The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Startup Promises Solar Energy As Cheap As Fossil Fuels
inhabitat.com — Energy company Sunrgi recently announced an astounding new solar system that will break our grids free from the fossil fuel lockdown. Their Xtreme Concentrated Photovoltaics promise a low-cost, high-efficiency system with an incredible projected energy pricing of 5 cents per kilowatt. This puts solar on par with the cost of coal, natural gas, etc..
FamilyGuyFan- 829 diggs
- digg it
- dabura, on 05/10/2008, -13/+2cheap as Fossil Fuels?
Why not cheaper or dirt cheap?
/cheap suit- cheap suit- KhanneaNL, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2Just wait, just wait. So far there is no economic incentive to go cheaper, and it is hard to do so. But there will be more of these startups coming up with bright ideas.
I'd say SODOMIZE THE WAHABI SKY-DADDY FASCISTS UNDER THE DARK BROWN TOWELS. - guitarmaster, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2fossil fuels are really cheap - especially historically
thats why we have been using it like morons all this time - Fordi, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Hm.
Well, I'd say that take the existing design (concentrating sunlight onto smaller photocells, and diffusing the resultant heat), remove those ***** air-cooled heatsinks, add a watersink, and put a stirling engine at the hot end. I'd love one of these to play with to experiment towards even higher efficiencies.
- KhanneaNL, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2Just wait, just wait. So far there is no economic incentive to go cheaper, and it is hard to do so. But there will be more of these startups coming up with bright ideas.
- bincoder, on 05/10/2008, -5/+1/me thinks their projector needs a new lightbulb.
- controltheweb, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Great information in comments at site.
- DiggLive, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4Sunrgi, very clever.
- cutekelvins, on 05/10/2008, -6/+3I do not think that they have made it. It's the number of photons which should strike the cell which matters. If you put magnifier most of the photons are either consumed by the magnifier or are reflected back. You get slightly higher performance per area but the cost factor is adjusted with the cost of the magnifier. Every scientist who works on solar cell think about this as the first solution. So, nothing new here. Dont bury me atleast for telling you the truth.
- bluesatin, on 05/10/2008, -1/+8Since when does a magnifier reduce the amount of light going to something by much, I mean, cameras isn't ridiculously dark when they use lenses.
- cutekelvins, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1What a ridiculous reply. Cameras do have difficulty when they use lenses. Camera with zoom lenses have slightly higher CCD pixel size so that they can capture more number of photons. Cell phone cameras have smaller CCD pixel size(because space is less), the images captured are much noisy. You would know this when you do high speed photography. This thing might sound counter-intuitive. Once the chip goes for manufacturing size has no effect on cost. Moreover the cost of zoom lenses are much higher than the other part of the camera because this reason.
Moreover, high energy photons lie near the violet band which is almost not visible to eyes. Yellow has less energy but it is the most visible color. - Fordi, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Between surface reflection and internal reflection, you can expect to lose as much as 20% of incoming light when using a lens. Even a window will reduce incoming light by up to 5%, depending on the coating.
A nonreflective coating does help - but only solves half the problem (the internal reflections still happen). Carefully designing the lens shape to minimize both internal and external reflections, while maintaining the overall refraction is an important task in this endeavor.
Lens cost can be low, but coating cost is necessarily not - anytime you can see a lens reflecting white, you know you're losing energy.
As for efficiency: solar cell efficiency goes up with intensity of incoming light. The reason that most concentration methods don't make it to market is the heating problem - but that can be solved using a sufficiently efficient heat mover beneath the cells. They've used an air-cooled heatsink, but I think a watersink and another technology to make use of the waste heat may be in better order.- Fordi, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1It's weird. No matter how factual or venomous my statement is, I get a minimum 3-4 down diggs (according to Zuubu) to offset everything else. It's like I've pissed off a few people to the point where they're following my comment history, down-digging everything I have to say.
That's a little annoying. But only a little.
- Fordi, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1It's weird. No matter how factual or venomous my statement is, I get a minimum 3-4 down diggs (according to Zuubu) to offset everything else. It's like I've pissed off a few people to the point where they're following my comment history, down-digging everything I have to say.
- triplehelix, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Fresnel lens
- cutekelvins, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1What a ridiculous reply. Cameras do have difficulty when they use lenses. Camera with zoom lenses have slightly higher CCD pixel size so that they can capture more number of photons. Cell phone cameras have smaller CCD pixel size(because space is less), the images captured are much noisy. You would know this when you do high speed photography. This thing might sound counter-intuitive. Once the chip goes for manufacturing size has no effect on cost. Moreover the cost of zoom lenses are much higher than the other part of the camera because this reason.
- BlueSkyfish, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3Cost of the magnifier? Plastic and glass are dirt cheap.
- cutekelvins, on 05/11/2008, -3/+3ask any camera manufacturer the cost of zoom lenses of the Digital SLR. Very good quality zoom lenses on amazon cost 970$. Check here
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Telephoto-Zoo ...- BlueSkyfish, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Camera lenses have to be very high quality and perfectly flawless to keep the picture sharp and the color from changing. If you just want to focus light, you can just use a cheap lens
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=pd_sc_1?ie=UTF8&search ... glass - cutekelvins, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Absolutely right. Images would not be sharp if less number of photons fall on CCD. It has to be of high quality and hence the cost. If we use those low quality glasses less number of photons will fall on it. Amount of electricity generated is proportional to the number of photons falling over the cell. Moreover the semiconductor material used in solar cells can not work beyond a temperature limit.
People are dying to make energy breakthrough. If things were this simple the problem would have been solved.
- BlueSkyfish, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Camera lenses have to be very high quality and perfectly flawless to keep the picture sharp and the color from changing. If you just want to focus light, you can just use a cheap lens
- cutekelvins, on 05/11/2008, -3/+3ask any camera manufacturer the cost of zoom lenses of the Digital SLR. Very good quality zoom lenses on amazon cost 970$. Check here
- bluesatin, on 05/10/2008, -1/+8Since when does a magnifier reduce the amount of light going to something by much, I mean, cameras isn't ridiculously dark when they use lenses.
- cutekelvins, on 05/10/2008, -6/+3I do not think that they have made it. It's the number of photons which should strike the cell which matters. If you put magnifier most of the photons are either consumed by the magnifier or are reflected back. You get slightly higher performance per area but the cost factor is adjusted with the cost of the magnifier. Every scientist who works on solar cell think about this as the first solution. So, nothing new here. Dont bury me atleast for telling you the truth.
- budser, on 05/10/2008, -4/+5Good news, but fossil fuels run 3 - 5 cents, not 5 cents per kilowatt.
- nullcodes, on 05/10/2008, -1/+7Maybe for natural gas (15% of world energy?), but most fossil fuels are not 3-5 cents per kW anymore, coal prices have increased a lot. Furthermore, it's definitely not 3 to 5 cents when you include the cost of detox. That is, the cost of cleaning up the changes to the environment.
Now you can say you don't mind extra CO2 and whatever other crap in the air or whatever, but if other people want the damn thing removed, since you put it you may have to pay for its removal. And again, even without paying for that .. coal itself has gotten more expensive. - Fordi, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Fossil fuels have a fixed cost per kilowatt HOUR. Solar has a fixed cost per kilowatt. Comparing cost of solar vs. fuel is an apples::oranges comparison. You'd do better to calculate the cost of a solar panel to the cost of a generator.
- nullcodes, on 05/10/2008, -1/+7Maybe for natural gas (15% of world energy?), but most fossil fuels are not 3-5 cents per kW anymore, coal prices have increased a lot. Furthermore, it's definitely not 3 to 5 cents when you include the cost of detox. That is, the cost of cleaning up the changes to the environment.
- HaloZero, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6Whats the capital cost though?
- nullcodes, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Capital cost of what? The panel themselves?
When talking about Solar power costs, most of the cost _is_ capital cost. because no solar panels "consumes" fuel it barely costs anything to run. To arrive at that 5cents a kW .. it's the capital cost is the total amount of kilowatts generated over its lifespan (or sometimes 5 years) divided by the capital cost. If it is expected to last a very long time and you are storing some of the energy in batteries the cost of replacing the batteries in X many years is sometimes incliuded.
- nullcodes, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Capital cost of what? The panel themselves?
- freshyill, on 05/10/2008, -1/+10They can't do any better? The last time I checked, the cost of fossil fuels was through the ***** roof.
- KhanneaNL, on 05/10/2008, -11/+7They'll meet halfway, move past each other, wave and liberate us from the ***** ARABS
- yodaj007, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Dugg down for turning a conversation about oil and solar energy comparisons into racism.
- BeefBaron, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Dugg down for unfortunately high likelihood of KhanneaNL spawning more idiotic progeny.
- KhanneaNL, on 05/10/2008, -11/+7They'll meet halfway, move past each other, wave and liberate us from the ***** ARABS
- spyd3rweb, on 05/10/2008, -4/+16People should buy their own solar panels and go off the grid.
- irvman21, on 05/10/2008, -4/+3I would, but I like having power at night.
- yodaj007, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3That's why you charge batteries during the day and use them during the night. Use your brain.
- KhanneaNL, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Read "The Hydrogen Economy" by Rifkin and S M I L E
- jacothedevil, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1spyd3rweb, my thoughts exactly. ha!
- Fordi, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I'm working on a DIY helical wind turbine. Warning: involves welding.
- irvman21, on 05/10/2008, -4/+3I would, but I like having power at night.
- Feep, on 05/10/2008, -0/+21The wide-eyed optimist in me wants to believe.
- Enasni1212, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5But the narrow-eyed pessimist wouldn't be surprised if the fossil fuel industry decided to ***** this up somehow.
- Japadict, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0Haha, that's so true. Its similar to the electric car - the petrol companies buried it when it could potentially (in combination with nuclear power stations) ended global warming forever.
- masterm1nd, on 05/10/2008, -0/+7Whats the catch?
- biotch, on 05/10/2008, -0/+16"Sunrgi has built and tested working prototypes, and has announced plans for commercial production in 12-15 months."
The catch is its the same prediction as all the articles Ive seen for about 7 years now each claiming a year to two before they are on the shelves... And yet here we are with no affordable solar power.
Wake me up when they are in stores... otherwise dont waste my damn time- trolleyfan, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5Seven years now? More like thirty-five, forty...
- biotch, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2haha for you maybe :)
I must be a relative newbie....but 7 or 35 doesnt really make a difference in now being completely jaded to "solar breakthrough" stories
- biotch, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2haha for you maybe :)
- trolleyfan, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5Seven years now? More like thirty-five, forty...
- tnoy, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4The catch is, they're made from the bones of baby seals.
- yodaj007, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1And puppies.
- biotch, on 05/10/2008, -0/+16"Sunrgi has built and tested working prototypes, and has announced plans for commercial production in 12-15 months."
- anfld05, on 05/10/2008, -4/+9This isn't new technology. Buried for false hope.
- socivitus, on 05/10/2008, -3/+0Its not false hope, but its decades away.
- KhanneaNL, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4Buried for cynicism, despair and lack of faith
- redxninja, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3We are still somewhere below Type I. Hopefully we will reach Type I within my life time.
- ThatsNotPudding, on 05/10/2008, -5/+2Little Girl: "I want a pony!"
Sunrgi: "Look in your back yard!" - Sarevok9, on 05/10/2008, -5/+7Fossil fuels avg 4 cents / kilowatt. This stuff 5 cents.
Noone wants to increase their cost of electricity by 20% knowingly unless they're an activist... in which case they already have solar paneling and use a lot of energy star goods. I say its a good try, but they're missing their mark- gowolverines, on 05/10/2008, -0/+9But the cost of FF is going up. The cost of solar has nowhere to go but down.
- painperdu, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2And no one owns the Sun!
- caltheos, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0Yet
- painperdu, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2And no one owns the Sun!
- Fordi, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4Fossil fuels average 4 cents / kilowatt hour. Engines and generators which consume fossil fuels can be $X/kilowatt, and I'd be interested in knowing a good average. (A quick froogle search gets me a 3.5kW generator for $350, so about $100/kilowatt).
The fact that solar innovators and manufacturers insist on rating their products in terms of a fuel cost that doesn't exist, rather than capital cost vs. instantaneous power generation, just annoys me. I've e-mailed Sunrgi to ask capital cost per kWp in order to nail down this figure.- Fordi, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2Holy *****. I understand when I get dugg down for stating venom about some things, but getting buried for *gasp* demanding real figures, or stating minor research?
You've got to be kidding me. I do believe Digg's being taken over by the oversensitive.
- Fordi, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2Holy *****. I understand when I get dugg down for stating venom about some things, but getting buried for *gasp* demanding real figures, or stating minor research?
- dddavid, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Yes, and if you can't hit a homerun your first try, you should just stop trying.
- gamemaker, on 05/11/2008, -0/+220% is an EASY price to pay for:
- Renewable energy, forever
- Non-polluting, non-greenhouse gas (worth it for this price alone)
- Eliminates reliance on foreign energy - all our troops and military bases come back from the middle east, we can cut taxes with the savings
- The 20% is a temporary, short term disadvantage, because a) fossil fuel is by definition scarcer and therefore more expensive over time and b) if this tech really works, it's not at all hard to imagine mass-production bringing costs down by far more than 20%
20% for that? Sounds like a bargain!
- gowolverines, on 05/10/2008, -0/+9But the cost of FF is going up. The cost of solar has nowhere to go but down.
- prisoner24601, on 05/10/2008, -1/+6There's so much talk about how panel technology is changing, but half the cost of getting solar is installation. There should be incentives for homebuilders to put basic mount locations and wiring pass-throughs in the designs of EVERY new house they build. Of course they won't actually install panels, but that's fine. The homeowner can have that done later.
If DR Horton/Pulte/etc. all spent a few hundred bucks to leave the hookups and hardware in place on a new home, installing a system wouldn't cost $10,000 for panels + $10,000 for installation, but basically just the panel cost.
I don't like regulation, but this is a perfect example of an easy fix. Homebuilders right now want to save $500 on the hardware and time it would take to do this on every home they make, so buyers later have to spend $10,000 to have tiles ripped up, holes drilled, mounts installed, etc.- famousdave, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Why not just change the design of the panels so that they can easily be added to any house?
- Fordi, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2It's not the panel design that's the problem; you can't pump power into your house without drilling a hole into a wall or roof. As for mounting, it's the exact same problem as sticking on a dish; there aren't mounting brackets built on, so you always end up building one.
- gossipninja, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1You make an interesting point, but the issue is, if you are buying a 200k plus home and they say " it has holes in the roof for easy solar install" most people would be turned off to that, plus unless those are sealed it could hurt the efficiency of a house. Solar install is expensive cuz there is not a "one size fits all" situation, that could change, but it probably wont.
- HyperbolePolice, on 05/11/2008, -3/+0This is precisely why regulation is bad, because they might actually do what the poster says and completely ignore that Solar PV on a home-by-home basis is fairly dumb. The grid already exists, solar (if it ever takes off) will likely reuse that. If you have 1% of homes actually using the required home-based infrastructure that means that 99% of it was wasted money... such as.
- famousdave, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Why not just change the design of the panels so that they can easily be added to any house?
- uhhNo, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5Technically it's even cheaper because we wont have to spend money trying to eliminate the pollution caused by burning fossil fuels. I'm sure that in a few years/decades we will have to spend a lot trying to eliminate pollution... I have heard that in some parts of China, if you walk outside your eyes will burn because the pollution is so bad...
- ComeOutSwingin, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I heard your eyes actually fall out of their sockets...
- brettmurf, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5I've heard your peepee falls off.
- mikehrp, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1or AS expensive as fossil fuels?
- ezdiggin, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I don't know exactly how they expect to deliver the energy to the consumer in any amount of time. These things don't happen overnight! I applaud their effort and hope it can become a reality. Until we can truly harness the energy of the sun, check out this guy using solar power to melt a brick! It's simple, but a small-scale version of what we can do!
http://www.filmtoob.com/watch/136987561/Solar-Powe ... - SiXiam, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1We pay 12.4 cents per kilowatt/hour in Pittsburgh, PA
It's cheap when you compare the break-even point on present solar systems.
I wish the company luck, but when you factor in installation and all the equipment costs, solar is just not economically viable yet.
http://256.com/solar/ - protogenxl, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2What makes the solar cells so extreme?
- yodaj007, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Maybe you would have gotten dugg up if you had used "Xtream!" instead?
- ellisgl, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4I think I'll wait till the actual photocells are more efficient, greater than 60 percent (Current is 40% for the top end). Also what they are showing needs a cooling system. I would use the heat from the cooling system to heat my water heater.
- XZanatos, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1The rate of environmental degradation/destruction can't afford anymore waiting AND people investing in current technologies provides money for them to research and build the better technologies.
p.s. using the heat for a water heater IS a cooling system. Good thinking.
- XZanatos, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1The rate of environmental degradation/destruction can't afford anymore waiting AND people investing in current technologies provides money for them to research and build the better technologies.
- trixterIreland, on 05/10/2008, -3/+3how well does their system work at night?
How well does it work in areas like say the UK where you have higher cloud cover than say the deserts in the southwestern US?
Yes its a start but this is the problem with trying to do only one thing that is variable such as sun or wind.
I also wonder how much pollutants go into the manufacture of solar cells, given their life span and whether it really makes any difference.- yodaj007, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2"how well does their system work at night?"
Batteries, or continue to use power from the grid when solar isn't sufficient. - gossipninja, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Well cloud cover is not a huge concern, Germany produced over 60% of the worlds solar power, but much of that is not thru photophotaic power( typical solar panels) but through solar thermal, where the sun heats up water/molten salt. In arizona the big solar plant does not use photophotaic, but solar thermal to heat molten salt, and use the heat to heat water and power a steam turbine, which is much more efficient, and it is easier to store heat during the night, then it is electricity in batteries.
- XZanatos, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1"I also wonder how much pollutants go into the manufacture of solar cells, given their life span and whether it really makes any difference."
stop wondering and just look it up: it makes a BIG difference.
- yodaj007, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2"how well does their system work at night?"
- Wakkyweed, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Be sure to read the comments at the bottom of the article. They raise some very interesting points about whether this is viable or not. I would love to see a solar system that works as well as they claim, but I'm rather skeptical at this point.
- guitarmaster, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3lol at "new solar system"
- philmck, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2"...a PV cell composition that doesn’t depend on the world’s depleted silicon reserves...."
Which depleted silicon reserves are they? We're short of *sand* now?? - SilverBlade2k, on 05/10/2008, -5/+2Solar energy only works when it's sunny. unless you have enough battery storage that can give you enough electricity to power everything in your house until it is sunny again.
- BlueSkyfish, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3You don't need batteries. If you're connected to the power grid, you give excess electricity to the power company during the day, and get it back from them at night. At the end of the month, you get charged, or payed, for the difference.
- videographer, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6Hey, I already have solar panels. Got a $114 rebate credit this month from my utility.
I love the idea, but why is it eternally 12 - 18 months away from production?.- Peko, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2For optimal coaxing, scientists study the proper length of stick and the size of the carrot.
- jimjacks, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3I will pay an extra penny a kwatt if it will keep my money here instead of going over seas!
- DeadPanDan, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1We're talking about electricity here, not oil. The grid electricity comes mostly from coal. Coal is mined here in the good ol' USA. The real benefit in solar is that coal has huge hidden costs. The damage done by pollution doesn't show up in the electric bill, but we're all paying for it one way or another.
- lopla, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Fantastic news!!! Steorn Orbo will also be out in 12-15 months!! A new era is upon us!!
- laserdog, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6Energy company Sunrgi recently issued a press release!
Seriously, I've see at least 2 of these "OMG new breakthrough in Solar Power efficiency!" posts every month for the past 3 years.
At this point, people making promises about solar are no longer news.
Wake me when someone starts delivering on any one of those promises. - mysticalone, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Their going to need protection from oil companies, countries, and space colonies. Sign me up to test pilot your mobile suits...
- Artz, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0They just want to be bought by Google.
- freezeout, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2thats just $60,000 for 1.21 gigawatts!
- jstad, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2I will believe it when I see it....
- theplant, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1And we want solar power that constantly charges more... why?
- julianrod, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Poor Sun, they're abusing and exploiting it. =(
- jstad, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Abuse is what makes the world go round :p
- DeadPanDan, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Hey! Finders keepers! The sun threw away those photons!
- Sumergocogito, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2"Rounding out the tech is a sun-tracking system and a PV cell composition that doesn’t depend on the world’s DEPLETED SILICON RESERVES." (End of paragraph 4, my emphasis added)
"On Earth, silicon is the second most abundant element (after oxygen) in the crust,[1] making up 25.7% of the crust by mass (Wikipedia)"
If they write crap like that, better wait for the independent tests before buying stock!- DeadPanDan, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1They're talking about pure silicon wafers. Production isn't meeting demand. The problem with that statement is that even though they use less silicon, they still use silicon. Saying that "it doesn't depend on the world's silicon reserves" isn't quite true.
- Infowarmachine, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1entire company suddenly dies in mysterious plane crash
- DestroyFascism, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Lets see.
$24 solar panel (8watt -12v) measuring 24mm x 24mm
Big Intel processor heat pipe cooling and passive heat sink =$15
Sheet metal box made from scrap = ?
Fresnel lens (high impact plastic)
Make 36 of these.
Mount on roof or embed into roof tiles using the glue they use on roads for cats eyes. - tehbored, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2These look very expensive to produce. But at 37.5% efficiency, it's probably OK.
- Twenty, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Way way way more efficient than current solar panels. They even have the pretty graphs, come on. (Seriously, you have to admit the graphs are pretty awesome).
- Fordi, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1***** solar power. I want my damned solar death ray.
Actually, (a modernized version) shouldn't be too hard to build. Four parabolic reflectors, three mirrors and some mechanical jiggery pokery, and you've got something that could take out a roman ship, no problem. - lobsterxcore, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1It's called Xtreme, so it must work
- gossipninja, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Every few months there is a"solar revolution" and it never goes very far but a lot of that is everyone is playing "wait and see" hoping that next year, the breakthrough in cheap solar will come. I think if any government was serious about the energy crisis, they would take a handful of these "revolutionary" ideas and do test roll outs in cities that receive a ton of sun.
Solar concentration, concentrating panels, and what i think is very ideal, those solar balloons (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/cool_earth ...
You use these tests to see what does and doesn't work, then instead of rebates and crap (which not all states in the US even have) you have the govt buy and sell the systems. Which is to say, the govt could place such a large order, that the unit cost would plummet, making it cheaper, then the government would sell you the system for roughly your current electric bill each month for x amount of years (ideally 10). And mark the units up 3% and have 3% interest on this 10 year loan, to cover the overhead, then there is no barrier to getting green.Ideally the system will have no batteries and just use the grid as a giant battery, that way you save much of the system cost and maintenance, and reduce overall grid load, the actual power plant cost would be more (prob go to 20-30 cent a kwt) but you only pay for what you use above what you produce in a month, and current rules, if you make more, they gotta buy it, so you could make money each month. This is not perfect but its a digg post not a proposal. - Superc00kie, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Wouldn't the solar cells get hot as hell this way? It would seriously reduce efficiency and shorten the lifespan of the cells!
- Berkana, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1This is not a new concept; other companies have already pursued this venue (For example, Soliant: http://www.soliant-energy.com/index.php ). But if they can do it cheaper, more power to them.
- ishay, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1That kind of projects makes me optimistic about the world...
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is