From the editors:
We think that next years we will able to see great transformations. We must answer to the new challenges if we want to improve our world. Today investors have to know how physical numbers (watts, nanometers, terabytes, efficience in photons energy, etc.) can be translated into money terms. Their purpose and sometimes their customers need transform the first into the second. And of course, it is not clear.
Indeed it is our mission in this blog: helping people who need harness investment opportunities at early stage in lead sector with high return and growing markets and benefits and perhaps there are not much time to decide.Because sometimes, it is necessary a scientific basis to learn what the numbers want to say. This is our engagement.
This century perhaps would be known in the futre as the "3-S century". Our vision establishes a new world characterized as
We will focuse our articles in these three topics. We think nobody has too much time to test another sectors. This three items are the key sectors today and the key to a reliable investment. Furthermore, our dream is that ireneus become a meeting point beetwen investors and researchers.Thank you very much for all and we start, we have not too much time, you know...
Stronger |
Listen, recently published by Ken Zweibel, James Mason and Vasilis Fthenakis in Scientific American a great report about energetic scenario in EE.UU. 2050 a great plan in Solar Energy. They talked about Photovoltaic Solar Energy (PSE) and Concentrated Solar Energy (CSE) in heating fluids. There are two different technologies and two different benefits to investors. Today the two technologies are in use but the authors hope that in the future, the current economic figures of the sector will be improved, sure.
But, what is better in profitable terms? They said:
In 2007, installation cost per W: PSE- 4.0$ / CSE -5.8$
electric price per KW·h - PSE - 0.16$ / CSE - 0.20$
effectivenss in electric production - PSE - 10% / CSE - 13%
But in the future, the scenario:
In 2050, installation cost per W: PSE - 1.20$ / CSE - 3.70$
electric price per KW·h - PSE - 0.05$ / CSE - 0.09$
effectivenss in electric production - PSE - 14% / CSE - 17%
Well, to find the better target to our investment assets…
PSE: (14/10)*(0.05/0.16)*(4/1.20)=1.485
CSE: (17/13)*(0.09/0.20)*(5.8/3.70)=0.922
If we consider a linear dependence of all those factors, we have to think that PSP is more profitable than CSE in a factor 1.6 or in 60% in currency terms.
And more. By each point per cent improving effectiveness in PSE(new material photovoltaic) the benefit of our inversion will increase in...
{{1.485-[(1.485)/(14/10)]}/(14-10)}=0.106
effectiveness in PSE(new materials, new circuits, today researchers have developed in laboratory materials until 11.5%) could be expressed in currency terms as follows:
by each porcentual point in solar cell effectiveness, our investments in PSE could be improved in 10.6%.
But if you like more risk in the investments, perhaps you can select industries in solar cells productions. In 2050 the authors hope that 65% of energy in the USA could be generated by Solar Energy. The new market for this firms is incredible and by each point of increasing effectiveness in solar cell, you can get the benefit increased by ten.
Here you can find very interesting links to know more about the state-of-art in PSE and CSE
[The sector magazine. News, events and more]
http://www.photon-magazine.com/events/events.aspx
[Scientific American article: Solar Plan]
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
[The first enterprise that have managed to increase effectiveness until 11,5%]
http://www.firstsolar.com/
Well, best regards from inereus.Bye.
