Slashdot Mirror
Solar Panel Breaks "Third of a Sun" Efficiency Barrier
Zothecula writes "Embattled photovoltaic solar power manufacturer Amonix announced on Tuesday that it has broken the solar module efficiency record, becoming the first manufacturer to convert more than a third of incoming light energy into electricity – a goal once branded 'one third of a sun' in a Department of Energy initiative. The Amonix module clocked an efficiency rating of 33.5 percent."
According to wiki this happened in July. Also, for info, they have received over 180 million dollars in grants from the government, and closed their las vegas plant in order to "focus on international opportunities".
From the article: "The solar module efficiency is the efficiency of the panel, and not the same as the efficiency of individual solar cells from which it's comprised. At the moment, solar cell efficiency can just exceed 43 percent for concentrated systems. It's the module efficiency, however, which reflects the amount of electricity a PV system can produce."
Does anyone have any confidence that the AC who wrote that statement knows what "margin of error" actually means?
You are welcome on my lawn.
If you include external costs, it's a lot closer than you think.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If you include external costs, it's a lot closer than you think.
Go on. Show me the mone...maths!
That's just about where the miracles stop reliably. You may or may not find some special cases in which those actually make sense (given that we're talking about concentrated solar and 2-axis drives are mandatory, those cases become even more special), but at large scale it's just not worth it - even without considering the need to store the energy, so you have it when you need it.
Every 6 months on Slashdot we read about higher efficiency solar panels. Virtually none of them are available on the market, and if they are, they're only available to large-scale commercial installations. Right now, the best you can do retail is about 20%; some panels are barely 10%.
A condition for any prize should be "available in half-dozen quantities to individual purchasers."
The best return on investment remains solar hot water - we're talking an order of magnitude in efficiency per area between common solar panels and evacuated-tube hot water collectors. We waste enormous amounts of energy heating hot water and heating homes...
We'd also save billions of dollars if we stopped selling clothes dryers that are hideously inefficiency; elsewhere in the world condensing dryers are the norm and in some cases dry clothes faster.
Please help metamoderate.
Unfortunately, this is a concentrated light solution. This means that the figures quoted for efficiency are in the presence of direct sunlight. However, this is only a proportion of energy generated from PV modules, hence the "efficacy" and therefore, total energy production, of concentrated solar solutions is less good than unconcentrated modules.
The reason comes from diffuse sunlight - light that has been diffused by the atmosphere or by clouds. This typically accounts for 10% of module illumination in direct sunlight, and much higher in the presence of atmospheric haze/cloud; even in lightly overcast conditions, you can expect unconcentrated PV to yield approx 10-15% of direct illumination yield because of the diffuse illuminance.
Diffuse light cannot be concentrated by optics, thus concentrated solar PV modules cannot utilise the diffuse light (more precisely, they can utilise it, but not concentrate it - thus if the system uses a 10:1 concentration, then the energy yield from diffuse illumination falls from 10-15% to 1-1.5%).
A boost from 30 to 33% efficiency by switching to concentrating modules could be completely wiped out by the loss of diffuse yield, even in direct sunlight. In non-direct sunlight, hazy or cloudy conditions, the yield can be reduced much more severely; resulting in a net reduction in productivity, despite the higher nameplate efficiency.
This technology is most suited to areas with the most intense direct illumination; e.g. dry areas, at low latitudes (where the role of diffuse light is diminished in proportion).
Nuclear power plant are also difficult to build from stuff that you can find on the market, and they are only available to large-scale commercial installations.
I think the prevalence of gas-powered dryers is a reason the U.S. still uses more inefficient dryers, because the fuel (natural gas) is fairly cheap, and much cheaper than with the electric-powered dryers that are prevalent in parts of Europe. So there's less economic incentive to improve efficiency.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It was new, purpose built, so had some obvious advantages, but what I took away from it was:
Obviously location and climate matter, but at the end of the day it was a viable and practical option, and one that made economic sense as well.
Sooner or later some bright government will figure out that by heavily subsidizing the installation of solar in homes they'll a) Develop a very viable industry b) drop solar costs due to volume c) get relected because everyone's electric bills will drop d) boost the economy because the money that was going to the electric company can be spent elsewhere. Now, I'm still a fan of hydroelectricity - if you need to generate electrical without generating CO2 and pollution, and without the no-nukes crowd at your door, there isn't a better way to go.
Three Squirrels
At this stage cost a more important factor than efficiency. We have vast amounts of unused space that could be covered in solar PV panels, but the fact that it takes years to recover the investment of thousands of Euros/Dollars is holding back adoption.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
For almost any new building it is worth covering the roof with solar PV. It might take 10-15 years to recover the cost, but then it is all profit. The savings are even bigger if you combine PV with solar heating. Installation is cheaper at the time of construction and the cost is a small fraction of the roof budget, let alone the cost of the whole building. If you are taking a mortgage then the cash from feed-in tariffs will more than cover the extra cost of the panels on your monthly payment.
Note: Based in building in the UK, further south it makes even more sense.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It looks like I can buy solar modules for a minimum cost of $1/Watt.
Assume an energy cost of $0.1/kWh. Assume an average of 12 hours of sunlight per day and a 50% of maximum average intensity.
$0.1/kWh * 1 year / 12 * 50% * 12 hours/24 hours = $0.01826
The monthly value that a solar cell generates is $0.01826/watt month.
Assume a yearly interest rate of 5% (monthly is 0.4074%)
Since the cost of a solar cell is $1/watt, work out the number of months that a 1W solar cell must run for to generate $1.
PV = A/i (1-1/(1+i)^n)
PV = $1, A = $0.01826, i = 0.004074
n = 62 months = 5.17 years
The warranty on the reference cell is 10 years product workmanship, 25 years linear power.
So the value of the cell over its 25-year life span is $3.15/watt, with a cost of $1/watt.
This all neglects installation and grid-tie costs, but 50% average illumination per daylight-hour is conservative in most areas. Solar cells ARE worthwhile TODAY and WITHOUT government subsidies.
Efficiencies in solar cells are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the $/Watt.
Reference Solar Cell: http://www.affordable-solar.com/store/solar-panels/CSI-CS6P-245P-245W-Solar-Panel-STD-Frame
What is the "life expectancy" of PVs?
There are 2 kinds of people in this world: Those who write in decimal and those who don't
I'd say it is 80% certain that he does not, with 2 sigma confidence
I am concerned about the long term effects of taking all that power from the Sun. How long before it starts to shine less, or doesn't keep us in orbit anymore. The whole idea of endangering the longevity of the Sun gives me shivers. Think of our children!
typically 30 years with 80-90% of the original efficiency, less if you live in a hurricane / tornado prone region.
If anyone reads the article carefully...
They state in the article that individual cells can already reach 43% efficiency - which matches the top end of that chart.
The overall efficiency of the PANEL (made up of many cells) is lower though. This 33% is the record for the efficiency of the PANEL as a whole, not for the individual cells.
25 years for reasonable ones. Of course by the time they wear out you will be able to replace them cheaply as you already have the mounting hardware and electrical infrastructure.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Honestly, it'd probably be much easier just making a HUGE ass magnifying glass in space
Magnifying glass? Are you insane? A thin silver-covered mylar mirror is much lighter than that.
Ezekiel 23:20
Concentrated cells tend to wear out much more quickly. They get much hotter, and junction heat is what determines the life of any semiconductor.
http://ths.gardenweb.com/faq/lists/laundry/2004120958010854.html
"All else being equal (i.e. not including household heating/cooling issues), condenser dryers are slightly less efficient than their vented counterparts, typically on the order of ~15%. The real design intent of condenser dryers isn't improved efficiency, but the simple fact that they don't require a vent duct, permitting easy installation most anywhere (ideal for apartment dwellers, etc). "
A gas dryer is going to be much more energy efficient than an electric dryer considering that ALL the heat generated from the flame enters the tumbler. Typical power plants can only transmit up to ~40%% of the heat from their power source to the dryer heater coils.
Min energy eff electric: 3.01 lb/kWh
Min energy eff gas: 2.67 lb/kWh
Electric is 12% more efficient at point of use
Total heat efficiency including power generation:
3.01 * 40% = 1.2
2.67 * 100% = 2.67
most efficient setup would be an external venting gas dryer in a unheated space like a basement or garage since you would not be adding load to an HVAC system.
Solar cells and silicone sealant share the same property: we have no idea how long they're good for.
Originally silicone cement had a 3 year warranty. Then none failed and they made it 10. Now it's 30. I have aquariums that are forty years old that have just a microscopically thin lawyer of silicone holding hundreds of gallons of water in a glass box. We have no idea how long the stuff will last, it could be a hundred years or more for all we know.
Solar panels started being deployed in the 70s. They all still work and were expected to give 10 years service. To be sure, efficiency diminishes over time, but that's a secondary consideration to the fact newer panels are much more efficient. Somebody can use those old panels though.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Why not cite NREL's official and current chart? http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/images/efficiency_chart.jpg
While they may have hit a new record for overall efficiency, any sort of concentrator photovoltaics require sun tracking, significantly increasing initial system and maintenance costs.
It actually continues to work for you even after you leave. Adding renewable energy generation and high efficiency heating/cooling (geothermal) to your home increases your property value, which gives you the option to do the same again, or buy one with the work already done.
I believe they're referring to total energy of the sunlight itself. I think sunlight is an average of like 2000W per square meter or something.
This is true. They've used too much solar power and now in some parts of northern scandinavia there is darkness for 3 months of the year.
Not really... the point he was making is that the energy is there to be collected, and once the system is installed the maintenance costs are negligible. Many solar installations don't need any maintenance at all beyond keeping the panels clean.
The initial installation costs a lot of money (which is becoming less and less every year), but you can sell any extra electricity you produce back into the grid, and the reduction in your monthly electric bill should be significant enough to make it worth considering. In most cases, the reduction in your bill will be more than enough to cover the cost of the loan to have the panels installed in the first place, and in some cases you'll find yourself in a position where the power company is paying you each month.
Average capacity factor for solar in the U.S. is about 0.145. That is, a 100 Watt nominal panel will on average generate 14.5 Watts throughout the year after factoring in everything - night, weather, angle of the sun, etc. In the desert Southwest it's about 0.18 (0.195 in extreme desert regions), but for the country overall it's about 0.145. The NREL assumes a capacity factor of 0.17 for PV installations in the U.S., which are predominantly in the desert Southwest.
Your quick "12 hours a day, 50% max average" assumes a capacity factor of 0.25. Almost twice the actual value.
Correct for this in the rest of your math and you get n = 120, or 10 years payback. That sounds about right as the test cases I've calculated usually wind up between 7 and 15 years.
This shouldn't really matter, as any unrealized value of the PV panels would presumably be recouped by increased resale price of the house.
The hang-up is up-front costs. The average home in the U.S. uses 11,500 kWh in a year. So at a constant power draw that's 1311 Watts. Factor in PV solar's average capacity factor o 0.145 and that means you need 9050 Watts of nameplate capacity installed to (on average) zero out your electricity bill (in reality it's a bit less because peak electric prices are during the middle of the day when nobody's home but the panels are generating the most).
If panels are $1/Watt, that's a $9k up-front cost the homeowner has to pay, plus several thousand more for installation, mounting, inverters and regulation, etc. That's simply out of the reach of most homeowners unless they can somehow roll it in with their mortgage.
Most PV installations have some space restriction. A collector that harvests more energy per area will produce more watts per $ provided that the cost of manufacture doesn't rise by more than the increase in efficiency. Prototypes don't have that constraint. Moving from prototype to mass production deserves a prize of its own; fortunately the Phonecians invented just such a prize many years ago.
You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
You are at least 5 years out of date with that information. Traditional condensing dryers are obsolete, modern ones use heat pumps and are vastly more efficient than vented dryers.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
That's simply not true.
I was looking to reduce my electricity usage, so I bought myself a decent clothes rack, and stopped using the dryer. But then I actually purchased a meter and measured the power usage of my dryer and calculated that it would take me five years to pay back the $50 I spent on the clothes rack. The amount of power the dryer used was utterly insignificant in the scheme of things. However, since then my dryer broke down, and I've never bothered to buy a new one, because the clothes rack does a good enough job. (It helps living somewhere with low humidity, and lots of sun).
Maybe if you have a large family, and are running the dryer nearly every day then hanging the clothes out would make a difference, but otherwise you're probably better off looking for other places to save energy first.
Is it clearly cheaper for you in terms of net present value over the long term, or just in absolute outlay of cash?
I don't mean to imply that it's not, I'm just genuinely curious about your situation and if it still holds.
(I suspect that 315% over 25-years is much smaller return than what you'd get from stock market growth).
Stock market growth roughly matches GDP growth in the country. If you think the country's output is going to grow more than 315% in the next 25 years, then that's a good bet.
Looking at the future from the way things stand right now, we're in for a rocky few years at least. It is not at all a sure bet that we will manage to get a 315% return over that period, and the stock market could drop more as baby boomers remove their money from the market. Plan accordingly.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Actually, while solar cells have an extremely long lifetime, solar modules are much more short lived. Many of the panels deployed in the 70s failed after only a few years. The main reason is that the electrical connections must survive thermal cycling. Thermal cycling also can cause delamination of materials (for example the front glass and the Si wafers). Once the module is damaged, corrosion can continue to further degrade the panel. Modern panels have more engineering to prevent module level failure, but it simply isn't practical to do accelerated testing of panels for more than ~25 yrs equivalent.
Given that most of the failure is due to thermal cycling and CPV systems get significantly hotter each day, I would expect that designing CPV systems to last for 30+ years would be a difficult problem. At 500 suns and 40% cell efficiency, that's 30W/cm^2 that must be continuously passively dissipated.
because western europe has a culture rife with insecurity and individual powerlessness. This breeds passive aggressive behavior such as this. Unfortunately this crap is breeding here in america too.
Why guesstimate solar production? Use NREL's PVWatts application: http://gisatnrel.nrel.gov/PVWatts_Viewer/index.html
Click on your city. Click 'send to pvwatts'. Enter the solar system size in kW (default is 4.0). Click calculate.
Depends a great deal of where you live, of course, because energy prices and solar radiation vary quite a bit across the USA.
That can't be true. Lawyers are made of 'poxy.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The hang-up is up-front costs. The average home in the U.S. uses 11,500 kWh in a year. So at a constant power draw that's 1311 Watts. Factor in PV solar's average capacity factor o 0.145 and that means you need 9050 Watts of nameplate capacity installed to (on average) zero out your electricity bill (in reality it's a bit less because peak electric prices are during the middle of the day when nobody's home but the panels are generating the most).
In my region of California, residential electricity costs are tiered, with Tier 3 (starting at 418kWh/month, or about half of the average you stated above) breaking 24 cents per kWh, and continuing to Tier 5, still less than the monthly average usage you quoted, running over 32 cents per kWh.
Any renewable energy system that can take kWh off the top of that stack will pay for itself in very short order around here.
Okay so current panel I bought for $1080 with mounting appears to be producing about $3 of electricity per month. I'll get a $300 credit on my taxes this year.
It's simple and I just plugged it into an out let and my "kilometer" shows it's producing power.
But $700/$36 = 19 years.
It will probably break before it reaches break even.
However--- if electrical power doubles like it has since the 1980's (5 c/pkwh vs 10cpkwh)
Then it would pay off it about 12 to 15 years.
Solar isn't "there" yet.
And the panel went up from $1080 to $1280 after I purchased it.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Maybe not for you.
Most states have more expensive electricity than $0.10/kWh.
Also, most people who have solar go on a time-of-use rate where they can sell back power in the day when electricity is worth more and then buy it back at night when it is cheaper.
My array will pay back in about 9 years. Less with the tax rebate. And it cost less than $1280/panel installed even before rebates.
When did you measure the panel? Even at $0.10/kWh it should make a little bit more power than that during the summer. My panels are making about 800Wh a day a piece right now and the days are very short at the moment. They make nearly double this much during the summer months.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Christ, I love it when people with zero actual experience with things dump on those things just because it makes them feel good.
Materials price:
Been dropping FAST for about three years.
Install cost:
What? You mean the cost of paying an installer? Or the cost of DIY? Neither is high.
Batteries suck:
"Batteries never die, they're always murdered". Mine are 22 years old and test the same as when new. Why? Because I don't try to fuck them like a big pile of lead-acid bitches.
Motivation:
WTF? Either you want to, or you have to, or you don't. I had to. And I wanted to. You? Guess not.
Home built panels:
Almost "why bother?", considering how inexpensive the commercial models have become.
Hail:
Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously? You do know regular commercial brands are warranted up to golf-ball sized hail? In one insurance claim, an entire RV was written-off due to tornado hail damage. The only thing salvageable? The PV array. It was undamaged.
Listen, there's a whole World of shit I know nothing about. So, what I don't so is talk about that shit as if I'm a fucking expert on the subject. Because I'll just look like a cunt if I do. Give it a try.
Almost "why bother?", considering how inexpensive the commercial models have become.
Even with gov't subsidies, you are looking at a 15 year ROI - you think that is why bother?
OK, some more math
http://www.topten.info/uploads/File/040_Rita_Werle_final_driers.pdf
efficiency of heat pump condensing dryer
best in market (according to report)
0.23 kWh/kg = 8.15lb/kWh
worst in market
0.4 kWh/kg = 5.5lb/kWh
Euro A grade requirement
0.48 kWh/kg = 4.58lb/kWh
efficiency of power generation facilities
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/pdf/table5.3.pdf
natural gas = 3412/8185=41.7%
coal = 3412/10415=32.8% (roughly same as nuke plant)
distribution losses
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.LOSS.ZS
US=6%
heat energy delivered to home
natural gas = 41.7%*94%= 39.2%
coal = 32.8%*94%=30.8%
heat pump condensing dryer total efficiency based on power plant fuel source
gas @ 8.15 = 3.19lb/kWh
gas @ 5.5 = 2.16lb/kWh
gas @ 4.58 = 1.8lb/kWh
coal @ 8.15 = 2.51lb/kWh
coal @ 5.5 = 1.69lb/kWh
coal @ 4.58 = 1.41lb/kWh
heat pump condensing dryer ranges in efficiency from 1.44-3.19lb/kWh
http://aceee.org/files/proceedings/2010/data/papers/2206.pdf
gas venting dryer ranges in efficiency from 2.67-3.02lb/kWh
heat pump condensing dryers are marginally more efficient at the very high end with larger min/max range.
from same aceee.org report...
"Analysis by the UK Market Transformation Programme has reached a similar
conclusion: “In the UK, gas-heated tumble driers offer a simple and relatively cheap way to dry
laundry with a carbon efficiency that matches the more expensive and highly efficient
electrically powered heat pump driers” [Market Transformation Programme, 2007].
If the conventional natural gas dryer was further improved with modulating burner
technology, it is expected it would be superior to a heat pump dryer on a CO2, source energy
BTUs, and energy cost basis, while also offering faster drying times and a lower purchase price."
But keeping the panels clean, and replacing them, IS a maintenance cost, as are the replacement of other electrical components and service due to occasional damage. Maintenance costs AREN'T zero and the product has a finite lifetime. There is no such thing as a price per watt of 0 unless you are willing to ignore some of your costs. There are fixed costs and recurring costs and while the recurring cost per watt is 0, the fixed costs are still prohibitive.
Selling excess production back to grid isn't making anyone anything.
Finally:
"In most cases, the reduction in your bill will be more than enough to cover the cost of the loan to have the panels installed in the first place, and in some cases you'll find yourself in a position where the power company is paying you each month."
That proves either your ignorance or your dishonesty, or both.
"Batteries never die, they're always murdered".
Ah ha ha ha, love that quote.
At work (railway) we had a location drawing ~200mA that we had to move about 500 meters. Somewhere along the lines, nobody bothered to order a new power drop and the old one had to be removed to make room for something else. We were promised a power connection within a month, so we stuck up 80watts of solar and 100Ah of battery. Problem... the sun window is small (mountains, you win again!) and there's a lot of cloud cover at this location. Solution, 1000watt Honda suitcase generator (sweet little unit) filled up with gas on Monday and Thursday. The generator automatically shuts off once the fuel runs out (excellent feature really) some time when the batteries have (hopefully) enough juice to last till the next time the generator is started.
2 months later with no power utility, we suspected it wasn't going to go as planned, and we didn't want to ruin our marvelous and expensive wet Ni-Cd batteries, so we swapped them out for 3 marine grade deep cycle lead acid batteries from the hardware store with a total of about 270Ah. That ought to do it.
Yeah... not!
Turns out, twice a week isn't enough to keep them full, the charger we had was only 10amp output with a horrible efficiency while power lifting (efficient and reliable at float, and designed to be powered by the grid), and the generator wouldn't run long enough to fill them up. I also suspect the equipment is drawing more current than we were told and nobody bothered measuring it.
Your comment: "Batteries never die, they're always murdered" cracks me up. Basically twice every week we would run these batteries dry. I'm not talking down to 10 or 11Vdc, I'm talking 4Vdc. This piece of equipment was deemed to be unworthy of overtime, so if it failed Sunday some time, it would sit with a load on the batteries until Monday around 10:00 am. Apparently you're not supposed to do this?
7 months in and this location is starting to fail every day and the generator needs to be re-filled almost constantly. We're also being promised a utility connection within a month....
Boss comes in and gives us 300Ah of Ni-CD and 40amps of efficient chargers. He also tells us to take those consumer junk batteries to the trash (recycle), and that the power utility is for SURE getting us power before December (the pole and transformer are up now, so it's looking promising!)
Incidentally... I found a warranty card (12 month replacement warranty) for one of the batteries. Co-worker figures no way the store will honour a warranty for us, but seeing as how the documentation nowhere mentions the name of the railway, I figure it's worth a shot. Wouldn't you know... the minimum wage clerk thinks it is hilarious how fast their diagnostic equipment failed the battery (I tested 7amp leakage current on my bench) and hands me a brand new 90Ah marine battery that is safely sitting on the shelf in my shed connected to a float charger waiting to come camping with me next summer. My co-worker and I now have a special drawer for battery warranty cards.
PV = $1, A = $0.01826, i = 0.004074
n = 62 months = 5.17 years
The warranty on the reference cell is 10 years product workmanship, 25 years linear power.
So the value of the cell over its 25-year life span is $3.15/watt, with a cost of $1/watt.
This all neglects installation and grid-tie costs, but 50% average illumination per daylight-hour is conservative in most areas. Solar cells ARE worthwhile TODAY and WITHOUT government subsidies.
Efficiencies in solar cells are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the $/Watt.
Efficiencies in solar cells are irrelevant - as long as they are constant. The 25 year linear power guarantee is that you will be at 80-90% of the rated power after 10 years, and 60-80% after 25 years. I don't think you will reach a value of $3/watt under those conditions; on the other hand investing that initial dollar at 5% will get you to at least $3.30 by year 25. If you're looking at it as a straight investment proposition I think you need to consider the subsidy vs installation/maintenance/degradations costs to see if you might break even vs putting it in a retirement account. If the new chemistries are more stable (doubtful) and cut installation costs (possible, if you only need to install half as many m^2 of panels) they could improve the balance.
One has to account for the added value of having backup power during grid outages, and the increase in home resale value means you don't have to actually remain the owner for the entire period of the ROI to realize a gain. That, and your 15 year figure is ancient.
Someone had to do it.
Yes, solar makes a lot more sense at those prices.
However $0.10 is on the high side for the U.S.
You can get it for .09 in my state if you sign for 12 months instead of "locking in" a low rate for 36 months like i did.
In many other states, you can get it under .09 if there is a dam anywhere near you.
At $.25/kwh, $2.50 to $3.00 per day per panel average your payout period would be about a year.
FWIW, I get a much better return by replacing lightbulbs with LED and CFL bulbs. CFL still suck so I prefer LED. Even at $20, an LED bulb pays for itself very quickly (under a year) at 6 hours per day. CFL's pay for themselves in about 4 months (compared to a similar incandescent). Key for me: Getting 3000 kelvin bulbs.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.