Comments on: Morgan Solar: Simple, Cheap, and Efficient Concentrated Solar Tech, Part 2 http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/17/morgan-solar-simple-cheap-and-efficient-concentrated-solar-power-part-2/ Clean Tech News & Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. & More. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:46:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Svein Utne http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/17/morgan-solar-simple-cheap-and-efficient-concentrated-solar-power-part-2/#comment-2792 Svein Utne Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:34:37 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1109#comment-2792 Morgan Solar might be very close to having a product, if their system work as good as they claim. You can look at the patent here: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080271776 Morgan Solar might be very close to having a product, if their system work as good as they claim.

You can look at the patent here:

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080271776

]]> By: Svein Utne http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/17/morgan-solar-simple-cheap-and-efficient-concentrated-solar-power-part-2/#comment-19606 Svein Utne Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:34:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1109#comment-19606 Morgan Solar might be very close to having a product, if their system work as good as they claim. You can look at the patent here: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080271776 Morgan Solar might be very close to having a product, if their system work as good as they claim.

You can look at the patent here:

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080271776

]]> By: Svein Utne http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/17/morgan-solar-simple-cheap-and-efficient-concentrated-solar-power-part-2/#comment-19607 Svein Utne Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:34:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1109#comment-19607 Morgan Solar might be very close to having a product, if their system work as good as they claim. You can look at the patent here: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080271776 Morgan Solar might be very close to having a product, if their system work as good as they claim.

You can look at the patent here:

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080271776

]]> By: Muchomacho http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/17/morgan-solar-simple-cheap-and-efficient-concentrated-solar-power-part-2/#comment-2791 Muchomacho Sat, 20 Sep 2008 06:36:31 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1109#comment-2791 Neither of your articles includes any discussion of the technology or science, making it impossible to evaluate the actual solution presented. Specs are great, as is the inevitable focus on outcomes. But maybe you could spend more than a sentence mentioning the methodology. But gee, it shore is great soundin'! Neither of your articles includes any discussion of the technology or science, making it impossible to evaluate the actual solution presented. Specs are great, as is the inevitable focus on outcomes. But maybe you could spend more than a sentence mentioning the methodology. But gee, it shore is great soundin’!

]]> By: Muchomacho http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/17/morgan-solar-simple-cheap-and-efficient-concentrated-solar-power-part-2/#comment-19605 Muchomacho Sat, 20 Sep 2008 06:36:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1109#comment-19605 Neither of your articles includes any discussion of the technology or science, making it impossible to evaluate the actual solution presented. Specs are great, as is the inevitable focus on outcomes. But maybe you could spend more than a sentence mentioning the methodology. But gee, it shore is great soundin'! Neither of your articles includes any discussion of the technology or science, making it impossible to evaluate the actual solution presented. Specs are great, as is the inevitable focus on outcomes. But maybe you could spend more than a sentence mentioning the methodology. But gee, it shore is great soundin’!

]]> By: Keefwivanef http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/17/morgan-solar-simple-cheap-and-efficient-concentrated-solar-power-part-2/#comment-2790 Keefwivanef Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:01:59 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1109#comment-2790 This is getting ridiculous. First there was Green and Gold Energy Then SunRgi And now this one. Same spiel...fantastic performance more watts per dollar blah blah, but NO proven or delivered product. Will the fun never end? Keef and Rover ( he is really wild today) Woof This is getting ridiculous.

First there was Green and Gold Energy

Then SunRgi

And now this one.

Same spiel…fantastic performance more watts per dollar blah blah, but NO proven or delivered product.

Will the fun never end?

Keef

and Rover ( he is really wild today)

Woof

]]> By: Keefwivanef http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/17/morgan-solar-simple-cheap-and-efficient-concentrated-solar-power-part-2/#comment-19603 Keefwivanef Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:01:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1109#comment-19603 This is getting ridiculous. First there was Green and Gold Energy Then SunRgi And now this one. Same spiel...fantastic performance more watts per dollar blah blah, but NO proven or delivered product. Will the fun never end? Keef and Rover ( he is really wild today) Woof This is getting ridiculous.

First there was Green and Gold Energy

Then SunRgi

And now this one.

Same spiel…fantastic performance more watts per dollar blah blah, but NO proven or delivered product.

Will the fun never end?

Keef

and Rover ( he is really wild today)

Woof

]]> By: Keefwivanef http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/17/morgan-solar-simple-cheap-and-efficient-concentrated-solar-power-part-2/#comment-19604 Keefwivanef Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:01:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1109#comment-19604 This is getting ridiculous. First there was Green and Gold Energy Then SunRgi And now this one. Same spiel...fantastic performance more watts per dollar blah blah, but NO proven or delivered product. Will the fun never end? Keef and Rover ( he is really wild today) Woof This is getting ridiculous.

First there was Green and Gold Energy

Then SunRgi

And now this one.

Same spiel…fantastic performance more watts per dollar blah blah, but NO proven or delivered product.

Will the fun never end?

Keef

and Rover ( he is really wild today)

Woof

]]> By: Mike http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/17/morgan-solar-simple-cheap-and-efficient-concentrated-solar-power-part-2/#comment-2789 Mike Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:53:48 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1109#comment-2789 I had looked at your previous article and their website. So, my point is this: Their cost and technology claims are unsubstantiated and not independently verifiable. The road from a startup (who is going to need to convince investors to give them money to realize their ambition) claims on a website to a commerically viable and competitive product is long and typically unsuccessful and they are already about 5 years behind. In fact, they have not even established a single commercial sized installation and their first public test is planned to be the size of an experiment, not a utility scale commericialization proof of concept. The light guide technology is not a new concept for concentrating/focusing sunlight and the sun concentrations they claim from that technology are simply not believeable. As someone pointed out already, MIT has similar technology with no where near the concentration claimed by Morgan. In addition, there are literally dozens of CPV companies and divisions of huge companies (IBM, GE, etc.) with hundreds if not thousands of brillant researchers developing CPV technology that have apparently not selected that particular concentration solution for their systems - why?. All of that combined makes me highly sceptical of the Morgan Solar claims and certainly is just my personal opinion based on a lot of research and observation in the space. I wish them well but I seriously doubt their specific product will ever provide the low cost solution for poorer areas that you envision because they are too late and cheaper solutions will be widely available well before they even get their foot in the water. In addition, III-V technology is set to go thin film by mid-2009 (for example, the IMM technology at Emcore) giving other more established system players extreme flexibility in CPV system design which is what I believe offers the best realistic opportunity to get solar energy costs down to an affordable level. I suggest you take a look at Emcore/NREL IMM award winning thin film technology as I believe that is the future of cheap solar you envision. I assume there are other similar technologies out there (spectralab, etc.) - I'm just more familiar with and the information is more readily availble on the Emcore IMM technology. Thanks for the discussion. I had looked at your previous article and their website. So, my point is this: Their cost and technology claims are unsubstantiated and not independently verifiable. The road from a startup (who is going to need to convince investors to give them money to realize their ambition) claims on a website to a commerically viable and competitive product is long and typically unsuccessful and they are already about 5 years behind. In fact, they have not even established a single commercial sized installation and their first public test is planned to be the size of an experiment, not a utility scale commericialization proof of concept. The light guide technology is not a new concept for concentrating/focusing sunlight and the sun concentrations they claim from that technology are simply not believeable. As someone pointed out already, MIT has similar technology with no where near the concentration claimed by Morgan. In addition, there are literally dozens of CPV companies and divisions of huge companies (IBM, GE, etc.) with hundreds if not thousands of brillant researchers developing CPV technology that have apparently not selected that particular concentration solution for their systems – why?.

All of that combined makes me highly sceptical of the Morgan Solar claims and certainly is just my personal opinion based on a lot of research and observation in the space. I wish them well but I seriously doubt their specific product will ever provide the low cost solution for poorer areas that you envision because they are too late and cheaper solutions will be widely available well before they even get their foot in the water.

In addition, III-V technology is set to go thin film by mid-2009 (for example, the IMM technology at Emcore) giving other more established system players extreme flexibility in CPV system design which is what I believe offers the best realistic opportunity to get solar energy costs down to an affordable level. I suggest you take a look at Emcore/NREL IMM award winning thin film technology as I believe that is the future of cheap solar you envision. I assume there are other similar technologies out there (spectralab, etc.) – I’m just more familiar with and the information is more readily availble on the Emcore IMM technology.

Thanks for the discussion.

]]> By: Mike http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/17/morgan-solar-simple-cheap-and-efficient-concentrated-solar-power-part-2/#comment-19602 Mike Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:53:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=1109#comment-19602 I had looked at your previous article and their website. So, my point is this: Their cost and technology claims are unsubstantiated and not independently verifiable. The road from a startup (who is going to need to convince investors to give them money to realize their ambition) claims on a website to a commerically viable and competitive product is long and typically unsuccessful and they are already about 5 years behind. In fact, they have not even established a single commercial sized installation and their first public test is planned to be the size of an experiment, not a utility scale commericialization proof of concept. The light guide technology is not a new concept for concentrating/focusing sunlight and the sun concentrations they claim from that technology are simply not believeable. As someone pointed out already, MIT has similar technology with no where near the concentration claimed by Morgan. In addition, there are literally dozens of CPV companies and divisions of huge companies (IBM, GE, etc.) with hundreds if not thousands of brillant researchers developing CPV technology that have apparently not selected that particular concentration solution for their systems - why?. All of that combined makes me highly sceptical of the Morgan Solar claims and certainly is just my personal opinion based on a lot of research and observation in the space. I wish them well but I seriously doubt their specific product will ever provide the low cost solution for poorer areas that you envision because they are too late and cheaper solutions will be widely available well before they even get their foot in the water. In addition, III-V technology is set to go thin film by mid-2009 (for example, the IMM technology at Emcore) giving other more established system players extreme flexibility in CPV system design which is what I believe offers the best realistic opportunity to get solar energy costs down to an affordable level. I suggest you take a look at Emcore/NREL IMM award winning thin film technology as I believe that is the future of cheap solar you envision. I assume there are other similar technologies out there (spectralab, etc.) - I'm just more familiar with and the information is more readily availble on the Emcore IMM technology. Thanks for the discussion. I had looked at your previous article and their website. So, my point is this: Their cost and technology claims are unsubstantiated and not independently verifiable. The road from a startup (who is going to need to convince investors to give them money to realize their ambition) claims on a website to a commerically viable and competitive product is long and typically unsuccessful and they are already about 5 years behind. In fact, they have not even established a single commercial sized installation and their first public test is planned to be the size of an experiment, not a utility scale commericialization proof of concept. The light guide technology is not a new concept for concentrating/focusing sunlight and the sun concentrations they claim from that technology are simply not believeable. As someone pointed out already, MIT has similar technology with no where near the concentration claimed by Morgan. In addition, there are literally dozens of CPV companies and divisions of huge companies (IBM, GE, etc.) with hundreds if not thousands of brillant researchers developing CPV technology that have apparently not selected that particular concentration solution for their systems – why?.

All of that combined makes me highly sceptical of the Morgan Solar claims and certainly is just my personal opinion based on a lot of research and observation in the space. I wish them well but I seriously doubt their specific product will ever provide the low cost solution for poorer areas that you envision because they are too late and cheaper solutions will be widely available well before they even get their foot in the water.

In addition, III-V technology is set to go thin film by mid-2009 (for example, the IMM technology at Emcore) giving other more established system players extreme flexibility in CPV system design which is what I believe offers the best realistic opportunity to get solar energy costs down to an affordable level. I suggest you take a look at Emcore/NREL IMM award winning thin film technology as I believe that is the future of cheap solar you envision. I assume there are other similar technologies out there (spectralab, etc.) – I’m just more familiar with and the information is more readily availble on the Emcore IMM technology.

Thanks for the discussion.

]]>