Nanosolar Press Release

Nanosolar Ships First Panels
December 18, 2007

After five years of product development – including aggressively pipelined science, research and development, manufacturing process development, product testing, manufacturing engineering and tool development, and factory construction – we now have shipped first product and received our first check of product revenue.

We are grateful to everyone who supported us through all these years and the many occasions where there appeared to be mile-high concrete walls in our path; the unusual intensity and creativity of our team deserves all the credit for achieving this major milestone today.

Our product is defining in more ways I can enumerate here but includes:

- the world's first printed thin-film solar cell in a commercial panel product;

- the world's first thin-film solar cell with a low-cost back-contact capability;

- 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;

- the world's highest-current thin-film solar panel – delivering five times the current of any other thin-film panel on the market today and thus simplifying system deployment;

- an intensely systems-optimized product with the lowest balance-of-system cost of any thin-film panel – due to innovations in design we have included.

Today we are announcing that we have begun shipping panels for freefield deployment in Eastern Germany and that the first Megawatt of our panels will go into a power plant installation there.

As far as the first three of our commercial panels are concerned:

Panel #1 will remain at Nanosolar for exhibit.

Panel #2 can be purchased by you in an auction on eBay starting today.

Panel #3 has been donated to the Tech Museum in San Jose.

[These are obviously not the first three we ever produced – we have produced loads for testing – but these are the first three of what we consider our commercial panels.]

Take that, you vapor-ware claiming bastards!

SCHIP: The Voice Of the Other Side

Like it or not, those of us whom are against the SCHIP expansion have been 'corralled', somehow, into being "Bushies". I, for one, am definitely in the "not" category on this one. That being said, while our media sources, the DNP leadership, and talking heads like Bill Maher busily demonize anyone and everyone who is against SCHIP's expansion -- i.e.; in support of Bush's Veto -- get to have their way with the American public; what exactly is the thinking in the mind of the man who would defy, we are told, the nation? Well, here it is -- and in his own words:

I would pay extremely close attention to the very end -- where he calls for "negotiation, to get the money to the kids who need it". And while you're doing that, please consider: Bush wanted SCHIP to continue. What he did not want, however, was an SCHIP bill that would push kids already insured privately onto the public dole, while simultaneously those funds being used to insure childless adults. What he did not want was an SCHIP bill that has one of the most horribly regressive funding sources ever suggested in recent history.

Sometimes I wish that I were a 'regular' person who could just have an opinion about people and things and not have to worry about facts and details.

Of Laffer, Deficits, and Poverty

Every once in a while, you see something that just plain makes your haunches bunch up in disgust. Apparently, this happens more to conservatives than it does to liberal, but I digress. Today, I should like to go over something that makes this happen to me every time I encounter it.

While looking into this little declaration from The Nation's Idiot, one area I thought I would start out with an examination into the continuation of Laffer-curve thinking. Whilst digging around on that, I found a piece apparently written by Laffer himself, from January of 2004. It is unfortunate, but expected, that this should appear on The Heritage Foundation's website -- unfortunate because The Heritage Foundation is as conservative a think-tank as MoveOn.org is liberal. This particular excerpt got me to thinking:

In 1913, the federal progressive income tax was put into place with a top marginal rate of 7 percent. Thanks in part to World War I, this tax rate was quickly increased significantly and peaked at 77 percent in 1918. Then, through a series of tax-rate reductions, the Harding-Coolidge tax cuts dropped the top personal marginal income tax rate to 25 percent in 1925.

That's right -- when the income tax was instituted, it's highest percentage was 7%. And within five years, it went to 77%.

This becomes all the more disturbing when we consider that not too long ago, someone took the time and effort to calculate the effective "flat tax" rate for America. And they found that this rate was ~40%:

The average marginal tax rate on incomes between $20,000 and $500,000 is 40.3%, the median tax rate is 41.8%, and the standard deviation of all of those rates is 5.3 percentage points. Basically, most of us pay about 40%, plus or minus 5.3 percentage points.

That's not a big range, particularly when you notice that it covers an income rise of 2,500%.

So I have a modest proposal: Ask your senators or representative if they have a clue about this. If they don’t, regardless of party, they shouldn't be in office. Vote accordingly.

So yes, while we discuss the FedGov deficit, what we fail to discuss is the impact on the expenditures and incomes of the average citizen; most especially the poor.

We have allowed ourselves to fall in to the fallacy of thinking that, merely because their incomes are untaxed, our lowest earners are themselves untaxed. And this simply is not so. Sadly, the practices of our government's "Glorious Leaders" seems to be equally economically inept: take, for example, the overwhelmingly under-reported fact that the most recent SCHIP expansion is based on a demonstrably regressive tax. And it is with this that this article comes full circle: While the national income tax's position on the Laffer curve is debatable, our sin-taxes are demonstrably and definitively on the right-hand side of the Laffer curve. And so, two things will result:

• The nation's poor will be unfairly taxed as compared to the rich, if Bush's veto is overridden.
• There will still have to be another source of revenue to cover the failure of this new, regressive, tax to generate $35 Billion.

And remember, folks -- I'm a proud, card-carrying member of the "He-Man President Bush Hater's Club". While it is arguable that this lack of economic understanding is itself understandable in the everyday man -- it's called "rational ignorance" for a reason -- the problem with making allowances for such when it comes to our leaders is that it leads, demonstrably and as evidenced above, in horribly frequent "unintended consequences".

So, then -- for those of you still paying attention, please consider the following: Rather than leaving the welfare of our nation's poor -- you can't really call them destitute; we don't have people starving to death here like still happens in other first-world nations like Japan -- wouldn't we be better off if we, you know, reduced that 40% flat tax rate to something more sane?

The poor would be able to purchase more, or have more left over -- so the actual loss in tax revenue there would, you know, go to a good cause, like upwards mobility amongst the poor. And as to the rich... well, it is still arguable that decreases in their tax rate will still generate higher revenues.

Corrupting Free Society, One Child At A Time

For every sequence of events, there is always more than one perspective which can be had. Another way of putting that is to say that the truth has three 'sides': your side, his side, and fact. Today, I hope to take you on a little journey through the mind of someone who hates President Bush, but loves his vetoing of the SCHIP renewal bill.

I know, I know -- it's hard to understand. How could someone want to make the children suffer, like that? How could I be such a heartless bastard? Am I truly so selfish that I'd rather have a few extra dollars than see the nation's poverty-stricken children have quality healthcare?

In a single word: No. No, I'm not that heartless -- no I'm not that greedy, and no, I don't want to see the poor suffer. And yet, I still stand against the new SCHIP bill. I understand that for the majority of you reading this, this must seem somewhat confusing, if true -- so either I'm a liar or I'm mislead. Right? It occurs to me that I'm getting somewhat ahead of myself here, so perhaps I ought to do a little bit of explanation as to what this whole SCHIP thing is really about. Take, for example, this piece from Sunday, Oct. 7^th, 2007, found in the New York Times:

Democrats believe they have Republicans — short on campaign cash, contending with a spurt of retirements and quarreling — on the run over the legislation, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Party leaders say the willingness of so many House Republicans to stick with Mr. Bush in the face of bipartisan backing for a $35 billion expansion of the program to provide insurance for poor children will prove costly as Election Day looms a year from now.

[...]

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is taking on eight Republicans in competitive districts with a series of automated calls and radio advertisements that remind listeners that their lawmaker gets taxpayer-paid health care while opposing the expansion of the program administered by each state.

Beginning Monday, a coalition of liberal and labor groups will start a $1 million advertising effort, with a national advertisement to run on cable channels and local advertisements aimed at specific lawmakers. The national commercial shows a series of children beginning with a baby girl and states, “George Bush just vetoed Abby.” It says Mr. Bush puts excessive war spending over health care at home.

“The president’s ‘yes men’ in Congress need to stand up to Bush and stand up for families who work hard but simply can’t afford insurance,” said Brad Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change, one group leading the effort.

There's so much here that there's really no way to account for it all, up front. But let's begin with a few tiny points:

1: "The national commercial shows a series of children beginning with a baby girl and states, “George Bush just vetoed Abby.”"

Am I, honestly, the only person left in the world whom is disgusted by the continued exploitation of those who can't possibly understand what they're being used for, simply for cheap promotionals like this? Look, we get it: You kissed the baby; you're a good, caring guy. You can stop now.

2: "radio advertisements that remind listeners that their lawmaker gets taxpayer-paid health care while opposing the expansion of the program administered by each state."

Talk about talking out the side of your face. So, we are to believe, because our government employees are receiving healthcare from their employer (the government), they are bad people for denying public assistance to non government employees?

3: "Party leaders say the willingness of so many House Republicans to stick with Mr. Bush in the face of bipartisan backing for a $35 billion expansion of the program to provide insurance for poor children will prove costly"

Once again, we are told that SCHIP only benefits the poor children of the nation. And yes, primarily, this is true. But the existence of SCHIP isn't what's up for debate here: Bush himself wants SCHIP renewed.The White House is stressing that Bush wants the CHIP program renewed and wants to increase its current level by $5 billion over five years, but Bush wants it to target poor children. The compromise includes some children in levels above the poverty line.

By way of explanation of what possible madness could be going through the nation's Idiot-in-Chief's head, that he could demand that SCHIP "target poor children", please consider: SCHIP in its current form provides insurance for those who have an income of up to 200% the federal poverty line. The expanded/renewed form will take that number to 400%; for the 'prototypical' family of 4 (2 parents, 2 children), that's an income of ~$82,600 -- For a single-parent single-child household, that number is ~$54,760. (All from the same, most recently linked, source. See Table 2.) All this number-crunching, however, is meaningless without something to compare it against. The best number to do so, the most revealing, is the median average income of the United States. That number, as of 2004, was $44,334 -- as reported by the US Census.

Now, ask yourself, people: Is the average home in America poor and in need of government handouts in order to get "quality care"? As a corollary, if it is, is a simple handout going to fix that problem? As a secondary corollary: If things are that bad, can we afford for the government to be the agency we rely upon?

By way of insight, I provide this reference to a previous article, "The Tyranny of Compassion":

Foreign aid was first put into practice almost sixty years ago, under the Truman Administration, in 1948. What has been the result of essentially six decades of attempted monetary aid in Africa? Practically the entire continent remains in squalor. Why, precisely, is this? How is it even possible? The general sentiment on this issue falls into two lines:

• One: We just haven't spent enough; if only we rich Westerners would be willing to sacrifice a little more in the name of compassion, we could turn that continent around tomorrow!
• Two: We are suppressing the entrepeneurial spirit and creating reliance, thus destroying prosperity and hope for a better future.

Which of these is correct? Well, six decades have taught us that there is no amount which will be the magic bullet to cure Africa's economic woes.

Now, all of this has been somewhat heavy-handed. And I can understand if you haven't followed through to the end here, but for those of you whom have, I have just one last query/insight/thought: It is said that the measure of what power we ought allow into the hands of government is to consider what the worst person possible would do with it. To those of you whom think things like SCHIP are so necessary that a little over-spending or universal healthcare under the radar concerns are simply silly, I profer this: the "Christian Right" is poising itself to exploit government compassion efforts as a tool for its takeover of American society. Considering that private agencies -- such as charities like the Christian Children's Fund -- could be established to provide for the nation's children, I ask you: is it really worth the risk of expanding SCHIP like this, if it opens the door for a fundamentalist theocracy in America?

I, for one, do not welcome our new religious overlords.

Insanity At The Gates

So I admit it -- today is a bit of a slow news day. But those of us with a Transhumanist mindset also tend to keep our eyes on the future; while many also take on the label of "progressive", not all of us do. Either way, however, this eye on the prize, as it were, gives us a perspective that not everybody else can perceive. Today I will share the benefit of this perspective with you, my reader. Forgive me if you've already seen this particular item already.

What is it, precisely, that I'm talking about? That would be nothing short of the apparent revivalism of the Soviet/American "Cold War". Now, this has been discussed by this blog before, when I asked: "Could Somebody Please Tell Me What Year It Is?" So some of this is apparently just recision, or iteration, for my 'regulars'. For those of you whom are not -- consider the following:

There's more to this, of course -- a good deal more. Today, I pull -- perhaps hedonistically would be too strong of a word? -- from the AP:

President Vladimir Putin announced in August that Russia was resuming long-range bomber flights over the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans for the first time since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Russian Air Force officials in Moscow could not be reached for comment after hours. They have repeatedly said that the planes were not violating any nation's airspace or any international agreements.

But in mid-September, British and Norwegian jets intercepted Russian military aircraft after they breached NATO airspace close to the U.K. and Finland. And on a handful of occasions this year, NATO nations including Britain and Norway have sent fighters to escort Russian bombers nearing their territory.

Now, on it's surface this is no major fiasco; no huge problem, as it were. If a nation wants to saber-rattle, a little, that's just fine. But take this into context; with the opening up of Atlantic-ocean resources, it would seem that the term cold-war could take on more literal meanings than in days past. Further, take into context the fact that Russian law-makers are voting -- unanimously -- to censure former Soviet Union countries for siding with the US over Russia. Add into that the fact that the US and Russia remain the world's largest suppliers of arms to 'developing countries' such as China, India, Pakistan, and the Middle East. It is worth noting that in the last four years -- that is, since 2002, more than 70% of all US arms deals were with Middle Eastern countries.

(Hey, while we're at it, here's a thought: If we're so miffed about Iran supplying the insurgents weapons, why don't we stop supplying the insurgents with weapons first?)

In the meanwhile, however, if the US and Russia are to renew the cold-war era conflicts between one another, which it would seem Vladimir Putin is seeking to accomplish, we have to ask ourselves: who would be cast as the totalitarian police state this time around? I don't mean to be biased -- truly I don't. But between Russia and the US, it is my country that has domestic spying programs. It is my country that wants to use SPY SATELLITES ON ITS OWN POPULACE. It is my country that has an effective real taxation rate of roughly 40% on its entire populace. It is my country that is engaging in extraordinary rendition, and it is my country that is torturing innocent civilians. (See Section IV, second paragraph.) So Again: Which of us is the totalitarian/authoritarian state? Throw in the blatant corporatism of the medical, agro, and energy companies, and the picture gets even worse. Remember; the Soviet Union was defeated due to economic collapse. And if David Walker -- the Comptroller General of the United States -- is only half right, the US isn't that far away from one of its own.

We can't afford to replay history, folks. We "plain and simple", "straight and narrow", can't afford it. At a time when we should be curtailing government spending however possible -- even if by transferring our social security, welfare, and medicare over to private non-profits (as opposed to not-for-profits) so as to benefit from the massive increase in efficiency per dollar spent (This considering that the US has a higher welfare spending rate than any other OECD-listed country save Luxembourg, on a per Capita basis), and thus avoid the need to increase spending over time -- we are instead arguing with ourselves over whether or not to expand the SCHIP program -- meant to care for the nation's poor and needy children -- to cover families which make almost twice the national median income.

Whether it be the revival of the Cold War, the selling of arms and armaments to our sworn enemies, or the spending of money we don't -- and will never -- have, this insanity has got to stop.

How Can Being Robbed Be Good For You?

Life rarely presents an opportunity for clear-cut realities. That's a tautology -- yet still there is always a push by people in life to oppose this idea. In the arena of copyright law, the idea that common sense and judgment are necessary things rather than absolute, laid out, "plain-language" laws when it comes to distinguishing between infringement and 'fair use' is an example of just this.

Now, before we get any further, it is worth acknowledging something, something that, likely, neither side of the Fair-Use 'debate' will like to hear: Fair-Use qualifies is the stealing ideas in a manner that doesn't cost the idea-creator anything at all.

Recently, a study has been circulating the blogosphere that contains information proving that fair-use works contribute some 70% more to the economy than the copyrighted materials themselves do:

Fair use exceptions to U.S. copyright laws account for more than $4.5 trillion in annual revenue for the United States, according to a report issued on Wednesday by the Computer and Communications Industry Association.

[...]

Recent studies indicate that the value added to the U.S. economy by copyright industries amounts to $1.3 trillion, said Black. The value added to the U.S. economy by the fair use amounts to $2.2 trillion.

The fair use economy's "value added" is thus almost 70% larger than that of the copyright industries.

The $4.5 trillion in annual revenue attributable to fair use represents a 31% increase since 2002, according to the report, which claims that fair use industries are responsible for 18% of U.S. economic growth and almost 11 million American jobs.

People still have themselves riled up on this issue -- libertarians especially, as oddly both sides of the fair-use debate find themselves squarely within libertarian ideology. This is because we value both freedom and property rights, which is what is in conflict here. And, as you'd imagine, many of the more ideologically strict of us have their heads explode when they come across someone equally stringent in the opposing camp -- who uses practically the same exact rhetoric they do. It certainly doesn't help that there's a great deal of misconception out there about this whole "Fair Use" thing -- right down to whether or not it qualifies as a "right". From News.com:

But let's look beyond the hyperbole. CCIA has offered no demonstration of harm caused by copyright notices; if they had any they would surely have included it in their FTC filing, but it's eerily silent on that point. So what do they really want? They say they want additional wording explaining ways copyrighted works could be used without authorization, because fair use is a "consumer right."

This misleading statement presents considerable irony, given the fact that CCIA is filing a complaint alleging deceptive language. Fair use, as CCIA must surely know, is not a "consumer right," but rather an affirmative defense. And this is an important difference.

One line in particular is significant above the rest here: Fair use, as CCIA must surely know, is not a "consumer right," but rather an affirmative defense. And this is an important ifference. Here, the author of that News.com article is simply wrong -- in the implication that "affirmative defense" is importantly different from a right. From the Wikipedia article on Fair Use:

The frequent argument over whether fair use is a "right" or a "defense"^[16] is generated by confusion over the use of the term "affirmative defense." An affirmative defense is simply a term of art from litigation reflecting the timing in which the defense is raised. It does not distinguish between "rights" and "defenses," and so it does not characterize the substance of the defendant's actions as "not a right but a defense." The First Amendment, for instance, is generally raised as an affirmative defense in litigation, but is clearly a "right." Similarly, while fair use is characterized as a defense in terms of the litigation posture, Section 107 defines fair use as a "limitation" on copyright law and states clearly that "the fair use of a copyrighted work ... is not an infringement of copyright."

That's rather clear-cut as these things go -- and as such, is perfect proof as to why no "absolute explanation" is possible in legal terms -- not on this issue, and not on any other; not even murder or rape. And what is ironic about this, is that the legal system actually permits for this -- though the costs nowadays of said system make it so exhorbitant for the defendant, that most simply don't bother, and pay up -- something prosecutors rely upon when they "Throw the book at someone" in order to get them to take a plea bargain -- because convictions look good on DA's records. And forget the little guy, or whether or not he's innocent. Think The Norfolk Seven, or Matt Bandy, or the hundreds of people (disproportionately black, might I add) helped by the Innocence Project.

Is there a resolution on this issue? Not per se; there is only the admonition: when it comes to government, absolutes breed tyranny. What we have now, then, is the unhappy struggle for that happy medium; it behooves us all to remember that.

How to Spot Common Political Misconceptions

It is a sad truth that the common man has little-to-no understanding of economic theory. And of those who do, many -- especially within liberal, conservative, and libertarian 'circles' -- have badly warped perspectives. One such area is the endlessly recurring fallacy: the "Malthusian Catastrophe".

Those who believe in this beast tell us that there is a certain point at which all the resources of the world will be "used up" -- especially food -- and then we will all be left scrambling for the few resources remaining, until we literally wind up back in the stone age. Within the "green" politicalscape, this belief is rampant. One element that is ironic about this element of the liberal/green agenda, however, is that Thomas Malthus himself wouldn't have agreed with the modern perspective of his own theories:

Most readers will be surprised to learn that Malthus would agree more with Downen than he would with his so-called “supporters.” Downen’s essay, like many by free market environmentalists, starts with a familiar refrain about Malthus. Malthus, we are told, thought that the hare of population growth would outrace the tortoise of resource growth; when the race is over, starvation, disease and death awaited us. Downen goes on, of course to show that Malthus was wrong. The problem is, it isn’t Malthus that is wrong; it is his “supporters,” the neo-Malthusians. In an ironic twist of fate, those who bear his name today would in fact have been his opponents during his own lifetime. In terms of today’s debate, Malthus would be more likely to side with Downen than with the neo-Malthusians.

With that being said, however, it certainly does seem that the green agenda's manifestation in American politics is doing its damnedest to make exactly that 'future' happen. As the BBC's news-website discusses, corn prices have doubled over the last year -- which has lead to the now infamous street demonstrations in Mexico over just this issue. We have only our own US government to blame for this; the subsidization of ethanol production is exactly what has lead to this. And while it is true that this aids the poor farmers -- the increase in food costs can only make life harder on those whose income is most heavily spent on food; the poor. The absolute irony in this is that there is now, in this decade, more food available per person than there has ever been.

Now, if this topic is sounding familiar to those of you whom are regular readers of my blog, that would be because I've covered this topic a few times before. One area that's incredibly important is the set of calculations I made in the entry, "Biofuel: The Corn Ethanol Deception":

In 2004, the US used approximately 318 billion gallons of oil. At 2,000 gallons per acre, that comes out to roughly 159 million acres of arable land -- and this is assuming that the cellulosic starch problem can be overcome -- for which there are no hypothetical solutions yet available. According to the CIA's "World Factbook", the US has 9,161,923 square kilometers of land, 18.01% of which are arable. That's 1,650,62 square kilometers. 1 acre = 0.00404685642 square kilometers, so the US has 407,739,281 acres of arable land. To maintain the energy usage levels of 2004 purely from biofuels derived from this process would require ~40% of all arable land in the nation.

And that's if it is gasoline. If it were ethanol -- and we'll assume that same 2,000 gallons per acre per year, which is more than triple the amount derived from any crop yet -- we'd have to increase that by 30% to reflect the gas-to-ethanol energy variance -- and then increase to cover the 65% increase in energy cost to distill the ethanol. We'll be generous and call that a 10% increase. So overall, a 43% increase in area used -- from 40% of all land. That's ~55% (I allow for error here) of all arable land. One thing is certain -- corn ethanol is not a solution. Nor is crop-based biodiesel -- which has at best 680 gallons per acre. It'd take more than 100% of our arable land.

The "Malthusian" angle I have also covered in the article, "Malthusian Methuselahs" -- which dealth with the 'controversy' over developing life-extension technologies -- and this other item, "Farming 2.0: Food By Factory?". In that last, I discussed three major developments in agriculture technology which might throw off the entire debate altogether: One being cloned meat, a second being the fact that inkjet printers can 'print' living cells without damaging them, and a third being that so-called "skyscraper farms" -- that is, greenhouses built multiple stories into the air -- are being built, with the projection of being profitable within 15 years.

All of this together makes one trend perfectly clear: innovation and technology will over time tend to solve any major problems presented to society -- although, granted, oftentimes those developments will result in new problems, requiring more technological innovation. This of course means that the "malthusian catastrophe" scenario simply cannot happen. Which is appropriate considering the first prediction of such was made over two hundred years ago (Thomas Malthus died in the early 1800's).

Now, with but a tiny bit of digging, this same sort of debunking could be done of just about any other political/economic belief. Take the belief that illegal immigrants are a drain on the welfare system. None of this should come as any real surprise -- after all, first-year economics classes spend a great deal of time overcoming the standard biases that trained economists claim don't exist in the voting booths. When will society as a whole overcome these biases -- if ever? My answer is both pessimistic and optimistic: so long as humans remain as we are, biologically, genetically, and physically -- we never will. And please, feel free to consider that as an ethical argument for transhumanism. It certainly couldn't be any worse than the system we've got now.

Survey: Companies Plan to Add Jobs

MILWAUKEE (AP) — Employers are predicting another stable quarter of hiring, with 27 percent of companies expecting to add positions in the last three months of the year, according to a survey of 14,000 companies being released Tuesday.

Nine percent of companies said they expect to reduce employment, according to the survey by Milwaukee-based global staffing firm Manpower Inc.

The numbers are on par with hiring intentions from the same quarter last year, when 28 percent of employers predicted they'd increase hiring and 8 percent expected a decrease.

The numbers also show employers are holding off on making any big moves amid the ups and downs on Wall Street and a sagging housing market, said Jonas Prising, president of Manpower North America. Given the uncertainty about the economy, stable hiring is good news, he said.

Read the full article here.