SOCIAL: $solar < $coal ?

[Randall Isaac]

    How about the catch is that they don't actually tell you the prices 
and you can't see the specs without signing an NDA?  All we have here is 
a PR document that claims $1watt without any figures to back that up; if 
I were a reporter I'd be pretty skeptical about this, too.  The web is 
full of bullshit PR claims by startup companies; show me actual products 
and sale prices and I'll believe it.  Better yet submit a sample product 
for independent analysis and then see if they get some major press.

Randall

Bob Seymour wrote:
> http://www.nanosolar.com/products.htm :
>        "Product reliability has always been our top design priority. Our 
> panels are rigorously tested to achieve a durability compatible with our 
> 25-year warranty."
> Hmm, there still has to be a catch somewhere, this sounds too good...
>
> Eric Arons wrote:
>   
>> It's big news.  We've been watching this here, and wonder if there's a 
>> catch.  Most likely in the lifetime of CIGS designs....it needs to 
>> last 25 years, and evidence is that so far it isn't close yet.  But 
>> we'll see.....
>>
>> On Dec 20, 2007 12:39 PM, Bob Seymour <bobsey at cfmc.com 
>> <mailto:bobsey at cfmc.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Shouldn't this be HUGE news?:
>>
>>     http://www.solveclimate.com/blog/20071219/1-watt-itunes-solar-energy-has-arrived
>>     <http://www.solveclimate.com/blog/20071219/1-watt-itunes-solar-energy-has-arrived>
>>     Or is this premature?  I can't find much more detail, does anyone
>>     have any?
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Social mailing list
>>     Social at lists.deeptrouble.com <mailto:Social at lists.deeptrouble.com>
>>     http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
>>
>>
>>     
>
>