As usual you leave out the practical info. that makes it easy to actualy use the product. Ex: Where can I buy it? How much do they cost? How do I get my utitility to set me up with the ability to tie into the grid (I tried getting info. from my power co. and they blew me off.) Is there a Gov. agency I can call to force them to respond? What is the expected payoff period in different climates. I'm so tired of seing theory that everyone knows, With

HOLY CR@P, in Australia the commercial systems are advertised with "pays for itself in under 25 years" (WOW)

printing technologies are a great achievement, but still, very low efficiency (below 30%). I think that the path would be trough nano arrays of other elements than silica to get above the 50%. Remember that some vegetals has an efficiency above the 90% transforming solar to chemical energy. This is made trough nanosynchronized processes. Wich is in what we are working right now.

not a problem at all, in fact you get better discounts paying cash upfront. But you should look also manteinance and account for subsidies involved to get a complet picture

that´s pure bullshit. Check out nanosolar . com/

Many solar critics point out that you're really paying for your electricity up front. And the problem with that is? The smart money purchases for the future at todays prices. As the cost of energy continues to go up, so will the manufacturing cost of solar.

You're really doing a disservice to solar when you claim it's not NET energy. It's well understood by anyone investing in solar that the 'free' electricity only comes *after* the system has generated more than the system cost. The cost of electric power is going to continue to climb. The higher it goes, the faster the system earns it's worth.

True physical laws aren't going to change, but what we can currently do within the constraints of those laws is practical now. Gas is only going to get more expensive, making solar more attractive by the minute.

Those who wait for efficiency are part of the problem. If you can fulfill your electrical power needs from solar and wind, then once you've generated more power that it took to produce the system, you're producing NET energy. Greater demand for solar will fuel development faster, shaving years off your estimate.

That's my point. It returns 170W of the energy received, but that is not NET energy. With the advances in nanotechnology the efficiency will increase beyond the 50% but we are at least 10 years away.

maybe some numbers are out of date, but thermodynamics and energy fundamentals don't. It would be pretty difficult to beat the almost 9000 Wh/lt that gasoline has.

Yeah, yeah. I've read that article, and all the stuff on the Delaware U. site. It's an impressive achievement. Todays panels can be anywhere from 5%-25% efficient, but those figures a irrelevant. The bottom line is what the panel *produces*. A single 1 sq/m panel theoretically receives 1kW of energy, but may only deliver 170W, but that's *STILL* 170W of usable power.

Winter days are shorter and the angle of the sun is low. Both contribute to loss. Yet at todays prices (assuming $.12/kW), 4kW/h is more like $.50 worth of power *AND* it's enough to supply the needs of the video's maker. It only stands to reason that with longer days and a proper angle that it could generate even more.

His example doesn't state the size of the panel, yet states that this theoretical panel generates $.02-$.03 a day. This is NOWHERE close to reality. Even a small system like the one in "Wisconsin Solar Panel Timelapse" generates 4kW/hr in the *WINTER*.

'noob'!! That's rich! I've been reading Don Lancaster since the mid 80's. I regularly cite his work when debunking the free energy nuts. I highly respect Don's work, but much of what's on his site is out of date. Energy fundamentals is from 2002, and cites figures that aren't even close to accurate.

The 2KW system depicted in this video could *easily* run a fridge, dozens of DVD players and TVs, or 100 compact fluorescent lamps. While it wouldn't run conventional air conditioning, it could run a fairly large geothermal cooling and heating unit.

Only a moron like you would try to run a motor off of a small 135 watt system like i have, but the rest also run off my system. Ya know, you sure do advertise how little you know about solar energy. You really do give everybody a good laugh. That isb why I replied to you, to get you to do it again LOL SUCKER

Oh *please*. A pocket calculator has like a 3sq/cm solar panel, capable of maybe 1mW. While the average consumer fridge draws around 800-1200W when running, it's *average* consumption is 75W. You may be an ecologist, but I'm an electronics engineer. Your claim that solar never produces net power is a LIE.

sure genius! that's the same for my pocket calculator, try to do that with your refrigerator, air conditioner, dvd player, tv's and so on...

Well, if that is so, how do you explain this computer running for 9 years without any charging other than the solar panels? I don't even have a battery charger or power to run it from. I'll tell you, your an idiot.

oh and by the way, I'm an ecologyst, I would like real energy savings and no energy sinks that makes erroneous claims, some day solar panels will rock, but right now they don't. Take a look at the future: google this: Slashdot | New Record For Solar Cell Power Efficiency

whoa! if you want to waste your money go ahead, anyway it is green also, right? I'm glad I have a fan following my posts! hahaha!

Don't listen to this LIAR. I've been checking his posts and he's spreading this misinformation EVERYWHERE. Shills like him should be labeled 'enemy combatants'.

Why don't you point us to some studies to back up those so called 'facts' so we may decide whether you're full of shit for ourselves. That 'big oil' paycheck must be awful nice to let you lead the life of leisure at your age.

Please stop with your pathetic LIES. I've shredded your argument with some inconvient truth in the video "Let the Sun Shine".

Thin-film solar panels are one of the least energy intensive solar panels to produce, they breakeven in under a year of operation.

Normal modern solar panels take a max of approx 5 years to breakeven, generally it's under 3 years.

Where are you getting your info?