My view is that this is a very valid questions. I personally think that the title of the project is misleading, because it suggests that this project would not make sense if it would not lead to cheaper solar energy. But as I understand it, the idea is more to do fundamental research on organic materials that *might* be used to make organic cells a bit cheaper or more efficient. That's why I am working on it.

When you look at the answers above, all of them are sort of defensive statements without touching the core of the question. Noone has presented a high level system calculation on solar energy cost.

Prices for solar modules have dropped dramatically since the start of the CEP project to well below 1 EUR per Wp. That's on mudule level, i.e. including the frames. So the system cost is dominated by the other cost, including support structure, installation, inverters, even cables. To bring down the support structure and installation cost, we would need less weight per Wp, and less size per Wp. In other words: if we can achieve higher solar cell efficiency than today's solar cells, say well above 20%, at comparable prices, this will really reduce the system cost. As far as I know, the efficiency of organic cells is still well below that value. Maybe someone could comment on the theoretical limit of organic cell efficiency? For Si solar cells it is around 28%, if I remember correctly.

So still I think the project is worth crunching because it does basic research. But the title should be different, then this very same question would not arise every now and then.

Regards,
Martin

I think this project is worth looking at it two ways, choosing to opt into this project in general, and the energy spent on it.

1) most people reading this are probably going to be on WCG or something like it and have, or are considering, choosing to commit some/all of there time to the Clean Energy project. All the time that goes to this project doesn't go to the other projects which WCG offers (obviously). But the problems some of them are trying to solve could be diminished some if there was a cleaner environment.

If it gives us insight into better and cheaper solar technology then the environment would be cleaner which would probably lead to less people getting sick and needing medical attention (and bills associated with it). This could be from less air pollution (asthma and the like), or the many problems that could be caused by water/plant life being exposed to all the nastiness of coal mining and refinement.



2) I have an old desktop (duel core 2.2 ghz) that I use a couple time a week, but have on all day (it's kind of loud at night) crunching. It's got a 350 watt PSU in it, lets just say it's always near full load.
12 hours/day * 365 days/year is about 1500Kwh/year. If you average it out it's about 4 cents/Kwh here (Virginia, USA) so that's $50-75 USD per year to run a rig that would be collecting dust or sitting in a dump.

This way of doing a research project (distributed/grid computing) is also better because the project sponsors don't have to spend money renting time/buying a supercomputer. In terms of energy, that super computer doesn't have to be constructed, shipped, maintained or cooled. On that last point, having one or two computers running full time at a persons house doesn't generate that much heat in one place. It also made it so that while I was running my laptop 24/7 and desktop during the day I only had to turn the heat on in my dorm room 2 or 3 times this past winter.



As a sub point, this work, as martin64 was talking about, is building a public database of the electrical (and other?) properties of millions of compounds which could be used to advance our knowledge of more than just solar cells. I also think I read in one of the 'about this project' documents that after this project is finished (whenever that may be) they might then transition into energy storage which, I think, is in much greater need of advancement and having cheaper storage is a very important part of the overall cost of a solar power system.



One the other hand, there are many resources (energy, hardware, manpower) going into this project that could be used elsewhere and in the end organic cells might end up being more expensive (in the sense of pollution) than they give back. That's the best I could come up with for a counter argument, I guess this isn't really the place to find people with good reasons against it though.

Sorry if that was a little long winded

To extend Yarensc's not at all overly-extended point, consider the Computing for Clean Water project: Now that is an admirable project...but it is an admission of defeat, a pronouncement of anticipated further declines in the quality of life upon planet Earth, and an attempt to merely delay the inevitable consequences of that decline.

The truth is we need more clean water in large part because our methods of growing food, disposing of human wastes, manufacturing, and generating power are fouling the water we have or are relocating that water as rainfall patterns shift in response to global warming. The Clean Energy project may give us an opportunity, as Yarensc points out, to stop poisoning that which we cannot do without: The air, the land, and the water. Both directly, by cleaning up power generation, and indirectly, by making power so cheap and abundant that the "expense" of ensuring human survival becomes acceptable even in the eyes of this planet's greediest CEOs and shareholders.

Preventive medicine eliminates the need for radical surgery - a fact that causes me to chuckle quite heartily when I learn that someone who insists that the profit drive of Big Carbon and/or Big Nuclear outweighs the survival needs of humanity is *also a rabid anti-smoker or vehemently against ensuring that women have contraception. Odd, that my loading of the air across the street from them with tobacco smoke or a woman's need to delay childbirth until she feels she is financially and emotionally stable is offensive to them while their loading of the planet with its doom is..."just business".

(*Note: A duality that I see so very much that I would call it a weirdly common coincidence - were it not quite so revelatory.)

Actually, roof membranes are all the rage these days. Format of said "solar carpet" might be


(Edit: Made me laugh when I noticed - just now - the "IB" on the box in the picture I had chosen for an example. I assure you that there is no link between the "ib" in my chosen screen name or myself and that corporation; if one existed, their computational resources would also be devoted to CEP2.)

It is really nice to see how much thought is put into this thread and issue. I wish politicians would activate a comparable amount of brain-matter every once in a while;). Good conversation everybody!

Dear martin64,
You are right that cell systems cost is an issue that needs to be addressed in addition to the OPV material cost. However, as mentioned by other people, OPVs offer the potential to solving this problem as well, e.g., via printable, sprayable, coatable, and paintable applications rather than traditional panels. It should also be pointed out, that the primary targets for OPVs are building integrated and ultraportable devices which is somewhat complementary to first generation Si solar cells.

A solar carpet is maybe a bit of a simplified idea but not that far-fetched either. Here is one of our favorite concepts for OPVs.

http://inhabitat.com/massive-solar-serpent-wi...the-santa-monica-freeway/