Talk:Nanosolar

message: A bunch of new info was released here:
http://www.nanosolar.com/company/blog
and here:
http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINN0929109220090909  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.178.74 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New News as of Sept 9, 2009

message: I understand that indium is rather rare.  If this product relies on indium, how can it be mass produced?
~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BmikeSci (talk • contribs) 19:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  indium 

message: Interview with major person from the company, on Talk of the Nation Science Friday radio program, 20apr07.  About ten minutes of audio.-69.87.204.161 18:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  radio interview 

message: Has anyone ever been able to buy any of this solar film? Any evidence this is anything more than vaporware?
* I'm pretty sure that they are currently producing sheets now. However, you cant buy any, because their production schedule is filled for at least a year. :(
Lx45803 (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence? 

message: I would like to know on what basis they can offer a 25 year warranty, given that they have only been in existence as a company for 6 years! How do they know their solar panels will last that long?—greenrd (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All solar cells are required by regulation to demonstrate through certain kinds of tests that they will last that long.  The tests are designed to compress the wear-and-tear in a similar manner to other products that get durability tested.
* Just because the warranty lasts that long doesn't mean the panel will. It just means that they're willing to bet that it will.  Lx45803 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  25 year warranty? 

message: This page needs a corporate infobox. --Kickstart70-T-C 05:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private? Public? 

message: Nanosolar's website does not claim that they are currently selling solar cells for $1/watt.  They reference "the world’s lowest-cost solar panel – which we believe will make us the first solar manufacturer capable of profitably selling solar panels at as little as $.99/Watt."  Notice the future tense, "will."
The lead to this article, however, states that Nanosolar "started selling panels mid-December 2007 at around $1 per watt."  I have looked through Nanosolar's official press releases, and see nothing indicating that their cells currently go for $1/watt.  They might do so in the future, but then again, they might not.  I think this lead should be changed.
`Cal (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed thusly: "The company started selling panels mid-December 2007, and hopes to be able to profitably sell them at around $1 per Watt." -- 202.191.15.24 (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Incorrect 

message: Despite the three citations, Popular Science says that $1 per watt is actually the price that solar has to reach to 'compete with coal', and the company can produce at $.30 per watt. Here's the page: . The relevant text is the end of para 3 through a third of para 4.
Thoughts?
Lx45803 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the $0.30 listed elsewhere as their production cost.  This would be what's known as "marginal costs".  However, a company also has to pay off "capital costs" -- the investment put into the facility, which are amortized across the lifespan of the facility.  They also have to turn a profit for their investors that's competitive in the marketplace.  Hence, $0.99/W is their "profitable" price. -- 129.255.93.182 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price per watt actually $.30? 

message: this is a video from november 07
from minute 9 to 13 of the 40 something minutes will give some info in german as it is done by german state TV.
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/content/Amerikas_andere_Seite/378788 
--Stefanbcn (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video of the productions Halls

message: Yesterday I edited the "Criticism/Envy" section to reflect a more neutral point of view. Today somebody undid those changes (though the edit summary says merely "neutral point of view" and fails to indicate the edit was actually an undo). I am re-doing the changes and explaining the reasons behind them in detail here. If anyone wishes to undo them again, please explain how the original text satisfies Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements on the following points:
* "Critcism/Envy" -- Criticism has an objective definition, and whether a statement constitutes criticism is usually clear to all parties. Envy, on the other hand, is emotional and highly subjective. Furthermore, the statements characterized here as "envy" could easily be described by any number of other terms expressing completely different emotions (e.g., frustration, exasperation, betrayal). Short of Vijay Kapur explicitly stating his emotional state of mind, characterizing his statements as "envy" is clearly non-neutral. My rewrite preserves the criticism and eliminates the emotional content.
* "highest-profile" -- That Nanosolar is the "highest-profile thin-film solar company" is arguable, at best, and cannot be proven by any objective standard. Certainly within the PV industry itself much more attention has been directed to First Solar and Energy Conversion Devices, both of which are successful thin-film PV companies. My rewrite eliminates this value judgement.
* "one of the original pioneers" -- Not really a matter of point-of-view, but this redundant phrase screams to be rewritten. My rewrite does that.
* "eclipsed by Nanosolar in terms of commercial development" -- This, at the very least, requires an independent reference that makes clear that Nanosolar is shipping more product than ISET. To my knowledge the only support that currently exists for such a statement is Nanosolar's own claims, which is the very definition of non-neutral point of view. Lacking such a reference, my rewrite eliminates this self-serving statement.
Given the overall tone of the page, I get the impression somebody is trying to use Wikipedia for shameless self-promotion.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view 

message: article about nanosolar in Photon
http://www.greentechmedia.com/assets/pdfs/NanosolarPhoton.pdf
und die feedback from Nanosolar CEO Martin Roscheisen:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/nanosolar-broke-ground-on-1mw-power-plant-launched-german-panel-factory-5711.html--Stefanbcn (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  News on nanosolar

message: quotes CEO 
An IEC-certified panel product available in near-term 100MW volume at a fully-loaded cost point in the sixties [cents/Watt] or less so that one can profitably sell at a $.99/Watt wholesale price point.
I have a hard time seeing how anyone can be successful in solar who isn’t truly in volume in 2008 with a very mature, very cost-efficient technology.
source:http://earth2tech.com/2007/07/30/10-questions-for-nanosolar-ceo-martin-roscheisen/
Question : Does Nanosolar already have modules with IEC certificate?--Stefanbcn (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanosolar already with IEC certificate?

message: The article is written as if Nanosolar has real, shipping products.  But they don't seem to.
They've announced that they do.  They announced that in 2007, 2008, and 2009, as mentioned
above. But nobody seems to have ever seen the product. All statements in the article that come from Nanosolar sources should be listed as "the company claims that", not as facts. Third party verification is lacking.  --John Nagle (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanosolar vaporware, and possibly a scam 

message: The talk page has had no edits since Feb 2010. Web searches don't turn up anything suggesting nanosolar actually is shipping product either.
VAPORWARE!!!! What a crazy world we live in. 24.162.243.254 (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow talk about absolutely nothing new lately... 

message: http://gigaom.com/2013/08/13/get-yer-cheap-next-gen-solar-tech-courtesy-of-the-nanosolar-auction/
http://www.siliconbeat.com/2013/07/15/the-growing-cigs-graveyard-nanosolar-liquidation-auction/
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Nanosolar-Thin-Film-Solar-Hype-Firm-Officially-Dead
I think someone need to update the page BerserkerBen (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  As of September 2013 Nanosolar appears to have collapsed and is now selling assets 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Nanosolar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160515231649/http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=17&issue=20060724 to http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=17&issue=20060724
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080116115139/http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/2007/12/18/nanosolar-ships-first-panels/ to http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/2007/12/18/nanosolar-ships-first-panels/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927183640/http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/BilddW2_07Nanosolar.pdf to http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/BilddW2_07Nanosolar.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100806124636/http://www.pv-tech.org/chip_shots/_a/exclusive_nanosolar_rising_part_i--one-time_thin-film_pv_lightning_rod_gets/ to http://www.pv-tech.org/chip_shots/_a/exclusive_nanosolar_rising_part_i--one-time_thin-film_pv_lightning_rod_gets
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100814235239/http://www.pv-tech.org/chip_shots/_a/exclusive_nanosolar_rising_part_iithe_i_in_cigs_also_stands_for_thin-film_p/ to http://www.pv-tech.org/chip_shots/_a/exclusive_nanosolar_rising_part_iithe_i_in_cigs_also_stands_for_thin-film_p/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)