We need to focus on an investment criteria that allow complete energy self-sufficiency both in retrofits and new construction.

“Feeding the grid” is an attempt to justify the grid, not a real-world appraisal of cost vs. desirability of self-sufficiency.

If all new construction was self-sufficient with reliable technology and maintenance characteristics, we could seriously reduce development costs.

Considering the huge amounts of power loss in just the transmission grid, further grid development MUST include requirements for underground line additions, insulation, all of which allow for an increase in power availability,reducing the need for additional generation.

Transmission is locked into generations-old technology, based on an allowed monopoly cost structure; not worthy of today’s technological capability, like power loss reductions of up to 25% with insulated underground lines-pays for itself in 4-6 years.

thanks for all the additional info.

As is always the case, a study’s findings are based on its assumptions.

As is clear, you would have made different assumptions than the iSuppli study, and it looks like yours might have been more accurate, or more specific.

They lumped a lot of different technologies together for this study, and came out with some general results. However, as you seem to point out, that may not be the best method for these technologies. Additionally, some of their assumptions (i.e. efficiencies and opportunity for price reductions) may be wrong. I cannot say that — not sure about it.

Overall, it looks like a fairly well-conducted study to me. And, though not perfect, the results are interesting and may have general relevance.

The additional info you provide helps.

Thank you for it!

There is thin-film and then there is thin-film.

There is thin-film and then there is thin-film.

There is thin-film and then there is thin-film.

There is thin-film and then there is thin-film.

I’m a scientist that works on photovoltaics at a national lab, and I have a few things to point out. There are some very untrue statements in this article such as thin-film technology is less efficient, but I think this stems from misused nomenclature. Specifically thin-film and crystalline are misrepresented. They two different categories and not mutually exclusive. You can have thin-films solar cells or bulk material solar cells though bulk solar cells nearly always come from large single crystals, hence they are referred to as single crystal solar cells. Also, you can have crystalline or amorphous solar cells. Almost all types of solar cells are crystalline (they can be polycrystalline or single crystal). The amorphous exceptions are amorphous silicon and polymer-based solar cells.

Let’s get to the efficiencies. Single crystal silicon solar cells have been massively researched so they’re relatively efficient. But their theoretical maximum efficient isn’t that great. Actually, silicon isn’t a great photovoltaic material (comparatively), but it’s used a lot because it’s already established by computer chip industry. SO I don’t see that efficiencies are going to increase that much and those single crystal wafers are pricy. There’s no way around the cost of single crystal wafers; that’s been researched to hell. Plus single-crystal technology is not scaleable. Long story short I don’t expect to see prices going down that much.

Thin-film technology is a different story. It comes in all sorts of different materials. Some are cheap, easy, and inefficient (e.g.. amorphous silicon) while some are expensive, complicated, and highly efficient (e.g. triple junction solar cells). Whenever you read about new solar cell that’s made with record efficiencies, that’s a thin-film solar cell.

I’m a scientist that works on photovoltaics at a national lab, and I have a few things to point out. There are some very untrue statements in this article such as thin-film technology is less efficient, but I think this stems from misused nomenclature. Specifically thin-film and crystalline are misrepresented. They two different categories and not mutually exclusive. You can have thin-films solar cells or bulk material solar cells though bulk solar cells nearly always come from large single crystals, hence they are referred to as single crystal solar cells. Also, you can have crystalline or amorphous solar cells. Almost all types of solar cells are crystalline (they can be polycrystalline or single crystal). The amorphous exceptions are amorphous silicon and polymer-based solar cells.

Let’s get to the efficiencies. Single crystal silicon solar cells have been massively researched so they’re relatively efficient. But their theoretical maximum efficient isn’t that great. Actually, silicon isn’t a great photovoltaic material (comparatively), but it’s used a lot because it’s already established by computer chip industry. SO I don’t see that efficiencies are going to increase that much and those single crystal wafers are pricy. There’s no way around the cost of single crystal wafers; that’s been researched to hell. Plus single-crystal technology is not scaleable. Long story short I don’t expect to see prices going down that much.

Thin-film technology is a different story. It comes in all sorts of different materials. Some are cheap, easy, and inefficient (e.g.. amorphous silicon) while some are expensive, complicated, and highly efficient (e.g. triple junction solar cells). Whenever you read about new solar cell that’s made with record efficiencies, that’s a thin-film solar cell.

I’m a scientist that works on photovoltaics at a national lab, and I have a few things to point out. There are some very untrue statements in this article such as thin-film technology is less efficient, but I think this stems from misused nomenclature. Specifically thin-film and crystalline are misrepresented. They two different categories and not mutually exclusive. You can have thin-films solar cells or bulk material solar cells though bulk solar cells nearly always come from large single crystals, hence they are referred to as single crystal solar cells. Also, you can have crystalline or amorphous solar cells. Almost all types of solar cells are crystalline (they can be polycrystalline or single crystal). The amorphous exceptions are amorphous silicon and polymer-based solar cells.

Let’s get to the efficiencies. Single crystal silicon solar cells have been massively researched so they’re relatively efficient. But their theoretical maximum efficient isn’t that great. Actually, silicon isn’t a great photovoltaic material (comparatively), but it’s used a lot because it’s already established by computer chip industry. SO I don’t see that efficiencies are going to increase that much and those single crystal wafers are pricy. There’s no way around the cost of single crystal wafers; that’s been researched to hell. Plus single-crystal technology is not scaleable. Long story short I don’t expect to see prices going down that much.

Thin-film technology is a different story. It comes in all sorts of different materials. Some are cheap, easy, and inefficient (e.g.. amorphous silicon) while some are expensive, complicated, and highly efficient (e.g. triple junction solar cells). Whenever you read about new solar cell that’s made with record efficiencies, that’s a thin-film solar cell.