"HOUSTON - Royal Dutch Shell's U.S. arm said Monday it has joined a corporate/environmental coalition urging Congress to require limits on greenhouse gases tied to global warming, the third oil major to do so." "The Anglo-Dutch company said it has joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, an alliance of big business and environmental groups .." "Shell joins London-based oil company BP PLC and Houston-based ConocoPhillips among the partnership's ranks. Other members include General Electric Co., Alcoa Inc., DuPont Co., Caterpillar Inc. and Duke Energy Corp." "Shell says it has invested more than $1 billion in renewable energy and hydrogen projects, and it's working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2010." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18417967/from/RS.5/
This is good news. The Gov't needs to set forth policy that makes the game predictable and fair for the players involved. Sadly, we'll probably have to wait a few years for anything meaningful, but I think once the ball starts rolling it'll gather momentum quickly. Something else I find interesting is that private sector oil companies' share of remaining oil fields is getting smaller and smaller as the remaining fields are being increasingly snatched up by nationalized oil "companies". These guys are in the process of having to redefine themselves because of the geopolitics as much as production declines.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HBO6 @ May 3 2007, 04:50 PM) [snapback]435025[/snapback]</div> Then why the hell did they unload their solar division? http://www.technoclicks.com/article-1685.php
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 3 2007, 11:25 PM) [snapback]435291[/snapback]</div> Do they have a realistic chance of scaling a solar product compared to the companies that are actually making solar panels? Realistically, though, if solar does ever get profitable, the big oil companies could each probably buy an emerging company with just one quarter's worth of profits.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ May 4 2007, 11:28 PM) [snapback]435907[/snapback]</div> Thin film promises to be much more scalable than traditional mono/poly crystalline panels. They also consume less Si, which should make them cheaper.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 3 2007, 06:33 PM) [snapback]435208[/snapback]</div> I think you've struck the balance needed between those that advocate "only" the market and those that think only regulation can solve the issue. Like everything else, it will be a combination of factors that effect change. I'm a small-government kind of guy usually, but there are some issues where government regulation needs to induce the market to action. Issues like public or worker safety are ones where government can do a good job encouraging the market to come up with feasible solutions, and environmental concerns are in that "public safety" arena in my view. Where government does a bad job is when the political process decides the specific solution to the problem, as the political process isn't really geared toward the kind of brutal competition between solutions that we need to drive innovation.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ May 6 2007, 11:16 AM) [snapback]436407[/snapback]</div> I agree with you on all points. I like small gov't too! For more on thin film tech, especially from a market point of view, check out this article.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 6 2007, 11:39 AM) [snapback]436385[/snapback]</div> Do you know what kind of efficiencies thin film gets compared to regular panels? I'm very interested in nanosolar, a non silicon based solar panel product. If anything I'm impressed that the google boys are vested in it and they're making a mega faciility in the bay area. However, my sister used to work at sunpower and interviewed at nanosolar told me that the efficiencies for the nanosolar product is much less than the sunpower product. I understand the dilemma. What's the use if you can get a cheaper product and cover your entire home roof when you can't get as much energy from 20 traditional panels?
It varies from tech to tech. Really, in the end it doesn't matter. What matters is the cost per watt installed. Here the thin films have an advantage. I know that they're not as efficient as mono-crystalline Silicon cells. Boeing's spectra labs produced cells with an efficiency of 40.7%! However, the mfg costs of thin films, along with the cheaper source materials could give them an advantage over mono/poly crystalline cells even if they aren't as efficient.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 6 2007, 09:30 PM) [snapback]436615[/snapback]</div> Cost per watt is THE crucial factor. But you also have to consider the amount of space required to install the total wattage desired. If a thin film system is half the price but takes 3 times the amount of space and your total roof space is already maxed out with the traditional solar panels, then you're sol if you're going want to maximize you total wattage capacity.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ May 6 2007, 11:00 PM) [snapback]436681[/snapback]</div> True, but you can use thin film in ways that you can't with traditional panels. I'm pretty sure that you can use in on glass windows and curved surfaces. It also doesn't have to compete directly with trad panels as it can be used in many applications where trad panels can't.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 7 2007, 11:51 AM) [snapback]436906[/snapback]</div> Sounds like you can use the the thin film for areas as an adjunct. I like that. But for prime rooftop real estate,(ie south facing rooftops) that area should be left for the highest solar generating power even though it might not be the best wattage/dollar(unless you can achieve 100% of your solar needs with just thin film).
This just came across my Google alert for solar photovoltaic breakthrough: http://www.carbonfree.co.uk/cf/news/wk19-07-0001.htm
