Talk:Nanosolar

New News as of Sept 9, 2009

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)

I believe that all this new information warrants a major re-work of the discussion section of this article. I made a very minor edit to it a few days ago just to update the facts, but it seems that since Nanosolar now has released spec sheets, opened production at their new module plant in Germany, and reports billions in orders the early skepticism is no longer really relevant. They still don't report pricing but that is not unusual in many industries. If their pricing were not competitive they would not be getting large orders. A year or two ago some felt this company might have been pitching 'vaporware' and the discussion section reflected that. Given currently available information I doubt that many would still feel that way. Mehrheit (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

indium

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)

After looking into this further I find that high grade indium costs about $150 per ounce. How much indium is needed for a 100 watt panel? Gallium is also expensive - about $100 per ounce.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

puffery

I rewrote parts of the article which had questionable POV. So, I will remove the NPOV tag. --The Raven 22:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It still reads like a Nanosolar press release. --128.61.124.193 19:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's because almost all the material is taken word for word from the "company" section of their website.

Seeing as press releases and stories based off of a few interviews are the only sources of information around, I don't think that's entirely unreasonable. But, of course, you are correct. 04:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC) PhoenixPinion

I rewrote it to remove the commendatory puff and therefore removed the NPOV tag -70.112.86.146 15:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

radio interview

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)

Evidence?

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)

• Has anyone seen any of this solar film deployed anywhere? Are there real buildings with real solar film anyplace? 70.5.251.78 (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• They seem to be marketing first to places that have electricity problems. I live in the Dominican Republic (daily blackouts) and know of a business that's been offered solar panels which according to my father (good friend of the owner) where identical to the films, but sandwiched in glass. Further investigation confirmed that is how they are making them, the sellers where German and nanosolar has a manufacturing plant their with those same specifications. I'm not 100% sure though, didn't really remember the name on the business proposal papers. I'll see if I can get confirmation. But they where selling them cheaper than regular panels.

--200.88.199.156 (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

25 year warranty?

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)

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)

• • If you plan on ramping your production fast, you don't really care if the panels only last 8 years, and you have to replace the first 8 years production in year 9.

--Speedevil (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Private? Public?

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

Its a private company, and almost all its investors are private also. I checked in their site - http://www.nanosolar.com/investors.htm - and think that only one of the investors is a publicly traded company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.37 (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead Incorrect

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)

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)

Price per watt actually $.30?

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: [1]. The relevant text is the end of para 3 through a third of para 4.

Thoughts? Lx45803 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I am not really confident about what Popular Science says. Within the same story, they made a mistake about how photons get "excited" and "explode" into positive and negative charges in the animation. The mechanism of solar cell is actually about exciton formation, but what they said sounds more like pair production. EIFY (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Video of the productions Halls

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)

Neutral point of view

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)

Disputed section -- criticism and controversy

Neutral point of view is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that is "absolute and non-negotiable." It represents "fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." Reliable sources have published criticisms of Nanosolar and a number of observers have questioned Nanosolar's claims. Finally, these controversies are arguably the prime topic when discussion turns to Nanosolar. Every criticism cited in the article is supported with a reference, sometimes two. How is this not a neutral point of view?

Considering that at least one recent edit to the page came from a Nanosolar IP address, I would be remiss if I didn't point out Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest (for the record, I am not myself employed by a solar cell company at all, let alone by a Nanosolar competitor as a recent editor accused me of). I also feel compelled to point out that Wikipedia is not a forum for free advertising. I am restoring the section on Criticism and Controversy and, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines on controversial topics, tagging it as disputed. Please discuss the section here before deleting it again, which is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies on dispute resolution.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view COMMENT: Thank you for opening a discussion on this. I am one of the people who do not agree with the negativity of some of the edits on this page. For a Wikipedia entry to be neutral, it has to be based on solid, first-hand or at least reliable information, not a competitor's emotional claims or possibly inaccurate articles written by journalists that have never been confirmed by the company in any way. It is important to stick to what the company's claims really are based on reliable sources. There is a lot of noise in journalism and the editorial standard for wikipedia ought to be to cut through noise as opposed to enhancing it.

Detailed comments on the disputed section:

> Nanosolar claimed in 2005 that it was able to produce solar cells with

> efficiencies exceeding 12% for $0.36/watt.[21] However, no support was offered

> for the claim and Nanosolar CEO Roscheisen declined to elaborate, leading to

> speculation that the company had made its calculations improperly and

> suggestions that its claims were "fishy."[22]

--> [21] is not a reliable source, at least not this article. Several statements in this article don't make any sense whatsoever (such as the power density claims). So clearly there was a journalist at work that may have completely misunderstood something. The company did not make any official, direct announcement whatsoever. We have to give the company the benefit of doubt.

> The company has since revised its claim and now says

> it "aim[s] to produce the panels for 99 cents a watt."[23]

--> It is incorrect to assume that there "has since been a revision". A panel *price* of 99 cents a watt is fully compatible with a cell *cost* of 36 cents a watt. Add panel assembly cost to cell cost and you are somewhere below 99 cents in cost, ie. at a profitable price point of that. Makes complete sense.

> CEO Vijay Kapur accuses Nanosolar of "desperately trying to copy ISET."[24]

This below-the-belt stuff is just not right for an encyclopedic entry.

> higher power conversion efficiencies is that "they don't know how to do it."[25]

Dito. Including such quotes in an entry gives the impression of someone trying to build a hostile case which is just not the point of wikipedia.

> In early 2005, Nanosolar CEO Roscheisen said the company's

> "official launch" of its new product would occur in "two weeks".[26]

> However, the company did not begin shipping product until

> December 18, 2007, nearly three years later.[27]

So clearly the "official launch" seems to have referred to a company launch, not a product launch. In fact, the company then launched its website. So the claim about shipping three years later is clearly simply disingenuous.

> As a result, the company's cost and efficiency claims have been

> treated with skepticism in some quarters.[31][32]

It's their right to keep things confidential. How about adding to every other company wiki entry that some company did not disclose something they considered tradesecret? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.199.130 (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. My goal is truly not to trash the company, only to produce a more informative article. I can't see how the article is complete without noting the discussion and controversy (and the reasons for it) that has surrounded the company for the past 2-3 years. As it happens I was working on a more neutral revision of this when you posted your response. I will post it here for you to comment on, but first let me address a few of your preceding comments.

First, the nature of criticism is such that some of it is going to come from people with a vested interest. That a competitor critcizes a company or that a journalist is not "confirmed by the company," whatever that means, does not render the criticism invalid. And I think it's folly to say that a critique must be based on reliable information, since the critique is so frequently that reliable information does not exist. I think that for the article to remain neutral requires only that the criticisms be supported by a reliable source. In other words, if I come here and post my own critique of Nanosolar, good or bad, it should be taken down; but if I document and post the notable critiques of others it enhances the article and gives readers a more well rounded view of Nanosolar and the environment in which it is operating. It should go without saying that the critic or reporter in no way need be vetted by the entity that he or she is critiquing. I agree that Wikipedia should have minimal noise and a high editorial standard, but it will not have that if its content is nothing but corporate PR.

I am running late at the moment and will only say a few things about your detailed comments (thank you for providing those). I will take a closer look at them tomorrow and perhaps further revise the suggested revision that I am posting below.

First, I do have my own doubts about the reliability of the article from The Hindu. However, it is lent credence by another reference -- [22], I believe -- in which a reporter from a more reputable source asks Roscheisen (and others) to comment on the article from The Hindu. As I recall, in reference to the $0.36/watt claim Roscheisen says something along the lines of "we'll get back to you when the time comes." Thus, Roscheisen neither denied the claim, which lends it credibility, nor did he elaborate upon it. I'll have to wait until tomorrow to take a closer look, though. The "has since been a revision" bit was already changed in my new text before I saw your comments.

The Vijay Kapur quote was not added by me. While I left it in my initial revisions, I agree with you that it is inappropriate and have already removed it from my latest revision. My revision also gives more context to the "don't know how to do it" part, which in my estimation simply reflects the difference of opinion between the "high-cost, high-efficiency" and "low-cost, low-efficiency" camps (for lack of better terminology -- I hope you understand what I mean).

I don't remember the context well enough off the top of my head to comment on the "official launch" bit, so I'll revisit that tomorrow.

Finally, having trade secrets does not render a company immune to criticism, nor does it mean the criticism is unjustified. Simply put, a company invites criticism when it makes a claim then refuses to produce evidence to back it up. It's certainly the company's right to do that, but it shouldn't be surprised when people turn skeptical. Nanosolar is not the first company to deal with this, nor will it be the last, and such things are noted on the Wikipedia pages of many, many other companies. See Apple_Inc., Citizenre, and Steorn, to name just a few.

So without further ado, here is my proposed revision. It is exactly as written prior to my seeing your comments, so apologies if something I agreed was wrong is still lurking in there. Also, it is supposed to be an enumerated list but I'm not sure the numbers will show up correctly here. Finally, it is shown here without the references inserted (but they will be retained and added as warranted), but hopefully this is something we can work from:

Criticism of Nanosolar

Well before entering commercial production, Nanosolar drew criticism from competitors and other observers skeptical of the company's claims for its new technology. These critiques have fallen chiefly into four categories:

1. Product status. In 2005, Nanosolar CEO Roscheisen told The Hindu, a national newspaper in India, that the company was able to produce solar cells with efficiencies exceeding 12% at a cost of $0.36/watt. However, he declined to elaborate on the claim. This fueled speculation that the company performed its calculations improperly, even if in good faith, overly optimistic, or disingenuous. More recently, the company has said that it "aim[s] to produce the panels for 99 cents a watt."

1. Technological approach. Proponents of high-efficiency crystalline silicon solar cells have criticized the thin-film approach to photovoltaics for its lower power conversion efficiencies, arguing that high efficiencies reduce economic costs elsewhere in the PV system that counteract the lower cost of thin films. This sentiment is echoed by Jeff Britt, CTO of thin-film CIGS solar cell manufacturer Global Solar, which uses more traditional processes that yield efficiencies comparable to crystalline silicon. Britt claims that Nanosolar eschews this approach because "they don't know how to do it." Nanosolar counters that the savings engendered in its much lower manufacturing costs is more than enough to make up for any economic benefits that might fall to higher efficiency solar cells.

1. Product launch. In early 2005, Nanosolar CEO Roscheisen said the company's "official launch" of its new product would occur in "two weeks." However, the company did not begin shipping product until 18 December 2007, nearly three years later. The delay, combined with the departure of Chris Eberspacher, a high-profile scientist, fueled speculation that Nanosolar was having difficulty bringing its product to market despite cultivating intense public interest in the company. Roscheisen said in a later interview that the delay resulted from a desire to develop the product properly instead of rushing it out the door, and that the move had the blessing of the company's investors. He also noted that Eberspacher's departure was not related to turmoil within the company, but to incompatibilities between the R&D philosophies of Eberspacher and Nanosolar.

1. Technical specifications and pricing. Nanosolar does not publicly disclose the technical specifications or wholesale costs of its modules. As a result, the company's cost and efficiency claims have been treated with skepticism in some quarters.

Comments?--Squirmymcphee (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view COMMENT:

I don't think the Hindu article is credible whatsoever. Why would have Nanosolar announced this major information in India as opposed to the WSJ? As for Roscheisen not trashing the Hindu for writing this, that's what companies typically do--they abstain from commenting on spurious information out there. So I don't think there's any point in utilizing this Hindu info.

As for the draft of the 'Criticism' Section: The .36 verus .99 is still described as if there was an inconsistency; it seems clear that there isn't one. One is price; the other is cost. Not clear why these cost numbers ought to appear in a 'Criticism' section. It belongs into the Technology section if at all. And these are really amazing numbers. If they do that, it's truly a breakthrough.

I do like the high-efficiency / high-cost type alignment. It describes a core dynamic that seems to be happening in the industry. It's not clear why this should appear under a section called 'Criticism' though.

The "three year" later is just a misunderstanding it appears. I don't think it's fair to enumerate this here.

Technical spec etc.: Fine I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.199.130 (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to an errant keystroke, I just lost a rather long response to you. Here is a quickly reconstructed one.

First, let me note that these are not my personal criticisms and my intent here is not to raise points to be shot down. Rather, my intent is document what the notable criticisms have been, where they came from, and what Nanosolar's response is (if any). I just want to be clear about that. When such a time comes that a particular criticism is no longer notable, of course, it should be deleted from the article.

On the subject of the product launch/three year thing, I cannot verify that Nanosolar launched either the company or a new website at the time in question (February-March 2005). The Internet Archive Wayback Machine shows that the website was launched with its current design in mid-2003, and the only change to the product page during the time in question in 2005 was to remove a product description and replace it with a fairly general message outlining Nanosolar's intentions. Furthermore, Nanosolar's own web site says the company launched in 2002, and it confirmed company formation to The New York Times in June 2003. Finally, the only contemporary press release on the Nanosolar web site says nothing about either a product or a web site launch. In short, I can find no evidence whatsoever that the claim about shipping three years later is disingenuous.

On the other hand, I can find quite a bit of evidence that it is not disingenuous, including claims that Nanosolar would be shipping product in 2005 that are linked to directly from Nanosolar's own web site:

• The Wall Street Journal article dated August 28, 2003.
• The MIT Technology Review article dated June 2004.
• The Mercury News article dated August 15, 2004.
• The Fast Company article dated December 2004.
• Most recently, the Fabtech article dated January 14, 2008.

Yes, I realize that delays are common with new products and startups. But those delays frequently draw criticism as people grow wary of hype with nothing to back it up. Once again, Nanosolar is the first company to draw this kind of criticism, and it certainly won't be the last.

I had a rewrite of the first point that I believe addressed your concerns about The Hindu and the cost numbers, but I just don't have time to recreate it at the moment. Essentially, I pointed out that the article from The Hindu contained factual inaccuracies and referred to another statement regarding costs that was published by the Mercury News. I also pointed out that Nanosolar's claims for solar cell and solar panel costs are conceivably consistent with one another. The criticism, of course, is that the numbers are so low that they have drawn a lot of skeptics who believe they're too good to be true. I retained the portion about Roscheisen declining to elaborate on the cost figures, as that is a salient part of the criticism. Finally, I noted that some of the controversy surrounding the cost figures is a result of inconsistent reporting on the matter, confusing Nanosolar's current costs with its future cost targets. I believe it is important to make some reference to The Hindu, even if only to point out that it contains factual errors, because it got so much press that I think it's only a matter of time before another editor comes along and adds it to the discussion, particularly as Nansolar's profile rises and the page gets more hits. If you disagree, I will happily remove it -- just be aware that it might not be the last you hear of it.

I think the cost figures can go into the technology section too, if you feel there's an appropriate way to insert them, but the reason they're included in criticism is precisely because they are amazing numbers and have attracted skeptics. Perhaps, in the end, "Criticism" won't be the best title for the section, but whatever the section is called I think it's the appropriate place to note this.

I put the high-cost high-efficiency thing in criticism because it represents the views of a fundamentally different design philosophy from that of Nanosolar. Their argument -- and I'm simplifying here -- is that historically, cost has varied in proportion to efficiency; as a result, module cost per watt has been approximately the same regardless of efficiency or absolute module cost. Since module cost per watt is not reduced, they argue, high efficiency makes more efficient use of BOS and results in a lower installed system cost. Thin-film manufacturers, on the other hand, tend to believe that they can reduce module cost per watt by reducing material expenses and sacrificing a bit of efficiency. The criticism is simply a result of disagreement between these two camps about which approach is the correct one. The converse criticism would be equally at home on, say, the Sunpower Wikipedia page as this one is here, since Sunpower uses wafer-based silicon technology and emphasizes high efficiency. Which approach you or I thinks is better is irrelevant.

After the next round of comments I'll take another crack at the text to insert in the article.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

From Nanosolar Hi -- this is Roby from Nanosolar Public Communications. We've been observing the many edits going on on this page and thought we chip in with some helpful info. We obviously do care about a fair representation (which the present is not in our view). We will abstain from editing the Nanosolar page as per the wikipedia guidelines. But we hope we can help on this page to clarify some misunderstandings:

• Nanosolar has never had any plans nor ever promised to anyone to produce product before 2007. One needs a complete factory to do so and obviously none was ready before then nor planned to be so. Matt Marshall of Venturebeat once wrote a misleading statement in the SJMN which was subsequently cleared up with him in person but did not stop other publications from copying from that article for some time. We suggest to any journalist to contact the company directly as opposed to relying on others' writings but we are not always successful in this regard. (This includes the MIT article, etc.) At Nanosolar, our plan had always been to produce in 2007 and even though at very end of the targeted time window, we delivered within the time window we had set internally and communicated to our investors.
• The Hindu article contains many inaccuracies including the statements attributed to our CEO. We do not believe there ever was a real interview. But as a thinly staffed company, especially in marketing in 2005, we simply did not (and still do not) have the resources to run after ever incorrect statements made by journalists.
• There is nothing inconsistent about our cost numbers. Another user clarified this above too. In fact, our cost numbers have not increased over the years -- which should only speak to the quality of our planning and cost modeling.
• The "official launch" in 2005 referred to the company not the product as another user suspected above. At that time, our CEO discussed for the first time the product and market focus of Nanosolar.
• It is a mistake to think that balance-of-system cost is a constant as part of the total cost of an installed system. BoS cost is greatly influenced by system design and panel design, and as more information about our product design becomes available to the public, it will be clear how we have managed to reduce balance-of-system cost.

Hope this helps! Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.157.176.150 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate your desire to ensure fair representation -- thank you for your comments. Let me say again that my goal here isn't to put Nanosolar in a bad light, but to document the reasons and nature of the skepticism that has surrounded Nanosolar in recent years. That Nanosolar did little or nothing to quell it has no bearing on the fact that it happened and that it was and continues to be a noteworthy fixture in discussions about the company. You can't dismiss Nanosolar's critics for not having their facts straight when the company was clearly aware of what the critics believed to be true, yet never made a public effort to address those beliefs. Criticism is always based on the information available and can never be based on facts hidden behind closed doors. Setting the facts straight retroactively can correct misconceptions, but it cannot erase the criticism and skepticism that have already been expressed.

• Perhaps one way to address a couple of these issues in a way that will satisfy all parties is to note that Nanosolar has been highly secretive because of its trade secrets, and that as a result, conflicting information reported in the press has fueled criticism of the company. It needs to be referenced and fleshed out a little, but you get the idea. Noting your statement about the 2007 production plan might be a little tricky, though, as I don't think these talk pages are really up to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability.

• Barring the solution I proposed above, is there a contemporary article or press release where Nansolar refutes the claims attributed to it by respectable news organizations? I realize that you can't "run after" every incorrect statement ever made by a journalist, but as far as I can tell these statements were repeatedly attributed to Nanosolar in separate interviews/stories over a period of years, and explicitly linked to by Nanosolar from its own web site without any public comment to the contrary. It doesn't take a leap of logic to understand how that might lead to skepticism about Nanosolar's ability to develop a product.

• As I said in my last comment, I recognize that the cost numbers are consistent with one another. They have still generated well-documented skepticism for the simple fact that they are so low, and the text can certainly be revised to reflect these things.

• The "official launch" comment was not interpreted that way by skeptics. Still, unless I can find a reference to that effect that is up to Wikipedia's standards of verifiability then I will drop that contention.

• I'm afraid my comments about BOS cost were not clear -- they really had nothing to do with Nanosolar specifically. I was only trying to illustrate one aspect of the differences between two philosophically different approaches to reducing the cost of solar energy. Proponents of one approach routinely criticize proponents of the other, and that was the point I was trying to make. Unfortunately, I muddled it by trying to explain it in a much more detailed manner than is possible in one or two sentences. At any rate, if desired I can produce more than a handful of academic references and several more from the popular press (and even, I believe, some of Nanosolar's own PR material) to support and explain the existence and nature of these philosophical differences. As I said before, virtually every solar cell company is on one side of this fence or the other, and this criticism or its converse could easily be applied to all of their Wikipedia pages (or at least the ones that have Wikipedia pages).

Finally, please note that I'm not the governor of this page. We've been having this discussion for a few days now, but I am the only person who has proposed any concrete revisions. We might make progress a little faster if the revisions are a little more collaborative. I realize that you, as a Nanosolar representative, have your hands a bit tied, but don't any other editors have some ideas?

Also, since documenting criticism has some grey areas where it comes to the accuracy of reporting and the role of rumor and innuendo I think it might be a good idea to get some guidance from the Wikipedia community at large on what is appropriate. I'm going to make a request for comment sometime in the next day or two.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am making the request for comment. I am also updating the article with something that, based on the discussion thus far, I believe is not perfect but is far more neutral than the existing text.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Proper way to present and document criticisms of a company

Criticism of companies is covered in the Wikipedia articles on many other companies, and because of the high profile of this company (Nanosolar) in the alternative energy sector in recent years I believe the criticism that has been levied against it over the years is notable. However, summarizing it while maintaining a neutral point of view is proving difficult. This seems like a very grey area and I'm not entirely certain how to do it in a way that preserves notable information without inappropriately trashing the company. Please see the prior discussion for more information on the disputed content.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we've gotten a little too muddled in trying to correct what was already on the page instead of rethinking this. While I agree that controversy is usually something that is usually worthy of posting, its a bit of a stretch to think that the world in general cares whether there was an obvious miscommunication between a nonexistant PR department and the "Hindu" - if you insist on writting about that, you could put as an example of stupidity under the wiki entry "journalistic integrity". That said, I would completely remove the section on "Start of commercial production" as, not only is it not controversal, it is no longer relavent. Similarly, given a very reasonable explanation for the discrepancies in "cost of production" as marginal cost vs. sales price, I would include the relevant sections of this paragraph in the main body of the article indicating that the "marginal cost of production has been reported as $0.36 ($0.30?) per watt, with a targeted sales price of $0.99 per watt." As for the "Technical specifications and pricing", I checked both references, the Technology Review article is from 2004 - hardly "controvesal" for a company that is still three years away from production not to post pricing I would assume... (I wonder if there is a similar section on "controversy" on Ford's wiki page indicating that five years before the assembly line people doubted that Ford could do it?), and the other reference goes to the Guntherportfolio blog which try as I might to find the controversy, I have absolutely no idea where it is??? Finaly, the debate over whether efficiency or price per watt is more important is notable and should certainly be included in the article, but it is by no means "controversal". If no one comments otherwise, and I get some time over the weekend, I will try to make the changes I just suggestedJacksatan (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments -- these sorts of things are precisely why I sought help from a neutral party. Let me address some of your comments.

The reason I have left the article from The Hindu in the text is that it was kind of a flashpoint for the criticism of Nanosolar, as reflected in the TechNewsWorld article in the references (currently [22]). You can read more of my thoughts on it above if you care to, but I'm tired of arguing about it -- do with it as you will.

I think your Ford comment is unfair. Nanosolar's representative in the comments above claims that their intention was always to begin production in 2007, but contemporary published sources always seemed to claim they were told that production was about a year away, and therefore the perception contemporary critics had was that they were gearing up to start production when they (apparently) weren't really. The only indication I can find that they always intended to begin production in 2007 from any source, let alone a reliable one, is the after-the-fact assertion of the Nanosolar representative on this Wikipedia talk page. As for whether it is still relevant, that thought had occurred to me. Even though the company says it's shipping, since it won't talk about prices or specs it's difficult to know what it is shipping. Do with that as you will.

I can't get the Gunther Portfolio page to come up right now, but IIRC it says something about technical specifications for Nanosolar's product being unavailable.

I'm not sure which article you're referring to with the "marginal cost of production has been reported as..." quote, but I don't think it's accurate. It has been reported that way (or similar), but every direct quote I've seen from a source at Nanosolar says something to the effect of these low cost figures being their goals, not their actual current prices (which they will not disclose). Of course, being misquoted is not their fault, but in this case they are putting the information out.

In retrospect, I think I might have overreacted in some respects to somebody deleting the previously existing section on criticism (which I did not write) from a Nanosolar IP address, but I'm happy to have a neutral party (and you seem like you are) looking at it.--Squirmymcphee (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

News on nanosolar

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)

!!!guided tour description through luckenwalde Plant: so it should exist 

published: BY Chris Turner Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 5:00 AM

quote: In Nanosolar's repurposed beer-crate factory on the outskirts of Luckenwalde, I find Erik Oldekop, head of German operations. Oldekop offers me a tour of the half-empty factory floor, which is quickly filling with a range of conveyor-belted equipment and white robot arms to swish the cells from stage to stage in the production process. Oldekop points out a laminating machine that stacks 16 of the industry's standard laminators on top of each other -- a sixteenfold amplification, in other words, of a standard production line's throughput.

source: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/131/solar-goes-supernova.html?page=0%2C5

Just 10 years ago -- maybe as recently as five -- I'm sure I could've filled Nanosolar's conference room with energy wonks who would have sworn I wouldn't be touring the nearly operational factory floor of a thin-film PV plant in eastern Germany in 2008. Is this a Gatesian figure I've found here in the sleepy Saxon countryside? comment: but Luckenwalde is not in saxony either.(but hey the reporter is north american ;-) source: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/131/solar-goes-supernova.html?page=0%2C6 --Stefanbcn (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nanosolar already with IEC certificate?

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)

Nanosolar vaporware, and possibly a scam

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)

Wow talk about absolutely nothing new lately...

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)

As of September 2013 Nanosolar appears to have collapsed and is now selling assets

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)

External links modified (February 2018)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)