Comments on: 70% Solar Energy by 2050: Scientific American http://whorledview.com/2008/01/24/49/ We leave our fingerprint on everything we touch. Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:18:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Dave Austin http://whorledview.com/2008/01/24/49/#comment-250 Dave Austin Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:39:49 +0000 http://whorledview.com/2008/01/24/49/#comment-250 You know, I thought I'd better go back and make sure they were the same thing but I didn't. Now that I think about it I remember Nanosolar was CIGS. Interestingly, your point only validates the fact that the most promising technologies get the least amount of lime-light. You know, I thought I’d better go back and make sure they were the same thing but I didn’t. Now that I think about it I remember Nanosolar was CIGS.

Interestingly, your point only validates the fact that the most promising technologies get the least amount of lime-light.

]]> By: Steve Pluvia http://whorledview.com/2008/01/24/49/#comment-248 Steve Pluvia Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:45:02 +0000 http://whorledview.com/2008/01/24/49/#comment-248 "Case in point: It says Cadmium Telluride (nanosolar film) will be able to produce electricity for $0.05/kWh by 2020. This is based on the theory that they can get efficiencies up to 14%." Ahhh not exactly... Nanosolar is CIGS, not CdTe as you have claimed; VERY big difference. First Solar produces CdTe fyi at [MFG COST] 1.48/watt; Nanaosolar claims to be able to produce [MFGR] at about 60 cents per watt, and the nanosolar product is expected to be about 10-11% efficient vs 8.5-9.5 for First Solar. “Case in point: It says Cadmium Telluride (nanosolar film) will be able to produce electricity for $0.05/kWh by 2020. This is based on the theory that they can get efficiencies up to 14%.”

Ahhh not exactly…

Nanosolar is CIGS, not CdTe as you have claimed; VERY big difference. First Solar produces CdTe fyi at [MFG COST] 1.48/watt; Nanaosolar claims to be able to produce [MFGR] at about 60 cents per watt, and the nanosolar product is expected to be about 10-11% efficient vs 8.5-9.5 for First Solar.

]]>