Comments on: Taking the high road to large scale solar power

By: David Lidzey

David Lidzey — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:24:25 +0000

Zelah – you said

“I understand our Nano enthusiasm for Solar, but…

What happens at night?”

Provided excess electrical energy is recovered from PVs during the day, it is perfectly possible to store such energy using a bank of batteries or capacitors!

It seems to me that solar energy provides a much longer term and safer alternative to nuclear power – particular when the costs of decommisioning (which often seem to become more and more expensive when they are practically implemented) – are taken into account.

The large cost of building nuclear power plants will also inevitably reduce the amount of funding available to develop truly sustaininble energy sources.

By: Zelah

Zelah — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:37:40 +0000

I am very disturbed by what Hugh Knowles believes.

I am not disputing that there are cheaper alternatives to Nuclear. I am disputing that it is possible to save the planet from CO2 overheating cost effectively without Nuclear! Low CO2 emmissions like say 20% reductions are ineffectual against China / India combo!

Unless you do not believe in CO2 Global Warming (which is fair enough!) http://www.rmi.org pose more questions than answers!

By: Richard Jones

Richard Jones — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:46:25 +0000

I agree that unconventional photovoltaics like dye sensitised nanoparticle cells hold a lot of promise - I wrote about these here a while ago.

By: Steven

Steven — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:10:56 +0000

I agree that thier is a need for environmental consideration. Plasma technology converts gas (Helium and Argon are commonly used) to plasma, a super heated state of matter. At this time I do not percieve an environmental concern over plasma. The temperatures that are attainable with plasma are almost surreal. This equates to megawatts of power with virtually no fuel consumption, barring the use of gasses. I insert this quote from Foresight Nanotechnology Inc. It’s a great site.

“OrionSolar believes its dye cell photovoltaic technology can decrease the cost of solar energy to about $0.70 per peak watt, compared to the about $6 to $9 per peak watt of energy generated by traditional silicon-based photovoltaic cells.”

Maybe your money will pay off in Solar.

By: Richard Jones

Richard Jones — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:32:54 +0000

Steven, I’ve not followed the fusion story in great detail, though I’m certainly aware of an increasing emphasis on this direction in the UK. There was a recent article in Science, though, which had a very sceptical view on its feasibility as a large scale power source on engineering and economic grounds.

By: Shawn

Shawn — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:47:18 +0000

Gentlemen,

We all realize that high level radioactive waste takes 100’s of years to decompose. Solar and Wind Energies are the way to go for the benefit of our existing natural resources. I foresee building from the atom up will greatly decrease solar cell production costs and enable us to research and develop an alternative energy source that will be cost effective and good for our environment. My money goes to nanotechnology.

By: Steven

Steven — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:02:27 +0000

Gentlemen, it is evident that you have pondered the energy situation, giving consideration to the future. I rather feel that Plasma and Fusion technologies will surpass the continued development of Solar. What is your perception of these technologies?

By: Hugh Knowles

Hugh Knowles — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:21:16 +0000

With regards to the costs of nuclear and the potential of mcrogeneration it is worth reading Amory Lovins work at http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php#NucFreeMil

Nuclear is not economically viable and there are a number of other myths surrounding it which are analysed by Lovins. E.g. Nuclear stations are not as reliable as the industry would have you believe – even the new designs.
Will leave RMI to do the rest of the deconstruction…..

By: Richard Jones

Richard Jones — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:50:47 +0000

David, I’m not sure whether you are talking about III-V quantum well solar cells, sunlight concentrators or the combination of the two, but in any case you’re of course right that they’re not new inventions. But the article I was talking about (and maybe I didn’t make this clear) wasn’t reporting them as such, it was arguing for an early large scale roll-out of the technology; it was about economics as much as science.

By: David Wright

David Wright — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 06:00:13 +0000

I am amazed that this is being promoted as a new invention. I saw it first on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation programme called The New Inventors some time early last year. It was not a new invention then but an adaption of an earlier one seen first in the 1970’s