This is a good point. Also, you can go for a system that produces less than you use. Most industrial buildings have to do that now anyway
because the ratio of roof-to-power consumption is low. I think that aesthetic considerations come in more heavily in the residential market.
Certainly Home Owners Associations have concerns. A bill introduced by Sen. Menendez deals with this issue:
Solar Siting Rights: Instructs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to issue regulations within 180 days of enactment that 1)prohibit any private covenant, contract provision, lease provision, homeowners' association rule or bylaw, or similar restriction that impairs homeowners' ability to install and use a solar energy system and 2) expedite the approval, where such approval is required, of applications to install systems.
and has other provisions listed at the bottom of this petition page.
For commercial roofs, the bottom line is going to come first and whatever saves the most money (or some times provides the most price stability) will be selected.
Actually, boosting the current is just the wrong way to go since they are having trouble with resistance. So, they do want to get the voltage
up (not churned out) to help reduce the Ohmic losses (I^2R). With detectors, you usually put on a bias to help get the defects that are causing the
resistance filled up, but for power generations you need to rely on the dopant gradiant alone which is probably pretty ragged after they fabricate their nano-posts. --
Eat the reflectance and get it now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
The choice on cost (so far) looks to be between 50 square meters and maybe 100 square meters. Nanosolar will likely come in cheaper (per unit power installed) than standard silicon but it may not have the efficiency so you either need more roof or you need yard space
that you don't want to use in another way. Because it takes work to install, the materials would likely have to be nearly free to make your $2000 price point, unless you want to do the installation yourself.
On the other hand, if you are not borrowing, you can usually match what you pay your utility in most parts of the country using silicon over the life
of the system and the system will likely fit on your roof. It is a close calculation and in some cases utility rates are high enough that even borrowing can break even or save you a little. Usually you can't beat what you'd end up with if you invested the money elsewhere, say on efficiency. If the up front cost is a problem you can rent a solar power system instead. In this case,
you match your utility and fix your rate for up to 25 years. This can lead to savings over time if utility rates go up. This also leaves your equity available for other uses.
Actually, even the reckless use of power doesn't cut it. There has to be a high crime or misdemeanor. But, it sounds like these guys have talked
themselves into a theory that there can be no enforcement of the law regarding preserving records since there can be no individual penalty (from TFA).
So, if no one can be held accountable, in the end (they think) there can be no crime.
But, under this kind of theory, it is the boss who must take responsibility for violation of the law. I'd say that at least counts as a misdemeanor. So, maybe they should start thinking twice about the no individual penalty thing.
Joining in name calling does not make it better though. Gore certainly caveats that no one hurricane can be attributed to global warming
so the question is are Gray's cycles overlaid by the effects of warming? The data are begining to look convincing that this is the case http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/01/europe/E U-GEN-France-Climate-Change-Hurricanes.php. Now, we could call Gore prescient and
Gray out of touch or something but so long as we are entertaining the notion that the question is not settled, our bad manners are also
less than helpful on making progress since they add to prejudice.
Most if not all Step it Up http://stepitup2007.org/ event will be followed up with meetings with representatives so you may have a good chance to get
involved there. I hope the packing goes smoothly. Perhaps the move gets you out of the inversion?
Some aspects of being fit to survive extinction events seem to be being low on the food chain and being either aquatic of land-based depending
on the circumstances. To me, fitness arguments are really about the competition between species. Those that are better adapted to their niche tend
to do better, over time than those in a similar niche that are less well adapted. Erasing many niches over a timescale shorter than the adaptation
timescale is not really about fitness. --
Adapt to 11 billion people before they are here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Hummm... First you claim that the debate is not settled, then you say one side is alarmist. This is clearly ad hominem but more importantly is
is not logical. If you are reserving judgement, as you claim, you have no reason to know if Gore is alarmist or correct in every particular.
Thanks very much, I've bookmarked this. It still seems to me that the most mitigation the reports are likely to address is stabilization of the CO2
concentration at the 2000 level but this is clearly not a physical bound to policy options with regard to mitigation. A sharp reduction in emissions
from fossil fuels together with sequestrations methods such as reforestation, coastal ecosystem restoration (reduced nitrogen loads), and even Fe fertilization of the
low nutrient portions of the oceans could all lead to both economic growth and reductions in the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Economic growth? Yes!
Convertion to renewable energy in all sectors require quite a lot of economic activity and while some sunk costs for oil, gas and coal extraction
and processing would see a substatially longer period to see return on investment, they would not be wasted investments since an oil field, for example, can still
be exploited over 300 hundred years rather than 30.
Reforestation can be done in a profitable way that includes plants that have economic benefit.
Restoring ecological activity to costal areas restores enormously profitable fisheries that have been lost and especially the shellfish sequester
carbon in a very stable way.
So, I feel that mitigation is, from the outset, going to get underplayed in the reports because CO2 concentration reductions are not even considered and the effects of currently stated policy are even ignored http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/executive-summ ary.html. Perhaps the next report will be a suprise, but the senarios adopted in the first two seem to me to be pre-censored.
I don't see the point of a mirror, it does not need to be reflective to block the Sun. It would also be much easier to disperse dust and with the proper size it would clear after a time owing to Pointing-Robertson drag. But this is a hugely desperate measure and should really only be considered after
reduced emissions and sequestration from the atmosphere are shown not to be an adequate response to runaway warming. Some are considering dispersing aerosols in the upper atmosphere to do a similar thing, likely much cheaper and more controled.
I recall that a study of cooling owing to a nuclear war between India and Pakistan pointed out that the soot from destroyed cities could actually lift itself to high altitude by forming thermals from local aerosol induced heating of the air. One might mix carbon and less photo-absorbant more durable aerosols to get the
lift and better cooling over time.
NB: I am not urging India and Pakistan to take one for the team here, it was just the context in which I heard about the lift phenomenon.
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Polar Bear.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!
They showed what would happen as a consequence of every degree increase in the earth's temperature. Those consequences include species disappearing, floods and starvation for humans.
This seems to be a fairly obvious thing to report to policy makers but it seems that the policy makers don't want to hear it so they forced it out. Kinda sounds like they're doing a heck of a job.... --
Brownie Points! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Well, I recall the lines then and I'd say yes, consumption did go down, but not because of price. It went down because supply was restricted
by an embargo. This is something to remember as our Saudi friends say our occupation their neighbor is illegal.
Because fossil fuels are so deep in everything we do to make a living, it is difficult for price to make an impact. Normally substitution
would be the response to price but in a famine you're stuck with nothing to substitute and that is sort of like our situation because without
coal, gas and oil, our infrastructure does not work. This is why a carbon tax that could lead to substantial reductions would have to be
impoverishing. You have to dry up the money supply (or remove the oil supply) to get us to stop buying since our lives depend on it. A moderate carbon tax only gets the low hanging fruit as it has in Europe.
You can kind of see why so much of our very big navy is over there right now. We pay for oil in dollars and in defence spending as well.
This is why, I think, we need to be very deliberate about changing over to renewable energy. We can rely on price somewhat to encourage adoption
but there are a number of infrastructure changes that need to happen, such as fueling plug in hybrids or balancing the grid amid non-constant
power sources. We can also restrict the supply of fossil fuels somewhat through rationing (since price doesn't really work for necessities) as we
did in the seventies if it comes to that kind of thing (better than a carbon tax) so that prices will remain stable or even drop owing two lower demand. It is an interesting question how long OPEC lasts if consumption is reduced by 30%. Those who feel that this kind of control of the market is a
bad idea, remeber that we set farm policy to ensure food surpluses because food scarcity is not acceptable. Similarly, our defence policy includes vital interests in the Middle East. Free markets for widgets (which may be
substituted for waggets at a certain price point) but prudent deliberate policy for necessities is the way to do things. We are running out of prudence on the fossil fuel side of things and so need some pretty deliberate and big changes. --
Hey Mr. Pricing Mechanism, look over here! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
You're assertion that folks will move is a little naive. Quite a lot of people would like to come to the US to get out of grinding poverty
that is owing in part to environmental degradation. So, now there are vigilantes on the border.
People often don't like leaving their homeland. The folks in Darfur, for example, are not so happy being pushed out as the Sahara grows and makes
usable land scarce, and when they are pushed out they die in droves. If migration is to be the adaptation for global warming, it seems like
justice can only be served for those who are displaced to come and share the land of those who caused the disaster. So, you better tell the
border vigilantes to lay down their arms, because they'll need to be cleaning up their kitchens to start cooking for oh, say, 6 new family members each.
--
Mitigation before adaptation: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
I think it is realistic to reduce emission by at least 20% by 2012 (meeting Kyoto) with a big effort that
would likely spur quite a lot of economic growth since we would probably have to borrow up to the level we
did at the end of WWII. But, you are right that there would be quite a lot of moneyed opposition to this,
as there is already as can be seen in what is missing in the report.
I agree there is a role for political leadership, perhaps a big one, but I kind of feel that we need to
look hard in the mirror and ask, for example, why did we negotiate Kyoto when the Senate was saying it
would not ratify without commitments from China and India? Leadership is not just giveing a damn alone but
also follow through and paying close attention to what people (like the senate) are saying. We've had quite
quite a few problems with that I think. Too much posing and not enough willingness to engage. There are
further consequences to this I think: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/heir-of-leader ship.html.
Search on mitigation in the summary and you'll find very little. These reports are definitely not looking at possible mitigation responses and are assuming
increased carbon emission as the way things will be. Wonder who wants it that way?
You may be right. On the other hand, if they are no longer infringing, they're back in business, or they sell their business and the injunction
is moot. What I liked was the way the injunction takes account of the customer's interest. I have not heard of this method before and I think I
like it. I think this is a good answer to the "too big to fail" problem where corporate malfeasance is essentially winked at because they are
too important to the functioning of the economy. Maybe problems with this aproach will turn up but right now I see a bit of the wisdom of Solomon in it.
I'm certainly thinking in the context of net metering laws which often (sadly now even for Maryland) confiscate excess power generation. So,
100% makes sense but not more. A smaller fraction could also make sense once it is available if it comes in at lower cost but it does mean
continued reliance on coal if renewable energy is not generated elsewhere, and you are not fully protected from price increases on the portion
you don't generate yourself.
You can get solar with good old reliable and 15% efficient silicon without the upfront cost and at a price competitive with utlity rates with price
protection by following the links at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html. You can also wait for a better
deal and this stuff might provide it though I think that it will end up in the commercial sector rather than the residential sector. It is not clear
how soon it can be available or if it can last 25 years. This probably depends on what mode causes degredation. If it is cosmic rays, then
it may last as long as silicon but if is fading caused by optical photons in may need more maintenance. That could turn out to be too big of
a hassle. We'll see as things develop.
Slashdot Mirror
For commercial roofs, the bottom line is going to come first and whatever saves the most money (or some times provides the most price stability) will be selected.
Actually, boosting the current is just the wrong way to go since they are having trouble with resistance. So, they do want to get the voltage up (not churned out) to help reduce the Ohmic losses (I^2R). With detectors, you usually put on a bias to help get the defects that are causing the resistance filled up, but for power generations you need to rely on the dopant gradiant alone which is probably pretty ragged after they fabricate their nano-posts.s -selling-solar.html
--
Eat the reflectance and get it now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
They are actually going to use the concentrated CO2 from flu gas http://www.greenfuelonline.com/. The free energy source is, as (almost) always, the Sun: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html.o t-users-selling-solar.html
--
Sprout Silicon Leaves:http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashd
Usually rain takes care of this. A long dry dusty period could reduce the efficiency. Snow cover can also be a problem.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent solar and only pay for what the system produces: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
The choice on cost (so far) looks to be between 50 square meters and maybe 100 square meters. Nanosolar will likely come in cheaper (per unit power installed) than standard silicon but it may not have the efficiency so you either need more roof or you need yard space that you don't want to use in another way. Because it takes work to install, the materials would likely have to be nearly free to make your $2000 price point, unless you want to do the installation yourself.
s -selling-solar.html
On the other hand, if you are not borrowing, you can usually match what you pay your utility in most parts of the country using silicon over the life of the system and the system will likely fit on your roof. It is a close calculation and in some cases utility rates are high enough that even borrowing can break even or save you a little. Usually you can't beat what you'd end up with if you invested the money elsewhere, say on efficiency. If the up front cost is a problem you can rent a solar power system instead. In this case, you match your utility and fix your rate for up to 25 years. This can lead to savings over time if utility rates go up. This also leaves your equity available for other uses.
You can explore this option at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Actually, even the reckless use of power doesn't cut it. There has to be a high crime or misdemeanor. But, it sounds like these guys have talked themselves into a theory that there can be no enforcement of the law regarding preserving records since there can be no individual penalty (from TFA). So, if no one can be held accountable, in the end (they think) there can be no crime.
s -selling-solar.html
But, under this kind of theory, it is the boss who must take responsibility for violation of the law. I'd say that at least counts as a misdemeanor. So, maybe they should start thinking twice about the no individual penalty thing.
I think it quite possible to "legally" use power recklessly and impeachment is not a remedy for that.
--
Get Solar! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Joining in name calling does not make it better though. Gore certainly caveats that no one hurricane can be attributed to global warming so the question is are Gray's cycles overlaid by the effects of warming? The data are begining to look convincing that this is the case http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/01/europe/E U-GEN-France-Climate-Change-Hurricanes.php. Now, we could call Gore prescient and
Gray out of touch or something but so long as we are entertaining the notion that the question is not settled, our bad manners are also
less than helpful on making progress since they add to prejudice.
Most if not all Step it Up http://stepitup2007.org/ event will be followed up with meetings with representatives so you may have a good chance to get involved there. I hope the packing goes smoothly. Perhaps the move gets you out of the inversion?
Being more persuaded, I do use strong language myself http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/.
Some aspects of being fit to survive extinction events seem to be being low on the food chain and being either aquatic of land-based depending on the circumstances. To me, fitness arguments are really about the competition between species. Those that are better adapted to their niche tend to do better, over time than those in a similar niche that are less well adapted. Erasing many niches over a timescale shorter than the adaptation timescale is not really about fitness.s -selling-solar.html
--
Adapt to 11 billion people before they are here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Hummm... First you claim that the debate is not settled, then you say one side is alarmist. This is clearly ad hominem but more importantly is is not logical. If you are reserving judgement, as you claim, you have no reason to know if Gore is alarmist or correct in every particular.
e /UT. Pick one to suit your taste and get together with folks who will help you solve your problem.s -selling-solar.html
If there is a chance that he may be correct, then you might want to do something about it. This Saturday, April 14, there will be 13 Step It Up 2007 actions in Utah http://events.stepitup2007.org/events/search/stat
--
Solar Power! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
In fact, it is an advantage that this is older. Here is a review article by the authors: http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/papers/ solphys-2004.pdf. This image from thier
website http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/image/C limate.gif basically says the same thing I did
here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/executive-summ ary.html, the Sun is not responsible for the
current warming. You can find the caption for their figure here: http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/results .html as figure 5.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent solar for what you pay now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
You might find the equivalent solar forcing units used in the field more useful. With these it is much easier to see that your argument is flawed http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/executive-summ ary.html.
Thanks very much, I've bookmarked this. It still seems to me that the most mitigation the reports are likely to address is stabilization of the CO2 concentration at the 2000 level but this is clearly not a physical bound to policy options with regard to mitigation. A sharp reduction in emissions from fossil fuels together with sequestrations methods such as reforestation, coastal ecosystem restoration (reduced nitrogen loads), and even Fe fertilization of the low nutrient portions of the oceans could all lead to both economic growth and reductions in the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
4 &cid=17962344.
m ary.html. Perhaps the next report will be a suprise, but the senarios adopted in the first two seem to me to be pre-censored.
Economic growth? Yes!
Convertion to renewable energy in all sectors require quite a lot of economic activity and while some sunk costs for oil, gas and coal extraction and processing would see a substatially longer period to see return on investment, they would not be wasted investments since an oil field, for example, can still be exploited over 300 hundred years rather than 30.
Reforestation can be done in a profitable way that includes plants that have economic benefit.
Restoring ecological activity to costal areas restores enormously profitable fisheries that have been lost and especially the shellfish sequester carbon in a very stable way.
The economic and ecological effects of Fe fertilization need further study, but the potential to establish new fisheries suggest that it could be carried out at a profit http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=22162
So, I feel that mitigation is, from the outset, going to get underplayed in the reports because CO2 concentration reductions are not even considered and the effects of currently stated policy are even ignored http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/executive-sum
I don't see the point of a mirror, it does not need to be reflective to block the Sun. It would also be much easier to disperse dust and with the proper size it would clear after a time owing to Pointing-Robertson drag. But this is a hugely desperate measure and should really only be considered after reduced emissions and sequestration from the atmosphere are shown not to be an adequate response to runaway warming. Some are considering dispersing aerosols in the upper atmosphere to do a similar thing, likely much cheaper and more controled.
I recall that a study of cooling owing to a nuclear war between India and Pakistan pointed out that the soot from destroyed cities could actually lift itself to high altitude by forming thermals from local aerosol induced heating of the air. One might mix carbon and less photo-absorbant more durable aerosols to get the lift and better cooling over time.
NB: I am not urging India and Pakistan to take one for the team here, it was just the context in which I heard about the lift phenomenon.
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Polar Bear.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise....
Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!
This seems to be a fairly obvious thing to report to policy makers but it seems that the policy makers don't want to hear it so they forced it out. Kinda sounds like they're doing a heck of a job....
--
Brownie Points! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Well, I recall the lines then and I'd say yes, consumption did go down, but not because of price. It went down because supply was restricted by an embargo. This is something to remember as our Saudi friends say our occupation their neighbor is illegal.
s -selling-solar.html
Because fossil fuels are so deep in everything we do to make a living, it is difficult for price to make an impact. Normally substitution would be the response to price but in a famine you're stuck with nothing to substitute and that is sort of like our situation because without coal, gas and oil, our infrastructure does not work. This is why a carbon tax that could lead to substantial reductions would have to be impoverishing. You have to dry up the money supply (or remove the oil supply) to get us to stop buying since our lives depend on it. A moderate carbon tax only gets the low hanging fruit as it has in Europe.
You can kind of see why so much of our very big navy is over there right now. We pay for oil in dollars and in defence spending as well.
This is why, I think, we need to be very deliberate about changing over to renewable energy. We can rely on price somewhat to encourage adoption but there are a number of infrastructure changes that need to happen, such as fueling plug in hybrids or balancing the grid amid non-constant power sources. We can also restrict the supply of fossil fuels somewhat through rationing (since price doesn't really work for necessities) as we did in the seventies if it comes to that kind of thing (better than a carbon tax) so that prices will remain stable or even drop owing two lower demand. It is an interesting question how long OPEC lasts if consumption is reduced by 30%. Those who feel that this kind of control of the market is a bad idea, remeber that we set farm policy to ensure food surpluses because food scarcity is not acceptable. Similarly, our defence policy includes vital interests in the Middle East. Free markets for widgets (which may be substituted for waggets at a certain price point) but prudent deliberate policy for necessities is the way to do things. We are running out of prudence on the fossil fuel side of things and so need some pretty deliberate and big changes.
--
Hey Mr. Pricing Mechanism, look over here! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
You're assertion that folks will move is a little naive. Quite a lot of people would like to come to the US to get out of grinding poverty that is owing in part to environmental degradation. So, now there are vigilantes on the border.
s -selling-solar.html
People often don't like leaving their homeland. The folks in Darfur, for example, are not so happy being pushed out as the Sahara grows and makes usable land scarce, and when they are pushed out they die in droves. If migration is to be the adaptation for global warming, it seems like justice can only be served for those who are displaced to come and share the land of those who caused the disaster. So, you better tell the border vigilantes to lay down their arms, because they'll need to be cleaning up their kitchens to start cooking for oh, say, 6 new family members each.
--
Mitigation before adaptation: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Perhaps we are seeing "The Empire Strikes Back" and the third installment will be "Return of the Jedi"?
All the storylines in the reports so far are gloomy. At least we won't have to wait so long between episodes. I hope (de nouveau) you're right!
I think it is realistic to reduce emission by at least 20% by 2012 (meeting Kyoto) with a big effort that would likely spur quite a lot of economic growth since we would probably have to borrow up to the level we did at the end of WWII. But, you are right that there would be quite a lot of moneyed opposition to this, as there is already as can be seen in what is missing in the report.
I agree there is a role for political leadership, perhaps a big one, but I kind of feel that we need to look hard in the mirror and ask, for example, why did we negotiate Kyoto when the Senate was saying it would not ratify without commitments from China and India? Leadership is not just giveing a damn alone but also follow through and paying close attention to what people (like the senate) are saying. We've had quite quite a few problems with that I think. Too much posing and not enough willingness to engage. There are further consequences to this I think: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/heir-of-leader ship.html.
That may be the consequence of infringing. Can't say myself if the jury got it right, but as injunctions go this one seems creative.
Search on mitigation in the summary and you'll find very little. These reports are definitely not looking at possible mitigation responses and are assuming increased carbon emission as the way things will be. Wonder who wants it that way?
You may be right. On the other hand, if they are no longer infringing, they're back in business, or they sell their business and the injunction is moot. What I liked was the way the injunction takes account of the customer's interest. I have not heard of this method before and I think I like it. I think this is a good answer to the "too big to fail" problem where corporate malfeasance is essentially winked at because they are too important to the functioning of the economy. Maybe problems with this aproach will turn up but right now I see a bit of the wisdom of Solomon in it.
I think this is excellent. Now any company can be prohibited from taking on new customers including Verizon. This is one of the best penalties I've ever seen. It is fair to existing customers. A true Teddy Roosevelt move http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt#Le gacy.
s -selling-solar.html
--
Get solar with technology with expired patents http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I'm certainly thinking in the context of net metering laws which often (sadly now even for Maryland) confiscate excess power generation. So, 100% makes sense but not more. A smaller fraction could also make sense once it is available if it comes in at lower cost but it does mean continued reliance on coal if renewable energy is not generated elsewhere, and you are not fully protected from price increases on the portion you don't generate yourself.
s -selling-solar.html. You can also wait for a better
deal and this stuff might provide it though I think that it will end up in the commercial sector rather than the residential sector. It is not clear
how soon it can be available or if it can last 25 years. This probably depends on what mode causes degredation. If it is cosmic rays, then
it may last as long as silicon but if is fading caused by optical photons in may need more maintenance. That could turn out to be too big of
a hassle. We'll see as things develop.
You can get solar with good old reliable and 15% efficient silicon without the upfront cost and at a price competitive with utlity rates with price protection by following the links at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user