
>> likely-and that would be cheap.  The price is obviously set against the
>> standard of nuclear which is almost universally given as 11 cents / kW-h.
>> Coal is generally set a 5 cents.
>>
>> The film plastics are going to have all sorts of problems--getting rid of
>> them is one.  Making them in scale is another.  They will require glues and
>> epoxies everywhere to be set down.  More chemicals.  More run off risks.
>>
>> Anything under 25 cents a kW-h is attractive.  So far, solar isn't close.
>>
>> Nuclear would be about 3 cents a kW-h except for extremely high regulatory
>> costs.
>>
>> The simple truth is that all forms of solar decay in the sun.  Plastic
>> will decay too.  Efficiencies will drop and radiation will play havoc with
>> electronics.  Solar isn't a very smart idea for large scale applications and
>> it will wear out far too quickly for economical small scale applications.
>> Plus you need weird chemicals.
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Vinay Gupta <hexayurt at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://nanosolar.com http://konarka.com
>>> fundamentally, plastic solar is way cheaper than coal and it's going to
>>> be the dominant energy generation method in the future, barring something
>>> cheaper - and at $0.10 per watt of capacity (from Konarka's projections)
>>> that's a per kilowatt hour cost a few percent that of current cheap coal...
>>>
>>> it's very, very radical stuff. I do think everybody playing this game
>>> needs to be fully aware of what's coming from the plastic solar guys.
>>>
>>> Vinay
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Vinay Gupta
>>> Free Science and Engineering in the Global Public Interest
>>>
>>> http://bit.ly/flucode - please follow the Flu Code
>>> if you are in a flu-effected area. It protects us all.
>>>
>>> http://guptaoption.com/map - social project connection map
>>>
>>> http://hexayurt.com - free/open next generation human sheltering
>>> http://hexayurt.com/plan - the whole systems, big picture vision
>>>
>>> Gizmo Project VOIP : (USA) 775-743-1851
>>> Skype/Gizmo/Gtalk/AIM: hexayurt
>>> Twitter: @hexayurt http://twitter.com/hexayurt
>>> UK Cell : +44 (0) 0795 425 3533 / USA VOIP (+1) 775-743-1851
>>>
>>> "If it doesn't fit, force it."
>>>
>>> On Jun 10, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Ryan Lanham wrote:
>>>
>>> Michel:
>>>
>>> The US is a fair model of a future world:
>>>
>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/USEnFlow02-quads.gif
>>>
>>> Transportation will decrease, but it will not remain carbon-based.  The
>>> only serious alternative is electric.  Hydrogen will be a chunk, but not
>>> much.  Hybrid is a transition technology.
>>>
>>> Local consumers in most places cannot access wind or solar in reasonable
>>> quantities to make personal production realistic or economical.
>>>
>>> I think small solar is a 3% at best sort of solution.  Centralized solar
>>> turning turbines with hot air, etc. is more realistic.  Centralized power is
>>> needed for industry and transportation and those aren't going away.  Yes,
>>> there will be efficiencies and savings, but there will also be growth.
>>> People in the undeveloped world are not going to agree to be poor while the
>>> West gets to be rich with lights, heat/AC, mobility, shipping, intensive
>>> mining and mineral use, etc.
>>>
>>> Nuclear has a huge future role.  It has to.  People who argue otherwise
>>> are simply hurting the planet--killing it.  We need power.  Nuclear is going
>>> to be the main source (period.)  We should fight to minimize it wherever we
>>> can, but it is the main source.
>>>
>>> We need mostly decentralized medium scale distribution grids with medium
>>> scale production resources that are sustainable and non-carbon.  That means
>>> hydrogen to me.  Ocean energy can aid, but it isn't a real answer so far.
>>> OTEC is the obvious vehicle to hydrogen--as is geo-thermal.  Iceland will be
>>> rich one day when it uses its geo-thermal assets to make liquid hydrogen and
>>> ship it around the world to hydro plants that fuel small and medium sized
>>> coastal developments.  Everyone can be rich by building and deploying deep
>>> ocean OTEC.  The Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, Nigeria,
>>> Ethiopia/Somalia, India, Central America, the Caribbean--all obvious winners
>>> with OTEC/hydrogen.
>>>
>>> It has been positively criminal that hydrogen and means of production
>>> haven't been pushed forward more vigorously.  Solar I see as a non-starter
>>> that will be a minor player--it is too small to produce hydrogen and it is
>>> too variable to be a realistic developed power source on its own.  The sun
>>> is the answer, but you need energy storage--warm water gives you that...and
>>> we've got plenty of it.
>>>
>>> Ryan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090614/6f0ee38c/attachment-0001.html>