Solar Cell Inventor Wins Millennium Prize

adeelarshad82 writes "The inventor of a new type of solar cell won the Finnish state and industry-funded, €800,000 ($1.07 million), Millennium Technology Prize. According to the foundation, Michael Graetzel's dye-sensitized solar cells, known as Graetzel cells, could be a significant contributor to the future energy technologies due to their excellent price-performance ratio."

Comments

Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

I still think we should decrease our use of energy, instead of inventing new ways to increase its production.

Dr. Pekka Paisti

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right. And naive.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[LingNoi]

Why would you advocate wasting time and money on the effect (energy usage) rather than the problem (production of energy) . Simple fact of the matter is energy usage is going to get bigger and bigger regardless of how little we use it individually.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Paisti, Increasing the performance of energy production and decreasing use of energy can both be goals at the same time.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[clarkkent09]

I don't understand. The energy is there anyway. We are just converting it from a useless form to a form that is useful to humans. What is wrong with that?

Re:Decrease, not increase

[PhongUK]

In order to decrease our use of energy, or atleast to have any chance of doing it at all, we need to stop making babies.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Fluffeh]

I still think we should decrease our use of energy, instead of inventing new ways to increase its production. Dr. Pekka Paisti

You are right. And naive.

Hmmm, what a funny two first posts. Both are totally correct, yet at polar opposites.

Yes, we should decrease the amount of power we use. I totally agree, yet, the chances of getting the average consumer to actually do so, keep dreaming. As long as people keep coming up with power hungry devices that people want (read: air conditioners, plasma TVs, faster PCs and just about every other imaginable device), people will in fact keep buying them. Will they pay vastly larger sums for them if they are power efficient? Unlikely, some might, most won't. Will they put up with lower/smaller/decreased functionality? Again, some might, most won't.

I totally support using less power (my own electricity bill for example comes from 100% wind energy, which costs a good deal more than normal coal fired here in Australia) but I welcome any steps that are taken to make the overall impact of the "sheep consumers" less on the environment.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

To have this happen, we need people to be intelligent enough to become self-aware of their impact beyond local scope. Plenty of human beings work on the standard biological impulses of eat, drink, sleep and have a kid.

Even then, we need it to become socially acceptable to also say to people, self-aware or otherwise, that they should stop being selfish by breeding.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Alwin Henseler]

Why? You mean that making babies costs lots of energy?
...oh wait, it does.

On a more serious note: nice overview of the energy <-> population issue here (by none other than our beloved mr. Gates).

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually...I may have a.. modest proposal along these lines.

- J. Swift.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

"we need to stop making babies." Won't be too hard for Slashdot readers to do...

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

You're telling me, its a hell of a lot of work to steal the embryos and keep the surrogates drugged.

I can do without that expense.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[kcelery]

Everyone seems to have the same idea as yours, but they don't seem to agree upon whose babies.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[ZiakII]

Well I am happy to announce that the Slashdot crowd is leading in that front!

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

If energy conscious people stopped making babies the'd be no energy conscious people left.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[chichilalescu]

Wrong.
We need to stop using cellphones unless we actully need them, we need to restart gathering for telling stories in the evening in stead of watching TV, we need to forbid any kind of personal cars and force people to use bikes (what, are you really going to tell me that a car is faster than a bike in a big city? be serious), we need to stop wasting paper for stupid bureaucrats and use computers for what they were built for, we need to stop playing chess and other cardgames online and restart doing it with neighbours, we need to stop throwing away food, we need to stop buying clothes that we don't wear.
And there are a whole lot of other things that we could do, but I'm bored now.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[M8e]

How can you stop doing something that you already are not doing?

For example you have to start smoking to able to stop smoking.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Dr. Spork]

You're actually wrong. The sort of people who are upgrading computers and plasma screens (North Americans, Europeans and similar) are actually not increasing their per-capita energy use each year. They're the same people who are upgrading their insulation, light bulbs, etc.

All the increases in energy use is from the global poor, the people who are just now acquiring computers, light bulbs and cars. And I know that orthodox environmentalists disagree with me on this, because they're assholes and want the destitute to stay destitute, but I say that it is a good thing that the world's poor are using more energy. A life with any reasonable standard of living is necessarily going to involve some significant energy use, and if we want people to escape from poverty (and the non-assholes among us do), we have to welcome this.

Those of us who waste energy should cut down, but not to the point of making ourselves poor. And since that won't save nearly enough energy to allow to poor to escape poverty, what we need is a lot more energy. I would guess at least 10 terrawatts more. It's that simple. Solar will help.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in a cold climate - it is use energy or freeze.
My plasma and electronic gizmos heat is not wasted one bit.

As for wind, if you look at the spikes, you still depend on coal or hydro for supply stability.
Any more 'greenie' nonsense, I will install a wood burner furnace or a sly Natural gas generator and microgenerate my own electricity. (In .au the gas connection fee is a 4*64
=$256 a year - plus gas, plus gst. Lucky I have a wood fireplace.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Rogerborg]

Do we need to stop using our computers to tell others to do as we say, not as we do? Apparently not.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[sydbarrett74]

We see how well that's worked in China, with their gender disparity problem. Or do you mean everyone should stop making babies, in which case Homo sapiens becomes extinct?

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Hazelfield]

I still think we should decrease our use of energy, instead of inventing new ways to increase its production.

Dr. Pekka Paisti

Decreasing energy use is good, but it's not a solution to the world's energy problems.

For one thing, the world's population is growing every day, and energy use is going up whether we like it or not, just to keep those people alive. The decrease of energy consumption per capita will soon be eaten up by increased population.

More importantly, energy consumption is essentially a good thing. Sure there are unnecessary energy hogs - plasma screens, gas-guzzling SUVs, air conditioners - but there's more to it than that. Energy use allows us to light up and heat our houses, provide clean water for everyone, keep our food cold so it won't turn rotten, and so on. We sure used a lot less energy 100 years ago, but then again quite a lot of people froze to death in those days if there was a harsh winter. Same goes for the third world countries of today - if they are to improve their situation, they need to increase their energy consumption. It's not about luxury, it's about the basics that we in the western world take for granted.

The real solution is to find new and better energy sources which are cheap, renewable and effective. Energy consumption is not a bad thing per se, it only becomes so when the energy is produced in an environmentally harmful way (see: Deepwater Horizon). Solar energy has an enormous potential and therefore inventions like this are important for our future. This particular technology may or may not prevail in the end, but some kind of renewable energy can and will be our primary energy source in the future. The sooner we make the change, the better.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[tsm_sf]

Yeah it's a shame we can only do one thing at a time.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[polar red]

I live in a cold climate - it is use energy or freeze

actually, Investing in insulation is ten times cheaper than buying energy. a passive house has been build in very cold climates.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Candyban]

Yes, we should decrease the amount of power we use. I totally agree, yet, the chances of getting the average consumer to actually do so, keep dreaming. As long as people keep coming up with power hungry devices that people want (read: air conditioners, plasma TVs, faster PCs and just about every other imaginable device), people will in fact keep buying them. Will they pay vastly larger sums for them if they are power efficient? Unlikely, some might, most won't. Will they put up with lower/smaller/decreased functionality? Again, some might, most won't.

I disagree. If you look fuel consumption in cars, you will notice that in the last 20 years, they consume LESS fuel, have MORE power, safety and luxury. Are they so much more expensive than they were 20 years ago? I don't think so.
LCD screens consume less power, are more space efficient and have less negative health effects than their CRT equivalents. (though some purist may say there is loss of quality as well). CRT TVs the size of the average TV sold nowadays would be vastly more expensive not to say the electricity bill which would make you think twice
When people start to better insulate their houses, they will consume less power for heating/cooling while getting more comfort. This investment is payed back within 1-2 years.

With regards to faster PCs, I beg to differ. If you didn't notice already, current generation CPUs are consuming LESS energy than their predecessors while still getting more work done and this is where we need to evolve to.
People need to start understanding that power efficiency is SAVING money without a need to compromise on features or comfort.

Getting back on topic. Even though power consumption for each device needs to go down, we will need more power as there will be more devices and more people using them. The biggest challenge in this century will be to get India and China up to Western standards. Both countries combined have about 3 billion people. Just providing them with the same amount of meat would require massive amounts of power, and then I'm not even talking about gadgets. So whatever we do, there will be a massive need for power no matter how much more power efficient we will become. Efficiency is key to preserve our way of life but clean and cheap new energy sources will be our only salvation.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Maury Markowitz]

> As for wind, if you look at the spikes, you still depend on coal or hydro for supply stability

Or gas peaker plants. Wind + solar + gas + hydro can give us all the power we need.

We can reduce the amount of gas we need by improving the grid, allowing us to time-shift east-west, and season-shift north-south. Toronto, for instance, uses more power in the winter, when solar panels in Texas and Nevada are pumping out unused watts.

Maury

Re:Decrease, not increase

[chichilalescu]

I don't have a car, and I walk to the university, because it only takes me 20 minutes. When I lived too far, I took the subway. I don't print anything unless someone else requires me to, I have the cheapest cellphone I could buy (and I use it once every 2 weeks maybe), I don't play games on my computer (I do have "play time" on my computer, I don't deny that), me and my wife do not throw away food, and I only buy clothes when she gets angry with me because stuff gets torn (this goes for shoes too).

I'm sorry if I came out as a rant. I just thought that PhongUK was wrong, and I tried to explain why; I wasn't trying to tell him how to live, I was just showing an alternative to his somewhat sarcastic proposal. And I do try to live by my own standards.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Firethorn]

Not only that, I love how people say that we can simply reduce usage over building new power plants, then turn around and rave how electric cars are going to solve all of our problems.

The 'average' household uses something around 700-1400 kwh a month.
The 'average' electronic vehicle gets about 5 miles to the kwh, and the average vehicle is driven around 10-15k miles a year.
Don't forget that the average household is 2 cars today.

So, you're looking at probably around a 22% increase in electricity usage if people go to EVs. You just can't reduce energy usage that much via other means, especially when you also have 5% growth in population/households on top of it.

Still, I salute the inventer in the op, because he's, well, actually addressing the problem. The moment I can make solar panels make sense in a cost-benefit analysis is when I recommend all my relatives in Florida get them.

I'm moving to Alaska(work), so they'd probably still have to come down in price another 50% before they'd make sense for me.

Until I was informed of my exciting new opportunity, I was looking at a wind turbine for the small town I live in - because a turbine big enough to power a town costs a lot less per watt of capacity, and by reaching higher has steadier wind, resulting in lower costs when you factor the cost of the turbine into the cost per kwh it produces. Small $10k turbine = 5k kwh per year, expensive. $1M turbine = 1M kwh per year, much better. These figures are example only. Actual production is so location dependent it's hard to put proper figures on.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[rhsanborn]

Agreed, unfortunately, history says that that doesn't happen unless there is also a cost increase for energy. People like energy, and they keep on finding new and inventive ways to use it. There is some call from consumers to produce things that use less energy, like CFL bulbs, and more efficient TVs and computers. I suspect that for the majority of people, it's price and quality conscious, and far less environmentally conscious. i.e. the CFLs last longer and end up costing less. Likewise, our computers have become disposable commodities, and have become faster because of the lower power per performance unit.

Unfortunately, you need to give people an incentive to cut their energy usage, or they aren't likely to do it, at least not radically. They'll make token trims to get their electric bill to a "reasonable" level. But they aren't going to become the home equivalent of hyper-milers without a strong incentive, which is usually cost.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[rhsanborn]

Cost and space. Yes, the energy is there, but it 1) costs energy to build these panels 2) costs resources to build these panels (not terribly common minerals) 3) costs land on which to locate these panels. So, it isn't really free, and unfortunately, those costs are currently more than the cost of setting a piece of coal on fire.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[tsm_sf]

It's called an igloo.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[captainpanic]

You're over-simplifying things.

There is an optimum in every climate. Here's how it works:

You choose a certain period. Say, 30 years.

You check the price of the energy. You check the price of different kinds of insulation.

Insulation is a one-time investment, energy costs money all the time. You check which is the cheapest after 30 years.

In many houses an investment in insulation is worth the money and will pay itself back. But in some cases, the quality of the insulation is already such that it's just too expensive to add even more insulation to save those few euros/dollars/whatevers in energy.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Firethorn]

Investing in insulation is ten times cheaper than buying energy. a passive house has been build in very cold climates.

Investing in insulation is only 10X cheaper than buying energy if you don't already have a significant amount of insulation.

Let's take a house, generic. Let's disregard doors, windows, or perhaps we assume that we upgrade them as well.

The house, with NO insulation, costs Y energy to keep warm.
With X insulation, it costs Y. If X is 1000 and Y is 1000/year,
With 2X insulation, cost is Y/2, That next 1000 makes Y 500, and your payoff of the extra insulation is 2 years.
With 4X insulation, cost is Y/4, the marginal return on the second 2X amount of insulation(costing 2000) is 250, payoff is 8 years.
With 8X the insulation, cost is y/8, or 125 saved. For 4k cost. With a 32 year payoff without cost of capital, you're better off investing in the energy company; a decent return will pay your remaining bill perpetually.

Now, yes, the formula is more complicated - 8X the money spent on insulation won't actually get you 8X the insulating values, especially in a refit scenario - you have to make the walls thicker at that point, and maybe even raise the roof. There are practical limits on windows and doors, especially when you open them. There's also a certain amount of 'free' heat that is generally available. Every person is like 100 watts just sitting there. You need a certain amount of fresh air flow.

And I say this as a libertarian survivalist type who likes the idea of not being dependent upon the grid. I just acknowledge that there are costs that don't make financial sense. Call it being warped by my upbringing - both my parents are accountants. I was doing cost of capital analysis before I knew what it was called. ;)

Re:Decrease, not increase

[hey!]

Then increase the price. That's the only way.

The problem is that the practical effect of this falls disproportionately on the poor (as do the negative effects of current energy production). The wealthy have to adjust the distribution of their investments -- an inconvenience. The poor have to endure cold, give up that job that's too far to walk to, cut back on food which has become more expensive.

Let's say the price of energy doubled overnight. A lot of us would lose our jobs as investments were shuffled around. But for those of us who didn't lose our jobs, we wouldn't go without. We'd have food, heat, transportation. We wouldn't stay home during vacation. We'd alter our use of energy by changing the kind of car we bought next time around, or keeping our thermostats set differently. We might go to one place instead of taking a driving vacation. In the short term the low inflation caused by lost employment would blunt the impact of the price increases, and in a few years we wouldn't even notice the difference.

I'm all for conservation through tax credits, incentives, even carbon taxes with provisions for blunting the impact on people who will feel it the most. But we've had all our energy eggs in one basket for the last century: cheap oil. Moving some or even most of those eggs to the conservation basket is a good idea, but we can't do it overnight and we certainly can't move all of them.

What's the "right" amount of energy to consume? That's a meaningless question when asked in isolation. You need to ask "for what" and "from what sources" and "with what impact?" Clearly the answer for fossil fuels, given their externalized impacts (pollution) and future availability (dwindling) is that we should be using less of them. But conservation is no more a panacea for our energy problems than nuclear power is.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[LingNoi]

Well yeah, when it comes to advocating something over something else you can't do both... what was your point?

Re:Decrease, not increase

[IrquiM]

but the engergy used to produce those new gadets are not taken in to the calculation, is it? Also, a lot of the people by more new gadgets instead of upgrading for a more energy efficient place at home. Your statement is valid for some, for others, not at all.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[tsm_sf]

Oh, advocating. I thought we were talking about actually doing something.

My bad.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

"LCD screens consume less power, are more space efficient and have less negative health effects than their CRT equivalents".

WHOA, Nelly! Check power consumption - unless you're talking about small LCDs (less than 28 inches), a CRT will use less electricity. CRTs max out at around 200 Watts, LEDs use more the bigger they get. If you want to be as energy-efficient as a CRT, you have to go with rear-projection, where there is a small bulb to provide the light, especially in the bigger sizes. My 65-inch Sony LED TV consumes 485 Watts, but a Mitsubishi 68-inch rear-projection only around 200. Their 80-incher? The same as the 68.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

I fully agree with Dr. Spork.
Even if it is important to not waste energy, we must increase energy production.
In fact, light is a very huge source of energy. Even petrol is a derive product of the transformation of light by nature.
Exploitation of light is the only solution that may be long term effective. When the earth surface becomes too limited, it is possible to build mirrors (or other smarter solutions) in space. There is no foreseen limit to the exploitation of this energy source.
Nuclear is the most ecology friendly short term solution (all the pollution is confined), light is the future.
We should work to fasten the switch from nuclear to light instead of wasting time and energy on bad solutions.
Wind plant is a bad solution, it costs a lot of energy to be produced, coper industry is polluting, will cost a lot to remove all the concrete and is not an effective solution (less wind in winter and in the evening).

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Rogerborg]

Well, I guess if hypocritical hectoring is your only remaining pleasure, you've earned it with your hair shirt.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[asukasoryu]

I live in a cold climate - it is use energy or freeze.

Or you could move. There are a lot of places in the world that don't require energy to not freeze.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

You say it like it is a bad thing.

http://www.vhemt.org

Re:Decrease, not increase

[morgan_greywolf]

WHOA, Nelly! Check power consumption - unless you're talking about small LCDs (less than 28 inches), a CRT will use less electricity.

It all depends on the size. A lot of people went from like 27 inch or 32 inch CRTs to 60" monsters. The truth is somewhere in-between.

An equivalent-sized LCD will use less power than a CRT. Going from a 32 inch CRT to a 31.5 inch LCD flat panel will save you around 50% or so in electricity usage. Going from a 32 inch TV to a very efficient 46 inch LCD will save you a little bit of electricity; an average 46 inch LCD will cost about the same.

Going to a 60 inch monster will cost about double.

If you're talking about computer monitors, then in almost all cases, moving to an LCD from a CRT will save you money. A typical 17 inch CRT uses about 100W with a max around 105W, while, say, my 20 inch widescreen flat panel uses around 55W, with a maximum usage 75W.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[hviniciusg]

Do we need to stop using our computers to tell others to do as we say, not as we do? Apparently not.

No, we need to tell people to stop using computers so we will be the only ones again :D. can u imagine that? a world without virus, no spam, a lot of PRON(for free of course, free as in beer), what else. o yes, only linux and firefox, maybe chrome, but i doubt google would exist whit only geeks on the web... who knows, maybe we are a lot of guys that use google, but i think there will not exist much viruses.

what do you guys think?

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Waffle Iron]

My plasma and electronic gizmos heat is not wasted one bit.

On average, for every watt of electric power delivered to your house, 2 more watts goes up the smokestacks and cooling towers of your power plant. Those 2 watts are still wasted. (That's why the only cost effective way to heat with electricity is a heat pump, which delivers multiple watts of heating for every watt of electricity consumed.) If, OTOH, you used a modern gas furnace to get that same heating, you'd waste less than 10% of the energy in the fuel source.

Running power hungry appliances to create heat is wasteful and does not make economic sense.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm are you sure your math is correct...?

Re:Decrease, not increase

[sznupi]

As you point out at the end - the thing is that, well, "our" places can still go a long way to improve efficiency - it's not that hard to find two developed countries with basically the same standard of living, but the difference in total resource usage amounting to doubling (overconsuption, also of gadgets, is art of that too, btw). And even the "better" one can surely improve, too...

More generally - it's not a good thing if the poor of today will make similar mistakes. We have to welcome wiser energy production and usage (for them, and also for us)

Re:Decrease, not increase

[rossdee]

"We need to stop using cellphones unless we actully need them,"

I have my cellphone switched off when I am not using it. But cellphones don't use a lot of power anyway.

"we need to forbid any kind of personal cars and force people to use bikes"

I don't know where you live, but in some parts of the country we have this phenomena call weather. Cars have protection against rain, hail snow and cold, bikes do not. Also trying to ride any 2 wheeled vehicle on ice covered streets is very dangerous.

"(what, are you really going to tell me that a car is faster than a bike in a big city? be serious)"

I presume in 'a big city' the commute would be further and so the relative speed of a car would make even more difference. Unless of course the city has bike pathways that are shorter than the roads.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[sznupi]

The only civilised and working way of reducing birth rate is assuring good standard of living and social security (in whatever form that works, let us not get into the favorite implementation method here). So the trick is to do that in a way that produces and uses energy efficiently, with as small impact as possible.

And apart from finding new tech, we have lots of headway to improve efficiency... (which is simply the logical thing to do - think about it as putting your progress ahead with the same amount of resources used; or, for a given tech level, the same standard of living without lesser need of basic infrastructure)

Re:Decrease, not increase

[tmosley]

Abortions! Abortions should be for free at Walmart!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Muad'Dave]

It seems to me that you've eliminated the tiny ongoing costs of modern conveniences without doing anything about the infrastructure costs.

When I lived too far, I took the subway.
Huge infrastructure already in place, all the pollution to create and install the cars and track are already sunk. All you're avoiding is the tiny amount of energy your additional weight incurs.

I don't print anything unless someone else requires me to...
The printer and toner are already manufactured and the printer is plugged in consuming energy. The only thing you're preventing is the tiny amount of energy and paper (a renewable resource) used to print your pages.

I have the cheapest cellphone I could buy (and I use it once every 2 weeks maybe) ...
Again, huge infrastructure in place, etc.

I don't play games on my computer...
What does that matter, aside from perhaps having it on a little longer? You admit to 'play time', so what does it matter that your 'play time' does not involve games?

My point is not to rag on your lifestyle - if that makes you feel good about your global impact, then more power to you. I just don't think that the things you mention have any real impact other than the tiny incremental costs of using existing infrastructures. You could argue that if _everyone_ lived like you those infrastructures would either be smaller or non-existent, but I don't think that argument would hold water.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

I still think we should decrease our use of energy, instead of inventing new ways to increase its production.

Please start by killing yourself. Keeping you alive uses a lot of energy.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Bemopolis]

So, you're looking at probably around a 22% increase in electricity usage if people go to EVs.

And around a 100% reduction in the use of gasoline. You see, that's why it's called a cost-BENEFIT analysis.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

You made an elementary mistake, just like most people trying to show future cost prediction paypack. You also need to factor in the energy increase costs too. In the last 7 years in FL, our kWh costs have almost doubled, and that's not including the costs we're paying for a new nuke-plant that doesn't exist, or even have planning permission. Neither does it account for the high demand, OPEC pricing control blips.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

> Everyone seems to have the same idea as yours, but they don't seem to agree upon whose babies.

Actually this handles itself as societies acquire technology/education, and have access to birth control. See reduced birth rates in most 'information age' countries... Japan even subsidizes children, the effect is so extreme there. The biggest obstacle is the Catholic Church preventing birth control...

Re:Decrease, not increase

[2obvious4u]

Another thing to take into account is cash flows. It may take you a long time to pay back the capital investment of improving your insulation, however if you finance those improvements at a good rate you can improve your cash flow, maybe not your debt to asset ratio, but you may have more cash on hand each month from having a power bill 4x lower.

Thats what I did on my house, I bought a cheap house and doubled down on improvements, insulation, windows, tankless water heater (best thing I've ever bought in my life), appliances, etc. My mortgage on the house went from about $600 a month to $800 a month; however my electric bill went from $400 a month to under $100. This greatly improved my cash flow. I also plan on being in this house long enough that the improvements will be paid off then there will be a nearly $1200 change in monthly cash flow.

Lowering your monthly expenses in the form of Capital investments is a good long term strategy. If you plan on moving in 2-3 years you may not be able to recoup the saving in the sale price, however if you are the one paying the bills the change in cash flows can be dramatic.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[jhol13]

A "passive" house does not address washing. Not washing clothes, washing yourself or washing dishes. Not even flushing toilet.

You cannot recover all (most?) the heat in those as the exit temperature must be well above zero (and input temperature of water is close to four degrees C. The question 'why four' is left as an exercise to the reader).

Besides, a "passive" house does use energy to heat itself up, in Finland 4000kWh per year (for 150m2 house) is allowed for passive energy house, I bet the value is for "average" winter.

Then there are "low energy" (maybe around 22000kWh/150m2) and "zero-energy" (definitions differ from case to case) and ...

Re:Decrease, not increase

[HeckRuler]

So you seem like an ultra-green idealist. The sort that thinks we should go back to living in mud huts and killing our food with spears. You probably like sustenance farming and would prefer an agrarian society. I had hoped that you were a fringe extremist, but the fact that you're modded up there scares me. But let's be clear, you're rallying AGAINST alternative energy research because you WANT a post-apocalyptic earth scenario.

There are a few problems with this. Transitioning to such a state is tricky. I've heard of two ways of doing it. The first being through a mass kill-off of the surplus humanity. A chaotic sudden-stop of oil would produce this one way or another. This seems to be what you're jonesing for. If so this puts you squarely in the "Evil Mad-man" category occupied by so many comic book villains. The second way of transitioning to a "reduced income" society I've heard of is gradually over a few generations. Now, you could sterilize the masses you deem unfit, or you could draconianlly enforce one-child laws. Those also put you in the evil category, but more of a real world sort of evil. Now, you could try simply asking people to have less kids and use less, but let's stick to methods that have at least some chance of success.

Then you have the problem of staying there. I know the first thing I want to do after a massive die-off is to repopulate the earth. It's like we're pre-programmed for this or something. But the problem is deeper then that. You're going to have suppress innovation and people who strive for better things. You are fighting progress itself. Unless you can expect all of humanity to be content, in which case all sorts of ideas become viable, then this idea of living sustainably in mudhuts isn't itself sustainable. Another example is when push comes to shove and there's a bad winter. People will die. Before the last of them die, they're going to go take the food from their neighbors. Specifically the ones who have the shortest sticks and the smallest clubs. This is one of those things that encourages people to develop bigger and better weapons and progress in general.

And not to be too big of a downer, let me suggest some alternatives. The oil economy will assuredly fail. We'll always have some oil, but it won't always be the main source of transportation. Coal will one day follow the path that oil went, although that day is farther off. But before we run out and need to fend off wasteland bandits, how about we get some alternatives? There is a lot of freaking energy sources out there. Some don't have bad side-effects, some are plentiful, some are renewable, and some are cheap. How about we try to make the world a better place instead of sending progress back a few thousand years?

Re:Decrease, not increase

[jbengt]

On average, for every watt of electric power delivered to your house, 2 more watts goes up the smokestacks and cooling towers of your power plant. . . . If, OTOH, you used a modern gas furnace to get that same heating, you'd waste less than 10% of the energy in the fuel source.

I'll grant that using gas heat is typically much cheaper than electric heat, where gas is available. But you're emphasizing the excess energy needed to produce electricity and ignoring the energy costs of production and transport of the gas.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[jhol13]

Small $10k turbine = 5k kwh per year, expensive. $1M turbine = 1M kwh per year

This is something far too many wind power enthusiasts forget, thanks for pointing it out.

Actually situation is likely even more against small turbines, not only is bigger cheaper to build, it is cheaper to maintain.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[mspohr]

There is no reason that we need to reduce our use of energy as long as the energy is generated from renewable, non-CO2, non-other toxin producing methods (such as solar).

The problem is not energy use, it is the unintended consequences of producing energy from carbon and other toxic sources. As an example, we could use as much energy as we wanted from solar since that is only transferring energy from on site to another. Solar energy is captured in one place and released in another (usually within a very short time). Net extra energy and CO2 and toxins is zero.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Waffle Iron]

Ok, but also can't ignore the energy cost to produce and transport the gas, coal and/or uranium to the power plant to generate the electricity. It probably comes out similar to that of delivering gas to your house, so it's not really an issue specific to gas heat.

What I was originally talking about was the excess energy needed to produce electricity due to the laws of thermodynamics as they relate to heat engines. That assumes that the fuel is already available at the power plant. Factoring in additional energy needed to get the fuel would just make electricity look even worse.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[NeutronCowboy]

Obnoxious ending aside, parent is right, and not a troll. The assertion that the rich world is not increasing its energy consumption pretty much flies in the face of the fact that it keeps building energy generators - be it dams, wind turbines or coal-fired plants. I'd like to find a citation that shows that the people who upgrade their plasma screens also improve their insulation. I doubt there is one, because most Americans have not heard squat about insulation. Even something as basic as a double-pane window is rare anywhere but the extremely cold areas.

That said, grand-parent is correct in his second statement, if we ignore the hyperbole. The biggest danger to the lifestyle of the rich world is the rest of the world trying to imitate it. The world simply cannot support an India, China and Africa that consumes as much energy per-capita as the US or even Europe. Not unless we dramatically change how energy is created. In the meantime, India and China are trying as hard as they can to first consume as much as we do, and won't worry about their energy consumption until more people in their countries are suffering from it.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[NeutronCowboy]

Simple solution to the downside of expensive gas: create a public transportation system that works. You can even fund it from a nice gas tax. Kinda like Europe does it. It's pathetic that the only places with a public transportation system that is worth taking is NYC and Boston.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[sznupi]

Well, manufacturing cellphones does take a bit, though - and many people are to obsessed with replacing their perfectly good old ones, which too often end up in the drawer (to be fair, that's also a result of carrier policies here and there)

And really, biking is not as hard as you think (there are spiked tires btw). If it becomes too hard, sometimes, then there could be always an option of public transport/etc. ...which you don't have because you set your place like that, you let lobbyists of automobile makers and oil companies to take over your cities. And trust me, if public transport is set up properly and bikes are even allowed, essentially (meaining: not building road infrastructure primarily around heavy car traffic), they are the fastest options in times of day when it matters.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Just Some Guy]

I still think we should decrease our use of energy, instead of inventing new ways to increase its production.

Why? Save for the production process (which this guy made easier and cheaper per watt), solar energy contributes zero to the net energy in the ecosystem. The sun's going to beat down on my roof anyway. If I can transport some of that energy to where I can conveniently use it, why shouldn't I?

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

I still think we should decrease our use of energy, instead of inventing new ways to increase its production.

One, and only one, of the following is true:

1. Decreasing energy usage is mutually exclusive with increasing energy production; it is impossible to do both.

2. You're an idiot.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

I still think we should decrease our use of energy, instead of inventing new ways to increase its production.

Dr. Pekka Paisti

Then turn off the computer and stop wasting it!

Re:Decrease, not increase

[jbengt]

The 'average' household uses something around 700-1400 kwh a month.. . . So, you're looking at probably around a 22% increase in electricity usage if people go to EVs.

Not quite that much, as average households are not the only users of electricity.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is breeding selfish? Lay it out for me. Was breeding always selfish? Is it selfish for every animal to breed?

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Firethorn]

Not quite that much, as average households are not the only users of electricity.

The figures I used for that number is actually for housholds only; I have all electric appliances except for building heat and use ~1000 kwh a month.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#electricity_use_home

920 kwh/month nation wide for a 'US residential utility customer'.
Tennessee was highest at 1302, Maine lowest at 521 kwh/month.

I still wonder if I have something using way more power than it should, but I've gone around with the meter and haven't found anything.

Looks like I overestimated household usage a bit.

10k miles is 2k kwh/year. Figure 4k kwh/year for the EVs, up against the 11,040/year for current average usage, you're looking at a 36% increase in electricity usage from the Electronic vehicles.

Given that light bulbs aren't generally a major expense when it comes to electricity, and energy star appliances typically only save 10-20% electricity over non-energy star, I repeat my statement: We NEED additional electricity generation systems, especially if we want to get off of gasoline.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[falzer]

It is.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Firethorn]

Actually situation is likely even more against small turbines, not only is bigger cheaper to build, it is cheaper to maintain.

Getting similar figures can be difficult as well; finding out how much a big turbine will cost can be difficult, while small turbine prices are easier, they're for the turbine only, not including install costs.

I seem to remember the small turbine I looked at costing so much that even applying an assumed production factor of 70% of faceplate, at 5% cost of capital I'd be better off investing and buying electricity at retail with the interest.

Meanwhile, a large turbine seems to install for around $1-2/watt, and only take a couple decades to pay off.

One benefit to having a LARGE turbine next to town is that it'd drop the losses from the power plant a couple hundred miles away.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Firethorn]

Notice I mentioned such analysis when it comes to solar panels?

I use the 100% figure mostly as an example. For one, it's easy to scale.

Due to my using the high end of energy figures, my 22% number is low end. 36% would be closer for a true '100%' replacement.

Still, if you figure on 10% of vehicles being EV, you'd better figure on increasing electricity production 2.2% to cover it.

And when major electricity plants take longer to build than the average car lasts, we need to plan ahead.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

I say we just give people tax breaks for having vasectomies.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Firethorn]

but you may have more cash on hand each month from having a power bill 4x lower.

I'll note that what I was trying to say was that, at some point, adding more insulation doesn't make financial sense.

If you're spending $200 more a month on a 20-30 year note, when you drop your electricity bill by $300, obviously it was worth it.

On the other hand, would it be worth it if you tried to drop it to $0? Probably not, at that point it'd probably cost you another $400/month for that level of improvement.

Lowering your monthly expenses in the form of Capital investments is a good long term strategy.

Very true. But when I'm paying $900 a year to heat my house, $0 to cool it, does it really make sense to put $15k of improvements in to drop my heating bill to $500?

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Shotgun]

I'd like to find a citation that shows that the people who upgrade their plasma screens also improve their insulation. I doubt there is one, because most Americans have not heard squat about insulation. Even something as basic as a double-pane window is rare anywhere but the extremely cold areas.

Well, you should stop watching MTV and VH1 and poke your head out your front door occasionally. People that have to pay their own power bills are all over things like better insulation and double pane windows. Plastic sheeting on windows. Weather stripping. The list is huge. We don't do it to make way for the poor of the world to join us. We do it to try to avoid joining THEM.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[grumpygrodyguy]

The 'average' household uses something around 700-1400 kwh a month.
The 'average' electronic vehicle gets about 5 miles to the kwh, and the average vehicle is driven around 10-15k miles a year.
Don't forget that the average household is 2 cars today.

So, you're looking at probably around a 22% increase in electricity usage if people go to EVs. You just can't reduce energy usage that much via other means, especially when you also have 5% growth in population/households on top of it.

1) Upgrade the power grid (Thankyou Obama)
2) Embrace nuclear (Thankyou Obama)
3) Fund Battery and EV R&D (Thankyou Obama)
4) ...
5) All of the issues you listed are addressed (Thankyou Obama)

This is perfectly within our means, provided big oil and auto makers are unsuccessful at stonewalling these initiatives (which they are desperately trying to do through their mostly Republican congress critters). The auto-industry relies on planned obsolesence, which is much more difficult to hide using simple electric engines that can last for decades.

If Eisenhower could get an interstate system built, there is no reason we can't do this.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[treeves]

He's just saying that because someone had asked him if he'd stopped beating his wife.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Firethorn]

Wow, was mostly just wailing on people who harp *exclusively* on reducing power demand.

This is perfectly within our means, provided big oil and auto makers are unsuccessful at stonewalling these initiatives (which they are desperately trying to do through their mostly Republican congress critters). The auto-industry relies on planned obsolesence, which is much more difficult to hide using simple electric engines that can last for decades.

I agree with the electric motor - the things just shouldn't quit. Might actually help out the custom interior people; cheaper to refurbish the inside than to replace the whole vehicle.

Still got a lot of work to do on the batteries though.

Personally, I love nuclear, agree with fixing up the grid, and think the problems with EVs can be fixed, but I think that most of the work still remains in the lab, not in deployment. IE subsidies aren't going to help as efficienty as research grants.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[miserere nobis]

I might have to dispute your claim about cars somewhat. Remember that the last 20 years includes the shift from the small cars that grew in popularity in the 1980's, and minivans many of which had 4-cylinder motors, to SUV's. Fuel consumption technology may have improved, but I'm not sure actual fuel consumption in the aggregate did, not to mention that there are more miles driven today and more vehicles per capita.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[dwywit]

Funny, that. We're off-grid, 100% PV powered - except for today which is very cloudy, and I have the backup generator on :-(. On a sunny day, I can run 2+ computers, a TV, and the washing machine with energy to spare, i.e. the batteries still reach float voltage. Cloudy days, not so much, but being sunny Queensland, there's not many days like this. You have to learn to adjust your usage to the conditions.

I'd like to know more about PV that's "dye sensitised". Coming from an old-skool photographic background, phrases like "dye sensitised" have me thinking "fades very quickly when exposed to constant sunlight".

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Firethorn]

I actually measured energy usage when I replaced my TV.

Oddly enough, my 32" decade old energy star CRT TV used both less energy total AND per square inch of screen than my brand new 42" Energy Star rated TV.

The only time The CRT used more power is that it used about half a watt when 'off' but plugged in compared to not measurable for the LCD.

Apparently CRTs don't have to use a lot of power.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

If you mean people shouldnt use as much energy then you ought be with the anti growth crowd of whackos. If you mean design and develop tech that requires less but gives better performance than Id say your right. It would behoove you to clarify since you stamp your signature with the Dr. .

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Protongeek]

Dr. Spork is spot on.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[OrangeCatholic]

Sigh. Why don't you guys use Google? How about the first result?

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=eg_use_pcap_kg_oe&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=energy+use+per+capita

This graph shows that American energy use has stayed roughly the same since 1972, and definitely the same since 1988.

In fact, click on the other countries and you'll see a lot of flat lines. Even the world usage is pretty flat. You have to click all over to find countries that are diagonal lines (steady increase) and even fewer have sharp spikes.

I'm guessing population increase is the major culprit in "the fact that it keeps building energy generators".

> I'd like to find a citation that shows that the people who upgrade their plasma screens also improve their insulation.

Refrigerator efficiency has increased threefold since 1972. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld026.htm For a car analogy, we should be getting 45mpg fleet average by that measure. (And we could, since they do make cars like that.)

Re:Decrease, not increase

[OrangeCatholic]

>CRTs max out at around 200 Watts

So do LED's. Here's a 55inch Samsung, 80-190 watts, depending on program source.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/tech/technews/147387/samsung-led-tv-b7000

Maybe you shouldn't buy Sorny. I saw a 120hz Sorny the other day, looked like shit, way too hyperreal (and I've been warned that 120-240hz has this problem, too.)

Re:Decrease, not increase

[OrangeCatholic]

>Lucky I have a wood fireplace.

Burning wood smells terrible. You should try coal (seriously). Lot less maintenance too. A coal furnace will burn for hours unattended. Keeping a fireplace going is like a full-time job.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[OrangeCatholic]

>But when I'm paying $900 a year to heat my house, $0 to cool it, does it really make sense to put $15k of improvements in to drop my heating bill to $500?

Interesting. But keep in mind that people pay a 30-year mortgage to either keep the house or sell it. Either way, the improvements will stay.

Also, heating costs are likely to rise in the short term (remember $4/gal gasoline?) And with an efficient house, you can afford to waste more (i.e. greater comfort).

I'm saying that if you calculate a nearly break-even proposition on a long-term improvement, then you've already calculated that you won't be losing huge sums in the process.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

It's selfish the way many people do it. Meaning kid first, job later.

Even if they do manage to raise the kids successfully, it's a way of thinking that suggests breeding is simply automatic. Like those animals you mentioned.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could move. There are a lot of places in the world that don't require energy to not freeze.

Yeah, but they generally require A/C in order to not roast, so to speak. Its the same problem in reverse.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Eclipse-now]

By supplying the poorer nations of the earth with:
* all the power they need (Integral Fast reactors that eat nuclear waste and could shut down uranium mining for 500 years while the whole world is powered on nuclear reactors eating the waste),
* all the fresh water they need (with nuclear power running desal and powering, my favourite, the Seawater Greenhouse),
* all the nutrition they need (biochar can replenish soils and provide some biofuel energy)
* all the medical and health care and education and family planning they need
... then the populations come down as the demographic transition kicks in.

So the truth may be the inverse of what you say. In order to decrease our babies, we need to increase our energy use.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Firethorn]

Interesting. But keep in mind that people pay a 30-year mortgage to either keep the house or sell it. Either way, the improvements will stay.

The break-even for my example is 37.5 years. Using a simple interest formula I'd pay $750 in interest at 5% to save that $400. It's not break even, it's negative. When energy rates rise again, I'll recalculate.

Basically, if a simple no interest payoff isn't within 12 years, it's not generally that good of a deal. If it's not within 15 years, you're going to have to look hard at it.

I'm saying that if you calculate a nearly break-even proposition on a long-term improvement, then you've already calculated that you won't be losing huge sums in the process.

Which is why I do SOME improvements. My 'no-interest' payoff needs to be within 12 years though. My capital discount rate tends to be 5%

When I build my own house it's unlikely to be a true 'passive', but it should be close.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[eyendall]

It is very easy to get people to decrease the amount of energy they use. You simply increase the price. Taxation can be a great instrument for influencing human behaviour and achieving societal goals. It is common-place to do this with tobacco(punitive taxation) and home ownership in the US (mortgage interest deduction). Why not energy?

Re:Decrease, not increase

[Phoghat]

you are wrong, but still naive

Re:Decrease, not increase

[polar red]

and when gas/oil runs out ? how much will the price for energy be ?

Re:Decrease, not increase

[budgenator]

Over the last two winters here in SE Michigan, I've found that by opening and closing windows drapes at rational times to maximize solar gain has frequently cause my home to be a warm 21C, (72F) while the thermostat was set at 18C (64F). While my home isn't optimized for solar gain or heat retention, I imagine that if it were, my heat energy use would be quite small.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[potat0man]

The problem is that the practical effect of this falls disproportionately on the poor

We can mitigate this with tiered pricing. e.g. Your first X kw/hrs are subsidized below market price. Anything over X is taxed in order to pay the subsidy. Rich people with big houses who pollute more end up subsidizing the frugal energy users who are disciplined enough to keep their energy use down. PSNH already does this at my parent's place in NH.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[atamido]

> I'd like to find a citation that shows that the people who upgrade their plasma screens also improve their insulation.

Refrigerator efficiency has increased threefold since 1972. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld026.htm

It should also be noted that there are often large tax incentives offered to people who upgrade existing equipment/insulation to better levels. And all new homes here are built using double paned windows and other features because otherwise the cooling costs during summer are ridiculously high.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[atamido]

Insulation is a one-time investment

Attic insulation tends to settle, decreasing the size of air pockets, and decreasing efficiency. The solution is usually simply to dump more insulation on top of the old. Granted, this usually only needs to be done every decade or so, but there is a certain amount of upkeep associated with insulation.

Re:Decrease, not increase

[makuabob]

As a technician who actually worked on a large windfarm (Kahuku, Hawaii, with both the HECO turbines & the NASA-Boeing turbine), I can say that you are somewhat deluded IF you think that 100% of the electrons doing work in your home (which you pay for in your electrical bill) come from wind energy. Find out how much power is generated by the ENTIRE grid you are on, then divide that by the amount of wind-generated power provided to that grid. The percentage is what you GET but you (and anyone else who pays extra for wind power) subsidize all others not paying for wind power. Paying extra? That's nice but Chuang-Tsu's writings remind us that 'virtue is consumed by fame.'

ALL wind generated power is co-generated (unless YOU have YOUR wind turbine directly connected to YOUR home), meaning the main grid must be online for wind generators to contribute. They disconnect if the main grid goes down, otherwise they suffer damage trying to produce too much. Wind power is still merely an 'add-on' to the world of electrical power. Some day, maybe, it will have a grid all its own.

where can I buy them?

[LingNoi]

Have this guy's solar cells left the lab yet?

I searched around and the achievement of creating a low cost solar cell is great, but I couldn't find anywhere you can get them from. Since he's been doing this since 1991 (?) I'm guessing they'd have come to market by now.

One site I saw listed it as being 100W m2 but having a price to go along with it would be good for comparison with other solar cells.

Re:where can I buy them?

[afidel]

Not yet, some reports have shown promise in stabilizing the dyes for long term exposure but I don't think there are any commercial cells available yet. Also I'm not sure how much of a panacea they are, according to the articles I can find most of the lab cells use ruthenium and platinum, any solution using trace elements is unlikely to bring a mass scale replacement to our current fuels. That's why I think we need to concentrate on stored energy wind farms and collecting solar/thermal plants, neither require exotic trace materials (some "rare" earths for more efficient magnets, but nothing on a gram/kW scale compared to any of the photovoltaic solutions).

Re:where can I buy them?

[Maury Markowitz]

> Have this guy's solar cells left the lab yet?

In some small applications, yes, but nothing serious. There are several reason:

1) the electrolyte is a liquid. It loses efficiency in cold weather, and eventually stops working.

2) well before that limit, expansion and contraction is a serious issue and large-scale structures have problems with sealing and leakage.

3) the electrolyte dissolves silver. It can be used for small-scale systems where the cost of platinum is not a major factor compared to construction costs, but for large low-cost solutions silver is the only practical solution.

4) the solvents used to mix the dye with the TiO degrade plastics.

None of these is unsolvable. It just needs another decade of work. I install mSi panels now, I suspect I will be installing DSSCs in 15 years.

Maury

Re:where can I buy them?

[StoneOldman79]

According to the article the price was won because of the excellent price/performance ratio
This probably means the raw materials are not that expensive and thus relatively easy to come by..

Re:where can I buy them?

[SharpFang]

Look up some prior /. stories. There are some new inexpensive solar cells in production and sale already.
The problem is the factory is booked solid with 100% of production already pre-sold up to 5 years ahead. Big companies made multimillion dollar orders and currently the loans have to be paid off before more factories are built.

Re:where can I buy them?

[karnal]

Well the point others are trying to make is that if you suddenly ramp up demand for a somewhat rare material that just happens to be cheap today because no one is utilizing it, you'll see a jump in price corresponding to the jump in demand. It could be huge if the demand outstrips the ability to actually acquire the material quickly.

Re:where can I buy them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there's a lot of work on replacing rhuthenium (expensive metal) with cheaper organic dyes, and moving to solid electrolytes.

Recently, about 9% was achieved with an organic dye, solid state DSSC.

Seems pretty scalable too, as you can attach the dyes to the TiO2 just by soaking, and a lot of people have been able to build a solid hole transport material electrochemically, so it's pretty much dip in a solution and apply a voltage, you don't have to worry about spin-coating or other processing techniques.

The BIG thing they need to do is find an indium replacement for the ITO electrodes. A lot of people use F:SnO2 (fluorine doped tin oxide), but AZO (aluminum-doped zinc oxide) and Nb:TiO2 (niobium doped titanium oxide) are other promising materials.

Here's a source to support that claim.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cm9036988

Re:where can I buy them?

[Dyesol Kid]

Visit Dyesol.ws

Under Milestones and in News you will find that Corus Colors (Tata) and Dyesol start
reasonable production runs of solar cells that look like normal coated/painted roofing
panels over the next couple of weeks.

Timo/Dyesol also are supposed to start producing facade glass that generates electricity
soon

There are no problems with the current process but Dyesol has formed a partnership with
MERK KGaA / EMD to produce even better electrolytes , and with CSIRO to produce even
more cheaper efficient Dyes over an even wider spectrum.

The Dyesol Kid
http://www.dyesol.ws/

The Berry Cell

[kcelery]

http://nnin.unm.edu/lesson13.pdf

The interesting part of the Graetzel is that one can use the dye in berry to make
the cell. Interesting and tasty.

Re:The Berry Cell

[kcelery]

http://teachers.usd497.org/agleue/Gratzel_solar_cell%20assets/instructions%20for%20making%20the%20gratzel%20cell.htm

efficiency factor

[ahaubold]

Sadly the Grätzel cells failed to achieve a proper efficiency factor yet. 11% is far behind the factor it's silicon based or semiconductor siblings achieve. But I do not want do devalue the achievement of Michael Grätzel and his team(s). He deserved that prize.

Re:efficiency factor

[Maury Markowitz]

It's far less than 11% in production, closer to 7 to 8. That's not terrible compared to other thin-film approaches however.

Maury

Re:efficiency factor

[confused one]

And still, that's only in a lab. More like 6 to 7. Also, the dye breaks down with continued exposure to UV and high temperatures.

Re:efficiency factor

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if we could harness the energy people put into useless apostrophes in possessive pronouns, the world's energy problems would be solved.

Why are they rewarding failure?

[Rogerborg]

There's a market crying out for efficient photovoltaic cells. If Graetzel's cells did what he claimed, then he'd already be swimming in the gold moat surrounding his platinum castle. Enough with rewarding promising looking theory: it's time to amp up or GTFO.

Re:Why are they rewarding failure?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a market crying out for efficient photovoltaic cells. If Graetzel's cells did what he claimed, then he'd already be swimming in the gold moat surrounding his platinum castle. Enough with rewarding promising looking theory: it's time to amp up or GTFO.

Promising.. well yes actually. And amping up.. Well that is what they are doing! Merck, CSIRO, Pilkington, Corus (British Steel)

This announced today.

"Dyesol and Pilkington NA Form Joint Venture – DyeTec Solar
The collaboration between Dyesol Inc., (DYE) and Pilkington North America (PNA) has resulted in the formation of a new company, DyeTec Solar (DTS). PNA is part of the NSG Group (NSG), one of the world’s largest manufacturers of glass and glazing products for the building, automotive and specialty glass markets and the leading supplier of Transparent Conductive Oxide (TCO) glass, and Dyesol is recognized as the world leader in dye solar cell (DSC) products and technology. DTS will be located in Toledo OH, near PNA’s corporate R&D centre.

DTS will develop and deliver the Standard Technology Platform (STP) solution for mass manufacture of BIPV (Building Integrated Photovoltaics), AIPV (Automotive Integrated Photovoltaics), as well as interior PV generating glass based products, powered displays and security devices. The STP is a configurable manufacturing equipment set and related processes that are designed to leverage optimised TCO and DSC materials from PNA and Dyesol, respectively, and enable downstream suppliers in the global glass market to mass manufacture, high performing DSC – TCO glass based products.

Marc Thomas, Dyesol Inc.’s chief executive officer states, “It is rare opportunity to participate in a partnership where our corporate interests are so well aligned and focused”. DTS will leverage PNA and Dyesol’s long established R&D and manufacturing resources which represent thousands of man years of expertise in glass, TCO and DSC.”

BIPV represents the single largest market for DSC and TCO products, followed closely by AIPV. DTS will collaborate and assist companies globally, including existing customers and routes to market, to capture a significant share of the nearly 50 million tons of flat glass produced annually, of which 90% is used in buildings. Where most photovoltaic technologies work well while facing the sun, DSC based products allow all sides of a building to be electrically productive, and capable of producing power all day, every day, even in less than ideal conditions."

Not Either/Or

[neoshroom]

I still think we should decrease our per-capita energy usage and invent new ways to increase its production.

Dr. Wenka Gumi

Finland pays again

[ultranova]

As a Finnish taxpayer, I'm happy that my government is once again giving my tax money to foreigners, rather than keeping Finnish hospitals going. No, really, I'm sure that photovoltaic cells will do a lot of good to us here in the Arctic Circle where the Sun shines a few hours a day most of the year. Really, it's better to spend money on useless shit like this than to treat rheumatic children.

Re:Finland pays again

[captainpanic]

As a Finnish taxpayer, I'm happy that my government is once again giving my tax money to foreigners, rather than keeping Finnish hospitals going. No, really, I'm sure that photovoltaic cells will do a lot of good to us here in the Arctic Circle where the Sun shines a few hours a day most of the year. Really, it's better to spend money on useless shit like this than to treat rheumatic children.

Your government has spent loads to subsidize innovation. The Espoo campus (near Helsinki) is brand new, and produces a lot of knowledge which in turn keeps the Finnish knowledge-economy running. Finland is doing quite well because of these investments (it attracts companies).

However, science is an international effort, and it's only fair to award a prize to whoever is the best... And why wouldn't you have some research on solar cells in Finland? It's not like you are actually investing in the production and implementation. It's just research. You can do solar cell research in the basement or any other place where the sun never shines, as long as you have the right equipment.

Of course, healthcare is important. Finnish healthcare is among the best in the world... and already heavily subsidized. Perhaps you found that 1 single example where something went wrong, but the tone of your reply is in contrast with the Finnish reality.

Re:Finland pays again

[marsu_k]

Oh FFS, I'm a Finn and I really don't have any problem with this. In the summary you'll find the price is "Finnish state and industry-funded". And the price is biannual, 400k€ annually is not really that much for the state, even if it were completely "my tax money".

Re:Finland pays again

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Finnish taxpayer, I'm happy that my government is once again giving my tax money to foreigners, rather than keeping Finnish hospitals going. No, really, I'm sure that photovoltaic cells will do a lot of good to us here in the Arctic Circle where the Sun shines a few hours a day most of the year. Really, it's better to spend money on useless shit like this than to treat rheumatic children.

Yes. Well, not really.

The good thing about government is that they can do (i.e. fund) more than one thing at a time. You're complaining about them funding A and not B. My argument is that they should fund both A and B, but go cut C.

Scientific research is important to the long-term survival of our species.

Proper medical assistance for our species is important to the short-term growth of our species.

If you cut a few million from:

a. Your foreign affairs department
b. Your ministry of finance

Or any other of your state-run departments, you can do both A and B quite easily.

Re:Finland pays again

[Anonymous Coward]

As a non-Finnish paying taxes in Finland I think you are looking too little through the windows. Half of the year sun shines too little and the other half too much. Right now we get 19h of daylight in southern Finland and 24h in the north.

Re:Finland pays again

[Maury Markowitz]

> Sun shines a few hours a day most of the year

And 24 hours a day for others. Sure, it's not California, but if we can get a 1/2 reduction in price (totally doable) then it's perfectly economical even in Finland. In the meantime, you need to build infrastructure.

Maury

Re:Finland pays again

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you'd like to change your sig then.

Re:Finland pays again

[Anonymous Coward]

With better investments in science, we might not have need for hospitals for rheumatic children or anyone else. A lot of people die yearly because of air pollution, so this invention can actually save a lot of lives.

Re:Finland pays again

[Ogive17]

If these solar cells end up being cheap enough I would imagine them being worth the cost even in a location that doesn't get intense sunlight most of the year. Put them on mobile stands and once summer is over, store them in the shed.

Re:Finland pays again

[sznupi]

As a Finnish citizen, I guess you're happy with focus on R&D at your place resulting in, say, a company like Nokia contributing quite decent portion of your GDP (maybe even that one contribution covers ongoing gov funding of R&D?). BTW, I'm not sure about this - is Nokia allowed to sell anything at all outside the Finnish borders?

If yes, that could maybe work for solar cells, too... (nvm that I was under the impression of daylight in the Arctic Circle still averaging close to 12h throughout the year, the summer time kinda improving the stats)

PS. While seeing that there is always a place for improvement and striving for it, you might also remember that you place seems to do pretty damn well in healthcare alredy; when looking at bigger picture.

Re:Finland pays again

[ErikZ]

"Sure, it's not California, but if we can get a 1/2 reduction in price (totally doable)..."

Hey, our budgets received an enormous amount of money from oil and gas. Now that we get the majority of our power from solar, our budgets are trashed. What do we do?

I know! Heavily tax power generated from solar cells! And solar cell production!

It's the government that's making your energy so expensive.

Re:Finland pays again

[Anonymous Coward]

If anthocyanin can really be used as the dye instead of some expensive Ruthenium complex, it's not as if Finland has a lack of blueberries..

Re:Finland pays again

[HeckRuler]

Well for what it's worth, the rest of the world that needs this sort of thing appreciates it.

Re:Finland pays again

[Just Some Guy]

No, really, I'm sure that photovoltaic cells will do a lot of good to us here in the Arctic Circle where the Sun shines a few hours a day most of the year. Really, it's better to spend money on useless shit like this than to treat rheumatic children.

You're a shortsighted dumbass. There's no other way I can put it. If my country could invest a billion dollars to make North and South Korea get along, I'd vote for it in a heartbeat. Your country is investing a thousandth that to make every place south of you a little saner and you're whining? Finland is part of the world, and spending a rounding-error amount to make that world a nicer place to live seems like a reasonable idea.

Re:Finland pays again

[Firethorn]

Personally, my calculations point out to needing more a 75-80% reduction in price to break even for most people.

Part of the problem is that ancillary equipment alone tends to run you $1-2 per watt.

The inverter, wiring, mounts to hook the panels to a roof, to name the primary ones.

Now, as with anything, as you drop the price, it becomes more economical to more people. First to people in remote areas not hooked to the grid, then to people in southern climates coupled with high electricity costs(california, for example). Then you work your way down. North Dakota, combining cheap electricity with high energy usage being concentrated in the months with the least solar energy, not so much.

A true, efficient, national grid would help, but it's like the England study.

It would actually be cheaper and more efficient to run a set of high voltage cables to Africa, rent some land, and put the solar panels in plants there, then to put them on roofs in England.

North Dakota would be better off renting land in Nevada and running some long power lines... But then, realistically we're back to 'upgrade the national grid' and go national with distribution.

Re:Finland pays again

[Anonymous Coward]

Helps with that "lets stop making babies" problem! /silverlining

Re:Finland pays again

[Maury Markowitz]

> The inverter, wiring, mounts to hook the panels to a roof, to name the primary ones.

Panels are 2.30 wholesale in skid quantities.
Inverters are around 65 cents.
Everything else put together is another 50 cents or so.

Panels are, by far, the majority of the material costs. Depending on where you are, overhead and installation is another 25 to 100% of material costs.

> North Dakota would be better off renting land in Nevada and running some long power lines

No way, ND has excellent sunlight. Best-case production in NV is ~6 peak hours on average over the year, ND is ~4.5. You get the same amount of sunlight as the upper half of California.

But if you want to run lines, run them north. SaskPower is sitting on multiple GW of hydro that they haven't developed because they don't have anyone to sell it to. 24 hours, 365 days, and a lot closer than NV!

Maury

Re:Finland pays again

[Firethorn]

Inverters are around 65 cents.
Everything else put together is another 50 cents or so.

And what did I say? Ancillary costs like 'inverter, wiring, and mounts' run $1-2? .65+.50=$1.15, or a third of total equipment costs. $2/watt probably includes some install work.

Yes, panels are the most expensive part of the install. My point was that even if the panels are free that you're looking at quite a long payback.

1 watt of panel, 30% capacity factor('Pretty Sunny' area), will produce around 2.6 kwh a year.

I pay around 10 cents a kwh. So that's 26 cents worth of electricity. If the install ends up costing $3.45/watt, that's 13 years without interest or cost of capital. I generally don't go for anything less than 12, preferably 10.

No way, ND has excellent sunlight. Best-case production in NV is ~6 peak hours on average over the year, ND is ~4.5. You get the same amount of sunlight as the upper half of California.

So I'd get ~75% of the power installing it at home. 25% more power can pay for a lot of power line.

SaskPower is sitting on multiple GW of hydro that they haven't developed because they don't have anyone to sell it to. 24 hours, 365 days, and a lot closer than NV!

Even better, but I was pointing out some of the interesting things about solar.

Besides, NV would be producing more power, proportionally, in the wintertime than ND, which is when we need the juice. We don't have significant AC costs. Meanwhile, the increased power production in the summer, when ND doesn't need it, can be used to power AC systems in the south.

Apparently, right here

[ishmalius]

http://www.dyesol.com/ . It's not often that you see a tech announcement that is realized so soon, but this seems to be real.

More Education, More Energy

[bill_mcgonigle]

In order to decrease our use of energy, or atleast to have any chance of doing it at all, we need to stop making babies.

The only proven way to do this reliably is with education. To get people educated, they require an above-subsistence level of prosperity first. To get there, they must harness energy.

We have plenty of energy. From solar to wind to hydro to nuclear (plus efficiency gains), there's no reason to not increase our total energy usage. Just responsibly getting rid of our nuclear waste would provide enough energy for the entire world's population for a century.

Get every person on the planet out of poverty by expending tremendous amounts of energy, and the population will start to decrease. Look at Europe - Italy has towns paying people to move there, the whole country is reproducing below the replacement rate.

Do the right thing and the system will properly equalize. Continue to treat poor people as livestock and things will turn out badly.

And save the CO2 sources for the next ice age.

BBC Articel

[claude64]

here more about grazel-cell http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10276652.stm

Millennium Technology Prize.?

[rossdee]

What Millennium are we talking about? The previous Millennium ended nearly 9 and a half years ago (31st Dec 2000), the current Millennium has still over 990 years to run.

Or do the Finns use some other calendar?

Re: Millennium Technology Prize.?

[Ornedan]

It was named by a marketroid, as big business-related things usually are.

A prize for "someday maybe"?

[wealthychef]

So they won a huge price because their invention "could be a significant contributor to the future energy technologies ". OK, so when does this happen again?

one hundred times

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand it, Dr. Hansen says that, in order to stop AGW, we need to reduce global carbon output to, what is it, 10% of 1990 levels?
In the next few decades, several billion additional people are going to be climbing the economic ladder to western standards of living.
That's several times as many people as were using most of the energy in 1990.

To get to the goal, you're not looking at a 10% problem, or a 50% problem, or even a 90% problem.
West^H^H^H^H Human civilization will have to reduce its carbon output on the order of 100 times.

Repeat after me: ONE HUNDRED TIMES.

We're not going to get to that by wearing sweaters indoors, building potemkin wind farms, and changing lightbulbs. That's like trying to land a man on the moon by making incremental improvements to the altitude ceiling of a piper cub: it just. wont. work.

It's going to take a total shift in energy production: radical breakthroughs in solar + energy storage, or widespread adoption of nuclear thorium, or possibly wind + a radical breakthrough in energy storage, or somebody gets fusion working. Whatever it is will have to be substantially cheaper than coal, so that China, India, and everyone else are economically incentivized to replace their existing coal plants with the new source. Political incentives are not going to work, given the money that's involved. It will have to be cheaper to upgrade to a mass produced thorium power plant than to continue to operate your coal or gas fired plant for the next 5 or 10 years, or they won't do it, and the earth will burn.

So stop touting conservation as a cure-all. The only way to conserve 99% of the energy we use would be for 98% of us to die.

Mine ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And maybe yours too - but I wouldn't bet on the average joe or jane sacrificing "their future" for "the future" ... http://www.vhemt.org/

Yes, my parents are horridly disappointed - just as well it's not their decision to make.

Graetzel cells?

[arisvega]

I call them 'Hawking cells'