More Efficient Solar Panels

Any idea how much these will cost? I do not imagine that nanotechnology comes cheap. If the extra cost is less than 10% of finished panel cost, this should make them competitive with oil-fired power stations (the best combinations of cells and climate are already cheaper than retail price electricity)

If what John77 says is true then consider this: the retail price of electricity will only be going up as the price of oil goes up and the costs associated with burning other fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) goes up as well, e.g. installation of pollution controls, transportation costs, maintenance of more complex equipment, etc.

Ironically, Roger Pink who provided this article is the same poster who decried "1000 scientists working on nanotubes" in the discussion on Fusion energy a few days ago. Now I don't know a nanotube from nanocrystal, but it sure sounds like the technologies are related.

I, for one, would rather see money going to support research like this with real near-term results in alternate energy resources than something with the expectation of providing only a fraction of our energy needs "by the end of the century", as was stated in the Nuclear Fusion article.

As an analogy, look at how Personal Computers revolutionized information processing. Had we stayed the course and continued development of mainframe and supercomputers only, the world would be a very different place today. I would love to have a quiet, non-polluting, efficient (no powerline or substation losses), and (eventually) low-cost Personal Solar (PS?) powerplant , providing perhaps 50% or more of my energy needs, in my back yard by, say, 2015, rather than waiting for fusion to come online "by the end of the century".

A nanocrystal simply means a crystal in the 10^9 meters scale. Nanotubes are molecules constructed of carbon and sometimes carbon and silicon combined. Think planar graphite rolled up and you have nanotubes.

As for my statement "1000 scientist working on nanotubes". The statement was base on a survey done in the APS newletters on the most frequently presented results at the APS March Meeting in which by far the hottest topic was nantotubes.

The two technologies are not related at all. The only relation they have is that they are both small.

My last statement I made in the Fusion debate with STL, which was more of a shouting match than a debate, was as follows:

"I agree to disagree. I'm gonna refrain from name calling and just say time will tell. Just so it's clear on where I stand. I believe Solar Power and Fusion will replace Fossil Fuels eventually as the primary source of electrical power. Additionally, I believe the slow going in Fusion research is a result of a lack of funding, not a lack of promise. Finally I believe room temperature fusion with muonium is possible. "

Please notice that my statement above, made a week ago, is consistent with the story I'm presenting and thus there is no irony.

Don't mind STL, I think he ran out of books to burn.

Roger said, "Don't mind STL, I think he ran out of books to burn."

Hmmmm, book burning...... Nazis, Fascists, 1950's reactionaries, etc.

Owwwww! That huuuurrrrrtt! Mommy, Roger's being mean to me! Tell him to play nice!

C'mon STL I was kidding, everyone knows you don't have any books.

The aerospace industry would be very interested in more efficient solar panels. This apply to both satellites and some UAVs, like Pathfinder, that uses solar power for propulsion.

We are VERY interested in this technolgy, do anyone know when it will be commercially available?

Don Campbell