

Thin-Film Solar Startup Debuts With $4 Billion in Contracts - ujjwalg
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/nanosolar/

======
eserorg
Some questions about Nanosolar’s $1-per-watt claim:

What happens at night?

What happens when its cloudy?

What happens during the winter-time?

Does Nanosolar’s $1 per watt investment guarantee a consistent 24/7/365 source
of electricity?

Does Nanosolar’s $1 figure include the cost of installing transmission lines?

Does Nanosolar’s $1 figure include the cost laying cement for a power plant,
assembling the cells into solar panels, installing the panels, and
commissioning the power plant?

Does Nanosolar’s $1 figure include the cost of building base-load generating
capacity to provide electricity for when the sun doesn’t shine?

Installing electrical transmission lines costs about $1 million per mile. Most
PV power plants are located far away from demand centers.

This sounds like vaporware.

This is precisely the problem with the Obama administration's plan for a
"green energy" future -- trying to shoehorn high-cost intermittent power
sources into low-cost high-reliability applications.

Nanosolar is ignoring what solar sells are good for.

Photovolatics have traditionally enjoyed a niche market in applications where
cost is not a factor, where weight is at a premium, where there are no other
power sources, and where frequent fuel delivery is not an option -- orbital
telecommunications satellite solar panels, remote radio transmission towers,
offshore oil and gas platforms, mobile power sources for forward-deployed
military units, etc...

Utility scale power generation is extremely cost-sensitive, demands high-
reliability, has no weight constraints, and has no constraints on mobility
and/or fuel delivery -- the exact opposite of applications in which
photovolatics make sense.

Nanosolar's emphasis on cost-per-watt suggests that their target market is
utility-scale power generation -- a dubious proposition at best, considering
the cost and reliability problems with renewable energy sources.

Marc Andreesen has famously argued that the number one job of a startup is to
achieve product-market fit.

Nanosolar, like most renewable energy companies, has a product which they are
trying to force unto a market that does not want it.

That's the trouble with government subsidies -- they allow people to operate
outside the constraints of reality. At taxpayer expense.

~~~
frig
Did you just cut-and-paste from the article comments?

 _Posted by: quilner | 09/10/09 | 12:28 am Some questions about Nanosolar’s
$1-per-watt claim: What happens at night? What happens when its cloudy? What
happens during the winter-time? Does Nanosolar’s $1 per watt investment
guarantee a consistent 24/7/365 source of electricity? Does Nanosolar’s $1
figure include the cost of installing transmission lines? Does Nanosolar’s $1
figure include the cost laying cement for a power plant, assembling the cells
into solar panels, installing the panels, and commissioning the power plant?
Does Nanosolar’s $1 figure include the cost of building base-load generating
capacity to provide electricity for when the sun doesn’t shine? Installing
electrical transmission lines costs about $1 million per mile. Most PV power
plants are located far away from demand centers. This sounds like vaporware._

~~~
eserorg
Those are my comments.

~~~
frig
You can hire PR agencies to do that kind of thing for you, you know.

------
00joe
$1 per watt refers to an industry standard of a theoretical peak energy
production with ideal sunlight and does not include installation, mounting
brackets and inverters. My calculation a few years ago figured a total cost of
$2.5 a peak watt would be a break even (after subsidies), for residential use
in areas with good sunlight.

~~~
jacquesm
That is for areas where a powerline is already available. If that is not the
case the numbers are very different.

------
hungdaddy
nice

