Solar Electric Powered Aircraft

Could this be the future?


Sunseeker http://solar-flight.com/

The Solair 2 http://www.solair.de/timer.htm is a second generation
solar electric powered aircraft. Here are the specification (in
German): http://www.solair.de/frame.htm
English language information is he
http://www.delago.de/solair/EHome.htm
Builders other projects:
http://solar-flight.com/davespics/dedication.htm


Zephyr 3, a solar-powered propeller-driven vehicle, is set to fly to
132,000 feet http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3016082.stm

Sanswire Networks stratellite:
http://www.economist.com/science/tq/...ory_id=3423026


AeroVironment's Helios:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Pho...ios/index.html
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/E...aii/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/r...st/helios.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/n...ews/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/n...002/02-24.html


A history of solar powered aircraft is he
http://www.solarflugzeuge.de/

Larry Dighera wrote:
Could this be the future?

Looks pricey. After quick search on the web flexible solar cells cost
about $5/watt or more. 15,000 watts worth of power (20 hp) is gonna
cost, and that's basicly the cost of the "fuel". If you're burning say
4 gallons/hour at $3/gallon the $75,000 worth of solar cells will cost
the same as 6000+ hours of flight. Plus, that's a lot of amps and volts
running around.

Shawn

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:22:01 -0700, Shawn
sdotcurry@bresnananotherdotnet wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:
Could this be the future?

Looks pricey.

Currently it is. But with a growth rate of 30% per year, the
photovoltaic industry is being targeted by venture capitalists:
http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/nyt.htm . With the rising cost of oil,
and the influx of capital, the future is looking even brighter for
solar power. If the volume of photovoltaic production continues to
increase as projected, the cost should fall. And technological
advancements would help push prices down too.

After quick search on the web flexible solar cells cost
about $5/watt or more. 15,000 watts worth of power (20 hp) is gonna
cost, and that's basicly the cost of the "fuel". If you're burning say
4 gallons/hour at $3/gallon the $75,000 worth of solar cells will cost
the same as 6000+ hours of flight. Plus, that's a lot of amps and volts
running around.

Shawn


This quote confirms your calculations:

http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/Forbes.htm
Manufacturers, led by Japanese companies such as Sharp, are
convinced that within seven years traditional solar-cell
technology
will deliver power as cheaply and conveniently as steam turbines.
The economics of solar, once derided as hippie wishful thinking,
are getting pretty compelling. "When I started in the early 1970s,
the going price for solar modules was about $200 per watt,"
recalls Arthur Rudin, director of engineering for Sharp's solar
systems division in Huntington Beach, Calif. "Today the average
price for solar modules is about $5 a watt."


However there appears to be some hope of reducing the cost:

In March 2002 Alivisatos put his reputation--and his venture
capitalists' money--where his mouth is, turning over much of his
research to a Palo Alto firm called Nanosys. The company has
amassed $75 million and is devoting much effort to figuring out
how to embed nanofilaments of semiconductors in cheap, bendable
plastic sheets. Nanosys' goals: 10% efficiency, $1 per watt.
http://www.nanosolar.com/


http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/nyt.htm
A new generation of solar cells based on lightweight conductive
plastics could cost as little as $40 a square meter, compared with
$400 for the silicon panels that have been used since the 1970's.
These so-called organic solar cells could make solar a viable
option even without government subsidies, experts say.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:22:01 -0700, Shawn
sdotcurry@bresnananotherdotnet wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:
Could this be the future?

Looks pricey.

Currently it is. But with a growth rate of 30% per year, the
photovoltaic industry is being targeted by venture capitalists:
http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/nyt.htm . With the rising cost of oil,
and the influx of capital, the future is looking even brighter for
solar power. If the volume of photovoltaic production continues to
increase as projected, the cost should fall. And technological
advancements would help push prices down too.

After quick search on the web flexible solar cells cost
about $5/watt or more. 15,000 watts worth of power (20 hp) is gonna
cost, and that's basicly the cost of the "fuel". If you're burning say
4 gallons/hour at $3/gallon the $75,000 worth of solar cells will cost
the same as 6000+ hours of flight. Plus, that's a lot of amps and volts
running around.

Shawn


This quote confirms your calculations:

http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/Forbes.htm
Manufacturers, led by Japanese companies such as Sharp, are
convinced that within seven years traditional solar-cell
technology
will deliver power as cheaply and conveniently as steam turbines.
The economics of solar, once derided as hippie wishful thinking,
are getting pretty compelling. "When I started in the early 1970s,
the going price for solar modules was about $200 per watt,"
recalls Arthur Rudin, director of engineering for Sharp's solar
systems division in Huntington Beach, Calif. "Today the average
price for solar modules is about $5 a watt."


However there appears to be some hope of reducing the cost:

In March 2002 Alivisatos put his reputation--and his venture
capitalists' money--where his mouth is, turning over much of his
research to a Palo Alto firm called Nanosys. The company has
amassed $75 million and is devoting much effort to figuring out
how to embed nanofilaments of semiconductors in cheap, bendable
plastic sheets. Nanosys' goals: 10% efficiency, $1 per watt.
http://www.nanosolar.com/


http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/nyt.htm
A new generation of solar cells based on lightweight conductive
plastics could cost as little as $40 a square meter, compared with
$400 for the silicon panels that have been used since the 1970's.
These so-called organic solar cells could make solar a viable
option even without government subsidies, experts say.

Interesting stuff.

http://www.daystartech.com/govrelease.htm

Frank

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:17:02 -0700, "F.L. Whiteley"
wrote in
::

Interesting stuff.

http://www.daystartech.com/govrelease.htm


Yes. Interesting indeed.


From the DayStar Technologies, Inc. web site:

Ultra Lightweight Thin Film PV for Orbital & Airborne Vehicles

DayStar has developed expertise and know-how in fabricating its
high-efficiency CIGS thin-film solar cells on very lightweight
metal foils. The target of this effort is to surpass the 1000 W/kg
specific power benchmark (at the cell level). The Company has
presently achieved a 1400 W/kg specific power on small-area cells,
and 1000 W/kg on product-scale (24-cm2) cells. The CIGS cell
technology is presently unique in being able to meet this specific
power benchmark and surpass the 200 W/m2 performance benchmark
that is otherwise unattainable by other thin-film technologies.

DayStar is presently investigating this technology under a Phase
II SBIR from the Department of Defense, administered by NASA /
Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, OH. The target development
focus for the Phase II contract is to develop manufacturing
technology for the cell production process.


So it would appear that light weight photovoltaic technology is
beginning to move forward.

There's something to be said for high efficiency cells too:
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...r_030725s.html

I'm with Don Lancaster (http://www.tinaja.com) on this one: Current and
forseeable PV technology is a net energy sink. I'll pay some attention
to these Nanosolar guys as soon as they start making their PV panel
materials in factories that are powered by their own PV panels.

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:56:35 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:


Could this be the future?


Sunseeker http://solar-flight.com/

I read a really depressing article about the future of oil several
days ago. There does not appear to be any viable substitute for oil
based energy at this time or on the horizon, not at the colossal
amounts we consume per day now anyway.

Corky Scott

I do hope your only talking about the USA. The rest of us are rather better
at using our fuel than the oversize/overused States ;-0

I have enough wind generators here in the North of England to be sure
that we are "green" and not just with our wellies. (rubber water proof
boots to the rest of the world!)

Malcolm...

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:56:35 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:


Could this be the future?


Sunseeker http://solar-flight.com/

I read a really depressing article about the future of oil several
days ago. There does not appear to be any viable substitute for oil
based energy at this time or on the horizon, not at the colossal
amounts we consume per day now anyway.

Corky Scott

"Malcolm Austin" wrote in message
news
I do hope your only talking about the USA. The rest of us are rather
better
at using our fuel than the oversize/overused States ;-0

Actually, the efficiency of consumption per dollar of GNP in the US is the
highest in the world by about 20%.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Malcolm Austin" wrote in message
news
I do hope your only talking about the USA. The rest of us are rather
better
at using our fuel than the oversize/overused States ;-0

I see the smiley, but that attitude ****es me off, so bad. (and I don't mean
drunk)

If the US were the size of England, it sure would make a difference, on how
much energy we used. Trains would be feasible. We wouldn't have so many
unpaved roads that need SUV's.

I realize there are many people that have larger vehicles than they need,
but when I travel it is by car, not train. I like to be able to take my
whole family, and their stuff.
--
Jim in NC