Dyesol LTD, es geht weiter !

 

 

 

Gibt es dich auch in ruhig rememberma?
Dass immer die mit dem kleinsten Licht, am meisten die Fresse aufreißen müssen.

Und jetzt kauf dir wieder deine 250 Dyesol Aktien und verkauf sie zu 0,35 wieder und schon hast du schon wieder 20€ gewonnen.......  

 

Das geht mir hier jetzt zu weit, auf Ingo setzt du dich mal bitte selber. Damit will ich nichts zu tun haben. :D

 

klicke auf "remember" und du kommst zu meinem Profil, dann auf "ignorieren" und du hast deine ruhe!  

Ich ignoriere mal dass du den Scherz nicht geschallt hast, aber Jüngchen du kannst dir sicher sein das ich die Funktionen eines Forums kenne.

Und jetzt liebe Mods, löscht bitte die letzten Kommentare (ja auch meine) und lasst uns wieder über Dyesol diskutieren.  

seit einigen Tagen lese ich in diesem Threads und habe selten von einer Person soviel Mist gelesen wie von Dir.

 

Alle hier haben ihre Gründe dieses Forum zu lese bzw. sich mit Beiträge zu beteiligen,

jedoch finde ich in Deinen Beiträgen nichts an brauchbaren Aussagen.

Das einzige was ich da finde sind Beleidigungen und absolut überflüssiges Zeug.

Beispiel:

#5198  "aber steff DU schreibst ja gar nicht, ob und wo du inverstiert bist - hast du nur eine stänker-id?".

Das ist nur eines von verdammt vielen Beispielen, denkst Du erst nach befor Du schreibts oder passiert das erst nach den Postings ?

Sicher, steff postet hier viele brauchbare Infos und und ist selbst nicht investiert..!!!???............ was ein Gönner, nicht investiert und macht sich

jede Menge Arbeit. Alleine die Frage ist schon hirnrissig.

 

Aber erklär dochmal warum Du mit deine geistigen Ausdünstungen hier alles voll müllst. Das muss ja einen bestimmten Grund haben,

vieleicht ist es Langeweile, dann kauf Dir nen Hund,

oder zu viel Zeit, dann such Dir Arbeit,

oder keine Freunde, dann geh zum Psychologen,

oder es drückt irgendwo, dann geh ins Laufhaus.

Vieleicht bist Du aber auch einfach noch nicht erwachsen.

 

Kleine Hilfe für dein Problem: Rechts steht "Boardmail an......" versuchts einfach mal damit.

 

Denk einfach mal drüber nach.

 

Gruß MaxRud

 

 

Jetzt hat diese Forum wieder einen Beitrag mehr den die Welt nicht braucht.

Aber vieleicht regt er ja zum nachdenken an und die Folge sind vieleicht 30 Beiträge weniger in der kommenden Woche.

 

 

 

es ist wirklich vergebene Liebesmüh, sich über remembermaggi aufzuregen oder was auch immer....Es hat eine "MehrfachID-Phobie". Außerdem reißt es sich in der Anonymität des www so herrlich einfach das Maul bis Anschlag auf, da man meint, keine Konsequenzen fürchten zu müssen...Hätte es seine Beleidigungen einigen Usern hier mal im realen Leben an den Kopf geworfen, so richtig Auge in Auge, wäre es jetzt ganz sicher nicht mehr in der Lage eine Tastatur zu bedienen oder die Schnabeltasse Richtung der Schädelöffnung zu bewegen, aus der der ganze gequirlte Müll kommt....  

und noch eine ID unseres meingotts


wie ermüdend....  

seit gestern registriert - sag ich doch - eine von vielen IDs unseres meingotts...  

 

wirklich auf ignorieren, er braucht diese Gegenreaktionen für seine Psyche, stellt ihn ab und das Niveau diese Forums explodiert förmlich...  

lass dich mal behandeln....du hast es wirklich Not

und nur das hilft. Wenn hier niemand mehr drauf reagiert hört das von alleine auf.
 

Renewables fear the worst as Tony Abbott targets clean energy
By Giles Parkinson on 6 August 2013
Print Friendly

Australia’s clean energy industry leaders have been invited to a special meeting next week to discuss the future of renewable energy policy in the country and to contemplate the unpalatable, as Coalition leader Tony Abbott began his campaign with an early lead and a call to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to cease its operations immediately.

A meeting of the CEOs of Australia’s largest companies involved in the renewable energy industry is believed to have been called by AGL Energy managing director Michael Fraser, who doubles as chair of the Clean Energy Council. It will discuss strategies to protect the renewable energy target (RET). Or indeed to assess whether they have the political capital or influence to maintain the target as is under a Coalition government.

The crisis meeting comes as the Coalition takes an early lead in the first days of the election campaign, and with increasing uncertainty about the likely make-up of the Senate. The renewables industry fears that with a Coalition win, the lobbying from incumbent utilities and generators, including the Business Council of Australia, to have the RET diluted or removed will intensify, and there may be little political protection for the current target.

The renewable energy industry is probably the industry sector most directly affected by the outcome of this election. While Labor has vowed to push the next RET review out to 2016, the Coalition wants to have yet another review of the RET in 2014, and has expressed sympathy with pleas to dilute the fixed 41,000GWh target because of  falling demand.

The uncertainty that this has created has already brought most large-scale developments to a halt. There is a view in certain sections of the renewables industry that it could be prudent to cut some sort of early deal – concede a dilution of the RET by extending the 41,000GWh target out a few years – in exchange for “certainty”.

Other factors that could be brought into discussion are support for a buyout of fossil fuel generators, which are being hit by falling wholesale electricity prices caused by falling demand and the low short-run marginal cost of wind and solar plants. Or at least help with rehabilitation costs, as suggested by Fraser last week.

However, some renewables companies are bitterly opposed to any concessions, pointing to the findings of the Climate Change Authority in December, which found no benefit from reducing the target. Wind farm developers, in particular, fear that any further delays may mean that some projects never get built, because some project developers will walk away in frustration and/or because solar PV may become a cheaper option within a few years.

Others say it is madness to even consider a dilution of a renewables target given the mounting evidence on climate change science and the growing need for Australian to hasten its transition to a low carbon world, rather than slow it down.

Australia is not the only economy to register falling electricity demand, but it would be the first major economy in the world to consider watering down its renewables target, when most countries are looking to impose even more ambitious goals.

Even in America, an influential fossil fuel lobby group – the American Legislative Exchange Council – reportedly backed by oil tycoons the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobil – has failed in each of the 15 states where it has sought to dilute renewables energy targets by introducing templated bills sponsored by Republican Party legislators.

In California, which has a carbon price ($14/tonne), strict energy efficiency targets and other incentives, a bill is currently before the state legislature to increase the renewable energy target from 33 per cent by 2020 to 50 per cent. The ambition is supported because there is no coal industry in California to oppose it. Efforts to lift Europe’s renewables target have been blocked by coal-fired Poland, among others.

However, such is the power of the Australian fossil fuel generators, and their influence over Coalition policy, that there is a real fear over the future of renewables in this country. Even “independent” bodies, such as the NSW pricing regulator IPART, have taken the extraordinary step of recommending that the renewables target be removed altogether.

AGL Energy has been the one major utility to defend the RET, and the fixed target, arguing that there would be no cost savings from diluting it, and saying that other fossil fuel generators are simply trying to protect the value of their own assets.

However, it has also said that the RET target needs to be realistic and “achievable”, and repeated delays and uncertainty makes meeting that target progressively more difficult. The CEO meeting is a reflection of the scale of the forces that confront of the industry.

If the RET is diluted to a “percentage” target of actual demand, then half of the wind farm projects currently in the pipeline will not be developed, as our Graph of the Day shows. Even AGL’s Silverton wind project in western NSW, which it identifies as the “least cost” wind project in the country, has been put on hold until the uncertainty is resolved.

The Coalition brought renewables investment in Australia to a halt during the Howard government’s tenure, after refusing to accept the recommendations of an independent report that it should extend the MRET which it had introduced.

The Coalition has reportedly urged some of its most vocal anti-renewables candidates, such as Angus Taylor, to quieten down during the election campaign. But it has repeated its vows to dismantle the Climate Change Authority, which recommended that the RET be maintained, as well as the Climate Commission, which this week released a detailed report extolling the economic and environmental virtues of solar energy.

And it wants to dismantle the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which has a $10 billion budget to help finance clean energy and emission abatement projects, and which has been providing finance to various emerging technologies, and to help manufacturers and the agriculture industry become more energy efficient.

Abbott wrote to the CEFC chairwoman Jillian Broadbent on Monday, calling for the Corporation to cease operations immediately. Abbott promises to act to close the CEFC – a move that would require the support of both houses of parliament – on the first day of office, if elected.

However, the CEFC is defying Abbott’s threats, arguing that because it functions as an act of parliament, it is legally bound to continue its operations until the parliament decides otherwise.

Labor and the Greens remain committed to the CEFC (the Greens want to treble its funding to $30 billion), and say they will protect it if they have the numbers in the Senate.

CEO Oliver Yates told RenewEconomy on Monday that the CEFC would respect the caretaker provisions and refrain from making significant new investments during the election campaign. However, he said the CEFC would “continue to act lawfully within our legislative authority.”

“We will continue to assess investments so we are ready after the caretaker periods – and we will honour the contracts that we have in place,” Yates said.

The CEFC has so far allocated around $500 million towards a series of investments in energy efficiency, power generation using landfill and coal mine gases, as well as two new solar projects, and financing two wind farms.

It has a budget of $2 billion a year over five years, and must deliver a return on investments consistent with the government bond rate. The Coalition argues that canning the CEFC wills save $400 million a year, but the CEFC says that only the portion of finance provided on concessional terms will appear as a budget item, and there has been little of that.

Meanwhile, Tony Abbott has continued his scare campaign against the “carbon tax”. He told the ABC Radio AM program on Monday that a “fixed tax or a floating tax” would rise to $38/tonne by 2020 and could rise to an “almost unbelievable” $350 a tonne in the years after that.

And, he said, if you want to get rid of the carbon tax, if you want to take the cost of living pressure of families and the threats to jobs away, you’ve got to vote for the Coalition.

The Guardian has an amusing story of how Abbott confused the costs of carbon at a meat packing company in Brisbane. He estimated the cost at $5 million, but after taking into account the move to a traded scheme, and government support for an upgrade that will reduce its emissions by more than half, its liability is in fact just $525,000.  

A Material That Could Make Solar Power “Dirt Cheap”

Researchers discover that a material known for a hundred years could lower the cost of solar power.
By Kevin Bullis on August 8, 2013
.







Why It Matters

Solar power is much more expensive than fossil fuels, especially when you factor in its intermittency.

A new type of solar cell, made from a material that is dramatically cheaper to obtain and use than silicon, could generate as much power as today’s commodity solar cells.

Although the potential of the material is just starting to be understood, it has caught the attention of the world’s leading solar researchers, and several companies are already working to commercialize it.




Researchers developing the technology say that it could lead to solar panels that cost just 10 to 20 cents per watt. Solar panels now typically cost about 75 cents a watt, and the U.S. Department of Energy says 50 cents per watt will allow solar power to compete with fossil fuel.

In the past, solar researchers have been divided into two camps in their pursuit of cheaper solar power. Some have sought solar cells that can be made very cheaply but that have the downside of being relatively inefficient. Lately, more researchers have focused on developing very high efficiency cells, even if they require more expensive manufacturing techniques.

The new material may make it possible to get the best of both worlds—solar cells that are highly efficient but also cheap to make.

One of the world’s top solar researchers, Martin Green of the University of New South Wales, Australia, says the rapid progress has been surprising. Solar cells that use the material “can be made with very simple and potentially very cheap technology, and the efficiency is rising very dramatically,” he says.

Perovskites have been known for over a century, but no one thought to try them in solar cells until relatively recently. The particular material the researchers are using is very good at absorbing light. While conventional silicon solar panels use materials that are about 180 micrometers thick, the new solar cells use less than one micrometer of material to capture the same amount of sunlight. The pigment is a semiconductor that is also good at transporting the electric charge created when light hits it.

“The material is dirt cheap,” says Michael Grätzel, who is famous within the solar industry for inventing a type of solar cell that bears his name. His group has produced the most efficient perovskite solar cells so far—they convert 15 percent of the energy in sunlight into electricity, far more than other cheap-to-make solar cells. Based on its performance so far, and on its known light-conversion properties, researchers say its efficiency could easily rise as high as 20 to 25 percent, which is as good as the record efficiencies (typically achieved in labs) of the most common types of solar cells today. The efficiencies of mass-produced solar cells may be lower. But it makes sense to compare the lab efficiencies of the perovskite cells with the lab records for other materials. Grätzel says that perovskite in solar cells will likely prove to be a “forgiving” material that retains high efficiencies in mass production, since the manufacturing processes are simple.

Perovskite solar cells can be made by spreading the pigment on a sheet of glass or metal foil, along with a few other layers of material that facilitate the movement of electrons through the cell. This isn’t quite the spray-on solar cells that some people have envisioned—a sci-fi ideal of instantly converting any surface into one that can generate electricity—but the process is so easy that it’s getting close. “It is highly unlikely that anyone will ever be able to just buy a tub of ‘solar paint,’ but all the layers in the solar cell can be fabricated as easily as painting a surface,” says Henry Snaith, a physicist at Oxford University, who, working with researchers in Asia, has posted some of the best efficiencies for the new type of solar cell.

When perovskites were first tried in solar cells in 2009, efficiencies were low—they only converted about 3.5 percent of the energy in sunlight into electricity. The cells also didn’t last very long, since a liquid electrolyte dissolved the perovskite. Researchers barely had enough time to test them before they stopped working. But last year a couple of technical innovations—ways to replace a liquid electrolyte with solid materials—solved those problems and started researchers on a race to produce ever-more-efficient solar cells.

“Between 2009 and 2012 there was only one paper. Then in the end of the summer of 2012 it all kicked off,” Snaith says. Efficiencies quickly doubled and then doubled again. And the efficiency is expected to keep growing as researchers apply techniques that have been demonstrated to improve the efficiency of other solar cells.

Snaith is working to commercialize the technology through a startup called Oxford Photovoltaics, which has raised $4.4 million. Grätzel, whose original solar-cell technology is now used in consumer products such as backpacks and iPad covers, is licensing the new technology to companies that have the goal of taking on conventional silicon solar panels for large-scale solar-power production.

Like any other new entrant into the highly competitive solar-panel market, perovskites will have difficulty taking on silicon solar cells. The costs of silicon solar cells are falling, and some analysts think they could eventually fall as low as 25 cents per watt, which would eliminate most of the cost advantage of perovskites and lessen the incentive for investing in the new technology. The manufacturing process for perovskite solar cells—which can be as simple as spreading a liquid over a surface or can involve vapor deposition, another large-scale manufacturing process—is expected to be easy. But historically, it has taken over a decade to scale up novel solar-cell technologies, and a decade from now silicon solar cells could be too far ahead to catch.

Green says one opportunity may be to use perovskites to augment rather than replace silicon solar cells. It might be possible to paint perovskites onto conventional silicon solar cells to improve their efficiency, and so lower the overall cost per watt for solar cells. This might be an easier way to break into the solar market than trying to introduce an entirely new kind of solar cell.

A challenge may be the fact that the material includes a small amount of lead, which is toxic. Tests will be needed to show how toxic it is as part of the perovskite material. Steps can also be taken to ensure the solar cells are collected and recycled to prevent the materials from getting into the environment—the approach pursued now with the lead-acid starter batteries used in cars. It may also be possible to substitute tin or some other element for lead in the cells.
 

 

 

Kenne aber das Datum nicht:

http://www.deraktionaer.de/...id_4281__app_1010-99341__dId_30020_.htm  

Auch wenn das Interview vielleicht älter ist. Es ist jedenfalls sehr interessant und zeigt, dass Dyesol in Deutschland beachtet wird.

Danke für den Beitrag, endlich mal wieder was, das nicht in die Kategorie Kindergarten
gehört.  

weiß man, dass nur sehr wenige investiert sind :-)...

Man kann fast davon ausgehen, dass sehr viele wieder ausgestiegen sind --> Spiegelt sich im Kurs wieder.

 

es ist wunderbar ruhig, die Investierten haben sich ohnehin entschieden und was die Wanderheuschrecken betrifft, wir werden sie wieder sehen, keine angst!
 

und zwar genau dann wenn wir auf den Knopf "Verkaufen" drücken :-)... ich denk dabei an euch... Scherz.