Solar Panels, Moors' Law, closed food systems

[Nosi]

Moor's Law has done wild things to the world of micro computing and personal computers. I think there are signs of it coming into play in alternative energy, particularly solar energy and solar panels.

Today, desalination of sea water is an expensive proposition only for rich coastal cities such as Saudi Arabia using massive amounts of oil based fuel. As water gets scarcer, solar energy, desalination, and hydroponics will begin to make the production of our food and food chain a closed system with much less waste.

We already have hothouse crops for premium fruits and vegetables for the fussy eaters willing to pay premium prices. Skyfarms will probably cater to the premium set at first in order to get the concern going.

While are expensive to set up, but they lack some very major expenses of open-air farming. There's low to nonexistent risk of e-coli contamination from animal excreta, and predators of fruits and veggies won't bother them, with the possible thief exception. You can grow 27/7-365.

 

[GreenLines]

Moore's Law was an observation on the number of transistors on a chip double every two years, with the cost decreasing per transistor by 30% over the same amount of time.

Solar panel cost per megawatt has NOT decreased in the past decade, and has been stable for the past twenty years[1].

"As water gets scarcer"? I don't see water getting any scarcer, it's probably one of the most abundant compounds on the planet. I'm going to assume you meant usable water.

A farm going into the sky powered by a huge solar panel with additional power from waste products? Good luck getting a self contained system like that going in the next hundred years. Biomass probably wouldn't give a tenth of the power, and the solar panel during nighttime might give enough for a quarter of the energy needs of lighting. But I guess I should have read that again, since it's meant to supply cooling rather then lighting. As long as there's direct sunlight I can see that working out.

Hydroponics are a good idea, that I can go with. The system all seems kind of pie in the sky and not as sustainable as the article makes it seems. Would need a LOT of, in my opinion, outside energy.

[1]Photovoltaic System, Second Edition. Figure 1-7, page 8.

 

[Dancing David]

You can also desalinate water with plastic sheeting and two or three troughs.

 

[macdoc]

Solar panel cost per megawatt has NOT decreased in the past decade, and has been stable for the past twenty years[1].

I take it you are unfamiliar with NanoSolar

http://www.celsias.com/article/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheap/

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/23482/

http://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...osts-cells-efficiency-starts-mass-production/

 

[Cuddles]

I take it you are unfamiliar with NanoSolar

Nanosolar is certainly a step in the right direction, but a single breakthrough by one company can hardly be taken as evidence of a Moore's law equivalent for solar power.

hydroponics will begin to make the production of our food and food chain a closed system

No it won't. Food production can never be a closed system, by definition. If it were closed, you wouldn't get food out. Since you do get food out, there must also be inputs, unless you plan on generating matter from nowhere. Reducing waste is certainly an admirable goal, but food production can never be a closed system. At least not without defining the system in such a way as to make the claim a pointless tautology.

 

[macdoc]

Umm the statement was made there was "no change in 20 years" of solar costs.
That statement is incorrect. I did not address the patently silly Moore's law nonsense.

There are dozens of other examples of reduced costs/improved yield in even traditional solar panels.

••••

With carbon neutral energy sources food can be a closed sustainable series of loops....good agriculture already does that by effectively reprocessing waste.

Since agriculture is mainly solar anyway there is no barrier there - it's yield and transport that is the issue.
Mining agricultural land by way of unsustainable practices ( Australia notably ) is a sure way to societal suicide.

 

[Nosi]

Food production can never be a closed system, by definition. If it were closed, you wouldn't get food out. Since you do get food out, there must also be inputs, unless you plan on generating matter from nowhere. Reducing waste is certainly an admirable goal, but food production can never be a closed system. At least not without defining the system in such a way as to make the claim a pointless tautology.

Oh... seeds in, plants out. I can see where that would be a problem with 'closed system'.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Moor's Law has done wild things to the world of micro computing and personal computers. I think there are signs of it coming into play in alternative energy, particularly solar energy and solar panels.

Today, desalination of sea water is an expensive proposition only for rich coastal cities such as Saudi Arabia using massive amounts of oil based fuel. As water gets scarcer, solar energy, desalination, and hydroponics will begin to make the production of our food and food chain a closed system with much less waste.

We already have hothouse crops for premium fruits and vegetables for the fussy eaters willing to pay premium prices. Skyfarms will probably cater to the premium set at first in order to get the concern going.

While are expensive to set up, but they lack some very major expenses of open-air farming. There's low to nonexistent risk of e-coli contamination from animal excreta, and predators of fruits and veggies won't bother them, with the possible thief exception. You can grow 27/7-365.

I do not see why having a closed system is more beneficial than an open system (though I'm sure the optimal mix is somewhere in between). For instance, introducing more organisms which contribute to plant health and growth is a good thing. There is no waste in nature. By having organisms such as earthworms in the process of food production, or certain insects which repel or are predators of other organisms which stifle or otherwise reduce yield, you can increase capacity and sustainability.

 

[GreenLines]

Umm the statement was made there was "no change in 20 years" of solar costs.

Your links did not directly address the cost to the consumer, which I think the graph I'm looking at does. There is a note pointing out that "Retail price per watt of crystalline silicon modules" so in that respect the "NanoSolar" would likely not have been included.

Additionally, there isn't any mention of price to the consumer that I saw (though I have a habit of overlooking things, so if I miss something, don't be surprised), but there was mention that the plant is producing less then a twentieth of a percent of its capacity. That's bound to make prices to the final customer go up a bit.

http://www.celsias.com/article/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheap/

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/23482/

http://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...osts-cells-efficiency-starts-mass-production/

First article: Only thing that really pops out as being wrong is that solar panels have been around for over fifty years, not thirty. They were first used in rural telecommunication lines.

Second article: I don't see these panels as making installation less complicated. There's still going to be the need for power conditioning, and higher output means higher gauge wire, meaning initial cost outside of the solar panels could be slightly higher. I do applaud getting around that annoying shade issue. A 20% shade coverage can cripple 50% of the power coming out of a traditional array.

Third article: Makes mention of Photon magazine, sounds like a trade paper to me, might have to subscribe to that.

I have a vested interested in solar panels being more cost effective, easier to install/maintain, and producing more electricity. Hopefully by the end of May I'll have a certification in installing these suckers.

 

[GanipGnop]

Solar panel cost per megawatt has NOT decreased in the past decade, and has been stable for the past twenty years[1].

Yes it has Nanosolar isn't the only company offering cheap new solar technology. Everbrightsolar uses thin film ribbon technology to decrease their silicon waste. Old styled silicon cells are cut out of blanks wasting as much as 50% of the blank. Thin film silicon ribbons are made by melting the silicon and drawing a carbon filament through it to create an ultra thin ribbon of silicon the waste ratio is 1-5%. They can use recycled ultra pure silicon from bad microprocessor production runs and other ultra pure "waste" to bring costs down.

Find me some UL listed 175 watt grid tie panels for $436 each 20 years ago (remember to adjust for inflation). I own a few of these panel now and they work great I intend to buy a few more along with a MPPT charge controller with my tax refund this year. I'm not off the grid but I have a large enough battery bank to run some lights and a small TV or radio for 5 or 6 evenings.

http://www.everbrightsolar.net/ul-approved-solar-panels.html

http://www.discountpv.com/charge_controllers/mppt250hv.htm

I agree that Moore's law doesn't apply here this price drop is coming from new production methods an increased efficiency, the economy of scale and the 30% US federal tax break but that $436 price doesn't include the tax credit, solar power is cheaper today than 20 years ago and it will get cheaper.




http://www.everbrightsolar.net/info.html

 

[GreenLines]

Yes it has...

To be fair to me, I'm using a slight piece of knowledge gained from a traditional school textbook. Bound to be some discrepancies to reality.

 

[GanipGnop]

To be fair to me, I'm using a slight piece of knowledge gained from a traditional school textbook. Bound to be some discrepancies to reality.

To be truly fair I'm not saying every company is selling solar power panels this cheap but the price is coming down.

 

[GreyICE]

Moore's Law was an observation on the number of transistors on a chip double every two years, with the cost decreasing per transistor by 30% over the same amount of time.

Solar panel cost per megawatt has NOT decreased in the past decade, and has been stable for the past twenty years[1].

O RLY:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/guide/images/chart3_solar_pv.gif

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/guide/costs_solar_photovoltaics.html

US DOE

ETA: The 'cost to the consumer (aka price)' is driven by market demand. The supply is driven by cost. Interesting that, Econ 101 strikes again.

 

[GreenLines]

O RLY: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/guide/costs_solar_photovoltaics.html

US DOE

ETA: The 'cost to the consumer (aka price)' is driven by market demand. The supply is driven by cost. Interesting that, Econ 101 strikes again.

And as I clarified in a later post, and I'm agreeing that I was wrong, is that the graph I was looking at was based on "Retail price per watt of crystalline silicon modules", leaving out other types of "photovoltaic" panels.

 

[portlandatheist]

I'm sad to say that photovoltaics have made only incremental improvements and not exponential improvements and its likely to stay that way. The next biggest innovations to look forward to is not any improvements in efficiency, but rather the cost of production and the final cost to the consumer.
Can you imagine a day when the manufacturers of solar panels choose to use solar power themselves to make their own product? Now that would be impressive but I would bet dollars to donuts that I won't live to ever see such a day. Solar power is great for remote locations such as space, but not as a base energy source.

 

[GanipGnop]

So Easy A Kid Can Do It

I'm sad to say that photovoltaics have made only incremental improvements and not exponential improvements and its likely to stay that way. The next biggest innovations to look forward to is not any improvements in efficiency, but rather the cost of production and the final cost to the consumer.
Can you imagine a day when the manufacturers of solar panels choose to use solar power themselves to make their own product? Now that would be impressive but I would bet dollars to donuts that I won't live to ever see such a day. Solar power is great for remote locations such as space, but not as a base energy source.

Hey look a 12 year old boy thinks you're wrong

"In his project, 'A Highly-Efficient 3-Dimensional Nanotube Solar Cell for Visible and UV Light,' William invented a novel solar panel that enables light absorption from visible to ultraviolet light. He designed carbon nanotubes to overcome the barriers of electron movement, doubling the light-electricity conversion efficiency. William also developed a model for solar towers and a computer program to simulate and optimize the tower parameters. His optimized design provides 500 times more light absorption than commercially-available solar cells and nine times more than the cutting-edge, three dimensional solar cell."

http://www.katu.com/news/28432984.html

http://presskit.ditd.org/2008_Davidson_Fellows_Press_Kit/2008_DF_William_Yuan.pdf

 

[GreenLines]

http://www.katu.com/news/28432984.html

"If he is right", and believe me, I hope he is. If it's a feasible design, get it going as soon as possible. Cash in and be a millionaire.

 

[Brian-M]

You can also desalinate water with plastic sheeting and two or three troughs.

Through the evaporated water condensing in droplets on the plastic, and running down into a different container I assume?

Just a wild guess, but you'd probably need more than a quarter-acre of land filled with these troughs just to supply enough drinking water for one person. To supply enough fresh water to irrigate your crops as well... that comes to a hell of lot of land.

 

[Dilb]

Hey look a 12 year old boy thinks you're wrong

"In his project, 'A Highly-Efficient 3-Dimensional Nanotube Solar Cell for Visible and UV Light,' William invented a novel solar panel that enables light absorption from visible to ultraviolet light. He designed carbon nanotubes to overcome the barriers of electron movement, doubling the light-electricity conversion efficiency. William also developed a model for solar towers and a computer program to simulate and optimize the tower parameters. His optimized design provides 500 times more light absorption than commercially-available solar cells and nine times more than the cutting-edge, three dimensional solar cell."

http://www.katu.com/news/28432984.html

http://presskit.ditd.org/2008_Davidson_Fellows_Press_Kit/2008_DF_William_Yuan.pdf

It's extremely unclear what exactly he did, but no, this isn't going to improve the efficiency of solar cells anything like how Moore's law applies to transistors. Solar cells are typically ~8% efficient outside the lab, so it's literally impossible to improve them more than about 1 order of magnitude. There already are ~50% efficient solar cells, which need conditions like 100 suns intensity of light on a fresh cell, and wear out in a few months. In comparison, there are still several orders of magnitude before hitting any thermodynamic limits of computing, and there were dozens when Moore's law was first observed.

I'm not sure what they mean by 500 times more absorption, but a solar cell that produces 500 times as much power is definitely not what's going to happen.

 

[Cuddles]

Solar cells are typically ~8% efficient outside the lab, so it's literally impossible to improve them more than about 1 order of magnitude.

This is the point I was going to make. Moore's law is possible because we have not reached the limit of how small transistors can be. When the law was first stated we were many orders of magnitude away from that, so massive gains were possible. The expanded law, referring to processing power rather than just transistors, has potential to keep going even after we reach the limit on transistors, because we are nowhere near the theoretical limit of information processing.

Solar power, on the other hand, has a very hard limit - the amount of power actually coming from the Sun. I was going to speculate that the increase of hundreds of times was a result of only measuring the efficiency across a certain range of wavelengths, so being able to absorb more could result in a much larger increase. However, it appears that the standard measure calculates efficiency as the ratio of output power to total irradiance from the Sun, so it is impossible to ever get higher than 100%, and therefore any claim involving an increase of more than about 3 times must be wrong (highest achieved efficiency is a little over 40% in the lab, around 25% commercially available).

This boy may well have come up with a neat idea, but he's not going to magically make solar cells produce more energy that is actually coming from the Sun in the first place.