UPDATE: GE Unveils Plans For US Thin-Film Solar Panel Factory

[Fledermaus]

General Electric Co. (GE) is aiming to build up its nascent solar energy business on a scale of its $6 billion wind-turbine unit, announcing plans Thursday for what it said will be the biggest photovoltaic panel factory in the U.S. "We're looking to make solar look like over the next five years," said Victor Abate, vice president of GE's renewable energy division.

GE, based in Fairfield, Conn., will pick a site for the factory within the next three months or so, Abate said in an interview.

The plant will employ 400 people when it opens in 2013 and produce thin-film solar panels sufficient to generate 400 megawatts of electricity annually, or enough to power 80,000 homes a year.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110407-710635.html

[MichiganVote]

1. But of course there is no global warming.

[dkf]

2. Yay! Finally.

If tax breaks allow us to manufacture in the US, then maybe I can live with them.

[XemaSab]

3. But there's a 90% overlap between nuclear and coal

and only a 20% overlap between those two and renewables! :cry:

[kristopher]

9. GE makes coffeemakers also. Does that mean the coffee industry is under control of

the entrenched energy industry?

I see you still haven't read those papers. Can't say I'm surprised.

[XemaSab]

15. I got an EA here that's not going to edit itself

Maybe next week I can read your papers?

[IDemo]

4. "400 megawatts of electricity annually"

Do they mean 400MW-years of energy, or 400MW hours each year...or 400MW times the total solar days in one year?

[kristopher]

8. 400MW of PANELS to be manufactured each year in the "Solar Panel Factory" nt

[txlibdem]

18. Kris has it right. It's nameplate, not per hour or annual

So if I bought their entire year's worth of production, 400MW, I'd get something like 2 GigaWatt hours of electricity generated each day here in Dallas (which has around 5 hours of peak sunlight per day).

To equal the 1GW output of the average nuclear plant, then, would take only 2.5 years of production from the GE plant, (400MW x 2.5 = 1GW).

[BrightKnight]

10. It's probably nominal capacity/year. Actual would be about 100 MW

I believe that solar panels only actually produce about 25% of their nominal capacity. In 10 to 20 years they should be able to produce about enough capacity to offset a single reactor. The life of a solar panel is about that long.

They should do this but the heavy lifting is going to be done by dirty coal.

[diane in sf]

11. "They should do this but the heavy lifting is going to be done by dirty coal. " not true

[Kolesar]

14. People who live off-grid don't need four times the nameplate capacity like your propaganda says

Your post about short lives is nonsense, too.

[Nihil]

13. 45.6kWh doesn't sound that impressive does it?

(Taking "400 megawatts of electricity annually" to be 400MW / 24*365.25)

But hey, who *really* wants to bring real numbers into it anyway?
:P

To be honest, I have no idea which of those options they meant
and I doubt that the writers do either - the engineers are probably
sticking pins into images of their PR people at the moment - but,
as Kristopher pointed out, they are actually generating panels rather
than power ...
:hi:

[AtheistCrusader]

5. How about they unveil a way to cork their goddamn reactors?

[Tripod]

6. My local news here in NY.....

Said we are on the "Short List" for it to be here in NY. I doubt it though. Cold, and not the best sun light. Who knows? A lot of tech here. We work hard in New York.... could happen!

[kristopher]

7. This is a manufacturing plant to make the panels themselves

Even in northern latitudes solar is an effective technology for making a substantial amount of electricity. As they build more manufacturing plants the cost of the panels becomes lower - something that consequently expands the area where their use also is cost effective.

[Tripod]

16. Great Info, thank you.

[diane in sf]

12. solar panels work in the fog here.

[Tripod]

17. Here too. I appreciate you reply.