Simviation Forums

http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-983524 ... ag=newsmap

The summary:

Silicon Panels are costly in terms of manufacturing them and setting up the facilities to mass produce them. The only real advantage they have is that they can convert about 22% of the light into electricity at best. The average commercial silicon-based panels that are common have only a 7-17% photovoltaic efficiency.

CIGS Panels are far cheaper in terms of manufacturing them and setting up the facilities to mass produce them. The downside is that even the best CIGS panels are less efficient than their silicon counterparts. The up-side to it is that it can be printed onto large rolls.

I'm undecided on this one. Which do you think would win out in a global market?

here's a theory i made up based on real world figures

in space, at the orbit of the ISS, the sun generates 10,000 kilowatts per square foot. now due to the ozone layer, electromagnetic layer, the chocolate layer, and other various items protecting out earth, the wattage drops to just 1,000 kilowatts. Current solar technology averaged out at 24%, meaning of the 1,000 kilowatts, panels are only making use of 240 kilowatts.

The idea here is the same as the space elevator. have solar panel farms in space, yet tethered to earth, which will serve 2 purposes, 1. anchoring the panels, and 2. a transmission line.

I think solar farms in space is the way to go, and the space elevator technology, as useless as that sounds, could further my idea.

Ramos

CIGS panels are still relatively new. Hopefully over time the efficiency will be greater. I see them as a cost-effective means of providing power for less develpoed areas. They can easily be used to cover a larger area, which may offset the lack of efficiency somewhat.  

My biggest gripe with current the panels is that they degrade over time and must be replaced after 25 years or so of use. With the upfront cost of traditional silicon panels and having to replace them over time, it's no wonder people are reluctant to install them on residential structures.

Another alternative is reflected solar energy. Setting up a large array of mirrors to heat oil or sodium and using the hot liquid to produce steam which is used to turn a steam generator seems the most viable at the moment, at least for a wholesale market.

Time will tell, and there's always new discoveries being made.

Speaking of steam. There's this one company that was mentioned in the Discovery Channel in regards to alternative energy. This company uses geothermal energy by extracting the hot steam that is produced when an underground water reservoir is heated into steam by a nearby pocket of lava. That steam is then piped to a steam turbine which then turns a generator that produces enough energy to power a small city for quite some time. The steam then cools down in a separate chamber, which then condenses it into water. That water is then pumped straight back to where the steam was extracted so that it can be reheated and then re-extracted over and over again.

I agree with your assessment on solar panels. Even though they can be great alternatives, they do degrade over time. However, 25 years is quite a long serve record for a solar panel if I want to retrofit my house with one. By the end of the 25 years, I will have enough more than enough to burn and buy a replacement.

But my own gripe is with the oil companies. If they see any new alternative source of energy that becomes a threat to their business, they will do anything to keep it off the market. This is why I'm saving money to buy an electric scooter. My job is merely a 15 minute drive by car. A 30-minute drive on an electric scooter is no problem. Besides, gas prices right now are killing me.

Iceland and New Zealand have geothermal power plants. As a matter of fact in 2006, 26.5 % of electricity generation in Iceland came from geothermal energy, 73.4 % from hydro power, and 0.1 % from fossil fuels. Seems like a good model to learn from.  ;)