"1kg CIGS = 5kg Uranium
December 16, 2008
By Martin Roscheisen, CEO

The notion of a kilogram of enriched Uranium conjures up an image of a powerful amout of energy. Enough to power an entire city for years when used in a nuclear power plant, or enough to flatten an entire county when used in a bomb — that’s presumably what many people would say if one asked them about their thoughts.

In our new solar cell technology, we use an active material called CIGS, a Copper based semiconductor. How does this stack up against enriched Uranium?

Here’s a noteworthy fact, pointed out to me by one of our engineers: It turns out that 1kg of CIGS, embedded in a solar cell, produces 5 times as much electricity as 1kg of enriched Uranium, embedded in a nuclear power plant.

Or said differently, 1kg of CIGS is equivalent to 5kg of enriched Uranium in terms of the energy the materials deliver in solar and nuclear respectively.

The Uranium is burned and then stored in a nuclear waste facility; the CIGS material produces power for at least the warranty period of the solar cell product after which it can then be recycled and reused an indefinite number of times."



http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/

And how much energy is that?

Calculations please.

And how much energy is that?

Calculations please.




I guess you will have to write a letter to Nanosolar because only they know how much of the active ingredients they use. However, you should be able to find on the Internet how much electricity a kg of enriched uranium produces when used in a nuclear reactor.

I look forward to seeing the fruits of your research.

"However, you should be able to find on the Internet how much electricity a kg of enriched uranium produces when used in a nuclear reactor."

Yes, however, the kwh produced depend on things like percent enrichment, percent burnup, thermal efficiency, whether or not fuel is recycled...etc.

Of course you just take what they say at face value.

It might be helpful to know how much that 1 kg of CIGS costs.

Nuclear fuel costs about 1/2 cent per kwh.

"However, you should be able to find on the Internet how much electricity a kg of enriched uranium produces when used in a nuclear reactor."

Yes, however, the kwh produced depend on things like percent enrichment, percent burnup, thermal efficiency, whether or not fuel is recycled...etc.

Of course you just take what they say at face value.

It might be helpful to know how much that 1 kg of CIGS costs.

Nuclear fuel costs about 1/2 cent per kwh.

As I understand it, fuel costs are only about 20% of the real costs. 50% is for investment in facilities which typically runs in the multiple billions. This brings the cost up to 3.0-4.0 cents per kwh, not to mention the problem of nuclear waste storage for perpetuity. Also, if we started now, nuclear plants wouldn't come online for 5-8 years.

The most important thing to note is the future cost curves. I'm not aware of anyone projecting nuclear costs to come down while solar costs have been on a downward path which will continue into the foreseeable future.

The real question should be how to scale up solar energy as fast as possible.

"As I understand it, fuel costs are only about 20% of the real costs. 50% is for investment in facilities which typically runs in the multiple billions. This brings the cost up to 3.0-4.0 cents per kwh"

Really? I had no idea you actually had to build the reactors, I thought you could just burn the fuel.:rolleyes:



"not to mention the problem of nuclear waste storage for perpetuity."

Hmmm, yes, when you do stupid things, it does tend to create problems.


"Also, if we started now, nuclear plants wouldn't come online for 5-8 years."

If you start now, you might be informed in 5-8 years.


"The most important thing to note is the future cost curves. I'm not aware of anyone projecting nuclear costs to come down while solar costs have been on a downward path which will continue into the foreseeable future.

The real question should be how to scale up solar energy as fast as possible."

Ummm, make it cost less.

I the meantime, people will do what is in their best interest.

When it does cost less, it will take off. Everybody knows this. The point of the post, which you missed, was to point out the near uselessness of comparing the mass used. I am not anti solar or pro nuclear; I am anti propaganda and stupidity.

[INDENT] I am anti propaganda and stupidity.

Based on your response, you fooled me. Arrogance is simply a camouflage for stupidity.

Based on your response, you fooled me. Arrogance is simply a camouflage for stupidity.

If you are aware of something which can camouflage yours, I suggest you try it.

What a pointless thread, Texas.

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr283/duston22/302984_com_scan0082.jpg






[QUOTE]I look forward to seeing the fruits of your research./QUOTE]

At least part of the power for your PC to type that probably came from a nuclear power source........

If you are aware of something which can camouflage yours, I suggest you try it.

Why do you insist on being stupid? Are you really Lutz in disguise?

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr283/duston22/302984_com_scan0082.jpg






[QUOTE]I look forward to seeing the fruits of your research./QUOTE]

At least part of the power for your PC to type that probably came from a nuclear power source........



The reason you are typing this message in English might be due to thus use of a nuclear bomb and having continuous war over the past few thousand years. What's your point? ;)

Just because we do something doesn't mean it's right.

What a pointless thread, Texas.


Thank you! However, it seems like it made a few posters take notice. People think that nuclear fission is the most compact form of energy and that can never be challenged. Well, someone challenged that belief. What's so pointless about that? It made me say, "Hummmm."

Even we here in the backwards USA are reconsidering nuclear fuel reprocessing.

Your CIGS solar cells still won't do jack **** when its dark. Baseload, dude.

.......dropping the atom bomb on Japan 53 years ago..... It ended the war. It also kept Stalin and the Russians far, far away when their conventional Land Army was vastly bigger than ours.

The cigs doesn't produce any energy at all. It is combined with other elements, compounds and systemic parts. Take a kg of cigs and it won't do anything.

Baseload, Dude.

Does anyone recognize the Ant picture ??? :)

Ah, the baseload argument. Why not add at least 20% renewable power to our grid? By the time we get there (will take a decade) we will have much better options for energy storage. If not, we can add enough pumped storage hydro to add even more renewables. All those batteries in our EVs will allow even more.

Why go backwards and add more nukes? Anyway, the economics for nukes don't work anyway and thus we just won't see a significant movement in the industry. We might build a few replacement reactors but I'm guessing the powers that be will decide on more sane options. I hope they do.

There is absolutely no reason to build more nuclear power plants. I'm waiting to hear what Obama proposes. He might call for a few replacement reactors to at least keep the U.S. able to make more if we have to. If that ever happens and we are forced to build hundreds more nuke plants, I'm moving to a nice remote island (not in the nuclear testing area) to relax until my time comes. *cue the tropical music*

Ah, the baseload argument. Why not add at least 20% renewable power to our grid? By the time we get there (will take a decade) we will have much better options for energy storage. If not, we can add enough pumped storage hydro to add even more renewables. All those batteries in our EVs will allow even more.

Why go backwards and add more nukes? Anyway, the economics for nukes don't work anyway and thus we just won't see a significant movement in the industry. We might build a few replacement reactors but I'm guessing the powers that be will decide on more sane options. I hope they do.

There is absolutely no reason to build more nuclear power plants. I'm waiting to hear what Obama proposes. He might call for a few replacement reactors to at least keep the U.S. able to make more if we have to. If that ever happens and we are forced to build hundreds more nuke plants, I'm moving to a nice remote island (not in the nuclear testing area) to relax until my time comes. *cue the tropical music*

If I may dare to resurface from an attack by a cyberbully, I see a bright future for thin-film CIGS and solar thermal. As electricity needs grow, the green eye shade people will see that nuclear doesn't make any sense.

We already have plenty of off-hour capacity with coal, nuclear, hydro. We need more peak capacity during the day and solar makes perfect sense as it continues to come down in price (while the alternatives go up or stay the same). And if we properly accounted for the negative costs of carbon dioxide or storing spent nuclear fuel, the case would be even more compelling.

The push to nuclear is primarily from Big Utilities who can't break out of the big capital investment, centralized power plants mentality. I'm sure that the Obama administration will make necessary investments in a national grid to move wind energy from the mid-west and solar energy from the west and south to where it needs to be.

I don't think you'll need to move to a remote island. They'll all be flooded by then anyway so it won't be an alternative.

"And if we properly accounted for the negative costs of ... or storing spent nuclear fuel"

We do; it's called "Nuclear Waste Fund"

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/about/pm/pdf/feeadr1.pdf

Of course to enviro wackos, no amount will ever be adequate.

Stay down.

[QUOTE]We already have plenty of off-hour capacity with coal, nuclear, hydro. We need more peak capacity during the day and solar makes perfect sense as it continues to come down in price /QUOTE]

Beautiful, makes perfect sense. All in favor ?? The ayes carry it. :)

Without digging too deep, I don't think we have much surplus baseload power. Or we won't in the near future. And, getting to the point that brings us all here together, more baseload equals more off peak power means cheaper power menas better chance for EV. :)

Nuke is viable for inexpensive, environmentally sound baseload power. There, had to go and ruin the moment. Cyberbully ?? Where ???

If you look for anguish, you can find it. Anywhere. Green dye. beautiful. Green dye better than Tarzan Nuclear, Neutrino no likee. Respond to stimulus. :p

Anyone recognize the ant pic ???

"And if we properly accounted for the negative costs of ... or storing spent nuclear fuel"

We do; it's called "Nuclear Waste Fund"

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/about/pm/pdf/feeadr1.pdf

Of course to enviro wackos, no amount will ever be adequate.

Stay down.

I see Yucca Mountain on the cover along with the year, 2001. How much of our nuclear waste has been moved to Yucca so far?

Answer: ZERO. Best case, 2020!

Why don't you send us your address and we can put it in your backyard?

I am going to drink unless you guys stop it.......:confused:


Edit: We have PG&E for electric service. There is $0.13 on our bill for nuclear waste fee. Thirteen cents. Big Effing Deal.

OK, off to the licker store

I am going to drink unless you guys stop it.......:confused:

Drinking won't solve our energy problem. It won't even contribute to civility on this board!

I'm not actually against nuclear power. I just don't think it makes economic sense and shouldn't be held out as our "best solution."

We can certainly benefit from a national grid, solar pv, solar thermal, and wind. If utilities want to make the investment in nuclear, let them. Just say no to more coal.

We can also reduce our energy requirements considerably. There are lots of ways to design more efficient buildings, to reduce heating and electrical requirements of office buildings and residences, and to build EV cars that are economical and practical.

Unfortunately, change comes hard to many so you are always going to see those people who argue for ICEs over EVs, SUVs over sensible station wagons, nuclear power over solar/wind, excessive consumerism over practical environmentalism, and fighting wars with bombs over winning hearts and minds with humanitarian support.

My argument would be, if this entrenched thinking works so well, why are things so screwed up?

Message for Mike: Not interested in hearing your opinion or more of your arrogant attacks.

"Why don't you send us your address and we can put it in your backyard?"


Actually, I already buried it in yours.


Boo!

"Why don't you send us your address and we can put it in your backyard?"


Actually, I already buried it in yours.


Boo!

Are you totally committed to destroying every thread with worthless commentary? This is my last post to you. I wouldn't associate with someone like you in the "real world" so I choose not to associate with you in the online world. Please just go away.

Are you totally committed to destroying every thread with worthless commentary? This is my last post to you. I wouldn't associate with someone like you in the "real world" so I choose not to associate with you in the online world. Please just go away.

Oh, I see. You wanted to have a rational discussion, did you? You actually thought I needed to be informed that part of the cost of nuclear power is building the reactors and disposing of waste. Please.

Maybe you guys should throw back a few shots. Week night ?? Hah !!! :D

Drink up me hearties, yo ho!

He can try me again in a couple hours.

I wish that all of you anti-nukes focused on the nuclear waste issue would do some research before spouting. Can you spell "reprocessing"?

Yes, there is still waste left over after reprocessing, but it is only about 20% of the unprocessed waste, and has much lower radioactivity and the longest-lived radionuclide has a half-life of 800 years. Boo!

[Edit: According to this Congressional testimony on nuclear fuel reprocessing (http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2005/testimony050616.html), using a full-reprocessing cycle will reduce the required waste storage space by a factor of 100.]

Parles vouz frances ??? They have combate les terribleu waste......

Don't confuse nuclear waste with waste from the nuclear reactor electrical industry. The defense - plutonion waste is widely thrown in with the bathwater. That's not honest or correct.

If you are realllly worried about it. The waste left over from nuclear reactors ends up being about the size of a dime per person, per year. And if that realllly bothers you, it can be contained by incineration and formation of small glass beads. Misinformation Game Over. Bury the low level glass inert beads in a geologic formation that by definition can't leak and it's sealed forever. Case closed. Unless you worry about the booogie man.

Not to say there are not alternatives. But please don't let my ice melt and my drink dilute trying to tell me about waste disposal. Let's go back to making solar more effective, OK ?? Green stuff ??

Nukes suck big time but pretty much anything is better than coal, "clean" or not, when it comes to base load power. I regretfully think we might need more nuke plants in the near future to meet the demand. But I agree with Greenman that the main focus should be on CUTTING CONSUMPTION through energy efficiency and perhaps a dash of thrift (as in conservation.) I hope we all can agree on that.

Nukes suck big time but pretty much anything is better than coal, "clean" or not, when it comes to base load power. I regretfully think we might need more nuke plants in the near future to meet the demand. But I agree with Greenman that the main focus should be on CUTTING CONSUMPTION through energy efficiency and perhaps a dash of thrift (as in conservation.) I hope we all can agree on that.

I can sign-on with that plan. I would rather have a nuclear plant than a coal plant. Reducing consumption is a win all around.

Nukes suck big time but pretty much anything is better than coal, "clean" or not, when it comes to base load power. I regretfully think we might need more nuke plants in the near future to meet the demand. But I agree with Greenman that the main focus should be on CUTTING CONSUMPTION through energy efficiency and perhaps a dash of thrift (as in conservation.) I hope we all can agree on that.

Thanks, I guess at least we agree! More coal makes no sense. Nuclear is our best worst choice... Solar, wind, geothermal and efficiency as fast as possible.

Interesting, I heard this morning that many houses could reduce heating costs by 30% with some very simple insulation and caulking. Seems like that is an easy choice because it saves both money and the environment. Wind, solar, and nuclear will all cost money, even if they are easy on the environment.

Thanks, I guess at least we agree! More coal makes no sense. Nuclear is our best worst choice... Solar, wind, geothermal and efficiency as fast as possible.

Interesting, I heard this morning that many houses could reduce heating costs by 30% with some very simple insulation and caulking. Seems like that is an easy choice because it saves both money and the environment. Wind, solar, and nuclear will all cost money, even if they are easy on the environment.

This reminds me, although a small percentage of electricity is generated with oil, as oil prices go up, electricity will also go up because of all those who use heating oil to heat their homes. Last year they were paying about $700/month to heat their houses during the winter. I have no idea why that wouldn't give them motivation to switch to electricity, but when oil goes up, they will be paying even more and many more will switch to electric heat pumps.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_11052007_heating.1dfe6ba6c.html

[QUOTE]Anyone recognize the ant pic ???

Is it from the movie "Them"?

Dear All,
Here is calculation with some assumptions that I made based on literatures/public information.

http://www.geocities.com/sungdug9/funcalculation.html

The results can vary, depending on the assumptions but in general Nanosolar's claim is in the right range.

Doug

Dear All,
Here is calculation with some assumptions that I made based on literatures/public information.

http://www.geocities.com/sungdug9/funcalculation.html

The results can vary, depending on the assumptions but in general Nanosolar's claim is in the right range.

Doug

All I saw were some explanations and lists of numbers. I didn't see any calculations. What is the area of your CIGS panel?

Dear Altazi

I added a line to show the calculation. Based on the density and thickness of 1-2 um, the area of the panel is 83-167 m2.

Doug

Very good. Thank you!

There is something that bothers me about this comparison. Nothing you did, sdougk9, but the concept in general. I just can't put my finger on it . . .

I don't buy the comparison. Sure, if you have a solar panel made with 1kG of CIGS, it might produce more energy if you let it do it's thing for 30 years.

How fast can you get the energy out of enriched uranium? A whole lot faster, I'd bet.

The Ant was from the Movie Them. Recall correctly the source of the nuclear exposure was from weapons testing. Power plants (atomic) weren't invented yet.

The Ant was from the Movie Them. Recall correctly the source of the nuclear exposure was from weapons testing. Power plants (atomic) weren't invented yet.

OH WOW! What a relief!! It was just a movie. I thought that was real and had completely abandoned my support for atomic power and even scientific research and development all together. Who are we to try to harness the power of the sun? Some sort of gods?? No, I thought there for a moment maybe we should just go back to caves and tree tops where we belong. But it was just a movie and all fake. Whew...


Thanks for the pictures. This forum needs a little humor.:)

The Ant was from the Movie Them. Recall correctly the source of the nuclear exposure was from weapons testing. Power plants (atomic) weren't invented yet.
Hah! I got it right!!!! :D

Looks like my years studying nuclear physics weren't a TOTAL waste!

Texas opined that:

"The notion of a kilogram of enriched Uranium conjures up an image of a powerful amout of energy. Enough to power an entire city for years when used in a nuclear power plant, or enough to flatten an entire county when used in a bomb — that’s presumably what many people would say if one asked them about their thoughts."

I hope he wasn't counting on that 1 kg of CIGS to power a city. I don't think 28 households, using the numbers from the calculation, qualifies as a "city".


This post is a fascinating study in psychology. His image of 1 kg of enriched uranium is one of enormous energy. I'm not sure what size city he envisioned, but, at the very least he is off by a couple orders of magnitude.

Merriam-Websters defines "presume" as:

"to undertake without leave or clear justification";
"to expect or assume especially with confidence";
"to suppose to be true without proof"


This concept is expounded upon here:

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000304.htm


"A presumption is often taken up or assumed to be true until proven otherwise, as presumed innocent. Sometimes it has the sense of behaving in a superior manner, as in to presume upon someone. Presumption often has the sense of blind overconfidence, or going beyond the limits of proper manners. Presumptive means "based on reasonable grounds of evidence" as in presumptive heir. Presumptuous means "unusually confident or bold, often arrogant," or "foolhardy."


Now, by saying: "that’s presumably what many people would say if one asked them about their thoughts", he is saying that he has high confidence that many people would say that 1 kg of enriched uranium is: "Enough to power an entire city for years when used in a nuclear power plant, or enough to flatten an entire county when used in a bomb"

Who, does he think would say this?

That phrase, by itself, raises questions. Why would anyone think that the energy required to power a city for a year is the same as the energy to flatten an entire country? What country?

It is clear that he does not like numbers.

Texas opined that:

"The notion of a kilogram of enriched Uranium conjures up an image of a powerful amout of energy. Enough to power an entire city for years when used in a nuclear power plant, or enough to flatten an entire county when used in a bomb — that’s presumably what many people would say if one asked them about their thoughts."

I hope he wasn't counting on that 1 kg of CIGS to power a city. I don't think 28 households, using the numbers from the calculation, qualifies as a "city".


This post is a fascinating study in psychology. His image of 1 kg of enriched uranium is one of enormous energy. I'm not sure what size city he envisioned, but, at the very least he is off by a couple orders of magnitude.

Merriam-Websters defines "presume" as:

"to undertake without leave or clear justification";
"to expect or assume especially with confidence";
"to suppose to be true without proof"


This concept is expounded upon here:

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000304.htm


"A presumption is often taken up or assumed to be true until proven otherwise, as presumed innocent. Sometimes it has the sense of behaving in a superior manner, as in to presume upon someone. Presumption often has the sense of blind overconfidence, or going beyond the limits of proper manners. Presumptive means "based on reasonable grounds of evidence" as in presumptive heir. Presumptuous means "unusually confident or bold, often arrogant," or "foolhardy."


Now, by saying: "that’s presumably what many people would say if one asked them about their thoughts", he is saying that he has high confidence that many people would say that 1 kg of enriched uranium is: "Enough to power an entire city for years when used in a nuclear power plant, or enough to flatten an entire county when used in a bomb"

Who, does he think would say this?

That phrase, by itself, raises questions. Why would anyone think that the energy required to power a city for a year is the same as the energy to flatten an entire country? What country?

It is clear that he does not like numbers.




Mike, It's time to take your medicine. ;)

Texas's rules for dealing with numbers:


One: Run
Two: Shoo
Three: Flee
Four: There's the door
Five: Try to stay alive
Six: Now your in a fix
Seven: Your only hope is heaven
Eight: Delegate
Nine: Just opine
Ten: Try again

Texas, your post on the Namibia wind tunnel is great. Truly. It's funny and I mean that as a compliment. The ant nest thing. But, in ritual competition, if one were to evaluate your post in that thread and EDIT Mike's post here.................................... I think the Judges would go to door number two, that's yours, for the meds. Hey, I'm next in line.

Texas, your post on the Namibia wind tunnel is great. Truly. It's funny and I mean that as a compliment. The ant nest thing. But, in ritual competition, if one were to evaluate your post in that thread and EDIT Mike's post here.................................... I think the Judges would go to door number two, that's yours, for the meds. Hey, I'm next in line.





I was just referring to his anti-trolling medication. It's where he just trolls with no real argument. Now he's rocking in his Mom's chair making up rhymes! I wonder if he shaved his head yet. ;)

Wow !! That might get some humorous dialogue started !! Texas, if he is a troller, then you are the pink power bait of junk fish trolling. ;)

Wow !! That might get some humorous dialogue started !! Texas, if he is a troller, then you are the pink power bait of junk fish trolling. ;)
Dammit!!!! You made me lose my coffee with that! :D

Wow !! That might get some humorous dialogue started !! Texas, if he is a troller, then you are the pink power bait of junk fish trolling. ;)




Just because you, Altazi and Mike756 are standing in a circle jerk agreeing on how the world should be run doesn't mean he's not a troll. You also fall into that category from time to time.

I'm guessing you would call Mother Teresa a troll if she posted something that didn't agree with your crew's outlandish statements.

If that's your definition of a troll then how about we keep the trolling on the high end? How about we debate not debase. OK, after this post. ;)

I didn't like this thread at all Texas. You went way out on a limb on this one, sorry.