http://www.kval.com/news/local/28432984.html

Quote:"In his project, 'A Highly-Efficient 3-Dimensional Nanotube Solar Cell for Visible and UV Light,' William invented a novel solar panel that enables light absorption from visible to ultraviolet light. He designed carbon nanotubes to overcome the barriers of electron movement, doubling the light-electricity conversion efficiency. William also developed a model for solar towers and a computer program to simulate and optimize the tower parameters. His optimized design provides 500 times more light absorption than commercially-available solar cells and nine times more than the cutting-edge, three dimensional solar cell."

Thank goodness for the nerds, for they shall save us all. I'm not sure how commercially viable it is right now (carbon nanotubes can't be cheap) but a pretty impressive effort for a middle schooler.

This is how I'd like to see the government's alternative energy development dollars spent (if they have to spend any at all) - prizes in open ended contests instead of grants. The best solutions often come from the unlikeliest sources, making it impossible to know who, or what, to fund.

http://www.photonics.com/content/spectra...92533.aspx

I believe solar thermal is the way to go, you don't throw away the majority of the power found in the IR. I can't help but wonder if the popular notion of photovoltaics as what solar power looks like isn't a curve to make people accept that solar power still needs to be developed to become viable. I know that makes me a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but when you start seeing facts on solar thermal, you gotta wonder why this isn't more common.

http://www.pesn.com/2005/08/11/9600147_E...est_solar/
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050701/dis...awson.html

jh Wrote:This is how I'd like to see the government's alternative energy development dollars spent (if they have to spend any at all) - prizes in open ended contests instead of grants. The best solutions often come from the unlikeliest sources, making it impossible to know who, or what, to fund.

Didn't McCain suggest something like that? That never really made sense to me. Isn't there already a pretty sizable prize for producing advancement in this field?

jh Wrote:http://www.kval.com/news/local/28432984.html

Quote:"In his project, 'A Highly-Efficient 3-Dimensional Nanotube Solar Cell for Visible and UV Light,' William invented a novel solar panel that enables light absorption from visible to ultraviolet light. He designed carbon nanotubes to overcome the barriers of electron movement, doubling the light-electricity conversion efficiency. William also developed a model for solar towers and a computer program to simulate and optimize the tower parameters. His optimized design provides 500 times more light absorption than commercially-available solar cells and nine times more than the cutting-edge, three dimensional solar cell."

Thank goodness for the nerds, for they shall save us all. I'm not sure how commercially viable it is right now (carbon nanotubes can't be cheap) but a pretty impressive effort for a middle schooler.

This is how I'd like to see the government's alternative energy development dollars spent (if they have to spend any at all) - prizes in open ended contests instead of grants. The best solutions often come from the unlikeliest sources, making it impossible to know who, or what, to fund.

I agree...Any innovation that occurs by a governmental bureaucracy is coercive in nature since it uses the fruits of others labor to finance it. Im not in favor of governmental "grants" to finance these projects for the same reason.

Those in search of profit will innovate and invent. Get the government the HELL out of the way. The computer industry is the best example of this. Does anyone think we will continue to have the same innovation and low cost computer products if the government is allowed to "regulate" this industry?

At Ease Wrote:

jh Wrote:This is how I'd like to see the government's alternative energy development dollars spent (if they have to spend any at all) - prizes in open ended contests instead of grants. The best solutions often come from the unlikeliest sources, making it impossible to know who, or what, to fund.

Didn't McCain suggest something like that? That never really made sense to me. Isn't there already a pretty sizable prize for producing advancement in this field?

Not necessarily. For example, in the Scientific America article referenced in DrTorch's first link, three advancements are needed to make allow large scale (primarily thermal) solar energy farms to provide about 60% of our total energy needs by 2050 (I'm going off of memory so my nembers might be a little off). Improvements in the efficiency of the solar cells, energy storage, and long distance transmission are all required to make it viable (other than that it's a piece of cake).

Since different companies will likely be responsible for each advancement, and the economic viability depends on the other two advancements as well (the transmission improvements might be independently viable), the resulting uncertainty reduces the incentive to invest in any of the options. Increasing the efficiency of the solar arrays is all but worthless if there is no effective way to store or transmit the energy because they don't translate to rooftop unitsor small scale production.

A prize for meeting certain benchmarks reduces this uncertainty & encourages advancement. Ideally it would be broad enough to encompass all forms of alternative energies/transmission/storage and not be restricted to solar energy. The less the government is involved in trying to focus the research the better off we will be, just because there is no way to know where the solutions will come from.

I'd be ok with the government getting completely out of the energy business, alternative or otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be an option. This is just an attempt to limit the damage.