Seasonal variations in solar energy production

 https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/germany-will-never-run-on-solar-power-here-is-why/

Why is the Texas electrical grid so fragile?

Texas doesn't have a reliable grid because wind and solar could never offer significant value if the requirements for dependable electricity were written down and enforced. And the politicians decided that growing wind and solar was more important than reliable power. And so the people of Texas paid the price for that decision.

https://judithcurry.com/2021/02/18/assigning-blame-for-the-blackouts-in-texas/

Traditional fossil fuel generation has (as does most hydro and nuclear) inherent capacity value. That means such resources generally can be operated with a high degree of reliability and dependability. With incentives they can be operated so that they will likely be there when needed. Wind and solar are intermittent resources, working only under good conditions for wind and sun, and as such do not have capacity value unless they are paired with costly battery systems.

If you want to achieve a higher level of penetration from renewables, dollars will have to be funneled away from traditional resources towards renewables. For high levels of renewable penetration, you need a system where the consumers’ dollars applied to renewable generators are maximized. Rewarding resources for offering capacity advantages effectively penalizes renewables. As noted by the head of the PUC in Texas, an energy only market can fuel diversification towards intermittent resources. It does this because it rewards only energy that is fed into the grid, not backup power. (Side note-it’s typical to provide “renewable” resources preference for feeding into the grid as well. Sometimes wind is compensated for feeding into the grid even during periods of excess generation when fossil fuel resources are penalized. But that’s another article. )

Traditional planning studies might recognize that wind needs to be backed up by fossil fuel (more so under extreme conditions) such that if you have these backup generators its much cheaper to use and fuel them, than to add wind farms with the accompanying significant investment for concrete, rare earth metals, vast swaths of land …. . Traditional planning approaches often have to go(be abandoned) to get around this “bias” of favoring capacity providing resources over intermittent resources.

When capacity value is rewarded, this makes the economics of renewables much less competitive. Texas has stacked the deck to make wind and solar more competitive than they could be in a system that better recognizes the value of dependable resources which can supply capacity benefits. An energy only market helps accomplish the goal of making wind and solar more competitive. Except capacity value is a real value. Ignoring that, as Texas did, comes with real perils.

In Texas now we are seeing the extreme shortages and market price spikes that can result from devaluing capacity. The impacts are increased by both having more intermittent resources which do not provide capacity and also because owners and potential owners of resources which could provide capacity are not incentivized to have those units ready for backup with firm energy supplies.

transatomic power

They discovered a math error in their fundamental assumptions and it turned out to not work after all.

http://www.transatomicpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/TAP-White-Paper-v2.1.pdf

Specifically, we have realized that our initial analyses of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) core loadings were centered around inaccurate assumptions about reactor behavior that, upon detailed review, had to be corrected. This led to the conclusion that while the reactor can achieve criticality on an SNF fuel load and an SNF fuel feed, it cannot maintain criticality for sufficient lengths of time to produce a sustainable net-negative waste profile.

The results have prompted a shift in focus to reducing the rate at which waste is produced while simultaneously utilizing the current commercial 5% LEU supply chain. Our new work has shown significant reductions in waste generation compared to large LWRs, and the TAP reactor is one of the only advanced reactor designs to accomplish this using 5% enriched fuel.

Hastelloy N used in fabricating the MSRE

http://www.thmfgrcs.com/ORNL-TM-3063.pdf

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS, PAGE 87

The heats of Hastelloy N used in fabricating the MSRE have shown a systematic deterioration of mechanical properties with increasing neutron fluence. The material exposed for the longest period of time in the core has reached a thermal fluence of 1.5 x 10^21 neutrons/cm2 and a fast fluence (> 50 kev) of 1.1 X 10^21 neutrons/cm2. These values are quite close to those anticipated for future reactors with a 30-year design life.

The ductility of the material was too low, but the microstructure was free of irradiation-induced voids and defects other than helium bubbles. Several heats of the modified alloys have been exposed to the MSRE and these have better postirradiation properties. They also seem to have good corrosion resistance.

The standard Hastelloy N removed from the core shows some evidence of corrosion. The corrosion seems generally to be due to the selective removal of chromium, as predicted by prenuclear tests.

Some observations that have not been explained adequately are

(1) the presence of grain-boundary cracks in the straps that held parts of the surveillance assembly together,
(2) the modified microstructure near the surface, and
(3) the formation of intergranular cracks originating from the surface when irradiated materials are strained.

One of the modified alloys, heat 67-504, was exposed to the cell environment. The fluence was higher in the core, but the postirradiation properties were superior to those of the material exposed to the cell environment.

We presently have no explanation for the observed behavior.

unreliable energy is especially harmful for the most vulnerable members of society.

Researchers are discovering that unreliable energy is especially harmful for the most vulnerable members of society.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/12/pricing-electricity-by-demand-hits-poor-elderly-disabled-harder/

The motivating principle behind demand-response pricing is that demand is flexible. People can put off running their clothes dryer, or put up with a few hours of somewhat warmer temperatures. But that's actually not true for everyone. The elderly and disabled, for example, may not tolerate even a few hours of elevated temperatures or could have medical equipment that simply can't be shut down. This could also hit the poor harder, as they tend to live in housing with less efficient appliances and poor insulation.

To find out whether there was any evidence that this sort of uneven impact was taking place, researchers Lee White and Nicole Sintov tracked a trial run of demand-response pricing. The trial took place in an unnamed utility in the US Southwest during summer. Because of the heat, there tends to be a spike in demand as people get home from work and turn on the air conditioning. To lower this demand, the utility raised the price of electricity used during this peak, offering two different plans. One simply had elevated prices for the whole period where demand was elevated; the second used even higher prices but limited them to a shorter period at the time of highest demand.

To figure out how this affected vulnerable groups, the researchers got thousands of the participants to fill out surveys regarding their experience.

The results confirmed some of the worries. The elderly and disabled ended up paying more than others under the same pricing scheme. (Households with children saw no significant change.) On the plus side, the lower-income households managed to use the policy to cut down on their costs relative to others on a similar pricing setup. Not surprisingly, however, they reported increased discomfort during the period of the test, presumably because they ran the air conditioning less often.

Bright Days for NanoSolar

When NanoSolar was founded in 2002, the Palo Alto (Calif.) solar-energy startup drew plenty of skepticism. After all, the dot-com bubble had been reduced to a soap stain two years earlier, just months after 34-year-old NanoSolar founder and Chief Executive Officer Martin Roscheisen had sold his e-mail list service eGroups to Yahoo! (YHOO) for $450 million. Now he was jumping right into the next hyped-up sector: alternative energy.

It didn't help that NanoSolar's investors included Google (GOOG) founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and Benchmark Capital, the venture-capital firm that struck e-gold with eBay (EBAY). What did a bunch of dot-com millionaires know about solar energy?

Quite a bit, it turns out. Three years later, things are looking much brighter. In the next six weeks, NanoSolar plans to begin building a factory in the San Francisco Bay area that could pump out as many as 200 million solar cells—semiconductors that convert sunlight to electricity—each year. That will be enough to fill 2 million average-sized panels.

NanoSolar's management claim the company's printing process is less expensive and more efficient than vacuum-based processes that have been used to make most thin-film cells in the past. And they say their cells will generate as much electricity as silicon cells—at one-fifth to one-tenth the cost. "We will be the cost leader," says Brian Sager, co-founder and vice-president of finance and corporate development.

What makes him so sure? First, a recent worldwide shortage of polysilicon has caused a scarcity of silicon solar cells and driven up prices. Second, NanoSolar has assembled a fortress-like portfolio of patents and trade secrets to keep its ink, product design, and printing process proprietary. The company believes no one will be able to copy what it is doing.

Another big plus for the company is the talent that comes along with its latest financing. Investors in the round include heavy hitters from the solar industry. Stuttgart private-equity firm Grazia Equity previously funded the world's largest installer of solar panels, Hamburg-based Conergy. Dimbach (Germany)-based Beck Energy designs and builds solar-power plants. And Christian Reitberger, a Munich-based partner at global private-equity firm Apax Partners, was an early investor in Thalheim (Germany)-based Q-Cells, the world's largest independent maker of silicon-based solar cells.

The keen German interest is no coincidence. With a 47% share, Germany is the world's largest solar heating market. The country's Environment Ministry subsidizes about 40% of the outlay for solar plants that heat drinking water. About one-quarter of NanoSolar's recent $100 million financing consists of subsidies and incentives from various governments, including Germany's. Now, NanoSolar just needs to make all that support pay off.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2006-06-25/bright-days-for-nanosolar

Soitec Solar 1 EIR

The concentrator photovoltaic (CPV) system uses a dual-axis tracking system. The components of the dual-axis tracking system include modules, described below, that are placed on the tracking system, the tracker unit, and the tracker control unit. Generally and from this point forward throughout the EIR, the CPV system is referred to as “trackers.” Two types of sensors are used to ensure that the focal point of the concentrated sunlight is exactly on the solar cells at every moment of the day:

(1) astronomical positioning and
(2) a solar sensor that seeks to position the trackers precisely perpendicular to the sun to ensure optimum system performance.

The entire trackers module assembly dimensions are approximately 48 feet across by 25 feet tall. Each tracker would be mounted on a 28-inch steel mast (steel pole), which, depending on wind loading and soil conditions at the site, would be installed by: (1) inserting the mast into a hole up to 20 feet deep and encasing it in concrete, (2) vibrating the mast into the ground up to 20 feet deep, or (3) attaching the mast to a concrete foundation sized to adequately support the trackers.

The ultimate height of each tracker in its most vertical position depends on how it is installed because installing the mast into a concrete foundation may increase the tracker height. In its most vertical position and assuming the use of a concrete foundation, however, the top of each tracker would not exceed 30 feet above grade, and the lower edge would not be less than 1 foot above ground level. In its horizontal “stow” mode (for high winds), each tracker would have a minimum ground clearance of 13 feet, 6 inches.

Soitec’s Concentrix modules, which are manufactured in San Diego County (Rancho Bernardo), are made up of a lens plate (Fresnel lens) and a base plate on which high-performance solar cells are mounted. The Fresnel lens focuses sunlight concentrated by a factor of 500 on the solar cells beneath.

The solar cells are optimized multi-junction solar cells (GAInP/GaInAs/Ge) in which three different types of solar cells are stacked on top of one another. Each cell is designed to convert a certain range of the solar spectrum: short-wave radiation, medium-wave radiation, and infrared. For almost 20 years, multi-junction solar cells have been used in space applications.

The solar modules are lightweight and surrounded by airflow both inside and outside the module. As a result, heat dissipates quickly from a solar panel. The normal operating temperature for solar modules is 20 degrees Celsius (°C) above ambient temperature; therefore, on a typical summer day at 40°C (104°F), the panel temperature would be approximately 60°C (172°F). When accounting for irradiance (a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given time), wind, and module type, it is expected that the peak module temperatures in the summer would be between 65°C and 70°C (149°F and 158°F), and the peak module temperatures in the winter would be between 35°C and 40°C (95°F and 104°F).

Although the CPV panels would be hot to the touch as a result of solar energy absorption, CPV panels are designed to absorb light energy inwards towards the panel to produce electricity. As opposed to mirrors which redirect the sun, CPV modules use Fresnel lenses to concentrate sunlight inside the module to produce electricity, and therefore, they would not noticeably affect the temperature of the surrounding area; temperatures below the modules would be nearly the same as ambient temperatures in ordinary shade.

Solar: Ivanpah and concentrated sunlight

Some have asked why not just build a big greenhouse to collect the sun's heat?

Let's do a simple carnot efficiency calculation.

Round off 25C to 300K.

Let's suppose your greenhouse gets up to 120F/322K.

Then your systems efficiency is never better than 1 - (300/322) = 6.8%.

Ivanpah is designed to run at 1013F/818K or 1 - (300/818) = 63%.

So it will cost 1/10 as much as the greenhouse.

http://www.energy-tech.com/article.cfm?id=32913

As a standalone solar thermal system, I suspect the economics on this plant are very bad because no matter how hard you look for the details of the contracts they have with the utilities, the only thing you can find about the cost per kWh is that it's a secret. Obviously it is so high that everyone involved is scared to death of the public/ratepayers finding out. And like everyone else, I have to ask "where do they go" to lower costs.

If you assume a future where a higher percentage of sources are unreliable then obviously there is more value in a reliable source. But if you look at thermal storage, no one has been able to make that economical and how do you lower the cost of salt to improve that?

But Ivanpah has one trick up its sleeve: they cleverly sited themselves right next to a large natural gas pipeline. If the utilities have a need for more on-demand power, Ivanpah simply needs to install a natural gas burning boiler and they will be able to make steam and turn the generators any time needed.

Another future possibility would see Ivanpah converted to a hybrid facility called an integrated solar combined-cycle plant. On the generation side, it would be a two stage turbine like any other combined cycle plant: first a high temperature gas turbine whose exhaust goes into a boiler for a steam turbine.

On the hot side, the working fluid would first run through the solar tower for preheating and then into the gas fed "boiler" for superheating.

GE is working with eSolar to develop this kind of technology.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/425012/ge-invests-in-solar-thermal-company/

The sad thing is that solar power doesn't get any better than Ivanpah. 

The site is ideal: desert with lots of useless land and clear weather to give maximum solar intensity. It's as far from Germany as you can get in terms of site suitability.

The technology is elegant: the collection method is simple and cheap glass mirrors. No toxic chemicals for manufacturing, no toxic waste to dispose of when panels reach EOL and the price just doesn't get any lower.

The electricity generation process has merit too. Their unique ultra-high temperature system means high carnot efficiency: 63%.

Compare that to the typical solar cell's efficiency of just 15%.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/09/dont-be-a-pv-efficiency-snob/

Still, the economics look bad and this system basically proves it's impossible to improve it very much.

Of course, Carnot efficiency is a "not to exceed" value. In reality, it is expected to

"operate at 18 percent efficiency and earn a capacity factor of 30 percent.

This performance should make the 392-MW facility more efficient than plants with crystalline-silicon panels, thin-film cells or rival thermal technologies using parabolic mirrors, according to analysts, as the efficiency of utility-scale crystalline silicon and thin-film plants is likely less than 12 percent."

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/is-ivanpah-the-worlds-most-efficient-solar-plant 

Solar: Great news for Nanosolar

On Wednesday, Nanosolar pulled back the curtain on its thin-film photovoltaic cell technology — which it claims is more efficient and less expensive than that of industry leader First Solar — and announced that it has secured $4.1 billion in orders for its solar panels.

Martin Roscheisen, Nanosolar’s chief executive, said customers included solar power plant developers like NextLight, AES Solar and Beck Energy of Germany.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/41-billion-in-orders-for-thin-film-solar/

100W incandescent light bulbs

Many people have been told that "rough service" bulbs are a loophole in the Federal ban of 100W incandescent light bulbs.

Yes, it is a loophole in the sense that it is still legal.

No, it's not a useful loophole.

Anyone using a 100W bulb instead of a 60W is presumptively in search of a high level of brightness.

The problem with rough service bulbs is that they are very inefficient, even in comparison to standard bulbs.

A typical rough service 100W bulb only produces around 1000 lumens while standard bulbs produce over 50% more at 1600 lumens.

Some rough service bulbs:

https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/100-watt-standard-shape-light-bulbs/

My recommendation is the energy saving incandescents which produce almost as much light as a regular bulb while consuming only the legally allowed 72W such as the following:

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Philips-100W-Equivalent-Incandescent-A19-Soft-White-Dimmable-Light-Bulb-4-Pack-426049/203637038

It is an excellent replacement.

1. very close in brightness

2. instant on

3. dims identically

4. very similar color (a tiny bit less yellow)

5. very good color fidelity (100% CRI)

The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist

The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: 

Even Liberals Love Them 

If you were to survey people and ask the question “Should we subsidize oil companies?” — the overwhelming majority would undoubtedly respond “ No!” The idea that we are subsidizing oil companies generates outrage in many people, but in this article I will show why these subsidies aren’t going to go away any time soon. The reason may surprise you.

So let’s ask the question in a different way: “Should we allow oil companies to take a tax deduction also available to any U.S. manufacturer such as Apple or Microsoft?” 

A lot of people will still answer “ No” to that question, but certainly fewer than answered “No” to the original question.

Now ask the question “Should farmers be allowed a fuel tax exemption for the fuel they use on the farm?” 

In this case, some people are going to say “ No”, but farmers are going to be near unanimous in saying “Yes!”

Let’s ask one final question: “Should we fund programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) that help low-income families with their heating bills?” 

The irony in this question is that some of the people who are the most vehemently opposed to fossil fuel subsidies will argue that this is an important program that helps keep poor people from freezing to death in winter, and thus it would be inhumane to eliminate it.

Yet unless you answered “ No” to all four questions, you support programs that have been specifically identified as fossil fuel subsidies.

Environmental activist and author Bill McKibben recently wrote an article called Payola for the Most Profitable Corporations in History. In the article McKibben proposes “five rules of the road that should be applied to the fossil-fuel industry.” But even as he advocates getting rid of them, McKibben demonstrated that he doesn’t really understand the nature of these subsidies — and this sort of misunderstanding largely explains why they persist. McKibben himself indicates sympathy for subsidies when he wrote: “Many of those subsidies, however, take the form of cheap, subsidized gas in petro-states, often with impoverished populations — as in Nigeria, where popular protests forced the government to back down on a decision to cut such subsidies earlier this year.” However, he then incorrectly asserts “ In the U.S., though, they’re simply straightforward presents to rich companies, gifts from the 99% to the 1%.”

That’s just not true, and a failure to understand this is why we continue to be outraged over fossil fuel subsidies in the U.S. (As an aside, characterizing the oil companies as “the 1%” is also misleading, because oil companies are overwhelmingly owned by the 99%).

Oil Change International is an organization focused on exposing fossil fuel subsidies. On their site they have a page on fossil fuel subsidies, which they define as “any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.” They include a spreadsheet breaking down various fossil fuel subsidies utilizing data from a joint OECD-IEA report called Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Other Support. The summary of oil-related subsidies in the U.S. for 2010 totals $4.5 billion. That is a number often put forward; $4 billion a year or so in support for those greedy oil companies.

But look at the breakdown.

The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. The justification for that tax exemption is that fuel taxes pay for roads, and the farm equipment that benefits from the tax exemption is technically not supposed to be using the roads. The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of fuel, which helps oil companies sell more of it). Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in “oil subsidies.”

Oil Subsidies that Liberals Love

So why do we still have fossil fuel subsidies? Because almost nobody — not even Bill McKibben — wants to get rid of all of the programs that are classified as fossil fuel subsidies. I suspect McKibben would not advocate eliminating the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Two of the most outspoken Democratic opponents of oil subsidies have strongly defended this particular program — even though it is classified by the OECD as the 3rd largest petroleum subsidy. When Republicans tried to cut funding for the program, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the proposal an “extreme idea” that would “set the country backwards.” Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass, states on his website that he is a “longtime Congressional champion of providing assistance to low-income families to heat and cool their homes.”

In fact, look at the reaction from Democrats when President Obama tried to reduce funding for the program. Rep. Markey’s office said: “If these cuts are real, it would be a very disappointing development for millions of families still struggling through a harsh winter.” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., noted her opposition: “The President’s reported proposal to drastically slash LIHEAP funds by more than half would have a severe impact on many of New Hampshire’s most vulnerable citizens and I strongly oppose it.” Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., wrote a letter to President Obama that stated in part: “We simply cannot afford to cut LIHEAP funding during one of the most brutal winters in history. Families across Massachusetts, and the country, depend on these monies to heat their homes and survive the season.” Yet each one of these Democrats was defending a program that is lumped into that all-encompassing category of “oil subsidies.”

What is the Impact of Eliminating the Subsidy?

Of course many Democrats will complain that those aren’t the kinds of subsidies they are protesting. That’s not the point; the fact that some programs that are popular with Democrats are classified as oil subsidies is exactly why we will never be rid of oil subsidies. People don’t take the time to consider just what an oil subsidy actually is. If they did they might find that they are a beneficiary.

There are certainly other tax deductions that do more directly benefit the oil industry, just like every taxpayer has tax deductions that benefit them. Many taxpayers take advantage of a mortgage interest deduction, but I bet they don’t think they are collecting subsidies just because they sliced a small portion off of their tax bill with that deduction.

Last year CNN did a story where they put together their own list of the so-called oil subsidies, and in their list the “largest single tax break” — amounting to $1.7 billion per year for the oil industry — is a manufacturer’s tax deduction that is defined in Section 199 of the IRS code. This is a tax credit designed to keep manufacturing in the U.S., but it isn’t specific to oil companies. It is a tax credit enjoyed by highly profitable companies like Microsoft and Apple, and even foreign companies that operate factories in the U.S. Further, the deduction for oil companies is already limited. Apple is able to take a 9% manufacturer’s tax deduction, but ExxonMobil is only allowed to take a 6% deduction.

It is really irrelevant how profitable Apple might be. The argument that “they are rich and therefore don’t need it” doesn’t mean that elimination of the tax credit will therefore have no impact. If there is a compelling financial advantage for them to build a factory overseas they will do so. This tax credit provides incentive for them to keep manufacturing in the U.S.

Likewise, ExxonMobil has access to oil fields and refineries in many foreign countries. If they are comparing projects here and abroad, that tax credit will factor into their decision. Whether it is enough to push them one way or another is something I don’t know. Many opponents of subsidies imagine that the impact will merely be taxpayer savings as ExxonMobil loses out on this tax credit. But what if the impact is that we lose domestic jobs as ExxonMobil shifts operations out of the U.S. (something that tax credit was designed to prevent)? What if the impact is that we continue to use just as much oil, but more of it now comes from overseas because we placed our domestic producers at a competitive disadvantage? To determine that there should be some independent analyses to examine the impact.

When to Subsidize?

I agree with the definition provided by Oil Change International; that a fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers. I also agree that both oil production and consumption are subsidized in various ways. But these subsidies aren’t the cash payments to oil companies that many people imagine. If they were, they would be much easier to eliminate.

It is certainly acceptable to debate whether subsidies such at the manufacturer’s tax credit should be eliminated. But it is important to be informed as we discuss the issue. Anyone who discusses elimination of specific subsidies should know the answer to three questions: 1). What is the purpose of this subsidy?; 2). Is it working as intended?; and 3). What is the projected impact from eliminating it? For manufacturer’s tax credit, the intended purpose of course is to keep manufacturing in the U.S. Whether it has actually been worth the money is something that I can’t say without seeing a study on the impact of the tax credit.

The ideal use of a subsidy should be when we want to stimulate action that would not have otherwise been undertaken. Regardless of how profitable a company is, they are not going to intentionally make unprofitable business decisions unless an incentive such as a regulation or a subsidy is applied. If we subsidize an action that would have been undertaken in any case — business as usual — then that would not ordinarily be a good usage of tax dollars. Opponents and proponents are both apt to make unsubstantiated claims with respect to a subsidy’s impact, but they need to have some basis for their opinions. Otherwise we may relearn the lesson that some actions have undesirable consequences. If you simply take the position — “They don’t need these tax breaks“ — then don’t be surprised if they make decisions you didn’t expect them to make.

Conclusions

If we are to have a productive discussion of fossil fuel subsidies, it is important that participants understand what they are, their intended purpose, and the projected impact of removing them. Projecting the impact requires more than a guess. Because of misleading political rhetoric, people imagine these subsidies as cash payments to oil companies. But, many of these subsidies are not what people think they are.

In many cases they are benefiting people who have nothing to do with the oil industry — yet the money spent on these programs is still tallied against the oil industry.  The result is a great deal of anger over spending that often benefits the angry people. That is why it is so hard to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies; a majority of the population likely supports at least some of them without realizing that they are in fact subsidies. And until those who are loudly screaming that we must eliminate these subsidies actually take the time to understand what they are — as well as the impact of removing them — we can expect there will continue to be much heat and little light on this topic.

This article is available online at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/

Amazing Breakthrough in Solar Energy

Nanosolar was founded in 2002 to make solar power inexpensive through Silicon Valley style technology innovation. Since 2004, we have focused on executing a plan of reinventing CIGS – the most efficient and stable photovoltaic thin-film semiconductor – for superior cost and capital efficiency, targeting a cost/performance level not considered achievable by many experienced experts and institutions.

After five years of intense development and perseverance, we have delivered on our cost objectives, attained IEC 61646 & 61730 product certification, and are now in serial production, with our production run rate presently set at a sub-capacity level consistent with our market-introduction business objectives.

In order to realize the extent of this advance in cost efficiency, we addressed a host of fundamental science and engineering challenges. We developed a completely new semiconductor synthesis process with novel nanostructured materials, novel substrate and cell-architecture technologies, and new tooling designs to implement all of this as part of a new continuous-processing manufacturing framework.

Our team has developed an ultra-low-cost solar cell based on five principal bodies of technological innovation:

1. the use of a highly conductive, low-cost aluminum foil as the substrate and bottom electrode of the cell;
2. a CIGS ink with loaded-in stochiometric ratio and a high-yield high-throughput printing process to form an electronic-grade CIGS semiconductor;
3. a novel Metal-Wrap-Through (MWT) back-contact design based on high-throughput foil lamination;
4. a thin/printed transparent top electrode; and
5. redesign and development of materials deposition processes that work with and leverage the superior steady-state uniformity and other characteristics inherent in roll-to-roll processing.

These five bodies of innovation address each component of a solar cell and its cost and capital efficiency, delivering the definitive improvement necessary to obtain an ultra-low-cost product:

Innovation (1) delivers low materials cost, a low-cost substrate, and a low-cost bottom electrode (which otherwise would have to be created through an expensive thin film).

Innovations (2+5) deliver a low-cost absorber/semiconductor with high material utilization and supreme capital efficiency.

Innovation (3+4) enables a low-cost top electrode and simple, fast, robust cell interconnects. The combination of a highly conductive aluminum substrate with our MWT cell architecture results in cells capable of generating and carrying currents of 6-25 Amps, or 3-10x more than is cost efficient with state of-the-art thin-film solar cells today.

http://cache.rmartinr.com/NanosolarCellWhitePaper.pdf