AutoblogGreen

1. You can reduce the cost of solar by using lenses to focus the light--BUT then you need a tracking system to follow the sun, which will add costs and likely have a shorter life than the solar cells.

Posted at 7:02PM on May 2nd 2008 by Mike Z

2. "If it lives up to its extraordinary claims of producing electricity for a meager ¢5Kwh,"

Big dose of skepticism. In 15 months, revisit this claim and see what happens.

Posted at 7:10PM on May 2nd 2008 by Dad

3. The expense of solar is all in the hardware.

So the real question is, how much per installed kw, not how much per kwh.

A claim of low cost per kwh could be based on a claim of a 100 year lifespan for the cells.

Posted at 7:16PM on May 2nd 2008 by Dave

4. Mike Z, to answer your comment about tracking the sun, I'll copy a comment that was left on EcoGeek:

"I think the design is such that the device "tracks" the sun without even moving.

Look at:

http://www.sunrgi.com/increased-light-gathering-area.html

Notice that the sunlight is focused into a pin-point, at a collection ratio of about 1600x. The solar cell they use is only 16x smaller than a full solar cell would be. So this pin-point of ultra-bright light moves across the small cell during the course of the day.

Imagine a wide-angle camera lens pointed up at the sky--it would focus all of the light coming from the sun onto a small part of the film.

This is really quite genius in its simplicity. Much better than a physically-tracked solar array. It will be impressive if they can move heat away from that pin-point fast enough to avoid damaging the cell in all real-world conditions."

Posted at 8:24PM on May 2nd 2008 by ron

5. It's Honda own fault why Civic Hybrid plays the 2nd fiddle to the Prius in the US. Now that Honda is finally, truly committed itself to its own hybrid development, in theory, Honda could easily sell and make hybrids at a lower cost, especially in fleet sales.


Aside from Prius being a better hybrid, the biggest obsticle to Honda's hybrids really Honda itself; the lack of commitment to hybrids from the very beginning. In 2000, Honda was doing better with diesels in Europe and the US market was more profitable with trucks. The Insight was just a rush job to beat Toyota in the US market. All Honda wanted to do was make hybrid a premium product, a low-volume niche.

In theory, Honda's hybrid system is less complicated compare to a Prius, thus likely to cost less in a mass manufacturing scenario. Now that Honda have a change of heart, the CR-Z will be the first Honda's effort in a real, mass-production approach to hybrid technology. Since the Civic is already a popular product in Europe, it's probably much easier now for Honda to undercut Prius for a bid in fleet sales.

I think it's really more about money and not about which hybrid is better. Honda needs this fleet contract for more than Toyota right now.

Posted at 8:33PM on May 2nd 2008 by Charles S

6. OOPPSSS!!!

Sorry, cut and paste the wrong post...

Here's my original comment to this post...
================================================
Dave:

You should also add that while 1-kw array has a long payback, large-scale commercial arrays is inversely proportional in costs.

It may cost a homeowner $10,000/kw-peak for roof-installed solar, but 1MW arrays usually cost for less installed.

Like all breakthrough technology, it is more profitable and advantageous to the manufacturer to sell their products to commercial vendors first. So all the skepticism aside, most of us will not be able to buy one of these, even if it's real.


Mike Z:

I was told that electronics do not necessary deteriorate because of just age or heat. It is more likely that running outside specs that kills circuitry. Modern day CPUs run extremely hot, but as long as they are within specs, it's possible that they could run... forever? Since the niche for this product makes heat a non-issue, who knows...

Posted at 8:35PM on May 2nd 2008 by Charles S

7. @mike Z....

It looks like they're using Fresnel lenses, so this isn't neccessary....

Posted at 8:35PM on May 2nd 2008 by Travis

8. Sorry, just FYI, the other post was about British Airways choosing Civic Hybrid for its fleet vehicle.

Posted at 8:36PM on May 2nd 2008 by Charles S

9. Wouldn't it be better to get rid of the heat by using it to make electricity, like in a solar thermal plant?

It would be dual, concentrate light for photovoltaics and use the heat produce for solar thermal.

Although I guess it would be kind of hard to route pipes or tubes (to collect the heat from the light) without interferring with the way the light comes in through all the lenses or whatever that magnifies the light for the photovoltaics.

Posted at 10:05PM on May 2nd 2008 by Joseph

10. Focusing (get it?) attention on the cost of solar is ridiculous. We spending trillions on war, and imported oil, and other imported goods. The bankers and greedy maggots have ruined this country.

Posted at 10:16PM on May 2nd 2008 by Mort

11. Kudos to all of you who contribute!

These blogs are a riot: the feedback is clever, insightful and 99% troll free.

My take:
Embrace the skepticism notion, so dead simple...

If it rolls out in 15 months and it is something that works - and i can afford it - i will buy one.

If it works - and i can't afford it - we will see about 'talking politics' to foot the bill ; )

Posted at 11:30PM on May 2nd 2008 by Tim

12. "Focusing (get it?) attention on the cost of solar is ridiculous. We spending trillions on war, and imported oil, and other imported goods. The bankers and greedy maggots have ruined this country."

The article is describing a new solar technology. It should give us a means of comparing it to existing solar technologies.

That is why I questioned the installed cost.

Posted at 12:29AM on May 3rd 2008 by Dave

13. Solar at this price really would displace coal as fast as the units could be produced. Let's all hope they can actually deliver. Hope to see these installed in Borrego by 2011.

Posted at 2:21AM on May 3rd 2008 by Cervus

14. The only bad thing of this design (based on focusing) is that it works only under direct sunlight, on cloudy days it will have about 1% power probably. Other cells work better on cloudy days.

Posted at 2:44AM on May 3rd 2008 by voitoi

15. Finally. A Solar energy proponent that admits that there are problems with solar energy.

Until now, Solar has been offered as the ultimate clean energy. The Holy Grail of Energy sources. The truth is that it has several big warts. It’s inefficient and employs low temperature differentials. That means that the installations sizes must be large, complex and costly. That and not conspiracies is the real reason why little has been installed.

It also means that there is a substantial Pollution Problem when it is installed. Thermal Pollution is an unavoidable problem. Solar energy produces s much as 85 watts per meter squared of waste heat. Compare that to the effect of GHGs; where the warming effect is estimated to be in tenths of Watts per meter squared.
Every square meter of installed solar is like placing a 75-100 watt incandescent light-bulb there, warming the environment. The thermal pollution aspects of wide spread solar installation is 100s or 1000s of time worse than GHGs in fostering Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Just like we ignored the problems of the internal combustion engine, when autos were few, we have ignored the problems with the large scale use of solar energy. Only when autos multiplied, did the toxic effects manifest themselves in using hydrocarbon cars.

The truth is that there is NO pollution free energy source. Some are better than others. Solar’s drawbacks are actually worse than most. Despite the unthinking propaganda and wishes that it were otherwise. TANSTAAFL!

The Society for the Prevention of Albedo Reduction in the US, is an environmental organization warning of the dangers of large scale use of solar energy since the First Earth Day.

Posted at 11:40AM on May 3rd 2008 by Stan Peterson

16. Ron,

Take a look at the labels for the chart at

http://www.sunrgi.com/energy-output-comparisons.html

You'll see that they state it is dual tracking. The genius of what you describe is probably all yours if it could work.

From the picture it also looks like the PV chip is far smaller than 1/16 of the lens.

Posted at 8:43PM on May 3rd 2008 by PJD

17. Re: Mr. Peterson

Where, precisely, do you propose that solar energy goes if it doesn't hit a solar cell? Ever walked on the beach (or desert) in the summer?

Posted at 10:06PM on May 3rd 2008 by Danny

18. There is a grain of truth to the fact that solar PV could have some localized heating effect if tons of them were colocated. A solar panel likely reflects less light than desert sand.

However, even if we derived 50% of our power from solar it wouldn't pose a major problem. The entire electrical needs of the U.S. could be met by solar panels on less land than is currently covered in black asphalt and dark shingles... and that hasn't driven global temps up multiple degrees.

Posted at 10:43PM on May 3rd 2008 by PJD

19. With the size if that heat sink on the back/bottom, how much will a panel weigh?

Right now, most residental solar panels are roof-mounted, and they aren't exactly light in present form.

Posted at 11:34PM on May 3rd 2008 by Bill

20. maybe a newbie question, but could they harness the thermal collection for energy production?

Posted at 4:06AM on May 7th 2008 by John