Slashdot Mirror
New Photovoltaics Made with Titanium Foil
Memorize writes "A company called Daystartech has released a new type of photovoltaic cell which, unlike almost all the cells currently in use, does not silicon. This is based on a thin titanium film. Given the current shortage of solar-grade silicon, and all-time high oil prices, maybe titanium solar panels are here at the right time. The questions are, will they release it as a consumer solar product, and what will be the price per kilowatt hour?"
...cost effective for specialized military, homeland security and commercial applications.
In other words, ridiculously overpriced, and unavailable to the average consumer for the next decade.
Obviously, the marginal price per kilowatt hour is $0. The difference between obtaining 100 kilowatt hours and 101 kilowatt hours is nothing. You would simply have to wait for enough sunlight to hit the solar panel to generate that extra 1 kilowatt hour.
The true cost of investing in solar energy is in the intial cost of manufacturing and setting up the panel.
Thus, the actual cost per kilowatt hour depends on how long you use the solar panel. The longer you use the panel, the cheaper each kilowatt hour becomes.
At http://www.daystartech.com/govrelease.htm:
"DayStar Technologies Unveils LightFoil Photovoltaic Product for Military and Homeland Security Applications"
Ok, photo voltaics for "Homeland Security". What kind of priority is this? Easier to get "funding" this way?
Stephan
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
It's not meant to replace largescale silicon photovoltaic cells. Instead, it's meant for use on UAVs and balloons and stuff. Price doesn't matter here, right?
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Good news for putting solar cells on air and spacecraft but not terribly important for ground based solar power. For example, this could be a good time to redesign the solar powered flier, Helios
Well, electrolysis isn't cheap. Why do you think we recycle alumnium? There is probably some other mechanism that they use that is just a few dollars cheaper. Any chem majors who are further along want to back me up or squash me like the petty bug I am?
Sig
You have to choose your evils. If you want to avoid radiation, fine, but don't complain when you have to deal with other forms of pollution to compensate for the energy-thirsty needs of modern society.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
The problem is that the industry doesn't produce anything near a sizable fraction of the power requirements. In 2003, the total worldwide production was 732MW equivalents. Shipments from 1971 total 3,145MW.
World power consumption is 13.94 trillion kWh.
Even if all of those cells were in production today, it would still fall short by a factor of about 500, if my calculations are correct. It would take more than a century to replace everything, and that's assuming an annual 25% growth in shipped capacity with only 10% being replaced each year and zero growth in annual energy usage. As countries like China and India come into the modern ages as a rule, worldwide energy demand is going to grow even faster than its current (IIRC) 5% rate.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
To clear up some common misconceptions you listed:
6 &cid=12073778
* Wind: Dead birds, intermittency in many areas, large surface areas, noise
Dead bird thing is mostly a myth. You will kill a thousand times more birds of prey by putting in a highway & getting them hit while munching on roadkill. Radio towers and bridges are just as dangerous as wind tubines to birds.
see http://www.homepower.com/files/birds.pdf
"Wind Generators and Birds: Power Politics?"
Large surface area: most wind farms are dual use, cows still munch the grass, only a small percent of land is lost to use, and that is mostly from access roads.
Noise: true for 1970's turbines. All new turbines are geared and rotate quite slowly. I've stood under one of the new 200' tall versions in 40mph winds.. you just hear a gentle swoosh. From a 1/4 mile away you don't hear it at all.
* Solar: Sigificant chemical wastes, large surface areas
just to note the really nasty galium arsenide solar cells are a tiny fraction (ie only NASA & similar use them). Most solar cells are made from recycled Si from the chipmaking process. That waste is already being made by computer chip makers; the solar cell manufacture process actually reduces existing industrial waste!
* Tidal: Beach erosion, corrosion of power units
Beach erosion? Please explain how dampening waves causes beach erosion? I just don't see it. Even if you unmix "tides" with "wind waves". Tide power is fairly hard to harness unless you live in an area of freak tidal range.
* Hydroelectric: Large loss of land, high greenhouse gas releases
The "high greenhouse gas releases" is a misleading arguement at best. Long and the short of it is that methane from anoxic lake sediment is not a net change to the carbon budget. Burning fossil fuels is.
see this comment for a fuller justification: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=14407
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
You're neglecting the fact that, unlike nuclear, photovoltaic power generation doesn't have to be central. In fact, you largely eliminate transmission losses if you distribute the panels all over town. That eliminates the one point of failure. You probably don't want to do that with nuclear.