Forget Computers. Here Comes the Sun.

NY Times ^ | April 14, 2006 | JOHN MARKOFF

[Wolverine]

OTCBB: BBSE

To listen, click here.

[Erik Latranyi]

I just redid (for about the 5th time) the analysis of cost savings from switching from our standard 17" CRT monitors to 17" LCD monitors. The payback on that, even at artificially inflated electricity costs to cover an order of magnitude price increase, is 66.2 years.

Did you take into account the shorter life of an LCD versus CRT?

[\/\/ayne]

Wrong question.

Ok, so I think you are saying it would not!

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Batteries? Most folks use an intertie to the grid instead of batteries for backup now. A generator can also be configured in, if you have to have continuous power, and is prolly less maintenance and more efficient than battery backup.

When the sun is shinning they actually put any unused power into the grid for others(this means you) to use at peak use time. It is also possible to put more in than you need back, which the power company will pay you for or credit towards the next months bill.

There's a certain satisfaction derived from getting your power directly from the sun, instead of from derived sources, I don't look down on anyone that does, nor should you.

[spokeshave]

Looks like a buying opportunity for Sunpower

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Hmmm. You missed the best benefits. Less eyestrain, no headache from beaming electrons thru your brain(which means fewer days lost to health related and legal factors), less heat output(which would mean less A/C strain).

There's prolly more that other FReepers could add.

[Fielding]

Are you suggesting that the NY Times would mislead the public????

[CitizenUSA]

Wayne wrote: "Ok, so I think you are saying it would not!"

I definitely wouldn't recommend solar or wind as a means to save money. Do a quick energy assessment of your house. How many kWh are you using? How much are you paying per kWh? If you are only interested in saving money, it may be better to switch to fluorescent or LED lighting, use Energy Star-compliant appliances, and alter your personal behaviors to reduce consumption. Turning a light off has immediate payback, but solar and wind would probably require decades to break even on your investment.

[Phsstpok]

Did you take into account the shorter life of an LCD versus CRT?

The accepted industry "life expectancy" of LCD monitors is nearly double that of CRTs, so I'm assuming you either meant "longer life" or that you switched the order CRTs and LCDs in your sentance.

On CRTs what generally fails is the ability of the electron gun to properly focus the beam and you get smearing and blooming.  This can make reading text difficult and will really mess up things like engineering or other detailed diagrams.  On LCDs what usually fails, currently, is the flourescent tube used for backlighting.  Those are fixed to the LCD and not replaceable, so when they go, even though the LCD is still "displaying" just fine, you can't see it because it's not illuminated.

The rule of thumb is no more than 4 years for a CRT (across our population of 33,000 seats it works out that way, on average) and 6 years for LCDs.  We replace our PCs and monitors on a 4 year cycle.  If we switch to LCD monitors and kept them for 6 years we would save big bucks in years 5 and 6 of their lives as we wouldn't have to buy monitors when we replaced the PCs.  However, in year 7, when we need to go back and replace those monitors (and not the PCs they're on, since those are only 2 years old) we also have to replace an equal number of PCs, but they're now in a different location.  That means that starting in year 7 we have the same number of PCs and monitors to replace, but they're now in two different places requiring two different service tech engagements.  Calculating that labor cost in we lose the entire savings from year 5 and 6 of not buying monitors in year 7.

Oh, and if the monitor and PC are deployed together they both come under the PCs asset tag.  If they're deployed seperately then we have to have a seperate asset tag for the monitor, further increasing our costs.

See?  I have gotten that question... about 50 times... <g>

They also are not medically better, except for certain very specific situations (after 3 cornela transplants I keep up with that literature).

We buy LCD for anything larger than 17" because that's basically all the industry is selling.  Unfortunately we are in a cost cutting jihad so all monitor requests for anything other than a 17" CRT are exceptions and have to pass through my hands for approval.  And the chairman and CFO, as well as the CIO and my boss have all said "clamp down."  No fun, whatsoever.

And you really don't want to know what we have to go through when the justification is "ergonomics."  Just don't go there.

Please! <g>

Oh, one final thing.  Over this next year most LCD monitor manufacturers are replacing the flourescent tube back lighting with white LEDs.  Their expected life is roughly 100 years.  Theoretically if we start buying LCDs about 2 years out we'll buy enough for our population and then we won't replace them... until long after I don't care.  Now that will be an economic case I'll look forward to making.

[\/\/ayne]

...solar and wind would probably require decades to break even on your investment.

Thanks, I know I still have a lot of research to do. I was looking for a general answer which you more than provided!

I think if I had the money I would still spend it on such a system just to be independant from a utility, but I don't think I can afford this "price of freedom!"

[Phsstpok]

Less eyestrain,

The studies done by Wills Eye Hospital or the ES Harkness Eye Institute (Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center) among others, don't support this.  In fact, with a new CRT and a new LCD of equal display size and resolution/color depth, the CRT provides a sharper and more readable screen, thus resulting in less eye strain.  As stated in my other post, after 3 corneal transplants (plus cataract surgery 4 weeks ago) I keep up with this stuff.

no headache from beaming electrons thru your brain(which means fewer days lost to health related and legal factors),

I've seen no studies linking electron beams to headaches or other specific illnesses (except in things like Mother Earth News).  Not even brain cancer like cell phones (no it doesn't! yes it does!).

I have seen a good bit on LCD monitors eliminating flicker, which CRTs are subject to, particularly where the lighting comes from flourescents.  That can have a major effect on folks with migraines.  That is one of the criteria I can use to approve an LCD monitor, but like other medical justifications it requires a doctor's signed recommendation. 

less heat output(which would mean less A/C strain).

I'm on the Customer Advisory Council (top corporate and government customers) of a major American PC maker (guess) and a couple of the other members are big financial institutions.  One of them specifically replaced all of their CRTs with LCDs for exactly this reason.  They were in the process of doubling their AC to deal with the ever increasing heat load of their computer systems (they probably have more and bigger ones than NASA and the Pentagon).  Switching to LCDs allowed them save a couple million and pay for the switch with that one project.  I've run the math for our facilities and it only applies to a couple of very specific situations in a couple of our mills.

[Drango]

Looks like a buying opportunity for Sunpower

Perhaps but ultra long shot IMHO. I don't see the core fundamentals worth investing in. Perhaps the Feds will bump up the subsidies but what kind of investing is that?

And if a tech breakthrough is discovered at many of the labs doing R&D, there is no guarantee Sunpower would benefit from the technology. I see better odds playing the lottery.

[Drango]

http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/11/tom-werner-sunpower-chat-cx_hc_0413werner.html?partner=yahootix

New York -

As gas prices creep back toward $3 per gallon, solar power producers are perking up. In theory, high oil prices should be a boon for alternative energy. Unlike wind turbines, solar panels don't cause nasty, not-in-my-backyard disputes, so the industry is particularly poised to benefit from the $50 fill-up.

But there's a problem. Most solar companies require polysilicon, which is molded into a long ingot, then sliced into thin wafers that act as semiconductors. Polysilicon manufacturers like MEMC (nyse: WFR - news - people ) can't produce enough ingots to fuel the solar industry's explosive growth. New supply won't come online until at least 2008. Meanwhile, the price of a polysilicon contract has tripled in the last two years and could continue to rise.

SunPower (nasdaq: SPWR - news - people ), which is majority owned by Cypress Semiconductor (nyse: CY - news - people ), is hoping it can shave away its polysilicon costs by making increasingly thinner wafers. Last Friday, two analysts offered split views on SunPower's chance of success. Piper Jaffray analyst Jesse Pichel, who reiterated his "outperform" rating, says SunPower has enough wafers to keep all three of its production lines running at capacity.

But Jefferies analyst Jeffrey Bencik, who initiated coverage at "hold," says thinner wafers aren't enough. Polysilicon accounts for half of the firm's cost of goods sold, Bencik says, so rising prices can offset any technology improvements.

SunPower CEO Tom Werner, not surprisingly, sides with Pichel, believing the markets will solve the polysilicon shortage. "Capitalism will work," he told investors at Piper Jaffray's solar symposium in February. "Margins in silicon are fantastic right now and that will attract capital." Meanwhile, SunPower is increasing the efficiency of its solar cells.

Werner spoke with Forbes.com about weathering the polysilicon shortage, making solar profitable and how global warming influences his vacation plans.

Forbes.com: When will solar power be subsidy-free?

Werner: We think we can do that as early as five years from now--probably between five and ten years.

How do solar subsidies differ across borders?

In Germany, the government pays people with solar panels for the solar power they generate. And they get paid more than they have to pay for power off the grid. So obviously, they're pretty motivated to put a lot of solar on.

In the United States, in most markets, there is an upfront capital rebate. That costs less for the government but tends not to motivate system performance over time. You get the rebate right up front, so if your system over-performs or underperforms, it doesn't affect your rebate. And the rebate is capped; in Germany, there aren't any caps.

We're agnostic on the policy mechanism. When policy makers want to grow their solar power resources, we'll work with them to figure out how to develop policies that work best for their circumstances.

How are you addressing the polysilicon shortage, which is constraining growth in the solar industry?

We make silicon crystal cells better than anyone in the world, and that's what we're going to focus on. There are a number of ways to use silicon more efficiently; use thinner and thinner wafers or increase the conversion efficiency, so you get more power out of each cell.

A lot of silicon is wasted when the ingot is cut. But you can decrease the size of the blade you use to cut the silicon out of the ingot, and you can do a better job of recycling the silicon you do waste.

When we first started, we were using 14 grams of silicon to make a watt of power. We're currently at nine, and in a few years, we plan to be below seven.

Would you consider acquiring a silicon manufacturer?

No. The polysilicon manufacturing people have a significantly different business. It's very capital intensive. It's a chemical factory.

SunPower was initially a unit of Cypress Semiconductor, though you went public last year. As your company grows, how do you maintain an entrepreneurial culture?

You create islands of startups within your company. You can get close to the pure entrepreneur experience by allowing innovators to be entrepreneurs while staying within the company.

How do you do that?

You structure them as a mini-business and give them autonomy. Somebody might say, "I've got this great idea. Rather than using silicon, we should use material X." It's not a mainstream idea, and it's not how we want to allocate our core research.

So we say, "OK, put together a business plan just like you would if you were going to venture capitalists and getting funding. Pitch the business plan. If you successfully pitch it, we'll let you form a team, and we'll fund you just like a VC would."

What's your favorite vacation spot?

We have a small place in Lake Tahoe, so we ski there a lot because it's accessible and beautiful. But my favorite ski spot is Utah. The snow there is very reliable. It's less reliable in Tahoe because of global warming, which we're fixing.

[Katya]

Anyone know if there is a ping list for green building/solar/conservation?

[martin_fierro]

Ask greenfreeper and daveloneranger

[bkepley]

He's an impressive guy. Really, a hero.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Although the govt. where I built my house mandated the quantity of insulation and where, the number of windows I'm allowed to have (lose heat too quickly), etc. No doubt they'll start mandating that these be installed soon.

[mississippi red-neck]

Why not compromise and extend the replacement time of the computer from 4 years to six and replace both at the same time or if you didn't want to go six years on the computer go to five and replace both.

Perhaps that would that save a good deal of money without jeopardizing reliability and allow you to take advantage of savings on packaged units?

[Tom D.]

Merely consuming more energy to make than they produce is not an automatically disqualifying attribute. Don't get me wrong, these things are not price competitive and will not be price competitive for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, in theory, you could produce these things in some country that allows reasonably free use of atomic electrical production where the marginal cost per unit of energy is low and move them to a place where the marginal cost of a unit of energy is higher. Your satellite example is good, but it would not have to be so extreme.

[upcountryhorseman]

I hope he can make these cells more efficient, but there's
a BIG problem: silicon is in short supply.