Is Solar Now More Affordable Than Coal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ai52487963
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Coal Solar
AI Thread Summary
Nanosolar claims to have developed a breakthrough technology that makes solar energy cheaper than coal, sparking skepticism among observers. A recent article in Physics Today discussed advancements in thin-film photovoltaics using nanoglobules, which reportedly increased photon absorptivity and power output by 19%. However, Nanosolar's claims suggest even greater improvements, raising doubts about their feasibility. Concerns also center on the need for expensive inverters to convert solar power for use, as well as the challenges of energy storage, particularly for off-grid applications. Interconnecting solar systems with the grid is highlighted as a more efficient solution, allowing for excess energy production during the day and reducing reliance on batteries for nighttime energy needs.
Ai52487963
Messages
111
Reaction score
0
http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheaper-than-coal/

So says this company. I'm skeptical though, I don't have a decent background in electrical engineering or...well...anything outside of astrophysics really to tell if its worth it. Seems very promising though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
When it sounds too good to be true...

Applying nanoglobules to thin-film photovoltaics was the subject of a recent article in Physics Today. It was apparently a decent breakthrough in increasing absorptivity of photons and boosting power. As I recall, it boosted the power by 19%. These folks are claiming a lot bigger boost than that. I want it to be true, but is it?
 
About once every 6 months, a company claims to have invented plastic solar cells. There is an Israeli company that is also not manufacturing them quite yet. :rolleyes:

Heck, even if they make the cells cheap, they still need gigantic, expensive inverters to make the power usable.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the most efficent use is to have solar panels directly drive AC units on the same roof?
The demand for AC increases with the amount of sun (at least for office/residential)
You don't have to store / transmit the power.
AC compressors can be made to run just as easily on low voltage DC as 110v AC.
 
It seems a little to good to be true. I'd be skeptical...
 
I figured as much. Besides, isn't the main problem with solar just the storage part and not actually getting the energy in the first place?
 
Ai52487963 said:
I figured as much. Besides, isn't the main problem with solar just the storage part and not actually getting the energy in the first place?

That would be for "off the grid" houses who want to have night-time lights and television, etc. The batteries add a lot of cost and hassle. Intertying with the grid is a better way to go, since one would produce excess energy during the day (when the grid needs more), and your meter runs backward. Then you use grid energy at night, and your meter runs forward. No batteries required.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top