The obstacles and politics of renewable energy technologies

We've all seen movies where a new great technological advancement that will change life as we know it sets off a round of intrigue, deception and double dealing by multiple parties all scrambling to control the new technology. What goes without saying is that all parties involved in the intrigue, had at the outset, instantly recognized the significance of the new discovery.

In real life it is quite different. With so many bogus claims made in the past, so many research dead ends and the ever present need to demonstrate financial viability, the process of bringing a new great technological advancement to market is rife with obstacles. The first, most obvious barrier is skepticism and rightfully so. Independent corroboration of all claims made is paramount. The new technology has to simply prove itself . . . .

. . . but what happens when a company has developed a great new technological advancement and the significance of their innovation is not instantly recognized? Then after jumping through all of the necessary hoops and after having every last one of their claims independently corroborated, they still cannot attract enough interest within their own country for the necessary capitol investment?

Such is the case with Liquid Phase Deposition (LPD) technology developed at Rice University and now commercially licensed to Natcore Technologies. Foreign investors are beating down their doors, deals have been struck for joint efforts with foreign companies but still, nothing in the way of significant interest from manufacturers in their own country.

Maybe this article will change that: HERE

The information in the following video is still current:
[video=youtube_share;MExjI-7F7oA]http://youtu.be/MExjI-7F7oA[/video]

 

I would assume people/companies must think there are better deals out there. The company's own press release is not really an objective article.

From the link you gave us:

 

Because the article has been reproduced in its entirety on the company website, I see where it can be a bit confusing but it was written by a third party. The portion you quoted is a form of "safe harbor statement" (A legal provision to reduce or eliminate any liability amongst potential investors as long as good faith is demonstrated.) Lux Research Inc., the authors of the article, are not associated with Natcore Technologies Inc. but are instead an independent advisory group.

You do however inadvertently hit on a very valid point. Potential investors have a myriad of bogus claims, failed histories and a general suspicion of the renewable technologies sector. Sorting out the legitimate claims from the pretenders is extremely difficult.

 

Interesting. With Obama throwing billions of taxpayer dollars on green energy initiatives, one can only assume he didn't help Obama enough in 2008 when he was first trying to get elected, or he would have his paltry $15 million. George Kaiser managed to get half a billion for Solyndra, which turned out to be a complete catastrophe.

On the private money front, $15 million is a pittance. Investors in the US are among the most sophisticated investors on the planet, so I have a hard time believing they have all given this project a pass out of some ignorance international investors lack. Perhaps they better understand the regulatory environment surrounding the manufacturing business in the US, or the global competition which has already surpassed us in the global market.

I find it a little comic to see Louise Slaughter getting involved in this guy's bid for investment capital. I currently work for a technology startup with international funding that employs about 20 Americans, no government intervention required.

 

Hmm, I read it again. I do see it cites Lux Research as a source for a lot of the claims but it still seems to me to be a press release touting what Lux Research said about the company. Not that it makes much difference.

People want to make money. I think many people have seen US companies try to compete with China on solar panels and that has not worked out too well for most of them. I just don't see people turning down a sure thing so my guess is that is just too speculative at this stage and there must be better investments out there. Hopefully they can keep progressing to a point where they are turning down US and foreign investors.

 

Sounds like a job for http://www.kickstarter.com/. Help for getting starters up & running etc..

 

The link you provided is a good example of one of a number of possible similar avenues. There are a number of "shark tank" type of investment panels available to emerging technologies with a number of them focusing on their very sector. I just can't put my finger on why they are having to much trouble securing the necessary financing to build a manufacturing facility. . . . the stock price (listed on the Canadian Toronto Venture Exchange) is doing very well.

 

I have a couple of hundred acres I was thinking of a wind farm or solar type setup out here - haven't gone seriously into it yet because I've been stuck on other things but am thinking it might be good retirement plan, nother 10 years or so yet. Technology might have come up with something else by then...hard to know what's ahead.

My son showed me the kick starter site a few weeks back, I haven't really played with it but it seems like a great idea to help small business kick on, I've only heard good things about it.

 

Attempting to look ahead 10 years to determine which clean energy technology will produce the greater return is a tough call. As a 125 year old technology, we can assume that wind power will only see advancements in small increments in the next decade but this is not necessarily so with the storage of the power it produces. A reality that may eventually overcome its greatest shortcoming.

On the other hand it is predicted that the current high cost of producing solar power will intersect with the current substantially lower costs of traditional power generation over the next decade.

Then we must consider that virtually all of the technologies involved are in various stages of next generation development.

 

This kind of lies makes me puke . This is why you're mocked by the scientifically ignorant , because you make complete and utter fools out of yourself . Zero , let me say it again ZERO facts and you still proclaim it like a game changer .

Let me ask you few things . You keep talking BS about "clean energy technology" WTF is that . Oh ya it's solar , wind and hydro . Yep that's about it , only 3 of them but you're trying to elevate the talk to sounds like cutting edge science. It's not , and you're not gonna make a dent in the energy market with the current tech , you'll only make a dent into the inventor's pocket . Some magical cream coating will not make solar super efficient , you're gonna need true nanotech to get solar to move out of it's slump and thanks to the fact that moron scientist abound you're gonna have to wait it out .

You're also lacking realism , solar works max 15 hours per day you'll need a continuous power output before anyone sane would even consider investing in it. Unless you can store a GWh in a 1 cubic meter device that costs less then 10k you won't be able to consider it market worthy. Stop promoting and making green BS , sponsor the labs to come out with real solutions , the time for green energy is now but the time for solar isn't here. You're only wasting cash and time , cash and time that could be invested into real tech.

 

Thank you professor ApocalypseXL. Do you ever offer anything but insults and negativity?

For anyone who is interested HERE are some facts and HERE are a few more.

 

How timely.

Oh gee, another thin film solar technology company that managed to get $197 million taxpayer dollars while Natcore begs for $15 million. It makes a $150,000 campaign contribution to Obama's reelection look cheap by comparison, doesn't it. Also curious how an analyst from Lux Research questions the viability of the Solar Panel business in the US. Funny how NatCore didn't include such skepticism from Lux in it's press release.

 

You mean like you do in political talks ? Your two sources magically predict that sometime in 2015 we'll find out some super duper solar tech and we'll all start using it . Psychic readers to the same thing , there is no mention of technological breakthroughs or ongoing scientific projects, hell Wikipedia has more technical details then this two "studies" . Tell you what , get me two papers from MIT, JPL or Harvard and we might have a chat and please me sure they're relevant. Don't come with papar about how solar power will help the environment and make everyone happier . We're talking energy generation and storage only.

 

As far as i'm aware we're about to throw billions of dollars at the problem of climate change (via a carbon economy). Much of the money is to go towards new clean energy technology. Is it not reasonable to assume new energy technology will now get much better much quicker?

That knowlege and lack of funds stops me doing it right now. Even if I had the money i'd still hold off right now. Other people would feel the same.

 

Until 2016 we won't be able to even properly research efficient solar cells because we have no clue on how to build them . We don't even have the tools to make scientific prototypes . Microprocessor lithography is where we'll get those tools. CPUs can't be miniaturized further because of electron instability but that instability is exactly what solar cells need - the accurate ability to capture every photon and convert it to electricity instead of heat. I assume that's what the studies are basing themselves on . Once you get that technology you need to refine it to mass produce it at a regional level , only then you can talk about real use of solar power.

As for the rest of the techs hydro and wind they are going strong as well . Wind is especially promising , but right now the problem for wind is manufacturing and maintenance cost . China and India tried to use their armies of workers but that failed , local production programs have also failed . This is due to the problem of copper supply and composite manufacturing . Oil derricks can be planted by a team of blue collars armed with local materials , you need to be able to do the same thing with wind turbines or else you'll fail and fail hard. That's what most companies are doing ATM , get government funding and plant inefficient farms .

Inland hydro is near max and global warming makes it volatile , fortunately sea born power is getting better and better . If I had to trow some billions I'd trow them here .

 

We are on the cusp of a number of important breakthroughs in solar cell manufacturing. Currently, most solar cells are manufactured using a great deal of expensive material and a very expensive manufacturing process. Specifically silicone and a curing process that incorporates a high heat process (1,500 degrees F).

This is where the patents held by Natcore come into play. Their Liquid Phase Deposition process produces an anti reflective, highly efficient (by comparison) thin film coating at ambient room temperatures. Not only do they achieve more kw output, they do it with substantially smaller manufacturing costs. The saving in manufacturing costs is ultimately the key when it is considered that speaking in general terms: without subsidies, the energy produced by solar cells costs up to 3 times as much as energy generated by traditional means.

I do not believe that this technology is quite on par with traditional energy production just yet but considering that energy costs in general have a one way upward trajectory, it is only a matter of time. . . . and more improvements are inevitably to come.

 

You will only be able to cite one example for this claim as I have only posted insulting someone in one political thread where I called out and made my case against an Obama bashing liar. Otherwise I avoid political threads. . . . but it is possible that you do not know the difference between solicited and unsolicited insults. A good example of the latter being your first post in this thread. As a policy that I have always adhered to in online discussion, I only respond in kind, if I post something insulting another forum member, you can bet that it was provoked (solicited), by a previous insult.

A policy you would do well to adopt yourself.

In post #15 in this thread you ask for sources. I have a better idea: you make claims involving Microprocessor lithography as the only viable future for solar cell technology. Are you speaking of extreme ultraviolet lithography? . . . Ion beam lithography? . . . which is it and what are the applications to solar cell manufacturing? Who is currently working on it specifically as a solar cell application?

Layman's terms and sources please.

 

Isn't this very quote a second example? It seems I have officially made my home up your ass. Drop the hate man .

 

@Gomeza

What does ion beam lithography has to do with mass manufacturing of CPUs ? Troll harder.

You're backing the extraordinary claim that you have a game chaining technology. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where are the JPL reports on your solar tech solution ? Where's the HBS report on how this will change the market share in the industry ? Where's MIT saying that they work on refining the technology but that the technology is production ready ?

 

The question you should be asking is what does the manufacturing of CPUs have to do with photo voltaics? You have your silicon wafers mixed up. The efficiency of solar cells does not rely on CPU technology and in answer to your question as posed: ion beam lithography is considered the next generation in CPU production, or at the very least the most promising avenue for overcoming the micro scale issues you referred to as "instability". . . . but again it has nothing to do with the technology being discussed here.

Why would you expect an MIT report on proprietary technology commercially licensed by Rice university? The history of this technology is found HERE and it is extraordinary.