SOCIAL: nanosolar

[Randall Isaac]

That's great.  My email was not intended to slam NanoSolar or what they 
are doing.  It was just to point out that if they make a PR claim like 
$1/watt and they want anyone to take them seriously, then they have to 
back it up.  They need to come out and say "Here is a solar panel we 
make, these are its specs, and this is its cost."   And until they are 
willing to do that, the mainstream media is quite right in ignoring the 
claim.  Since their website says the first 12 months of production is 
already sold, they may not care how much coverage they get.

Randall

brian kusler wrote:
> i got to hang out at nanosolar a couple of months ago while my  
> brother was down here (he's an electron microscope engineer)...  
> what's so different about nanosolar is that they just went the  
> opposite direction of all the other solar companies -- rather than  
> trying to wring more energy out of a square meter of roof space by  
> boosting the efficiency, they focused on mass production techniques  
> and dollars per watt.
>
> the other thing that's really cool about their stuff is that their  
> panels have a one month energy payback time. with traditional solar  
> panels, it takes about 3 years for them to produce the energy used to  
> create them. it's another major environmental win. since all most  
> people care about is DOLLAR payback time, it should halve that time  
> (to appx 3 years).
>
> when we put panels onto our roof, our HOA was very concerned that we  
> not take up more than "our share" of the roof space with our panels,  
> in case other units in our building wanted panels of their own. using  
> normal Sharp panels, we just barely fit. if nanosolar's were  
> significantly less efficient than the 14% rating of the Sharp, we  
> wouldn't have had room it.
>
> : b
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Social mailing list
> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
>
>