Re solar, the Optimal path would be to do a Marshall Plan/Manhattan Project type attack on the problem with the goal of regional identical solar factories as the product. The question in my mind, is how do we organize such a project? With China and QMA, that organization is built in, but for the rest of the world, it needs to be built from scratch. QDSC Factories cost a small fraction of current silicon solar panel factories cost, but without a unified organization controlling implementation we would not be able to build a McDonalds of Solar. One organization would know how Quantum dots can be tuned in a solar cell to the optimum mix for a particular climate or site location, as well as be able to have different packages for solar farms or distributed solar needs.
Those systems, and eliminating travel expenses for QD by making them on-site and finished solar cells will help keep costs down.
Increasing the QD efficiency can be accomplished in a pilot plant situation - look at what QMC announced with record Red QD results in PR in August. With the speed of R2R production, low efficiency (under 10%) solar cells would be profitable now, amazing as that might seem. But last time I spoke with Jabbour, he believed given the right facilities he could increase the solar cell efficiency in conjunction with the time frame of building, rigorous testing and bringing production line to completion.
If you read my last post on solar, I said we need to look at this with the 'end in mind' - the goal. If I am correct and the goal is hundreds of these solar factories worldwide producing multiple Gw of solar cells each, then you can understand we need to find and vet the proper partners that share that vision and are not satisfied with just doing better than last year, but want to go all the way. China is obviously a great potential partner for solar, but it can't be only China, it needs to be a worldwide effort. There has been no confusion that China QMA will produce displays and other products for chinese consumption. What about the western world? It seems to me Squires is looking at everything with the goal in mind, and getting similar deals to the China QMA deal in the western world is the goal, in displays, solar, everything. China set the price for doing business with QMC, and one would think that if QMC makes concessions for others, they would have to re-visit the China agreement. While deals may have different structures, overall I would hope the price to do business with QMC always represents the value added that QMC brings to the table.
Solar especially is a regional play. Africa for example has no continental power grid. Would you set up solar to serve a local region, or a nation there, each with its own goals? Or would you get the Sahara desert nations to build huge solar farms and run long distance cabling down to all the other nations on the continent? While the Sahara solution is more efficient, a nation with its own solar network determines their own energy destiny. Wouldn't it be best to have one organization which coordinates with the entire continent to create a new energy infrastructure? Global warming has made it very clear that we all are interdependent on each other, and that our predominant self interests for survival are ultimately the same for all. We can do more if unified than individually.
I mentioned India - there are 50 states or provinces there, but climate and topography are different for many (even more so in China, a larger country). A solar plant or two could be set up in each state, but each could choose to implement solar farms or distributed rooftop solar, especially because there also there is no power grid. But India has set ambitious solar energy goals and has a regulatory agency that could adapt to QDSC factories in the mix.
China is very organized, with their political party running committees down to the local level. They can determine the solar needs of an area. The rest of the world needs to build an organization that can oversee solar implementation in that area - or continent. We are spoiled here in the US - if we want a solar system we go to a store and buy one - but that option does not exist most places. So we have to set everything up with the end in mind, if we want an efficient rollout, one that can be duplicated simply and safely worldwide. I don't speak for QMC or Solterra, but my own thoughts are that Squires looks at the potential outcomes in a world view. The goal is not small incremental increases every year - that path leads to defeat.
Those systems, and eliminating travel expenses for QD by making them on-site and finished solar cells will help keep costs down.
Increasing the QD efficiency can be accomplished in a pilot plant situation - look at what QMC announced with record Red QD results in PR in August. With the speed of R2R production, low efficiency (under 10%) solar cells would be profitable now, amazing as that might seem. But last time I spoke with Jabbour, he believed given the right facilities he could increase the solar cell efficiency in conjunction with the time frame of building, rigorous testing and bringing production line to completion.
If you read my last post on solar, I said we need to look at this with the 'end in mind' - the goal. If I am correct and the goal is hundreds of these solar factories worldwide producing multiple Gw of solar cells each, then you can understand we need to find and vet the proper partners that share that vision and are not satisfied with just doing better than last year, but want to go all the way. China is obviously a great potential partner for solar, but it can't be only China, it needs to be a worldwide effort. There has been no confusion that China QMA will produce displays and other products for chinese consumption. What about the western world? It seems to me Squires is looking at everything with the goal in mind, and getting similar deals to the China QMA deal in the western world is the goal, in displays, solar, everything. China set the price for doing business with QMC, and one would think that if QMC makes concessions for others, they would have to re-visit the China agreement. While deals may have different structures, overall I would hope the price to do business with QMC always represents the value added that QMC brings to the table.
Solar especially is a regional play. Africa for example has no continental power grid. Would you set up solar to serve a local region, or a nation there, each with its own goals? Or would you get the Sahara desert nations to build huge solar farms and run long distance cabling down to all the other nations on the continent? While the Sahara solution is more efficient, a nation with its own solar network determines their own energy destiny. Wouldn't it be best to have one organization which coordinates with the entire continent to create a new energy infrastructure? Global warming has made it very clear that we all are interdependent on each other, and that our predominant self interests for survival are ultimately the same for all. We can do more if unified than individually.
I mentioned India - there are 50 states or provinces there, but climate and topography are different for many (even more so in China, a larger country). A solar plant or two could be set up in each state, but each could choose to implement solar farms or distributed rooftop solar, especially because there also there is no power grid. But India has set ambitious solar energy goals and has a regulatory agency that could adapt to QDSC factories in the mix.
China is very organized, with their political party running committees down to the local level. They can determine the solar needs of an area. The rest of the world needs to build an organization that can oversee solar implementation in that area - or continent. We are spoiled here in the US - if we want a solar system we go to a store and buy one - but that option does not exist most places. So we have to set everything up with the end in mind, if we want an efficient rollout, one that can be duplicated simply and safely worldwide. I don't speak for QMC or Solterra, but my own thoughts are that Squires looks at the potential outcomes in a world view. The goal is not small incremental increases every year - that path leads to defeat.
2
