Boeing Solar Cell Sets New Record At 40.7% Efficiency

Boeing (NYSE: BA) today announced that Spectrolab, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary, has achieved a new world record in terrestrial concentrator solar cell efficiency. Using concentrated sunlight, Spectrolab demonstrated the ability of a photovoltaic cell to convert 40.7 percent of the sun’s energy into electricity. The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colo., verified the milestone. ... more

Comments

[amazingdrx]

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/12/7/2556352.html

$3 per watt and 8 to 10 cents per kwh from solar. That beats nuclear and fossil all hollow. Why?

Because solar has no waste, fuel, contamination, or pollution.

But here's another huge advantage. Solar supports distributed generation and storage, and that fixes the ailing grid and vulnerable (from increased storms and terrorism)power grid without trillions of dollars in upgrades.

Solar combined with distributed storage and generation from electric/fuel cell cars and wind and wave power have the capacity to completely shutter nuclear and fossil fuel plants and oil refineries and coal mines and oil wars within 20 years.

And that, along with biogas digestion and increased conservation land will head off the most severe repercussions of global climate change by actually reducing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere.

How much would it cost to replace the 600,000 mw of present generating capacity at an average of 3 dollars per watt? 1.8 trillion? the Iraq war will end up costing more than that.

Over 20 years that breaks down to 80 billion invested per year. 20% from government tax credits to consumers and the rest from hone and busainess owners who will save huge amounts on their energy costs, becoming tiny power companies themselves, bringing in revenues from selling power back to the grid, once the few short years of payback is over.

How much would 600 nuclear plants to replace that capacity cost? How about natural gas or coal plants? Include the cost of contamination,pollution, cancer fatalities, waste, rising fuel costs, oil wars, and nuclear proliferation or accidents.

[Nucbuddy]

Dr. X: How much would 600 nuclear plants to replace that capacity cost?

The AP1000 is actually rated at 1117-1154MWe.
google.com/search?q=ap600+rated+capacity

600 megawatts of capacity could nominally be filled by 520-538 AP1000 power plants. At $1000/kWe, that would cost $520-538 billion. If economies of scale reduce the cost to $500/kWe, the total would be $260-269 billion.

[Thomas Pedersen]

If I understood the article correct, the new 40.7 % design is even easier to produce than their previous design (used in the SunBall)?

That seems like a positive evolutionary step forward :-)

[amazingdrx]

Hehehey, nuclear power at 1 dollar per watt? Where is that buddy? Chernobyl? No safety systems needed, the whole region already glows in the dark!

It will come in around 5 dollars per watt in the latest US projects, if they ever overcome NIMBY lawsuits and can find suckers dumb enough to come up with the money.

And that is with all the hidden subsidies, which would raise the price to the astronomical if waste disposal, plant decommisioning, contamination remediation, anti-terrorism security, evacuation plans for major cities,liability insurance,and rising fuel costs were added into the initial cost instead of left for taxpayers and consumers to pay.

[Nucbuddy]

Dr. X wrote: It will come in around 5 dollars per watt in the latest US projects

Westinghouse recently estimated $1500-1800/kWe for the AP1000.
world-nuclear.org/news/2006/wd_jul07.htm

US reactor cost projections creep upwards. With inflation and the prospect of competition for engineering services and labour, US reactor vendors are revising upwards their projected plant costs (overnight capital cost). Areva is now estimating US$ 1800-2000/kW capacity for US EPR, Westinghouse $1500-1800/kW for AP1000, and GE $1850/kW for ABWR and $1600/kW for ESBWR. At $2000/kW the cost of nuclear power would be likely to work out at 6 cents/kWh, higher than current short-term projections for coal or gas. Government incentives on offer for the first few GWe of new-generation plant could halve this however, and series construction would also reduce the cost.

Nucleonics Week 6/7/06.

[amazingdrx]

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/16162570.htm

These nukers got their hands out for cash from the ratepayers before they even started building this plant. And you claim that estimate from the company that sells the reactor itself is the total cost?

I'm talking about the actual total cost of the entire project right up to turn key status. And the cost of NIMBY lawsuits and delays,waste storage facilities, security fences and equipment, contamination monitering and remediation equipment, the whole nine yards.

I'm guessing, but I think 5 bucks per watt is what it will come in on, after 12 years of delays and cost overruns. By then any GHG remediation will be really late in the game. And 100s of these would be needed to really make a difference.

100s of millions of fuel cell backup electric vehicles doubling as distributed power plants (when plugged into the grid)are a much better, cheaper, quicker idea.

[Nucbuddy]

Dr. X wrote: I'm talking about the actual total cost of the entire project right up to turn key status.

So is everyone else. We call it the "overnight cost" or "overnight capital cost".

Dr. X wrote: I think 5 bucks per watt is what it will come in on
world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.htm

A 1998 OECD comparative study [...] was updated in 2005 with a joint report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Energy Agency showing that nuclear power had increased its competitiveness over the seven years. [...] Nuclear overnight construction costs ranged from US$ 1000/kW in Czech Republic to $2500/kW in Japan, and averaged $1500/kW. [...] In 2003 the MIT published the outcome of a 2-year study of nuclear energy prospects in the USA. Adjusting its assumptions to those more in line with industry expectations ($1500/kW & 4 year construction [...] The French Energy Secretariat in 2003 published updated figures for new generating plant. The advanced European PWR (EPR) would cost EUR 1650-1700 per kilowatt to build [...] A 2004 report from the University of Chicago, funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA. Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW [...] For more advanced plants such as the EPR or SWR1000, overnight capital cost of $1800/kW is assumed

[Nucbuddy]

Dr. X wrote: How much would it cost to replace the 600,000 mw of present generating capacity at an average of 3 dollars per watt? 1.8 trillion?

Assuming a capacity factor of 5%, 600,000 MW of capacity at $3/watt would cost $36 trillion.

[Nucbuddy]

Dr. X wrote: the hidden subsidies, which would raise the price to the astronomical if [...] rising fuel costs were added

You have asked about nuclear fuel-cost before, and you have been answered before.
thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/10/biofuels_from_h.html

Nuclear fuel costs don't soar, uranium today is at 1980's prices. Even if they rose, it would hardly be noticable. In fact, uranium prices could increase a hundredfold, and nuclear power would not yet approach the cost of wind power.

Here is another answer:
world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.htm

The cost of fuel

From the outset the basic attraction of nuclear energy has been its low fuel costs compared with coal, oil and gas fired plants. Uranium, however, has to be processed, enriched and fabricated into fuel elements, and about half of the cost is due to enrichment and fabrication.
[...]
Uranium has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of energy which is easily and cheaply transportable. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal. It is therefore intrinsically a very portable and tradeable commodity.

The fuel's contribution to the overall cost of the electricity produced is relatively small, so even a large fuel price escalation will have relatively little effect. For instance, a doubling of the 2002 U3O8 price would increase the fuel cost for a light water reactor by 30% and the electricity cost about 7% (whereas doubling the gas price would add 70% to the price of electricity).

[amazingdrx]

Ok buddy. Dream on. I still say that SC nuke will cost 5 billion in the end. 12 years from now, if it is ever built.

That seems to be the only new plant proposed at this point, with the nuke loving administration on the ropes. The prez tried to pick up the huge interest tab for nuclear plant delays due to NIMBY lawsuits with taxpayer funds, will congress go along with that now? Doubtfull.

Meanwhile the cost of solar, wind, water, and biofueled fuel cells will drop with mass production. Every solid oxide fuel cell plugin vehicle becoming a clean, efficient distributed generation source. The power from an economy car with a 20kw fuel cell/microturbine generator would be worth over 10k per year.

Pretty fast payback! And the waste heat would provide free hot water and home heating as well.

A farm with a waste digestor and several farm vehicles with these fuel cells (trucks and tractors plugged into the grid when parked), would make more money from selling power into the grid than farm products.

Landfills with digestors that accept manure, garbage, human waste, leaves, wood chips would produce enough power to run all their heavy equipment and that equipment would produce valuable electric power when not in use.

Distributed generation and storage of this type makes nuclear and even the cheapest fossil power plants far too expensive to compete.

The nuke lobbyists better fire up those corporate jets to junket the new congressmen to sunny climes (they are second only to the Israel lobby in junket flights) as bribes! Hehehey.

[Nucbuddy]

Dr. X,

Could you please show your math regarding the economic feasibility of digested-biomass-fuel-cell electricity production?

[amazingdrx]

Still working on it buddy. Determination of total waste availability and especially the amount of methane prevented from entering the atmosphere by this whole process of nitrogen runoff remediation needs more data.

I think it more than makes up for CO2 emissions from fuel cell backed up lugin vehicles running on biodiesel from algae grown in solar collectors.

The fudge factor is the size of collectors needed to provide supplemental fuel to replace natural gas and oil use completely. But plenty off roof space, space over parking lots, old industrial sites, and even space over highways exist already to locate solar systems without using extra land space.

The space for 100s of new nuclear plants just doesn't exist, not with NIMBY lawsuits ready at every possible site. That is without the space and huge cost of waste disposal and storage sites. Yucca cannot even hold present used fuel rods and other waste from only 168 reactors. It's already full. That's not counting the cleanup yet to be even started of rocky Flats, Paducah,Oak ridge, South Carolina waste storage site and on and on and on.

In the transition natural gas transported with the methane hydrate process and coal turned into natural gas by bacteria underground is a great substitute for 100% biofueled fuel cell grid backup.

It runs in these fuel cell systems just fine and with 100s of years worth of convertible coal and tar sand energy supplies, getting the natural gas for the transition is not a problem. The cO2 will go right back into the algae solar systems.

With plugin fuel cell vehicles running on less than 10% of normal iCE gas consumption and doubling as grid backup, their payback period will be astoundingly short though, maybe 2 years. With contamination, waste storage and disposal, and huge cost overrun delays nukes will never pay themselves off.

[amazingdrx]

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/7/195721/3132

"Westinghouse claims its Advanced PWR reactor, the AP1000, will cost USD $1500-$1800 per KW for the first reactor and may fall to USD $1200 per KW for subsequent reactors. They also claim these will be ready for electricity production 3 years after first pouring concrete. This should be compared to second generation plants which, in the U.S.A., had construction costs up to $6000 per KW and generally took more than five years to complete."

Nuclear industry hype on the low cost of nuclear power plant construction. Versus actual cost of up to 6 dollars per watt in second generation nuclear plants built in the US. This SC plant is expected to take 12 years in planning, licensing, and construction. Is it third generation or second? I believe it is second generation.

Nuclear contractors, like politically connected, military industrial contractors such as Bechtel (a nuclear contractor also)and Halliburton have legendary reputations for unrealistically low bids and huge cost overruns.

I am still in favor of a second chance for nukes. A compromise to let the nuclear industry construct several waste recycling third generation, purportedly safer reactors on already contaminated sites like Yucca Mountain. Prove the new much lower cost and waste recycling features and then we can talk about building 100s of new nuclear plants.

But we want a halt to nuclear and fossil fuel subsidies in return, and also temporary (to sunset in 10 years)tax credits for consumers who buy plugin vehicles, geothermal heat pump heating/cooling systems, and renewable energy and energy systems.

It's a simple plan, prove your technology without government subsidies. Meanwhile renewable energy and energy conservation has to have temporary tax credits to consumers to make up for a badly skewed, corrupt playing field due to fossil and nuclear industry bribery of government officials.

Level it out and prove your technology or retire it and admit your nukes can't compete.

[Nucbuddy]

Dr. X wrote: This SC plant is expected to take 12 years in planning, licensing, and construction. Is it third generation or second? I believe it is second generation.

It is a Westinghouse AP1000.
google.com/search?q=%22Duke+Energy%22+ap1000

The Westinghouse AP1000 is a third-generation design.
google.com/search?q=ap1000+%22third+generation%22
google.com/search?q=ap1000+%22generation+iii%22

Construction time of this pre-approved, modular, factory-built reactor unit is designed to be 36 months.
google.com/search?q=ap1000+%22construction+time%22

With 18 months lead time before ground-breaking, and six months for start-up activities, the total time from reactor-order to start-up is five years.

[Nucbuddy]

Dr. X wrote: Yucca cannot even hold present used fuel rods and other waste from only 168 reactors.

What 168 reactors are you repeatedly referring to?
world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm

[Nucbuddy]

Dr X wrote: Solar supports distributed generation

These are concentrator cells. What kinds of worst-case capacity factors would be seen if they were distributed to areas of the nation that experience cloudy weather? This interactive insolation-data map might help you calculate your answer:
rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas

Note that it has a radio-button for selecting Minimum solar radiation data. Also, I would select December from amongst the next group of buttons.

[amazingdrx]

Promises based on industry propaganda is all you have buddy.

On the other hand we have the actual performance of the nuclear power industry. 6 dollars per watt. Huge cost overruns and delays, massive contamination,huge amounts of dangerously stored waste, no way to economically deal with that waste, and no regulation.

If the sun goes down, what happens? BTW, it DOES go down everyday, except in summer in Alaska. Then wind and water power takes over. What if that stops, all over the US, at night? Well then storage fills in the gaps until backup generation can come online.

What happens when air conditioning load shuts down the grid now? People endure anyway.

With distributed renewable energy generation and storage and conservation removing 90% of that air conditioning load, the grid will be more reliable not less.

100s of millions of plugin/fuel cell vehicles plugged into the grid will replace all those fossil and nuclear plants as backup when this energy revolution takes hold.

[Nucbuddy]

Dr. X wrote: 100s of millions of plugin/fuel cell vehicles plugged into the grid

Right now, there are only ~250 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

There are only 17 million passenger vehicles sold in the United States every year, and US hybrid sales are expected to reach only 1 million a year by 2011. At the former rate, it would take only 12 years to amass a fleet of 200 million plug-in/fuel-cell vehicles (assuming a 100% fleet-retention rate). But at the latter rate, it would take 200 years (again assuming a 100% fleet-retention rate -- which might seem unlikely for 20-year-old vehicles, and moreso for 200-year-old vehicles).

[amazingdrx]

Conversions buddy, that way you can replace the vehicles much faster. mass production lines that do conversions, replacing iCEs with electric motors, batteries, and fuel cell/microturbine generators.

And the efficiency of resources, capital, and fuel is amazing. Save trillions on grid upgrades, trillions on building new power plants, save cO2 and methane GHG emissions. The vehicles allow the home, farm, or business to become a small power plant.

20kw for an economy car. 50kw for a truck. 100kw for a farm tractor or larger truck. With these vehicles generating power no central power plants will be needed.

During the 10 to 20 year transition regular power plants can gradually be retired.

[amazingdrx]

The real beauty is that one generator powers your car and not only your home, but 20 of your neighbor's homes in case wind and solar power dips.

You get transportation power and grid power from the same generator, at 75% efficiency.

You make your car payment, then get three times as much back per month selling power to the power company. That's a pretty good business proposition.

And no one ends up paying for building huge, expensive nuclear and fossil fuel power plants, soaring cost for fuel for those behemoths, wars over the resources,wars over nuclear proliferation, cancer deaths, global climate disasater and on and on.

[Nucbuddy]

Dr. X wrote: in case wind and solar power dips.

In such a scenario, what would be the purpose of wind and solar power?

[amazingdrx]

Wind, water, and solar power systems would be installed to provide more power than the grid needs, that way the average percentage of power supply to the grid from those sources would be very high.

When extra power from wind, water, and solar is generated that the grid could not accept, it would be used in processing like metal and glass recycling and distillation and refining. And especially in water recycling and desalinization (water is the oil of this century). Locking the extra power into those products, it's another way to store energy.

When wind, water, and solar power do not meet demand in a particular area or region, renewable power from other areas would be imported. If that would not supply enough power the batteries in these fuel cell vehicles would backup the grid until their fuel cells are running and online.

With internet control of individual vehicle systems to match demand. It's really pretty simple buddy, and along with the solution to gHG and imported oil.

It would also be a reason to finally switch from phone, cable tv, internet, cell phone duplication of effort and inefficiency and monopoly games that corrupt government. To universal wireless broadband internet over the power grid. The money saved would more than pay for the wireless system, then all companies with services and content could go through that wireless internet system.

That grid connected internet would allow for remote control of distributed storage and generation devices in order to insure supply meets demand in all areas.

And it would allow for billing and credit to be applied for electric power from and to various customers as they switch from generating power to using power and back again.

The best part about this scheme is that only roughly 25% of US need to buy these vehicles and home, farm, and business based renewable power systems to replace our present generation system.

The rest will simply buy their power and fuel from us. All that wealth formerly exported to terror funding oil dictatorships, like saudi arabia, will build small business here at home.

Farms, for instance, will be able to make more money selling power from renewables and farm waste biogas digestion than they can make from agribizz GMO chemically farmed commodities. That will support a large scale return to organic agriculture fertilized with the free organic fertilizer coming out of the digestors.

And running on free renewable energy instead of costly diesel fuel. Saving gHGs by burning no fuel and by sequestyering cO2 as organic matter in healthy soil that builds up year after year. Reversing the dust bowl impelling, aquifer depleting and polluting agribizz disaster taxpayers are subsidizing now.

[Paul Dietz]

That is without the space and huge cost of waste disposal and storage sites. Yucca cannot even hold present used fuel rods and other waste from only 168 reactors.

Do what the utilities are doing and store the cooled spent fuel in sealed above-ground dry casks. It'll be cheaper than that government boondoggle in Nevada. You haven't bought into the myth that we have to bury the stuff now, have you?

[amazingdrx]

I think we ought to reprocess waste through these newer reactor designs and just neutralize it. If the industry would do that, it might get a revival again, deservedly so if it proves cost effective.

I don't think it will compete on cost with renewables, but give 'em a chance to try with several experimental reactors in already contaminated areas.

Eternal waste storage is just to expensive and dangerous. The myth that simple concrete entombment can be done affordably and effectively to make this stuff safe is ridiculous.

And nuclear proliferation and the looming world war over it has to stop. the only way is to retire nuclear power. Security is not possible in much of the world, it seems it is even impossible right here in the uS.

Under "post-911 thinking" (as the commander in chief is fond of saying) a plane was allowed to crash into a building a few blocks from the 911 disaster site. That is homeland security? the administration has had 10 of billions of dollars and 5 years to get this right.

Now we find out on teevee that any terorist can simply insert bismuth into a reactor, pull out pollonium later on and use it? With no protection from planes crashing, NYC is vulnerable to a dirty bomb attack using this horrible stuff.

Nuclear power is just too expensive to secure, and evidently security is a myth anyway. WW3 over nukes is a world ending scenario.

[Nucbuddy]

Dr. X wrote: Wind, water, and solar power systems would be installed to provide more power than the grid needs

Is the fleet of biomass-fuel-cells not 100% reliable? Is the electricity from the fuel-cells more expensive than that from wind/water/solar?

[Paul Dietz]

I think we ought to reprocess waste through these newer reactor designs and just neutralize it. If the industry would do that, it might get a revival again, deservedly so if it proves cost effective.

It's hideously expensive and completely unnecessary. Uranium is cheap, and will remain so for the life of any reactor that will soon be built.

It also doesn't buy you anything. Consider: it's cheaper to wait N+1 years to reprocess the fuel instead of waiting N years, thanks to nonzero interest rates. So the economically rational thing to do is delay reprocessing indefinitely.

Now, after a few centuries, it might become necessary to reprocess to avoid proliferation concerns, since the waste will become so cool that Pu diversion might be a worry. I think we can let the distant future worry about that, though, since they'll have a much stronger technology base than we do.

[Nucbuddy]

Dr. X wrote: nuclear proliferation and the looming world war over it has to stop. the only way is to retire nuclear power.

How could a retiring of nuclear power affect nuclear proliferation?

[Nucbuddy]

Dr. X wrote: The space for 100s of new nuclear plants just doesn't exist, not with NIMBY lawsuits ready at every possible site.

world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.htm#opinion

Public opinion

Public opinion has generally been fairly positive, and has grown more so as people have had to think about security of energy supplies. A May 2005 poll showed continuing increase in public opinion favourable to nuclear power in the USA. Some 70% favoured continued use of nuclear energy, 58% said that new nuclear plants should definitely be built, and 74% wanted the option to build new plants to be kept open. More than three times as many strongly supported nuclear energy than strongly opposed it. Two thirds of self-described environmentalists favour it.

An August 2005 survey of 1150 people living within 16 km of a nuclear power plant showed that 83% were in favour of nuclear energy, 76% were happy to see a further reactor built on their local site, and 88% were confident of that plant's safety. Employees of electric companies were excluded from the survey. Overall 81% said they felt well informed about their local plant, correlating with an absence of NIMBYism.

In March 2006 a national survey revealed that 68% of people favour the use of nuclear energy, while 86% believe nuclear would be important to meeting electricity needs in the years ahead. Some 73% would find a new reactor at the nearest nuclear power plant acceptable.

[amazingdrx]

I sense desperation setting into your arguments. Hehehey.

But have at it! Thanks for the excellent dialectic. Very inspirational.

I think wind and solar will be cheaper than biogas powering fuel cells, but who knows? When the lower waste cleanup and pollution related costs are figured in, will these technologies pay off even quicker than wind or solar PV and heat? What is clean groundwater free of manure runnoff worth?

The biodiesel and electricity that can be sold lends a healthy profit to the whole distributed system. Solar, wind, biogas fuel cell, or just a fuel cell vehicle selling power back to the grid connected up to natural gas. It makes all these systems profitable in terms of products, not just savings on energy costs.

Why put in over capacity of renewables? Because it reduces the likelihood of needing to rely on backup power sources. Reducing the need for a more difficult and complicted to integrate backup source.

Simply put, wind and solar have fewer moving parts than a more complicated several step, waste to biogas, biogas to electricity, CO2 to algae, algae to biodiesel and cellulose, cellulose to electricity in the fuel cell. It's a complex cycle.

With wind, water, and solar the power goes onto the grid. pretty simple really.

What? The nuclear nightmare is out of the bag so let it alone? Just turn our backs and let proliferation go on? Sounds like that idea that nuclear contamination is good for the long term stamina of the "herd". Hehehey.

[Paul Dietz]

What? The nuclear nightmare is out of the bag so let it alone? Just turn our backs and let proliferation go on?

Wow, what a nice strawman argument.

He's arguing against a superstitious clinging to quack cures, like abandoning civilian nuclear powerplants, as a way of preventing nuclear proliferation.

BTW, on another subject in the earlier thread, tbe present cost of dry cask storage of LWR fuel, if I read the studies correctly, amounts to about .025 cents (not dollars!) per kWh (assuming a 3% discount rate). This is a fraction of the $.001/kWh that utilities are already paying to the US government for that big hole in Nevada.

[Nucbuddy]

Nucbuddy wrote: How could a retiring of nuclear power affect nuclear proliferation?

Dr. X wrote: What?

I asked, "How could a retiring of nuclear power affect nuclear proliferation?"

This recent paper on the subject by Richard L. Garwin might help you formulate your answer:
fas.org/rlg/20.htm
fas.org/rlg/XiamenSlides1.pdf

Here are further resources on the subject:
world-nuclear.org/info/info.htm#proliferation

[ティファニー 激安]

tiffany & coスウォッチ グループ ジャパンはこのほど、東京?銀座のニコラス?G?ハイエック センター内に「ティファニー ウォッチ ショールーム」をオープンした。男性向けの「アトラス ジェント スクエア クロノグラフ」、女性向けの「ティファニー ジェメア」をはじめ、希少性の高いアイテムも展示、販売される。Tiffany Rings
国内初のティファニー ウォッチ専門店となる同ショールームには、新作ウォッチがいち早く店頭に並ぶだけでなく、さまざまなフェアやイベントも開催される予定となっている。時計の専門知識を持つスタッフにより、利用客の要望にもきめ細かく対応するという。ティファニー 激安
同ショールームでも販売される「アトラス ジェント スクエア クロノグラフ」は、最高のムーブメントとして広く認められるフレデリック?ピゲ製自動巻キャリバー1285を搭載。さらに頑丈な40mmのステンレス スティール ケースとスポーティなデザインにより、毅然とした男の魅力を演出している。Tiffany ネックレス
「ティファニー ジェメア」は、18カラットのホワイトゴールドで作られた樽型のケースが特徴で、たくさんのダイヤモンドを散りばめた宝飾時計に仕上がっている。ダイヤモンド1列のモデルとダイヤモンド2列のモデルのほかに、時計の表面に610個のダイヤモンド(3.12カラット)を敷き詰めたフルパヴェのモデルも用意。Tiffany locksこれらの3モデルを、直径22mm / 18mmの2パターンで展開する。ティファニー
その他、ショールームのオープンを記念し、日本初登場となる「ステートメント ウォッチ」「5thアヴェニュー ウォッチ」なども特別展示されるティファニー。
アメリカを代表する世界のプレミア?ジュエラー、ティファニーは1837年の創設以来、時を越えて多くの人々を魅了してきた。ティファニーのジュエリー、シルバー、ウォッチ、そのデザインの数々は何世代にもわたって世界中で愛され続けている。ティファニー 通販