PESWiki.com -- Pure Energy Systems Wiki: Finding and facilitating breakthrough clean energy technologies.
Donations to PES are needed and greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Talk:Congress:Top 100 Technologies -- RD
Discussion page for Congress:Top 100 Technologies -- RD
Post your comments here:
(click on "edit", then preview and save)
After investing some time and thought in exploring the Sliver solar panel and discovering their intention not to sell cheap panels for the next 10 years, I vote that they be removed from the number 4 place in the top 100 Technologies.
Solar Cube and Cool Earth Solar both have both seem fairly immature. While they may deserve to be on the list, the multi junction solar cells by Emcore and Spectrolab have been comercial products for a long time. The Sunpower A-300 is also commercially sold and is about double the amount of a typical solar cell. The 42.8% efficient solar cell http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=49483 also deserves to be on the list. DWagner
Intro Message from Sterling
As other PESWiki pages, this is an editable web page. You can edit content, add content, move things around, upload and post images, etc.
I've commenced the page with those technologies that I think are most promising, and have sequenced them from top to bottom based on the criteria we set forth -- roughly speaking. This is an "off the top of my head" kind of list, though there are several years of thought that have gone into it. I've got about 30 technologies listed there for starters.
Note the formatting recommendation near the top of the page. This is for consistency, to make the listings easier to follow.
If you think a technology should be moved up or down in the list, feel free to go ahead and do it. However, be prepared to explain why you've done it. (A good use for the "discussion" link at the top of the page.) Also, don't be surprised when someone else might come along an move it back to where it was. Each change is documented by PESWiki and retrievable (see "history" tab at top of page). If you want to discuss a particular placement with someone, find out who made the change, then contact them and have dialogue. If you can't resolve it there, then feel free to bring it to email@example.com forum for a wider deliberation, and possibly even for a vote.
There are quite a few more technologies that I could list, and I plan to get around to adding those. I just wanted to get this up and going.
Don't be bashful. If you do something to mess up the page accidentally, the page can always be reverted. It takes about 10 seconds through the "history" tab.
I propose that the "Top 10" list include only those technologies that are at least 1 year or less in their time from being commercially ready. Then, in the next section, "Other Top 100", I propose that we confine that list to things that are at least 2 years or less in their time away from market. Finally, at the end, I have a "Deep in R&D" section, for those technologies that are more than 2 years away from being commercially feasible.
This is to emphasize the practicality of the list. It's easy to prognosticate fantastic numbers for a technology that is still largely theoretical. We need to have more solid development in a technology, to prove its feasibility before it can qualify for a "top 10" or "other top 100" classification.
Note that the introduction says that it is okay for non-NEC members to participate in the process. NEC members, of course, will usually pull more weight in the case of a dispute. And there will be more robust technology ranking processes where NEC membership will pull a lot of weight.
-- Sterling D. Allan (SilverThunder 21:47, 5 Feb 2006 (EST))