The United States of America, which depends heavily on foreign imported oil to satisfy it's energy demands, may have found an alternative in the form of solar power: a report released today has suggested that the booming photovoltaic (PV) cell industry could supply up to 20% of America's energy needs. Of particular interest is the thin film photovoltaics (TFPV) market, which accounts for five per cent of production today, but could make up 35 per cent of the market by 2015, according to analysts NanoMarkets.
"Because worldwide energy prices are rising fast and PV prices are falling fast, PV will carve off a big slice of the energy market and could eventually account for as much as 20 per cent of the US market’s energy needs," said Robert Nolan, analyst at NanoMarkets. "Because TFPV costs less than conventional PV, TFPV is most likely to take off first. PV also offers predictable pricing, something that fossil fuels cannot do."
Analysts predict the total market for TFPV will be worth $7.2 billion by 2015, up from $1 billion today. One primary advantage of TFPV is easier production as compared to standard PV cells; TFPV cells can be printed out of adapted printers rather than built like computer chips. Manufacturers are already building large power plants to use the technology, with First Solar, Fuji Electric, Nanosolar, Sanyo, Uni-Solar and G24i all building plants with more than 100MW in capacity. Additional advantages inclue TFPV's ability to be printed in flexible strips, making it possible to attach to most devices and structures, and improved efficiency in lower light conditions.
View: Full Story on vnunet.com
"Because worldwide energy prices are rising fast and PV prices are falling fast, PV will carve off a big slice of the energy market and could eventually account for as much as 20 per cent of the US market’s energy needs," said Robert Nolan, analyst at NanoMarkets. "Because TFPV costs less than conventional PV, TFPV is most likely to take off first. PV also offers predictable pricing, something that fossil fuels cannot do."
Analysts predict the total market for TFPV will be worth $7.2 billion by 2015, up from $1 billion today. One primary advantage of TFPV is easier production as compared to standard PV cells; TFPV cells can be printed out of adapted printers rather than built like computer chips. Manufacturers are already building large power plants to use the technology, with First Solar, Fuji Electric, Nanosolar, Sanyo, Uni-Solar and G24i all building plants with more than 100MW in capacity. Additional advantages inclue TFPV's ability to be printed in flexible strips, making it possible to attach to most devices and structures, and improved efficiency in lower light conditions.
View: Full Story on vnunet.com
Why? With current technology, it's not economically feasible to make nuclear power as clean and reliable as it needs to be for inclusion in any realistic long-term energy policy. Rather, it's an expedient that we're stuck with at the moment until better things are fully developed and matured (like TFPV).
It's not, IMO, something one would "rather see" – unless you're just looking for a source of weapons-grade nuclear material and a boatload of radioactive waste.
Why? With current technology, it's not economically feasible to make nuclear power as clean and reliable as it needs to be for inclusion in any realistic long-term energy policy. Rather, it's an expedient that we're stuck with at the moment until better things are fully developed and matured (like TFPV).
It's not, IMO, something one would "rather see" – unless you're just looking for a source of weapons-grade nuclear material and a boatload of radioactive waste.
Why is it not "economically feasible"? Source?
Source? Boy, that's a tough one! There are many sources of information out there – much of it speculative and contradictory. But suffice it to say that many years ago I spent literally hundreds of hours researching this issue, and the conclusions I arrived at were unassailable: nuclear power is just too expensive (in the US at least) – never mind the health and safety issues. And while my information is no doubt outdated, it's still fundamentally sound. The information is still out there if you want to dig it out.
My statement was primarily predicated on three things:
Try Googling "nuclear power insurance" or "Price-Anderson Act". That material alone should keep you occupied well into middle age;
Note that if the probability of an event happening in a given time frame is x, that event will, given sufficient time, happen exactly x number of times. An inordinately expensive accident is only a matter of time. Given the actual liability of the nuclear industry and the US government in the event of a catastrophic plant failure, the affected people will really take it up the back passage. It's a gift that will keep on giving forever.
By "disposing" I mean in the dictonary sense: "1 : to arrange or settle a matter finally or definitively (italics mine)." When you have, for example, liquid high-level waste that is so radioactive that it will literally sit there and spontaneously boil for the next twenty thousand years or so, you don't just pour it down the toilet. For decades now, goverment and industry experts have been trying to find a "permanent" disposal method for nuclear waste to no avail. And the more waste generated, the more expensive the problem becomes.
Also note that the above costs are accounting externalities: they aren't directly reflected in a consumer's power bill; they're expressed primarily through the back door of government tax collections which are passed on to the nuclear industry as subsidies. But when factored in to the total real cost of nuclear power, you'll find that this is an extremely expensive way to boil water.
Last edited by Octol on 09 Aug 2007 - 06:28
Why? With current technology, it's not economically feasible to make nuclear power as clean and reliable as it needs to be for inclusion in any realistic long-term energy policy. Rather, it's an expedient that we're stuck with at the moment until better things are fully developed and matured (like TFPV).
It's not, IMO, something one would "rather see" – unless you're just looking for a source of weapons-grade nuclear material and a boatload of radioactive waste.
Why nuclear power?
-A small amount of waste ('boatload'? The average nuclear reactor produces about 1m^3 of nuclear waste per year. Most of that waste has a low amount of radioactivity and is only dangerous in the short term -- about 100 years or so)
-No direct CO2-output
-Continuous power (this is the one that solar power and wind power do NOT have, and it's a very important one)
there's no waste from solar, hydro, wind, tidal and thermal energy.
Even if that were true, what would the consequences be? Dandelion seeds not travelling as far? Lower wind chime output? Weather vane malfunctions?
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.