Frankly, Skyhunter, we're talking about different things because you are talking about things that are irrelevant to the OP and/or factally wrong.Like I said, we are talking about two different things.
I was referring to the panels conversion efficiency. CF would vary with location.
How exactly do you think I'm moving the goal posts? Where were they before and what are they now? Heck, I'm using your numbers in my calculations about the output prospects!And it is interesting how you keep moving the goal post Russ. You used the same argument, different goal the last time I mentioned Nanosolar you used it to challenge the efficiency claim.
You are misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position. In fact, I believe entrepreneurship is one of the primary components of US society that makes us great and I wish Nanosolar nothing but success.If everyone followed your advice there would be no progress because only the tried and true (according to personal judgement) would be acceptable.
But that doesn't have anything at all to do with the question the OP asked. The OP asked what could replace half of our energy with renewables in 20 years. And quite frankly, it almost doesn't even matter how good Nanosolar is - they (and related technologies/companies) almost certainly couldn't provide what the OP is asking for, even if the panels themselves were free!
I make absolute statements because from a technical and economic standpoint, the answer to this question is relatively simple. But at least you correctly judged your own statements to be hyperbole....I know this is hyperbolic... but you make such absolute statements I feel it necessary to use a little hyperbole.
Ok....I am not against using nuclear, and do not wish to divulge into an argument against it, but let's review a few facts.
While your numbers look accurate, the idea that that is "prohibitively expensive" most certainly is not a fact. Those numbers are quite reasonable and in-line with what other forms of power cost. More importantly, those costs are artificially inflated due to political pressure. As a result, as the political climate warms to nuclear power, the per watt cost is likely to drop. Significantly. And in any case, the OP's question presupposes the existence of the political will to get the technically/economically most appropriate solution implimented.The capital costs of a nuclear plant are prohibitively expensive, $2.50/W to $5.00/W per so you are not being candid about the affordability.
Put another way, if the the American public said in unison, tomorrow, "lets do it!" (and meant it) to trying to replace 1/3 or so of our energy generation with solar (assuming we don't eliminate the existing hydro and wind fractions...), the project would almost certainly fail to reach that goal. If, on the other hand, they siad "lets do it!" (and meant it) to doing it with nuclear, the project would almost certainly succeed and cost several times less than the failed solar attempt.
I had hoped that my previous analysis would head-off that inevitable misrepresentation. While it doesn't exactly rise to the level of a lie by the corporate literature, it does cause people to mistakenly believe that solar power is cost competitive.I don't know the exact cost of the utility panels, but the companies stated goal was to deliver a PV power plant for less than $1.00W.
As I already explained and mheslep explained again, $1/watt for solar is actually worse than $5/watt for nuclear. In addition, as mheslep said, those numbers are only valid if no attempt is made to mediate the power generation variation with storage. That limits the fraction of solar to perhaps 10% and requires 100% redundancy provided by (usually) natural gas.
Who'se that, nanosolar? According to their website, they are only operating at 12 MW per month, only a small fraction of their capacity.I don't know if they met their goal, but the worlds leading producers and suppliers of electricity have bought up all there commercial production for the foreseeable future.
Actually, the white paper I see says both higher voltage and current. But I think you still misunderstand what that actually does for you and why you can't just plug these into the power grid without an inverter. For starters, you should read up on what "ac power" is:OK, I should have said higher current, not voltage. The higher voltage is however important for the higher current capacity and an overall benefit when designing a system.
In short, though, the voltage you get from your electrical socket is continuously varying sinusoidally from +170 to -170 volts, 60x per second. The voltage of a solar power does not vary sinusoidally and must be converted from DC to AC.