"Best of all, the thin film will even work well on a cloudy day."
ummmmm.....how?

no sun = no power.

If it does generate power on cloudy days...what about a full moon?

It would be nice to be self sustainable.
I care about some good cheap power...I couldn't care less its its the oil companies or the solar companies that get my money...whoever's power is the cheapest...gets my vote.

Believe it or not our eyes don't detect everything. There is plenty of light and espcially UV on cloudy days. In fact some cloudy days my have a higher UV index depending on the albedo of the clouds.

Also if you have excess energy you can hold it... so there is no need for "moon" power as you say.

Like most solar hype, it avoids the necessary numbers.

A dollar figure is no help - what volume and amortization is it based on?

$1/W capacity would mean $1000/kW and would be 10 square meters in size. You're hoping to get 100 W from a square meter in Arizona.

Now suppose I estimate electricity from my power company to be (round numbers) $0.10 kWh, and my electrical wiring is a sunk cost. If that 1 kW solar system costs $1000 to install, I have to get 10000 hours out of the system to break even. Supposing I am able to use the system 6 hours per day - that's 5 years just to break even, supposing it lasts. Chances are, worse, I need the power after dark.

Depending on your household usage, you would need about 100-200 square meters of sun-facing surfaces.

Don't even mention batteries - if you look now, you discover it costs another $10,000 or $20,000 to outfit your house with a battery storage system that may last 5 years.

Go Nuclear.

I must agree with Nick. The presentation is like that that I have seen for many years from academic researchers looking for big government research dole outs and sucking in unsuspecting investors. To make an feasibility argument must also include the property deed restrictions (it can only look like this or is not list as an optional exterior finish, the amount of square feet of the new tech cells necessary to run the typical energy efficient house, the dual system and transfer switch system capital cost are not included in the cost to manufacture for the cells. The cost analysis must include this feature as the cells cannot provide all of the energy all of the time. There must be a hybrid system of some kind and that is the deficiency of wind and solar energy technologies. They may get something to work feasibly in 10 years but the rest of the system components may or most likely wont be there. The added issue is that changing over prior to getting full pay back the cost (capital, maintenance and disposal)of the previous technology evolution installed is a financial guess since one cannot accurately predict the weather and future costs of these polymer films (spell that OIL BASED source of materials). I'm with Nick, go nuclear.

I must agree with Nick. The presentation is like that that I have seen for many years from academic researchers looking for big government research dole outs and sucking in unsuspecting investors. To make an feasibility argument must also include the property deed restrictions (it can only look like this or is not list as an optional exterior finish, the amount of square feet of the new tech cells necessary to run the typical energy efficient house, the dual system and transfer switch system capital cost are not included in the cost to manufacture for the cells. The cost analysis must include this feature as the cells cannot provide all of the energy all of the time. There must be a hybrid system of some kind and that is the deficiency of wind and solar energy technologies. They may get something to work feasibly in 10 years but the rest of the system components may or most likely wont be there. The added issue is that changing over prior to getting full pay back the cost (capital, maintenance and disposal)of the previous technology evolution installed is a financial guess since one cannot accurately predict the weather and future costs of these polymer films (spell that OIL BASED source of materials). I'm with Nick, go nuclear.

Olsone: "Chances are, worse, I need the power after dark... Go Nuclear."

O.K., here's the deal: solar energy is a diffuse resource, so the PowCo's aren't going to be quaking in their boots; they actually might be the big proponents of this, since it could be in their best interests to "rent" the roofspace on your house, wire it up to run your 'lectric meter backwards at a fractional rate, essentially saying "O.K., we'll give you 10% off on your power usage by letting us hook up the equipment here..." The way power utilities work, they have to have primary, secondary & tertiary plants to kick in as the load varies; by having a bunch of solar cells working mid-day when the power demand is highest, they might be able to axe the tertiary stations [usually the worst polluters/ oldest, amortized clunky equipment] and get by almost completely on their baseline power level from their primary stations [which nuclear is well suited to, since running a nuclear plant day in day out at 60% of rated capacity makes the refueling intervals longer, wear on machinery less, etc. etc. etc. Win-win, as far as the utils go...]

Put another way: as long as the price/bbl of oil keeps rising, the "break even" target price keeps going up as well. At some point, it'll become cost effective, and then as economies of scale kick in, the price of oil may start dropping but the technology will be cheaper as well, an already in play.

It's all good!

The point of the article is how fast the costs of this technology are coming down. In another 5 years it is likely this and other alternative technologies will continue to become less expensive. It is by now (for those of us who can read) clear that the "costs" of nuclear plants will continue to rise, not fall. The issues of safety (accidents + terrorism), fuel (as we use up what's left of all the uranium refined for the US/USSR WMD programs) costs will skyrocket, and we're still not smart enough to assign costs to long-term disposal and the trillions of dollars required to cleanup old reactors and places like Hanford Wa. and numerous other sites in the US (not to mention the other contaminated sites throughout the world with which we will eventually have to deal.

Sorry boys, the easy pickings remain in order:
1. Conservation
2. Alternative supplies (wind,solar,tidal,geothermal)
3. Mass Transit

Id like the builder of the thin film solar panel to call me I have a very good idea Ive been trying to get Konarka to help me build for a circular solar panel that can be elevated above the tree line and have a weather balloon manufacturer waiting to assist me in the production the concept is simple at all times a circular panel will have the same surface area in direct perpendicular line with the sun all day and would be 200% more efficient as apposed to a flat one. A much greater explanation is available my associate and I are anxious to speek with the manufacturer of the thin film because konarka a very fine company but only deals with government contracts Sincerely Richard James (203)440-1781 fax (203)440-3872 RichJ_57@hotmail.com

The realmystery is how does the private home owner get a hold of this thin solar film? If we could there would be a revolution. Don't keep it from us.
PM

Nuclear requires massive subsidy. It has phenominal start up costs; is uninsurable; doesnt last as long as ptojected; and developes waste that costs more tax money to dispose of that doesnt break down for 10,000 years.

And OLSONE:

A five year payback without tax incentives (which your state and the feds offer) Is great. Keep in mind that your power costs from the grid will keep rising. (we are empty on natural gas and coal is under scrutiny for pollution and dams are being removed to save salmon and help ecosystems recover)

Also a system will absolutely last more than five years. Most are warrantied for 20 and they are expected to last for 50+, properly installed.

And as far as needing power at night? You will draw from the grid. Most solar systems are grid tied and during the day you feed the grid with solar and in the evening you draw from the grid.

Thin film has been available for years. The nano stuff (PV ink embedded in thin steel...Not polymer)

is expected to be available in 2009 for consumers. Nanosolar just unveiled a 1GW annualy production machine. (Thats more than the annual production for the average nuclear plant)

Nano intends to market to townships which will put small 4 or 5 MW solar farms outside of cities. It will take up acerage; but the space under the sheets will still be available for farming or grazing. And at under a dollar a watt; with no costs for cleanup or mining...it will be cheaper than coal.

But the true goal is to diversify. With solar, eind, biomass, wave, and yes...some coal and nuclear.

But I agree with the absurdity of the last paragraph.

Power companies are not "trembling" They are encouraging solar and here in Oregon, the power companies formed an "Energy Trust" which gives generous grants for solar.

Power companies dont create power; they route power from turbines, dams, wind farms, nuclear...etc. They would love to have more PV feeding the grid they managae. Even if someone is grid tied with a system that satisfies the entire annual KWH load; they will still pay a monthly management fee to the power company. And deservedly so.