"Satellite Roof Estimating Services"

At first, I was skeptical that accurate measurements could be taken by satellite imaging, but Boy was I wrong!

First I was amazed how effective it is, and then was shocked to see how little it costs.

I've easily done over a thousand takeoffs driving to the project, throwing a ladder, and physically measuring the structure.  I was actually at one apartment complex that took three days to measure.

It takes a lot of money for a contractor to send an estimator, do the takeoff, draw a roof plan (most of them rather crude), pay for a vehicle, fuel, insurance, etc.  That was then, and this is now.

Of course I have no interest in any satellite estimating services, but will show you an example, and a couple of links of people who offer these services.  Check this out: (click for larger view)

Aerial examples graciously provided by Prattco, Inc, Roofing and Sheet Metal Contractors (listed under "Trusted Professionals" 813-973-4771).  Also, the service was provided by Aerialogics : http://aerialogics.com/

I think I remember this all costing the grand sum of $70.00.

So, needfless to say, I am a huge fan of aerial/satellite imaging, especially when done to this degree.  If you enlarge the photos, you can even see they've provided multiple "waste" factors, and all measurements of Hip & Ridge, Valley, etc., are clearly drawn, and also enumerated.

In an effort to insure accuracy, provide a much cleaner presentation, and to save a great deal of money on estimating, I think this is the ONLY WAY TO GO.

Now, if it's a commercial structure, you may want to visit, and take a core sample, but the rest can easily be done with this method of imaging.

I hope this helps those of you who have many estimates to do, may have a project 200 miles away, while this keeps your estimator actually "estimating", and not sitting in a vehicle riding for 8 hours.

It is my prayer you are well, encourage you to reject negativity in all forms, and to always keep looking "UP"

Respectfully,

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
CCC1325620
Manager, Roof Consultant's Alliance
RobertRSolomon@aol.com

"School Roofing Scam Videos on YouTube"

Dear Friends:

After consulting with several legal specialists, I've decided to not post the actual videos, but am assured it's perfectly legal to provide a link to those videos.

So, today is a real treat if you want to see a number of readily available reports on YouTube.  It's actually very easy if you go to YouTube, and simply type in "School Roofing Scams".  You will also notice it's the same ones each time.

You know I do not offer "Opinions", and provide information for you to review and decide what's real, and what's not. 

So, if you want to see where your taxpayer dollars go, take a few minutes, and I think you will be outraged.  I didn't think you'd want to spend hours on this, so I've only posted a few.

Happy Viewing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGPNJxK1ZRQ

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/131019373.html#IDCThread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SPGTLMKT60

I'm trying to do something about it through proper channels, and bringing this to your attention, may help advance a solution.

And yes, I am eerily similar to Frankenstein in appearance with the square, and slightly oversized head.  But, that's the hand I'm dealt.  Next week, I'll post the television news interview I'm doing in a major market (by request).  Hopefully, it will be both fun, and informative.  At last, Frankenstein speaks!

As always, I am very thankful, and appreciative, you take time to visit with me here. 

Hoping everyone is having a happy, and productive day.  Reject negativity in all forms, anmd always remember to keep looking "UP".

"Roof Consultant's Alliance"

I'm sorry for interrupting this series (it will resume) to announce my dear friend Mr. Jason Fenstermaker has named me "Manager" of Linkedin's :

"Roof Consultant's Alliance"

I will be adding a link to the site, and will encourage you to join us in many conversations pertaining to roofing across the globe.  Please request access at Linkedin, and I will receive your simple request for approval there.  I review and approve them each day, so you may not be inconvenienced.

Of course this is both an honor, and responsibility that I must be objective about, regardless of my own philosophy.  I welcome  words of opposition, or contributions to the discussions with equal enthusiasm.  So please feel free to say what's on your mind, or start your own discussion there.

We cover many topics including new products, energy, clean water, and roofing practice.  So, if you want to advance your knowledge base regarding any of these (and more) topics, I will personally welcome you.

I'm mobilizing a rather large group of roofing contractors, and roofing organizations, that have  grown tired of taxpayer deception, and in many cases, outright fraud.  An honest manufacturer will be given a forum to declare (Publicly) that they do not participate in, nor encourage "Proprietary Specifications", or "Sole Source" arrangements.  I will contact each of them, and how they respond.  It's either "YES", or "NO".  The name and title of each manufacturer's representative will be given.

Friends, I started this advocacy long ago, with the idea that all manufacturers would encourage the promotion of such positive philosophy for their approved contractors, and the taxpayers.  BUT, I AM WRONG.  I've been told the only way to secure support, and respect (?) is to specify projects, and  reduce revenue streams of those I don't like.  Or gain favor with the ones I do.  I reject this philosophy, as I find it very unflattering, and inconsistent with my mission.

Remember, I'm here to discuss roofing topics, create a level playing field for my colleagues, and save huge sums of taxpayer dollars in the process.  I'm convinced these are honorable goals, and will not compromise my position regarding them. 

The climb will be almost vertical, I understand that, am prepared for it, and with your help, will see it to conclusion.  There is a groundswell among contractors across North America, and I am determined to give them an opportunity to express dissatisfaction in numbers. 

In the meantime, a true test of any manufacturer may be displayed in this way:  Ask them to sign a document saying they do not participate in, nor encourage, "Propietary Specifications", or Sole Source" agreements.  If they refuse, spend your money with an honest manufacturer that will.  This is our first step.

I will begin exposing every exclusionary project, and jurisdiction, along with the decision maker's name, phone number, and address.

You will be furnished public documentation of the activity in question, and will soon learn how easy it is to spot the fraudulent behavior.

I will eliminate the "Trusted Professionals" aspect of this site, and will replace it with a "Pledge" feature where you will be listed with others who place value on honesty, and integrity.

Reject negativity in all forms, and remember to always keep looking "UP".

Respectfully,

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
CCC1325620

"Proprietary & Exclusionary Roofing Practices in Public Works"

This is a widespread practice in many public sectors, and our schools suffer for it.  I am proud to say that my district happens to be run by honorable people, whom I respect.  A rarity I'm afraid.

Many people tell me to walk softly around this issue, but I would rather be ground to dust, than be perceived as a coward.  So, I will share this data to with only after I've confirmed it to satisfaction.

The standard operating procedure of these scams are invented by, and perpetrated on, the public by a select group of roofing material manufacturers who would rather adopt a very aggressive sales model, than to compete fairly on the open market.

By "sales model", I mean "Proprietary Specifications".  They work to eliminate any competition, and create great hardship for my colleagues in the roofing discipline.  They also cause great harm to YOU, as taxpayers, as you end up paying exorbitant sums of money for absolutely no additional benefit.

I have NEVER seen this one time within the private sector, as that's a hard sell to someone who actually has to write the check.  For government, that "Real Money", is actually only numbers in boxes, because it's not coming out of their pockets.  In this way, the few are enriched, while the many suffer.   Frankly, I've grown tired of it, and am emboldened by my colleagues across the United States, who ask me to help.

I've made a very difficult, very dangerous, and very time consuming commitment to stand up for them.

You must understand the only real purpose of any contractor is to educate their staff, keep them safe, and provide a good working environment.  As a result, projects are secured, and workmen are able to earn a living, to nourish their families.

In the face of this monumental effort stands corruption, greed, and of course the money ALWAYS associated with it.  Apparently, souls may be purchased, and sold rather easily.

Below, you will find a very informative article written by my friend, Mr. Trent Cotney, Esq.  The first installment in this series so you can understand the premise of proper bidding procedure.  The article is being presented in it's entirety, and as it appeared in the West Coast Roofing Contractors Association's most recent issue:

PUBLIC PROJECTS AND BID PROTESTS

Part I of II

A significant amount of roofing work in Florida involves work with state or

local government entities. These public entities use (or are supposed to use)

competitive bid procedures to procure the lowest bid for projects. If the bid

letting is not conducted in a competitive manner, then the bid letting may be

protested in accordance with published procedures. Generally, these procedures are governed by Florida Statutes and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. This month’s article will focus on who may

commence a bid protest and under what circumstances. Next month’s article

will discuss the procedures involved with filing a bid protest.

Section 255.20, Florida Statutes, and Florida common law provide that

public contracts must be awarded under the rules of competitive bidding.

Section 255.20 generally applies to most public entities; however, there are

certain entities which are exempt from §255.20 and not every public entity is

subject to the bid protest procedures set forth in the APA.

By definition, in order for the bidding to be competitive, all bids must be

based on the same requirements and must be evaluated on the basis of the same

criteria. In other words, the bids must be capable of an “apples to apples”

comparison, and all of the criteria by which the bids will be judged must be

known to the bidders in advance.

Public competitive bidding must be done in a manner that is not arbitrary

or capricious, which can only be accomplished if the bids are compared

according to the same criteria set forth in the instructions to the bidders.

Moreover, because public monies are being spent, public competitive bidding

must be conducted in a manner to avoid even the appearance of collusion or

favoritism.

If a bid fails to comply with the instructions to bidders in some material

aspect, then the bid must be rejected as being non-responsive, because a nonresponsive bid cannot be compared “apples to apples” with bids that have

strictly followed the instructions to bidders.

If the contract is awarded to a bidder whose bid fails to comply with the instructions to bidders, then the award is made based on criteria other than the published criteria. In such a case, the award, by definition, is arbitrary or capricious because the letting authority has arbitrarily awarded the contract based on criteria that was not published and made known to all bidders. Awarding a public contract on the basis of criteria that was not made known to all bidders opens the door to favoritism and

collusion.

Case law holds that a minor deviation from the instructions to bidders can

be ignored, but only if the deviation is not material, i.e., the deviation did not

result in an unfair economic advantage. See C.H. Barco Contracting Co. v. State

of Florida, Department of Transportation, 483 So2.d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

The test for measuring whether a deviation is sufficiently material to destroy the

competitive nature of the bid process is “whether the variation affects the

amount of the bid by giving the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by

the other bidders.” See Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral,

352 So.2d 1190, 1193 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977).

In Harry Pepper, the apparent low bidder, Gulf Contracting (“Gulf”), sought to modify its bid after the other bids had been opened in order to bring its bid into conformity with the instructions to bidders. Gulf had based its bid on less expensive pumps rather than the pumps specified in the instructions to bidders.

The court held that Gulf’s bid deviation was deemed material and non-waiveable because Gulf had the ability to examine the other opened bids and decide whether or not it wanted to modify its bid and incur the additional expense of supplying conforming pumps to obtain the contract, or stand on its less expensive non-conforming pumps and not receive the award.

Gulf had the opportunity to decide whether it wanted the contract after all of the other bids had been disclosed. Gulf’s actions gave it an unfair advantage in the bidding process, which was not enjoyed by the other bidders in the process.

Similarly, in E.M. Watkins & Co. v. Board of Regents, 414 So.2d 583

(Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the apparent low bidder on a project submitted a

required list of subcontractors a few hours after the deadline for bid

submittals.

The court deemed the bidder’s failure to timely submit the list to

be material and non-waiveable because the late submission facilitated

undesirable subcontractor bid shopping. The court came to this conclusion

even though there was no evidence that the bidder actually had received an

unfair advantage or benefit by submitting the subcontractor list after the bid

submittal deadline.

Generally, only bidders who could receive the award if their protest is

successful are allowed, i.e. have standing, to protest a bid. As such, courts

have held that potential bidders who fail to submit bids do not have standing

to contest the bid results. See Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Jacksonville

Transp. Auth., 491 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

A protestor must also demonstrate that it has a substantial interest in the outcome of the bid process, by showing that if the defects in the bid are remedied, then there is

a reasonable likelihood of the bidder winning the contract. See Preston

Carroll Co., Inc. v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Auth., 400 So.2d 524 (Fla. 3rd DCA

1981).

Author’s note: The information contained in this article is for general

educational information only. This information does not constitute legal advice, is

not intended to constitute legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as legal advice

for your specific factual pattern or situation.

Trenton Cotney, a shareholder attorney at Glenn Rasmussen Fogarty & Hooker, P.A., in

Tampa, Florida prepared this article. Trent is Florida Bar Certified in Construction Law, a

Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Mediator, Qualified Florida Court-Appointed

Arbitrator, General Counsel and a director of the Florida Roofing Sheet Metal and Air-

Conditioning Contractors Association (FRSA), a director of the West Coast Roofing

Contractors Association (WCRCA) and a member of Associated Builders and Contractors

(ABC). For more information, contact the author at 813-229-3333 or

tcotney@glennrasmussen.com.

I am deeply appreciative of Trent's unselfish work, and will highly recommend him to any roofing contractor as the very best within our discipline.  If you are unsure of something, or need help, Trent is the guy.  Period.

I thank each of you from the bottom of my heart for caring about what I have to say, and for taking time from your day to visit with me here.  YOU are the only reason I am here, and I am deeply grateful to my many visitors from around God's beautiful earth.

We will return to less complex issues soon, but I must do my best to protect the public interest.

Never despair, reject negativity in all forms, and for goodness' sakes, keep looking "UP".

Respectfully,

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon

CCC1325620

"Emergency Hurricane Relief"

Please do everything necessary to prepare for hurricane season.  Especially FRESH WATER, medicines, non-perishable food (canned), a basic can opener, and perhaps a small propane heating device.  Those of you with pets will not be welcome at shelters, and I would encourage you to start planning for their safety right now.  Heed the warnings, and do exactly as they say.

This is hurricane Fran, about 350 miles from my home, which is not very far at all.

If you own commercial property, and find yourself facing the despair of a roofing disaster, I have a network of roofers who will mobilize for you, and I will share contact information to expedite the recovery process.

I do not allow my name to be associated with "Storm Chasers", or "Price Gouging", but you must keep in mind they have a regular client base they must not neglect.  Mobilization is the biggest issue, but the first thing you need to do is an emergency repair to avoid structural damage, and further damage to contents.

If you find yourself in such a position, I cannot physically help you from my computer obviously, but I can offer my skill set, and at least guide you.  I will expect a description of damages, along with a number of photos, to determine the severity of your situation, and advise you accordingly.

ANYONE I refer will be fully licensed, properly insured, and approved by a major material manufacturer, so you will just have to depend upon me to vet them first, and I know exactly how to handle that.

I feel it my responsibility to you, as I consider everyone who takes the time to visit with me here a friend.

DO NOT PANIC!  Secure your family, secure your property, and do not hesitate to ask for my help.  It is not unusual for me to spend 20 hour days during these catastrophes, and will enthusiastically share my network with you.  YOU are always the most important person on my list, and living here in Florida, I know the devastation and heartbreak hurricanes are capable of delivering.

My background also includes U.S. Customs, Ocean Shipping, etc.  For my friends in other countries, this will be critical.  I can arrange for shipments of plywood, roofing materials, or basically anything you need in larger quantities.

You will be feverishly contacting your insurance carrier, and I will help you with that as well.  But a portion of this may include the service of an International Attorney, and the most competent, and sincere person for that assignment is listed on the Blog here "Alexandre' Dammous" is an International Attorney, licensed in 26 countries, my dearest friend and colleague.  I bet my reputation on him.

Please do not misinterpret anything I say as an "Advertisement", and you will notice I do not allow advertising here.  Everything I do is voluntary, and your immediate attention is my only concern.  In full disclosure, and a matter of time management, I must charge a fee if the situation requires me blocking out large portions of time for you, as I may otherwise have to neglect someone else, and I really want to get to as many of you as possible.

Whatever your situation is, I've seen it.  This will allow me to swiftly move through our procedure together.

All those listed in my "Trusted Professionals" section are on your side, as well as many of my roofing contractor friends throughout the U.S. and the world.  So, our combined resources are rather vast.  Put simply, "You are not alone".  I am not a contractor , but maintain the very highest level of licensure within my discipline, and then some.

I will repeat:  Water, Food, Medicine.  Loved ones cannot be replaced, but structures can be rebuilt.  End of story.

Emergency topics (and photos) should be sent directly to my personal email address:  RobertRSolomon@aol.com  and I answer all email the same day it is received.

Thank you for visiting with me here, and I pray for each of you each night.  Reject negativity in all forms, and keep looking "UP".

Respectfully,

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
CCC1325620
RobertRSolomon@aol.com

"Let's Talk About Solar and Nanotechnology"

My post on Carbon Nanotube technology was the most popular of all my posts, so I thought we'd try that again, except in a more direct comparison.  Fair?

Before I get going here, I am very happy, and proud, to have just been appointed a Judge for "Sustainable Schools".  This program, along with "Sustainable Florida" marks my Fifth time as a Judge for the most prestigious sustainability award programs in my state.

This year, I've been assigned the "Classes" group.  This is my favorite, as I get a very in depth look at individual class efforts, and am able to connect on a more personal level.  The most inspiring being a group of handicapped kindergarteners, who raised earthworms, recovered the worm castings as fertilizer, and used the fertilizer for the butterfly garden they'd built, and maintain.

I found that story so heart warming, and am not ashamed to say I was reduced to tears thinking about their courage.  I'm a big fan of children actually touching the dirt.  I cannot properly emote my feelings, and respect for these very young children, who've made up their minds to achieve, and press forward, in the face of certain obstacle.

That, my dear friends is what I find beautiful in this life. 

Sorry for that rather personal observation, and we will proceed to the topic:

Clouds over the Solar Power Industry

As oil prices have plunged, solar has become less cost-competitive. And the credit squeeze has made it harder to finance solar projects

The roof of a warehouse equipped with solar panels in Buerstadt, Germany, the largest such installation in the world. Ralph Orlowski/Getty Images

By Mark Scott and Chi-Chu Tschang

Europe

BP Sees 'Slow' Recovery as Profits Miss

If the recent five-year boom in solar energy marked the birth of a global industry, the next half-decade should be its coming of age. But like most adolescents, solar is experiencing growing pains. The economic crisis has weakened demand for everything from polysilicon to rooftop panels, just as manufacturers have spent billions expanding production. The overcapacity has caused prices to plummet and left the industry financially exposed. A number of companies—especially startups—may not survive a shakeout that could last 18 months or longer.

The causes of the downturn are complex and interrelated. As the price of oil plunged from its peak last summer, solar and other forms of renewable energy became relatively less cost-competitive—dampening demand from industrial, commercial, and residential customers. At the same time, the credit squeeze has made it harder for customers, whether power companies or energy-conscious homeowners, to finance solar projects. Some also are holding back in anticipation that solar equipment prices will fall even further.

Consider the story of Peng Xiaofeng, chairman of China's LDK Solar (LDK), a maker of solar wafers. During a recent trip to Europe, he toured major solar projects that have been, in some cases, on the drawing boards for two to three years. "They're all delayed," Peng says."I don't think they'll be ready [even] in 2010 or 2011."

Trimmed SubsidiesThe industry impact has been swift. After increasing at roughly 50% annually every year since 2004, the overall market for new solar installations could slow to just 15% growth in 2009, according to analyst estimates. Retail prices for photovoltaic (PV) panels may fall by as much as one-third in 2009 because of a continued glut. Adding to the gloom: Spain and Germany, the world's top two markets for PV panels, have recently trimmed the subsidies they offered to jump-start local industries. "We're moving from a seller's to a buyer's market," says Adel El Gammal, secretary general of the European Photovoltaic Industry Assn. (EPIA).

Shares in major solar players reflect the brutal turn of events. The Claymore/MAC Global Solar Energy Index (TAN) has dropped 71% since its launch on Apr. 15 this year, and some leading companies have fared even worse. China's SunTech (STP)—founded in 2001 and now the world's largest manufacturer by revenue of PV cells, the basic building-block of panels that convert sunlight to electricity—has seen its stock plunge almost 90% since the start of 2008. Shares in Germany's Q-Cells (QCEG.DE), the global leader in PV cells by volume, have fallen more than 80% over the same period.

Despite this carnage, industry observers remain bullish on solar's longer-term prospects. As the price of panels drops in the next 12 to 18 months, solar power will become more attractive compared with other forms of energy. Consolidation among companies in the industry—especially as weaker players drop out or get acquired—also should lower costs and improve profitability.

All told, figures energy consultancy Navigants (NCI), the total amount of electricity produced worldwide via solar should soar from 3 gigawatts this year to 15 GW in 2012, the equivalent of 19 coal-fired power plants. Beyond the immediate period, says the EPIA's El Gammal, "the fundamentals are intact. There's no option but a very fast growth rate."

Spray-On Solar-Power Cells Are True Breakthrough

Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News

January 14, 2005

Scientists have invented a plastic solar cell that can turn the sun's power into electrical energy, even on a cloudy day.

The plastic material uses nanotechnology and contains the first solar cells able to harness the sun's invisible, infrared rays. The breakthrough has led theorists to predict that plastic solar cells could one day become five times more efficient than current solar cell technology.

Like paint, the composite can be sprayed onto other materials and used as portable electricity. A sweater coated in the material could power a cell phone or other wireless devices. A hydrogen-powered car painted with the film could potentially convert enough energy into electricity to continually recharge the car's battery.

The researchers envision that one day "solar farms" consisting of the plastic material could be rolled across deserts to generate enough clean energy to supply the entire planet's power needs.

"The sun that reaches the Earth's surface delivers 10,000 times more energy than we consume," said Ted Sargent, an electrical and computer engineering professor at the University of Toronto. Sargent is one of the inventors of the new plastic material.

"If we could cover 0.1 percent of the Earth's surface with [very efficient] large-area solar cells," he said, "we could in principle replace all of our energy habits with a source of power which is clean and renewable."

Infrared Power

Plastic solar cells are not new. But existing materials are only able to harness the sun's visible light. While half of the sun's power lies in the visible spectrum, the other half lies in the infrared spectrum.

The new material is the first plastic composite that is able to harness the infrared portion.

"Everything that's warm gives off some heat. Even people and animals give off heat," Sargent said. "So there actually is some power remaining in the infrared [spectrum], even when it appears to us to be dark outside."

The researchers combined specially designed nano particles called quantum dots with a polymer to make the plastic that can detect energy in the infrared.

With further advances, the new plastic "could allow up to 30 percent of the sun's radiant energy to be harnessed, compared to 6 percent in today's best plastic solar cells," said Peter Peumans, a Stanford University electrical engineering professor, who studied the work.

Cheap Nano Solar Cells By Kevin Bullis

Carbon nanotubes could help make nanoparticle-based solar cells more efficient and practical.

Researchers at University of Notre Dame, in Indiana, have demonstrated a way to significantly improve the efficiency of solar cells made using low-cost, readily available materials, including a chemical commonly use in paints.

Escape route: Electrons created in a nanoparticle-based solar cell have to follow a circuitous path (red line) to reach an electrode. Many don't make it, lowering the efficiency of these cells. Researchers at Notre Dame have used carbon nanotubes to help the electrons reach the electrode, improving efficiency.
Credit: Prashant Kamat

The researchers added single-walled carbon nanotubes to a film made of titanium-dioxide nanoparticles, doubling the efficiency of converting ultraviolet light into electrons when compared with the performance of the nanoparticles alone. The solar cells could be used to make hydrogen for fuel cells directly from water or for producing electricity. Titanium oxide is a main ingredient in white paint.

The approach, developed by Notre Dame professor of chemistry and biochemistry Prashant Kamat and his colleagues, addresses one of the most significant limitations of solar cells based on nanoparticles. (See "Silicon and Sun.") Such cells are appealing because nanoparticles have a great potential for absorbing light and generating electrons. But so far, the efficiency of actual devices made of such nanoparticles has been considerably lower than that of conventional silicon solar cells. That's largely because it has proved difficult to harness the electrons that are generated to create a current.

Indeed, without the carbon nanotubes, electrons generated when light is absorbed by titanium-oxide particles have to jump from particle to particle to reach an electrode. Many never make it out to generate an electrical current. The carbon nanotubes "collect" the electrons and provide a more direct route to the electrode, improving the efficiency of the solar cells.

As they wrote online in the journal Nano Letters, the Notre Dame researchers form a mat of carbon nanotubes on an electrode. The nanotubes serve as a scaffold on which the titanium-oxide particles are deposited. "This is a very simple approach for bringing order into a disordered structure," Kamat says.

The new carbon-nanotube and nanoparticle system is not yet a practical solar cell. That's because titanium oxide only absorbs ultraviolet light; most of the visible spectrum of light is reflected rather than absorbed. But researchers have already demonstrated ways to modify the nanoparticles to absorb the visible spectrum. In one strategy, a one-molecule-thick layer of light-absorbing dye is applied to the titanium-dioxide nanoparticles. Another approach, which has been demonstrated experimentally by Kamat, is to coat the nanoparticles with quantum dots--tiny semiconductor crystals. Unlike conventional materials in which one photon generates just one electron, quantum dots have the potential to convert high-energy photons into multiple electrons.

Several other groups are exploring approaches to improve the collection of electrons within a cell, including forming titanium-oxide nanotubes or complex branching structures made of various semiconductors. But experts say that Kamat's work could be a significant step in creating cheaper, more-efficient solar cells. "This is very important work," says Gerald Meyer, professor of chemistry at Johns Hopkins University. "Using carbon nanotubes as a conduit for electrons from titanium oxide is a novel idea, and this is a beautiful proof-of-principle experiment."

As solar gets smaller, its future gets brighter / Nanotechnology could turn rooftops into a sea of power-generating stations

July 11, 2005|By Paul Carlstrom, Special to The Chronicle

Investors along Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park are pouring money into solar nanotech startups, hoping that thinking small will translate into big profits.

Both inventors and investors are betting that flexible sheets of tiny solar cells used to harness the sun's strength will ultimately provide a cheaper, more efficient source of energy than the current smorgasbord of alternative and fossil fuels.

Nanosys and Nanosolar in Palo Alto -- along with Konarka in Lowell, Mass. -- say their research will result in thin rolls of highly efficient light-collecting plastics spread across rooftops or built into building materials.

These rolls, the companies say, will be able to provide energy for prices as low as the electricity currently provided by utilities, which averages $1 per watt.

Other uses of nanotechnology foreseen by Konarka, Nanosolar and Nanosys include form-fitting plastic batteries for electronic devices like cell phones and laptops.

While all three companies provide prototypes for large corporate research labs and government agencies, company representatives and investors are reticent to predict when nanotechnology-powered solar systems will be commercially available. Industry watchers, however, say that achieving mass production of these products may take five years or longer.

"We take the long view, although we're not averse to having products very quickly," said Bryan Roberts, general partner at Venrock Associates in Menlo Park, a leading Nanosys investor. "Whenever you're developing a novel technology platform, you're looking at a four- to six-year time frame rather than a three- to four-year time frame."

Major investments Despite the lack of commercial product availability, Konarka, Nanosolar and Nanosys have collectively raised more than $120 million since 2001, the year all three companies were founded.

Recent investments include $7 million in debt financing for Konarka in June, making its total funding to date $38.5 million. Nanosolar recently announced more financial support in a Series B round of funding that secured $20 million in May. With previous investments of $7.25 million, it has secured a total of $27.25 million.

Both Konarka and Nanosolar have said they plan to use the money for new research and development facilities.

Nanosys, which cited poor market conditions as the reason for withdrawing its IPO in August, has raised $55 million to date. The company's last round of funding in April 2003 secured $30 million.

July 11, 2005|By Paul Carlstrom, Special to The Chronicle

Venture capitalist excitement for these new technologies reflects growth in the solar energy market as whole, say industry experts.

"The technology is maturing, and the industry is maturing. British Petroleum, Shell and the oil companies are all in this field," said David Wooley, vice president of the nonprofit Energy Foundation in San Francisco, a research group funded by major charitable trusts but not affiliated with utilities or energy producers.

Costs must be reduced

A study released by the Energy Foundation in March suggests that the United States could produce 2,900 new megawatts of solar power by 2010 -- enough to power 500,000 homes -- if the cost is significantly reduced.

Solar energy ranges between $4 and $5 per watt. The report suggests market expansion will require $2 to $2.50. If the price breakthrough occurs, says Wooley, the report's assumed price structure represents a $6.6 billion annual market opportunity.

The Energy Foundation report also says that solar energy could furnish much of the nation's electricity if available residential and commercial rooftops were fully utilized. According to the Energy Foundation, using available rooftop space could provide 710,000 megawatts across the United States, whose current electrical capacity is 950,000 megawatts.

"The market is obviously huge, demand is huge. Besides, (alternative energy) is imperative in the world we live in," said Bill Gurley, a general partner at Benchmark Capital in Menlo Park, an early investor in Nanosolar.

As for recent growth in solar energy, Paula Mints, a senior analyst at the technology research firm of Strategies Unlimited in Mountain View, says that 14,000 photovoltaic megawatts were sold last year, representing 54 percent growth in the industry.

Interest from VC investors

Mints says that VC interest in new energy technologies represents a positive development.

"It's very healthy for the industry. They (venture capitalists) see the growth and the possibilities," she said.

However, Mints also cautions against expecting immediate changes in the way energy is produced. She cites the long development history of conventional solar cells.

"It took 20 to 25 years to commercialize (conventional) photovoltaics," she said.

High production costs are among the reasons solar energy hasn't become a major source of electricity.

As solar gets smaller, its future gets brighter / Nanotechnology could turn rooftops into a sea of power-generating stations

July 11, 2005|By Paul Carlstrom, Special to The Chronicle

The black, glasslike photovoltaic cells that make up most solar panels are usually composed of crystalline silicon, which requires clean-room manufacturing facilities free of dust and airborne microbes.

Silicon is also in short supply and increasingly expensive to produce, so high manufacturing costs are the main reason behind high wattage prices.

As a result, the cost of panel installation typically equals four to five years of expensive energy before production costs are recovered and systems begin paying for themselves.

With nanotechnology, tiny solar cells can be printed onto flexible, very thin light-retaining materials, bypassing the cost of silicon production.

"Silicon is very capital-intensive. You don't need a clean room for plastic power where capital costs are one-tenth of silicon," said Raj Atluru, managing director at the venture capitalist firm of Draper Fisher Jurvetson in Menlo Park, a major investor in Konarka.

Konarka, Nanosys and Nanosolar say their solar technology will reduce the time it will take consumers to recover production and installation costs to a matter of months.

In addition to being able to manufacture photovoltaic cells more quickly through printing, the companies also say that manipulating materials 100,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair will provide more light- collecting capabilities.

Each printed nanostructure solar cell would act as an autonomous solar collector, and sheets of these products would have more surface area to gather light than conventional photovoltaic cells.

The companies also say that the printed rolls of solar cells would be lighter, more resilient and flexible than silicon photovoltaics.

A rooftop opportunity

If the technical hurdles can be cleared, the biggest money will be found atop buildings.

According to Matthew Nordan, vice president of research at New York's Lux Research, "The ultimate prize is rooftop distribution applications," in which residential and commercial buildings would generate most of their own power.

The companies envision mass production of flexible plastics that would conform to the shape and pitch of rooftops or would be imprinted onto building materials like tile and siding.

"Flexibility allows you to develop new form factors. Why not integrate solar cells into, say, a Spanish tile?" said Nanosys spokesman Stephen Empedocles.

July 11, 2005|By Paul Carlstrom, Special to The Chronicle

It remains unclear, however, who would install nanotechnology-based solar components if they become commercially available.

"There's no channel to the market," said Nordan, who sees a fragmented solar installation market made up of numerous contractors, which makes adoption of any technology difficult.

Nordan also sees obstacles in transmitting solar energy from rooftop collection sites back to electrical grids and other buildings not wired with photovoltaics.

Distribution an obstacle

"The problem is distribution. Nanomaterials could provide a way to transmit energy as well as capture it."

Until the distribution issue is solved, Nordan says, solar energy will not be able to meet its potential of supplying vast amounts of power.

Analysts like Nordan and Mints say that while rooftops are the most attractive areas for investors, nanomaterial solar energy may first be implemented on mobile devices like cell phones and laptop computers.

Contracts from the military

These applications have smaller power requirements than buildings, and military research contracts at Konarka, Nanosys and Nanosolar may pave the way for commercial availability of solar batteries for communications devices.

"Price is no object for the military, and they need power on the go," said Nordan. "Besides, the mobile-phone industry is driven by new features."

All three companies rely upon government contracts in addition to private funding. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has been the most generous. Konarka has a $6 million grant, and Nanosolar has received $10.3 million.

Nanosys' $9.4 million in grants comes from that agency, as well as the Department of Energy and the Navy, among others -- although not all of this research is solar-related.

Industry watchers like Wooley of the Energy Foundation say that some kind of government assistance is necessary to make alternative sources of energy viable.

"The (solar) industry has grown and expanded through incentives. The technology doesn't need government support forever, but it's at a crucial point," he said.

Investors, however, are quick to distinguish between grants and regulations mandating alternative forms of energy.

"The bet was not made with the regulation market," said Gurley of Benchmark Capital.

Problems with government

Atluru of Draper Fisher Jurvetson concurs. "Our view is that government can cause big problems, and it is the entrepreneurs who will make the big changes."

As solar gets smaller, its future gets brighter / Nanotechnology could turn rooftops into a sea of power-generating stations

July 11, 2005|By Paul Carlstrom, Special to The Chronicle

So which way will solar energy go? Atluru said that just as there are different ways to get electricity, the same may hold true for solar energy.

"There's opportunities in traditional silicon photovoltaics, and that's really interesting, and there are companies like Konarka. There's room in the market for all these companies. It's still early days for these startups," he said.

Wooley of the Energy Foundation cautiously agrees.

"What we see is similar to the trajectory for wind energy, where it went from a small-scale industry to a large-scale industry.

"We think the solar industry could see the same growth this decade the wind industry saw in the '90s," he said. Shrinking solar, expanding profit

Konarka, Nanosolar and Nanosys say that nanotechnology could make the price of electricity less expensive per watt.

Current cost of solar energy, per watt: $4-$5

Average cost of energy from traditional fossil fuel sources, per watt: $1

Estimated cost of energy from nanotech solar panels, per watt: $2

Total energy-generating capacity of the United States: 950,000 megawatts

Potential total rooftop solar energy capacity in the United States: 710, 000 megawatts. Source: Energy Foundation

I know you're feeling a bit woozy about now after reading all this data, and I am currently pricing headache insurance.

I am so thankful for my many visitors from around the world, and humbled that you care what I have to share.  I try my best to bring you Independent Sustainability Research. 

Even though retired from my skill discipline of 37 years, I feel obligated to share the most objective information possible with you here.  I am always thankful for constructive criticism based upon science and public record.  Please feel free to contact me personally at the central email address below.

Reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP".

Very respectfully,

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
CCC1325620
RobertRSolomon@aol.com