Would the fact that they've already presold their first factory's print run for the next four years help at all? Nanosolar right now is turning down contracts until they can build additional factories. The demand is there.
People will pre-order things that look good, but the tide can turn quickly if the actual products don't work as advertised or have flaws that were not advertised. Not saying it is not as good as it looks, just that we don't know yet. "If something looks too good to be true, it usually is." If they really expected those customers to stick, wouldn't they have taken a higher price instead? If I made a machine that could extract gold from seawater at half the market price, would I sell gold at half the market price and take a backlog? No, I would sell it at 5 cent below market price until I had the necessary production capacity. Suspicious.
To get *any* business they have to prove they can stay in business selling below market prices for other production means. If they sold these at 5% below standard solar panel costs, they might not even generate enough business to stay running. But with a large, demonstratable undercut, it's reasonable to attack at a low cost point. Especially if they're still making 60% gross margin as PopSci seems to be indicating...
Basic principles don't look particularly cold-fusion-y-- it's just a PN junction photocell that has a cheaper production method. Old tech, new fab system. Doesn't hurt I saw this a while back when it was still in the "I'll believe that when they get it running" phase a few years ago. I don't have a cell myself yet, but I'm not throwing the BS flag yet either.
It certainly doesn't look like an all-out scam, I just doubt it will have an economic impact for some years yet, and then only gradually. Once the hype dies down, there are very few revolutionary products and concepts made in a human lifetime. Is this one of them? Will coal and oil power finally go the way of the horse-drawn buggy? Perhaps, but not overnight, or even over ten years. If energy prices fall even slightly (due to increased supply), demand will increase. There are just too many fun things to use energy for. Add the fact that the developing world is, for a change, actually developing. It seems rather too early to sell shares in fossil fuel prduction.
My only reservation is the size issue-- because these cells are no more efficient than conventional ones (they don't turn 100% of incident light into electricity by a LONG shot) they won't cut coal out of the electricity picture.
What's really exciting is actually the potential for wider distribution and use: with a technology that more people are using, there'll be greater economic pressure (with or without Google's energy initiatives) to improve their efficiency and further reduce cost. Also a number of spot applications really excite me, such as: how many square cm to power an XO laptop?
I think the cognition problem here lies in the fact that you seem to think Nanosolar is a new, experimental thing and it really isn't. They've been in the testing and production stages for years now. Popular Science doesn't say you're an innovative company just based on press releases - they actually went and looked at the tech.
If I made a machine that could extract gold from seawater at half the market price, would I sell gold at half the market price and take a backlog? No, I would sell it at 5 cent below market price until I had the necessary production capacity.
Except that the entire point of the product is its lower manufacturing cost and market price, which makes that kind of strategy bad.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-22 04:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-22 06:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-22 06:16 pm (UTC)To get *any* business they have to prove they can stay in business selling below market prices for other production means. If they sold these at 5% below standard solar panel costs, they might not even generate enough business to stay running. But with a large, demonstratable undercut, it's reasonable to attack at a low cost point. Especially if they're still making 60% gross margin as PopSci seems to be indicating...
Basic principles don't look particularly cold-fusion-y-- it's just a PN junction photocell that has a cheaper production method. Old tech, new fab system. Doesn't hurt I saw this a while back when it was still in the "I'll believe that when they get it running" phase a few years ago. I don't have a cell myself yet, but I'm not throwing the BS flag yet either.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-22 08:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-22 08:59 pm (UTC)What's really exciting is actually the potential for wider distribution and use: with a technology that more people are using, there'll be greater economic pressure (with or without Google's energy initiatives) to improve their efficiency and further reduce cost. Also a number of spot applications really excite me, such as: how many square cm to power an XO laptop?
Not a Singularity KoolAid drinker, are we? X3
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-22 07:48 pm (UTC)If I made a machine that could extract gold from seawater at half the market price, would I sell gold at half the market price and take a backlog? No, I would sell it at 5 cent below market price until I had the necessary production capacity.
Except that the entire point of the product is its lower manufacturing cost and market price, which makes that kind of strategy bad.