Comments on: A Moore’s Law for energy?

By: FP

FP — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:01:54 +0000

Yea the 30% this is year is because of “panel glut” then it will go back to 7% then some nano technology will make 80% one year and 50% the next year and soon we will have breakthrough after breakthrough after breakthrough… The first 30 yrs were all silicon based PV’s. get ready for the thin stuff!

By:

Sun, 10 May 2009 12:14:48 +0000

The comment that “organic PV is sneaking up on silicon” make me think of the numerous predictions that the hard disk drive technology is coming to an end. For sure it will at some time, but like many leading technologies HDDs have had plenty of aces to play and have extended their life significantly. I suspect silicon based solar energy is the main road for quite some time yet. The common mistake seems to be that all contending technologies seem to think they are catching up to the current level of silicon within a few years, while forgetting that silicon based technologies by that time will have moved significantly ahead – maybe even broadening the gap. But by all means, contending technologies are needed both to fill niche areas and to push for the great leaps. I’m just going to keep my money on silicon for now, and then we’ll see in a few years time

By:

Sun, 03 May 2009 14:09:52 +0000

Yes, even without the more exotic forms of energy like “vacuum” or “cold fusion”, conventional alternatives like cheap solar foil electric converters will be equal to or better than fossil fuels with nanotechnology in the next coming years.

I think Drexler and others may have calculated this but has anyone calculated how much energy it would take to say assemble a cubic foot of diamondoid like material from basic molecular parts or atoms themselves? One guy said to me “Nanomachines will be very energy thirsty” and he tried to claim it would take nuclear fusion level power to power assemblers. I disagree. Natural assemblers make use of sunlight, and nanomachines can make use of sunlight, hydrogen fuel, and the rest. SUBATOMIC motions would require larger energies, I am sure, but, for molecular manufacturing the sun and chemicals can do it.

By:

Sun, 03 May 2009 08:55:24 +0000

The 30% decline is just this year due to a panel glut on account of a soft economy.

It will not be 30% every year. The trendline is 5-7% declines a year, which is still good enough to achieve coal-parity by 2015.

By:

Sun, 03 May 2009 08:53:57 +0000

Remember that over time, more and more industries become IT industries, and thus get pegged to Moore's Law. First calculation, word processing, audio, video, photography, etc. became IT industries. Now medicine, energy, manufacturing, and astronomical observation will also become IT industries. The Impact of Computing mandates it.

By:

Sat, 02 May 2009 00:00:54 +0000

I wish more nanotech people would recognize the reality of energy from the plenum of space, instead of sweeping it under the rug with the blanket statement “Crank”. The active “vacuum” of space itself is not empty but is full of oscillating waves of energy that can be harnessed, especially using nanotech devices like nature does. This energy explains the anomalous excess heat and power and transmutation productions of so called “cold fusion” and also explains such things as gamma ray bursters. Nanotech Assemblers plus this “ether” energy = massive material abundance for all mankind.

PS I do understand however why some nanotech researchers don’t discuss the ‘vacuum’ energy, for fear of being labeled “crackpots”.

By:

Fri, 01 May 2009 19:27:37 +0000

“Solar energy will never become really inexpensive.” Yeah! I guess unless you call free not really inexpensive… Wait til you can spray on nano-solar paint to collect all the energy you need for our business, your home, your car, your phone, your computer, the roads, etc.