ibsteve2u, thanks for the article link.
nasher, thanks for the comment.

When I see an article the WSJ, the NYT, Forbes, Fortune, etc., that I can leverage into a boost of a WCG project or another project running on BOINC, I grab it and use it as the basis for a post on my ScienceSprings blog.

Journalists are a mixed bag. They often write up a project, like CEP2, or rosetta@home's Foldit game, without ever mentioning WCG or BOINC. I go after them, telling them of the opportunity they missed to help us help mankind. But, I still use the article as the basis for a post.

A guy wrote up a development in prescription drugs at I think Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck. I knew the groundwork research had been done at Berkeley Lab, Argonne and Brookhaven. I went after this guy about it, all he did was ask me if I had any tips for him, he being a writer on the Big Pharma beat.

Thanks again.

It occurred to me that the WSJ article may have been oriented at "If we can't make a whole lot of money right away, we don't want to play." Over the last few decades, Wall Street has been pretty consistent about demanding not just constant profit, but constant profit growth out of U.S. corporations before they'll talk nice about a corporation and drive its share price (and so the CEO's compensation) up.

That, of course, works to the advantage of those countries who are not afflicted with greed-induced myopia. To update an old saw: "Rome wasn't built in a day - but when it fell, it took about a day."

Cheapness, ease of application, weight, and flexibility (i.e. thin-film) yields widespread application. The same rules apply to solar as apply to mass production in war: You can drown superior and/or more efficient technology in simple numbers if you can produce enough of it cheap enough (which is the story of the Sherman tank - a.k.a. "the Ronson lighter" - in a nutshell).

Which wouldn't be material except the sun is kind enough to provide us with 1367.7 watts/square meter in free power . Even accounting for a potential loss of 70% due to reflection and absorption by the atmosphere, that is a lot of power...if you can intercept enough of it and transform it into a form of power we humans find more readily useful such as electricity. That is where organic polymers such as this project seeks to identify comes in: Providing a lot of capture/conversion surface cheap. The world has a lot of land that isn't much good for growing stuff on but receives plenty of sunshine regardless - but we also have a growing amount of land that is covered by "human stuff" such as homes and factories.

To quote the Wikipedia article on polymers for examples I.e., polymers are...everywhere...already. Now think of just the "human stuff" that is "everywhere already" being coated with or made from (roof membranes, paint, the construction material itself) polymers that generate electricity from solar power.

Be a lot of power without even getting into quibbling over whether those plant and animal species which inhabit non-arable land could or should be placed at risk (perhaps) through the installation of solar power arrays.

(Edit: I let my ego run away with me - please be aware that this is only my opinion of the usefulness of this project and its goals.)

Dear ibsteve2u,
you formulated a great summary for the motivation for this area of research! Thanks for your enthusiasm - keep up the good work!
Best wishes and a Happy New Year
Your Harvard CEP team