Comment Re:I challenge their numbers. (Score 1) 676
I'm sure the newspaper got this wrong. It's got to be 0.12 watts per square inch ~= something like 18%
efficiency. This would fit with the fact that they say "um, well, of course the big heavy monocrystal cells are still tops in efficiency."
That -- more expensive -- kind maxes out around
30%, or maybe 300 watts/m^2.
But nanosolar sheets would generate more watts per pound of material, and per dollar of cost.
If I'm right about this number, one of their standard 10x14 sheets (and on what planet is that
rectangle a standard size???) would generate 2.4 Kw at peak (max sunlight), which would be lovely.
And why on Earth do they not have this number on their site? And they're making press announcements to ... who? The Hindu? And then
getting the numbers wrong by three orders of magnitude?
Um, Earth to NanoSolar. Show me that you know
what you're doing.
1. issue a press release to the WSJ.
2. make sure they get the basic numbers right.
3. make 4x8 sheets your standard.
efficiency. This would fit with the fact that they say "um, well, of course the big heavy monocrystal cells are still tops in efficiency."
That -- more expensive -- kind maxes out around
30%, or maybe 300 watts/m^2.
But nanosolar sheets would generate more watts per pound of material, and per dollar of cost.
If I'm right about this number, one of their standard 10x14 sheets (and on what planet is that
rectangle a standard size???) would generate 2.4 Kw at peak (max sunlight), which would be lovely.
And why on Earth do they not have this number on their site? And they're making press announcements to
getting the numbers wrong by three orders of magnitude?
Um, Earth to NanoSolar. Show me that you know
what you're doing.
1. issue a press release to the WSJ.
2. make sure they get the basic numbers right.
3. make 4x8 sheets your standard.
