*Sigh*. I was supposed to join a lunch with Paul Alivasatos last Tuesday, but I had to teach:
Economist.com | MONITOR: Solar cells are still ten times too expensive for use in housing. Recently developed nanorod composites could change that. MILLIONS of people around the world would like to heat their homes and run household appliances with solar power. But the cost of doing so puts it out of the question. The first problem is that the cells convert only 10-15% of the radiation from the sun into energy. The second is that the photovoltaic (PV) material used is a form of silicon that has to be made under high-vacuum conditions and heated in special kilns to 1,400ºC. That makes photovoltaic solar cells horrendously expensive.
Consider the small model home set up in Raleigh by the North Carolina Solar Centre. Its 3.6-kilowatt PV system generates about half of the house's electricity needs. But at $9 per watt, the system would cost a homeowner around $32,000 to install.
How to bring such costs down to a more manageable few thousand dollars? One answer that is attracting attention is to use carbon "nanorods", superstrong cylinders of carbon atoms that are 75,000 times thinner than a human hair. If a group at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California achieves its ambitions, carbon-based solar cells could cost as little as a tenth of the price of today's silicon-based versions.
The work started in the late 1990s, when Paul Alivisatos and his team at the University of California, Berkeley, developed nanorods with electrical characteristics similar to semiconductors. By placing these flexible nanorods in a polymer solution, the group found it could produce a composite material that had the elasticity and pliability of plastic, but capable of converting solar rays into electrical energy.
What effect is nanotechnology going to have on the economy? Well, like all technological revolutions, some things are going to become really cheap. Some human activities--those that are necessary complements to the really cheap things--will become really valuable and high-paid.
"What, exactly?" you ask. Ah. There's the rub.
Posted by DeLong at September 12, 2003 09:11 AM | TrackBack
"What effect is nanotechnology going to have on the economy? Well, like all technological revolutions, some things are going to become really cheap. Some human activities--those that are necessary complements to the really cheap things--will become really valuable and high-paid. "What, exactly?"
A place in the sun, maybe?
Why does even economic experts tend to lose their ability to do analytical reduction when it comes to issues about the labour market? "Some human activities--those that are necessary complements to the really cheap things--will become really valuable and high-paid." Of course not!
There are nothing that special with the labour market. Apart from that it is bigger than most other markets, and more friction laden (especially here in Europe), there is nothing more to it than just supply and demand. Hence - some human activities that few are willing or able to perform, and may are eager for to be carried out, will always be really valuable and high-paid.
Posted by: Mats on September 12, 2003 11:38 AMElectricity is not the only way to profit from solar energy. Simply helping to heat water is a valuable proposition.
I think I remember reading of an alternative way to get photoelectric cells: painting them. The paint contains two substances that crystalize at different level of solvent evaporation, creating a two-layer structure that can capture photons so they liberate electrons. Not as eficient as standard photoelectric cells, but very inexpensive to apply.
DSW
Posted by: Antoni Jaume on September 12, 2003 02:12 PM"Consider the small model home set up in Raleigh by the North Carolina Solar Centre. Its 3.6-kilowatt PV system generates about half of the house's electricity needs. But at $9 per watt, the system would cost a homeowner around $32,000 to install. "
Er, that's a small fraction of the cost of most houses, actually. Sure as a retrofit it's pretty expensive, but as part of a package of a $300,000 house - it's only about 10% of the cost. Now, the questions are how does that amoritize compared to the cost of buying energy - how much does it add to resale value, what is the maintainence cost of these solar panels - and what is it worth to have power that does not put you at the mercy of the grid?
Further solar power comes into its own with the use of fuel cells - and that leads to whole series of other questions.
Posted by: Ian Welsh on September 13, 2003 09:21 AM