Author Topic: Nanosolar  (Read 9684 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
« on: December 22, 2010, 07:03:56 am »
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nanosolar, Inc.
Type   Private
Industry   Solar Energy
Founded   2002
Founder(s)   Martin Roscheisen
Brian Sager
Headquarters   San Jose, California, U.S.
Key people   
Geoff Tate (CEO)
Werner Dumanski
Brian Sager
Erik Oldekop
Products   Solar panels
Revenue   US$3,100,000 (2007) [1]

Nanosolar is a developer of solar power technology. Based in San Jose, CA, Nanosolar has developed and commercialized a low-cost printable solar cell manufacturing process. The company started selling panels mid-December 2007, and plans to sell them at around $1 per watt (when first announced that was just one fifth the price of the silicon cells, but in 2010 brand name silicon cells sell from around $1.70 reducing Nanosolar's cost advantage significantly).[2][3][4]Contents
1 Financial backers and manufacturing
2 Management
3 Technology
4 Competitors
4.1 CIGS (copper indium gallium diselenide)
4.2 Other thin film
5 References
6 External links

Financial backers and manufacturing

Nanosolar was started in 2002 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. The company has received financing from a number of technology investors including Benchmark Capital, Mohr Davidow Ventures, and Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google. Nanosolar received the largest amount in a round of Venture Capital technology funding amongst United States companies during Q2 2006, with 100 million USD of new funding secured[5]. It also received the largest amount of financing of any private company in 2008 (USD 300 million in Q1).

Nanosolar planned to build a large production facility in San Jose and in Germany[6], with an annual capacity of 430 megawatts. Nanosolar is also building a panel manufacturing plant in Luckenwalde (Berlin). Several German energy and venture capital companies have heavily invested in this company as a consequence of the favourable economics for solar energy in Germany due to government subsidies.[7]

On December 12, 2007 the company announced[8] that it had started solar cell production in its San Jose factory, with its German facility slated to go into operation in the 1st quarter of 2008. The company said in 2006 that the San Jose factory, when fully built, would have the capacity to produce 430 megawatts of cells each year.[9]

On December 18, 2007 the company began shipping its first solar panels for a one-megawatt municipal power plant in Germany.[10]

As of 2008 Nanosolar has raised about 500 million USD in total funding by private investors Benchmark Capital, Mitsui Ventures, Mohr Davidow Ventures, OnPoint, Capricorn Management, Firelake Capital Management, GLG Partners, Grazia Equity, Swiss Re, Beck Energy, Omidyar Network, Lone Pine Capital, Energy Capital Partners, Riverstone Holdings, EDF, The Skoll Foundation, EDS (HP) and The Carlyle Group.[11]

On March 22, 2010, former Rambus CEO Geoff Tate was named CEO, replacing co-founder Martin Roscheisen who had been the company's Chairman & CEO for the past eight years; no reason was given for Roscheisen's exit.[12] EVP Operations is Werner Dumanski who previously led IBM's $4.5 billion storage-disk manufacturing; and co-founder and VP Corporate Development Brian Sager, a biotech veteran who has advised more than 50 high-growth companies.

The company uses copper indium gallium diselenide—which achieves up to 19.9% efficiency in laboratory samples[13]—to build their thin film solar cells. The company's technology gained early industry recognition with the presentation of a Small Times Magazine award at a leading nanotech business event in 2005.[14] Nanosolar's solar cells have been verified by NREL to be as efficient as 14.6% in 2006[15] and 15.3% in 2009.[16] Technical details of Nanosolar's new manufacturing techniques have been disclosed in patent applications.[17] Some information about their process has become available in a Scientific American article (in German). [15] These details involve a semiconductor ink that it claims will enable it to produce solar cells with a basic printing process, rather than using slow and expensive high-vacuum based thin-film deposition processes. The ink is deposited on a flexible substrate (the “paper”), and then nanocomponents in the ink align themselves properly via molecular self-assembly. In September 2009, Nanosolar announced the launch of production at a rate of 640 MW annually[18]; however, ramp-up to volume production after the announcement took an additional six months,[19] limiting actual production in 2009 to an estimated 4 MW,[20] and as of August 2010 the plant is still ramping up toward its announced capacity.[21] Since the hiring of new CEO Geoff Tate, the company has declined to discuss its actual manufacturing capacity,[19][20] but has said that its target for 2010 is to ship panels for "several ... megawatt-size projects" and "[build] panels for projects that have been identified that can help build the case for an operating history and bankability in 2011."[19] Efficiencies for current production panels are said to be 8-9%, with plans to submit panels with 10-11% efficiency for IEC certification in the fall of 2010.[19]

Nanosolar has developed a suite of in-house capabilities for creating nanostructured components based on various patented and patent-pending techniques. It uses nanostructured components as the basis for creating printable semiconductors, printable transparent electrodes, novel forms of advanced nanocomposite solar-cell design and powerful new forms of barrier films.[22]

According to the company, "leveraging recent science advances in nanostructured materials, Nanosolar has developed a proprietary ink that makes it possible to simply print the semiconductor of a high-performance solar cell. This ink is based on Nanosolar developing various proprietary forms of nanoparticles and associated organic dispersion chemistry and processing techniques suitable for delivering a semiconductor of high electronic quality."[23][24]

Two advantages over earlier technologies is that a printing process is quick and also makes it easy to deposit a uniform layer of the ink, resulting in a layer with the correct ratio of elements everywhere on the substrate. Also, the ink is printed only where needed, so there is less waste of material. Last, the substrate material on which the ink is printed is much more conductive and less expensive than the stainless steel substrates that are often used in thin-film solar panels.[1]

These solar cells successfully blend the needs for efficiency, low cost, and longevity and will be easy to install due to their flexibility and light weight. Estimates by Nanosolar of the cost of these cells fall roughly between 1/10th and 1/5th [25] the industry standard per kilowatt.

The company implies that their solar cells can last more than 25 years by saying they "achieve a durability compatible with our 25-year warranty."[26] They recently commissioned a study by Black and Veatch that finds their 25-year warranty to be compatible with their module design.[19]
CIGS (copper indium gallium diselenide)
Global Solar said that its CIGS cells from its factory had reached an average efficiency of 10 percent [27].
HelioVolt Corp. said it had produced CIGS cells with efficiency as high as 12.2 percent on a pilot line[28].
GroupSat Solar has noted that it can produce CIGS cells with a 12.5 percent and an average efficiency of 10 percent in full production efficiency.[29]
Ascent Solar said that its CIGS cells from its factory had reached an average efficiency of 19 percent

See also Copper indium gallium selenide#Companies for a more complete listing.
Ascent Solar
IBM invented and is developing a hydrazine-based process that produces ~12% CIS [30]
DayStar Technologies, Inc. said that its CIGS cells from its factory had reached an average efficiency of 14 percent [27].
Other thin film
Thin-film manufacturer First Solar (cadmium-telluride thin films) [31].
^ Nanosolar, Inc Yahoo Finance
^ Vidal, John (December 29, 2007). "Solar energy 'revolution' brings green power closer". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-12-31.
^ Markoff, John (2007-12-18). "Nanosolar". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-12-31.
^ "Nanosolar". ubergizmo. Retrieved 2007-12-31.
^ "Venture Capital Funding". Investor's Business Daily. 2006-07-24.
^ "Nanosolar Selects Manufacturing Sites". 2006-12-12.
^ Bright Days for NanoSolar
^ "Nanosolar announces start of thin-film production". 2007-12-12.
^ Nanosolar Ships First Panels from Nanosolar Blog
^ Crunchbase: Nanosolar Techcrunch Wiki
^ Semiconductor Veteran Geoff Tate Named CEO of Nanosolar, Inc. from Nanosolar Blog
^ I. Repins, M. A. Contreras, B. Egaas, C. DeHart, J. Scharf, C. L. Perkins, B. To, and R. Noufi., 19.9%-efficient ZnO/CdS/CuInGaSe$_2$ solar cell with 81.2% fill factor. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 16(3):235–239, February 2008
^ "Small Times Magazine announces Best of Small Tech Awards at leading nanotech business event". Small Times Magazine. 2005-02-11.
^ a b "Printing Solar Cells (in German)". Bild der Wissenschaft (Scientific American). 2007-01-10.
^ "NREL Certifies 15.3% Nanosolar Foil Efficiency". 2009-09-09.
^ Nano-architected/assembled solar electricity cell US Patent 6,852,920, Nanosolar Inc, February 8, 2005
^ Nanosolar Completes Panel Factory, Commences Serial Production from Nanosolar Blog
^ a b c d e Tom Cheyney (August 3, 2010). "Exclusive: Nanosolar rising, Part I—One-time thin-film PV lightning rod gets its focus on".
^ a b "Who will deliver on the promise of the leading thin-film recipe for converting sunlight into electricity?". Photon International. July 2010. pp. 134–143.
^ Tom Cheyney (August 6, 2010). "Exclusive: Nanosolar rising, Part II—The ‘I’ in CIGS also stands for thin-film PV innovation".
^ Nanocomponents from Nanosolar website
^ Nanoparticle Ink from Nanosolar website
^ Coated nanoparticles and quantum dots for solution-based fabrication of photovoltaic cells US Patent 7,306,823, Nanosolar Inc, December 11, 2007
^ "Manufacturing Plans". San Jose Mercury News. 2006-06-21.
^ Designed To Last from Nanosolar website
^ a b
^ "12% Efficiency CuIn(Se,S)2 Photovoltaic Device Prepared Using a Hydrazine Solution Process"
External links
Nanosolar company website
Nanosolar company blog
Nanosolar, the Printable Solar Cell
Top Innovation of the Year 2007
"At $1 per Watt, the iTunes of Solar Energy Has Arrived" article from
Solar energy 'revolution' brings green power closer
NanoSolar Germany - Largest Solar Farm
Thin-film solar cells heading for $1 per Wp
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
Re: Nanosolar
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2010, 09:56:15 am »
From the article:

"...They recently commissioned a study by Black and Veatch that finds their 25-year warranty to be compatible with their module design.[19]"

Black & Veatch.... this company keeps popping up, although they seem to fly under the radar - never the 'center' of the story, but always on the sidelines. They have a broad reach and deep financial interests in the things we need to survive: including "energy, water, telecommunications", and offer "management consulting".... but they are so much MORE than management consultants.

Let's start with WATER.

Black & Veatch

Black & Veatch is a global engineering, consulting and construction company specializing in infrastructure development in energy, water, telecommunications, management consulting, federal and environmental markets. Black & Veatch is the 11th largest majority Employee-Owned company in the United States[2]. With revenues of $2.7 billion, the company is also ranked by Forbes as one of the largest privately owned companies in the United States[3]. Engineering News-Record, which compiles and publishes rankings of the largest construction and engineering firms annually, measured by gross revenues, ranked Black & Veatch 1st in telecommunications, 3rd in power, 6th in water, 8th in sewer/wastewater and 14th in the overall top 500 design category[4], in the United States based on 2009 revenues.
Black & Veatch has in excess of 100 offices worldwide and has completed projects in more than 100 countries on six continents[5][6].


Founded in 1915, Black & Veatch develops infrastructure solutions including conceptual and preliminary engineering services, engineering design, procurement, construction, financial management, asset management, program management, construction management, environmental, security design and consulting, management consulting and infrastructure planning.

Company Timeline
1915 Ernest Batemen Black and Nathan Thomas Veatch form a partnership called Black & Veatch with 12 employees on the payroll [7].

1940 War Department requests that Black & Veatch rebuild Camp Robinson in Little Rock, Arkansas. Other camp projects include Camp Chafee in Ft. Smith, Arkansas, Camp Hale in Pando, Colorado, and other military installations in the Midwest[8].

1948 Work begins for the Atomic Energy Commission at Los Alamos, New Mexico[9].

1950 N.T. Veatch appointed by President Harry Truman to the President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board[10].

1963 Black & Veatch International is formed[11].

1976 Black & Veatch opens new building at 11401 Lamar Ave. in Overland Park, Kansas[12].

1985 Black & Veatch acquires Pritchard Corporation

1995 Black & Veatch merges with Binnie & Partners[13].

1996 Black & Veatch acquires Paterson Candy Ltd., a UK-based water treatment process contractor.

1999 Black & Veatch changes company structure from general partnership to an employee-owned corporation [14].

2005 Black & Veatch acquires RJ Rudden Associates, Lukens Energy Group and Fortegra[15], a move that doubles the size of its management consulting business.

2006 Black & Veatch acquires the water business of MJ Gleeson in the UK, more than doubling the size of its existing UK water operations[16].

2008 Black & Veatch selected by Eskom to provide project management and engineering services for a 4,800 megawatt power generation facility in South Africa[17]

2009 Black & Veatch purchases 11401 Lamar Ave. office building in Overland Park, Kansas and establishes the location as the company's World Headquarters[18].

2009 Black & Veatch launched the infraManagement Group LLC (, a wholly-owned subsidiary to assist asset owners with management of water, wastewater and power-generating assets [19].

2010 Black & Veatch acquired Enspiria Solutions Inc. to expand its scope of smart-grid services [20].


Black & Veatch have their fingers in water infrastructure BIG TIME.
This company is 100% NWO; and about the business of controlling our water supply.

More research is needed to expose their agenda. Here's an article that provides a glimpse into their business model. The article exposes the fact that when the public is dependent on privately-owned water supplies, they are paying as much as 49% MORE for water. Quite the scam:


Economic Failures of Private Water Systems

Food&Water Watch compared average water rates charged by publiclyand privately owned utilities in four states — California, Illinois, Wisconsin, and New York.1

The analysis found that privately owned water utilities charge customers significantly higher water rates than their publicly owned counterparts: anywhere from 13 percent to almost 50percent more.


Data from Black and Veatch‚ 2006 California Water Rate Survey show that households in districts with privately owned systems are paying, on average,20.28 percent more per month for clean drinking water than households served by either municipal systems or special water districts created by citizens and overseen by government officials. When Food&Water Watch divided the water districts into five population size categories, publicly owned water systems proved significantly more affordable for every bracket.2


Wisconsin is served primarily by publicly owned water utilities, but there are seven privately owned utilities operating. Averages compiled from a survey conducted by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission reveal that the average monthly residential water price for customers served by the seven utilities to be a startling 49 percent more than the average bill for customers served by publicly owned utilities. While public customers paid an average of $22.98 a month, private customers paid an average of $34.26 a month. In other words,residents of cities where the private sector controls the water flow are payingan average of $135.36 more each year.3

Illinois and Nine Other Midwestern States

A 2000 survey of Illinois and nine Midwest states revealed that customers of privately owned systems paid 13.65 percent more than customers of public municipal systems.4 It stated that‚ publicly owned systems charged an average of $1.28 per 1,000 gallons of water less than private and ancillary systems.”5 Based on this survey‚ average monthly water consumption estimate of 6,000 gallons, this price difference equates to an additional $92.16 paid each year by consumers in privately owned districts.6



Black & Veatch have interests in private water supplies; and no doubt, as seen in the data cited above, privately owned water sold to populations costs MORE than water that is publicly owned. Water is a basic to survival. Henry Kissinger once said "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people; control money and you control the world."

Well, we can imagine that, even more than food, controlling the distribution of water is the opportunity for total control.

So a company interested in water would (one might think), be interested in 'clean' water, right?
Not if you want to sell water.. if you want to sell water, you need to make sure the supply of 'clean' water is under your control. Poisoning natural water supplies, then offering 'clean' filtered water for a price will ensure you have control over the supply, while you ensure the demand is kept high.

So that's why you find connections between Black & Veatch and the practice of "fracking" used in the extraction of natural gas. Fracking poisons water supplies, forcing people to purchase water because their wells and resevoirs are contaminated. Enter the company with the water, Black & Veatch:


Black & Veatch in its forecast believes that even with a recovery there won’t be a return to the way things once were. Instead there will be a “new normal” with uncertainties, risks and opportunities.

The engineering firm assumes there will be some requirements to curb greenhouse gases, which will give an edge to natural gas — unless technological advances make carbon sequestration available. Regardless, a wave of smaller and older coal-fired plants being retired is expected because of various environmental regulations.

The retirements, plus slow but steady growth in demand, will require other fuels — natural gas, renewable energy (mostly wind) and some additional nuclear — to fill the gap. Many states, including Missouri and Kansas, have already enacted standards that will require a rising share of electricity to come from renewables.

The biggest increase will come from natural gas.

Natural gas squeezed from shale is offsetting the decline of conventional sources of natural gas, Black and Veatch noted.

Griffith said the supplies could moderate the price swings gas traditionally has gone through. Utilities also are looking for some additional price protections, including signing long-term contracts.


So they support the process of getting natural gas "squeezed" from shale (e.g, fracking), which poisons water supplies.
If you are not familiar with this process, you need to watch this video:

New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL


Fracking at the Heart of Natural Gas Future
Posted Dec. 21, 2010.

Natural gas explorers must pump water, sand and a concoction of chemicals deep underground to split the gas from the rocks where they are embedded. Critics maintain that in cases where those gas deposits are located near aquifers, it could taint drinking water supplies. They are therefore pushing for legislation to force industry to publicly reveal what chemicals are used in the fracking process.

EPA, by comparison, is asking for companies to voluntarily disclose this information.

The ultimate oversight of the fracking practice will have huge implications not just for the industry but for consumers as well. The U.S. Department of Energy is predicting that shale gas will supply 20 percent of all fuel supplies by 2020. Nowhere is that process more contentious than in the Marcellus Shale. As much as 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas is estimated in the area, which stretches from New York and Pennsylvania and into Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and Ohio.
In a highly publicized case, Pennsylvania residents have filed suit against Cabot Oil & Gas. They are saying that the company polluted their drinking water – a position rebuffed by Cabot, which sites a 2004 EPA study that says fracking poses a “minimal” threat. While the suit remains in effect, EPA has since said that is doing a new study as the previous one is alleged to be riddled with conflicts. That one will complete in 2012.

Industry, furthermore, counters that not only are the amount of chemicals it uses small but also that the shale is too far underground. That is, those deposits are typically a mile or deeper below the surface, making it improbable that any toxins would resurface. At the same time, they say that they spend considerable resources to mitigate any damages.
Voluntary Disclosures

The Obama administration would like to see natural gas make headway in electricity markets. That’s because it releases half the carbon as coal. At the same time, the White House agrees with Congress that the drilling process could derail the whole shale industry. That’s why the administration endorses a voluntary approach to disclosing what fluids are used while fracking.

Producers oppose such revelations, saying that information is secret. They say that the better approach is to use best management practices. That takes into account such things as monitoring and testing protocols as well as the re-use or recycling of wastewater.

As part of a $32 billion measure to fund parts of the EPA, Congress said that the EPA must use an open and “credible approach” by which to analyze the effects of fracking on drinking water. To that end, EPA favors an approach that encompasses more factors than the one it did in 2004. That is, it would look beyond the impact that fracking has on drinking water and into such things as land use and local air quality.

“Given the agency’s increased focus in this area and the likelihood that fracking will impact thousands of largely rural, poor communities throughout the country, EPA’s report will likely accommodate environmental justice considerations,” says a report by the Kelley Drye consultancy. “While too early to tell, the eventual study most likely will strike a compromise between a comprehensive life-cycle assessment and a study confined simply to potential direct drinking water impacts.”

Industry says that it will work with the EPA to provide the necessary data it needs to reach a conclusion.

Developers, though, are pointing to a recent study done
by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
that shows no documented reports of groundwater contamination
as a result of hydraulic fracturing.

The industry is also emphasizing its safety record, noting that 100,000 wells are drilled each year using hydraulic fracturing. It also says that shale gas will play an important role in the generation of electricity, maintaining that it is not just a viable alternative to coal but also a fuel that will provide much needed flexibility.

Hydraulic fracturing is an absolutely necessary process for removing natural gas from the ground and cultivating this very attractive and environmentally friendly form of energy,” says Michael Economides, an engineering professor at the University of Houston. “Natural gas exploration must be guided by best practices set forth by engineers, not a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation.” (continued)


Now think about what we see happening. Chemtrails, fracking, pharmaceuticals in the drinking water: we're watching the deliberate destruction of water supplies. Black & Veatch is an integral part of the plan to control the water supply and distribution in this country, and around the world. Pay attention when you see their name come up in articles, and understand their agenda is 100% NWO tyranny.

The future is not controlling oil, or natural gas, or coal - the future is in controlling water.

And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline Kilika

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,762
  • Thank you Jesus!
Re: Nanosolar
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2011, 07:58:47 am »
The future is not controlling oil, or natural gas, or coal - the future is in controlling water.

Yeah, just ask T. Boone Pickens about that!
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJB)