Slashdot Mirror


Cheap Spray-on Plastic Solar Cells Coming

coyote1 writes "The Sacramento Bee reports about custom-tailored molecules and spray-on plastic could someday create the next generation of solar cells -- more flexible, more efficient and much less expensive than existing sources of solar power. Nanotechnology is used to organize the molecules that are sprayed onto a surface."

172 comments

  1. Partly Organic? by Smitedogg · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Those inorganic nanorods were then combined with the organic part of the operation, a liquefied plastic semiconductor, to create a solar cell that could be sprayed or painted onto almost any surface. How is a liquified plastic semiconductor organic? Dogg

    1. Re:Partly Organic? by jcausey · · Score: 1

      Plastic is made from petrochemicals (oil), oil is from aged and compressed carbon compounds (dinosaurs, etc.)

    2. Re:Partly Organic? by Yobgod+Ababua · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the context of chemistry and materials, organic refers to a material based on carbon (an element abbreviated as C). Additional elements that are commonly found in organic materials are hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), phosphorus (P) and sulfur (S).

      So... if the plastic is carbon (or hydrocarbon) based, it's organic. Note that this definition of organic has nothing to do with the one used to refer to naturally grown produce.

    3. Re:Partly Organic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
      So... if the plastic is carbon (or hydrocarbon) based, it's organic. Note that this definition of organic has nothing to do with the one used to refer to naturally grown produce.


      Now could someone please explain what "free-range" plastic is?

    4. Re:Partly Organic? by the_consumer · · Score: 1

      organic means it contains Carbon, methinks? As in Benzene is an organic chemical...

      --
      "If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
  2. WTF? by larry+bagina · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    An article about nanotechnology not posted by Hemos?

    I predict a duplicate story being posted within an hour.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  3. uses by lowtekneq · · Score: 1

    Imagine the uses, spraying it on electric cars. Even though spray paint and solar energy don't go well together : /

    --
    Carpe meam simiam!
    1. Re:uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spray on solar cells will always have lower efficiency...

      The good part of spray on is where you can use it.

    2. Re:uses by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Imagine the uses, spraying it on electric cars. Even though spray paint and solar energy don't go well together : /

      Well, the primary problem with solar cells is that it takes more energy to make them than they'll ever be able to harness from the sun. In other words, it takes more fuel to run the crystal furnaces which are used to make them, than they'll ever be able to pay back.

      If spray-on solar cells don't have to be fired, that must reduce the energy required to make them. Further, if they're spray-on, they probably won't be so hard once they're set. Hard = brittle. Brittle = breaks during thermal cycling, ie. day/night transitions eventually crack them.

      --
      Fire and Meat. Yummy.
    3. Re:uses by AndroidCat · · Score: 2
      Spray them on the south side of buildings. (Your hemisphere may vary) Hopefully they'd generate enough power to offset the increased cooling requirements in the summer.

      As for cars, it would be back to Henry Ford's Model-T: Any colour you want as long as it's black.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:uses by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Oh, another use: Spray it on the huge wings of those man-powered aircraft, and add an electric motor.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    5. Re:uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, the primary problem with solar cells is that it takes more energy to make them than they'll ever be able to harness from the sun. In other words, it takes more fuel to run the crystal furnaces which are used to make them, than they'll ever be able to pay back.

      Imagine that, a manufacturing process that obeys the laws of thermodynamics. Do you believe that when we combust oil or coal in a power plant that we somehow obtain more energy in electrical form than we put in as chemical energy? Idiot!
    6. Re:uses by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 2
      Do you believe that when we combust oil or coal in a power plant that we somehow obtain more energy in electrical form than we put in as chemical energy?

      No, but over its lifetime, the plant will be able to convert far more energy from chemical to electrical than it took to build the plant.

      The problem with classical solar cells is the amount of energy it takes to build (manufacture) them, which is more than it will ever be able to convert from solar to electric during its entire expected lifetime.

      In the case of the "new" solar cells, this energy needed for building them will be more reasonabe. However, the electrical energy that is output by the cells would of course come from the sun (as it should...), thus the laws of thermodynamics would still be preserved. Energy cost of building a machine has nothing whatsoever to do with thermodynamics, only operating (using) a machine does.

      Now, who's the idiot?

      --
      Say no to software patents.
  4. Personal Applications... by geogeek6_7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now I can spray this stuff all over my body and never have to replace the batteries in my mp3 player ever again! Also, it could bring a whole new light (so to speak) to sunbathing... Imagine all the pasty white geeks hittin' the beaches once they commericalize this stuff...

    1. Re:Personal Applications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And then you'd die (the paint would clog your pores)

    2. Re:Personal Applications... by 56ker · · Score: 1

      That's made me think - it could be sprayed on clothes to power these "wearable computers" they keep saying are just around the corner.

    3. Re:Personal Applications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So do Snickers and pizza.

    4. Re:Personal Applications... by pacc · · Score: 1

      Don't you have faith in nanotechnology?
      That problem just has to be solved, then all we need is the tatoo transistor.

  5. Spray on plastic? by Loki_1929 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess this means people who "tag" buildings with this stuff can send out electric bills to the people who's buildings they tag?

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  6. The Sacramento Bee by Traxton1 · · Score: 1
    The saddest part is that I have a subsciption to it, but I find out about it here. Good ol' Slashdot :)

  7. A great idea..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but hopeless against the unweilding might of big-battery businesses.

  8. Great news, but still a ways off... by bmw · · Score: 3, Interesting


    "It's not a big breakthrough. ... It's a step in the field where there's a lot of things going on," said Alivisatos, who directs the Molecular Foundry, a newly created center for nanoscience at the Berkeley National lab.

    ...

    It could take a decade or more for hybrid solar cells to make it from the laboratory to someone's rooftop system, and much could go wrong along the way, said Robert McConnell, who oversees federal funding of cutting-edge solar research for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.


    It's always nice to hear of advances in technology like this, but it seems we're still pretty far away from practical use. Just imagine if most of the electricity using world was running on solar power. I hope I live to see the day.

    1. Re:Great news, but still a ways off... by Bradee-oh! · · Score: 1

      Just imagine if most of the electricity using world was running on solar power. I hope I live to see the day.

      Oh you do, do you? What if everything was reliant on solar power and something catastrophic blocked out the sun? Don't you know that humans are the next best power source in line after the sun? I, for one, would rather not be alive to face that future.

      --
      "This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
    2. Re:Great news, but still a ways off... by bmw · · Score: 1

      If something catastrophic was to block out the sun, wouldn't we be doomed anyway?

      "All this computer hacking is making me thirsty, think I'll order a TAB. Oops, no time for that now."

    3. Re:Great news, but still a ways off... by mofolotopo · · Score: 1

      Man, I hope that was a joke.

    4. Re:Great news, but still a ways off... by Fesh · · Score: 3, Funny

      So do I... But since it's early in the morning, it triggered an odd mental image...

      The Mootrix. Think about it: why would a cow be any less good at generating electricity than a human being? And most of the cows out there are destined to be a steak anyway...

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    5. Re:Great news, but still a ways off... by ahfoo · · Score: 2

      Well, according to conservative monkeys like George Bush, solar is already the way to go as long as it's done in big facilities like the one mentionedhere. Ol' GeeBee likes the way it's being done in an evolutionary rather than revolutionary way. You know --prudence. Nobody move to quickly now and nobody gonna get hurt. What incredible leadership.
      It's just that Herbert Walker's favorite solar project isn't photovoltaics, it's solar concentrators --nothing but mirrors. They use them to power plain old steam turbines in the tens of megawatts range. You know, the ones that cost millions of dollars to operate and install. Ol' Georgie, he likes that strategy a lot more than the stuff this story is preaching because that way the power infrastructure doesn't get all distorted by having all these small time know-it-alls get all uppity and start talking all that free power socialist horseshit. It's just like bandwidth in the States. People think it HAS to cost money. They'll lose their jobs if it doesn't. Hell, if power gets too cheap, the Bush's aren't going to have any more ways to raise all that goddam campaign money. They barely cut it with Enron gouging full throttle. If the prices fall any lower, where's their margin gonna come from? You got to keep yer eye on the ball son.
      But nanotech, yeah baby. We have to assume it will definitely lead to some interesting shit. Might be revolutionary in more ways than one if it enables end users to much too fast. Wouldn't be prudent.
      Photovoltaic is interesting, but there's no reason nanotech won't spill over into thermoelectric stuff too or perhaps some kind of new ways of generating and harnessing plasmas in little MEMS devices. Who knows. But solar works in the here and now at least in the only important sense which is financially. That's one thing nukes will never be able to do.
      And even if nanotech energy devices never come to pass. I strongly believe we're going to see a real social revolution when somebody hacks these glucose monitor MEMs microneedles to deliver safe clean IV hits of coke, meth, ecstacy etc and starts selling them on the street. Now there's a market rumored to be bigger than electronics.

  9. Additional Propulsion by GMontag · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    Maybe it could provide enough "umph" to overcome this effect (from the bostic.com list):

    http://www.sundaytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml ?x ml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F02%2F10%2Fwnasa10.xml
    Researchers say Pioneer 10, which took the first close-up
    pictures of Jupiter before leaving our solar system in 1983, is
    being pulled back to the sun by an unknown force. The effect
    shows no sign of getting weaker as the spacecraft travels deeper
    into space, and scientists are considering the possibility that
    the probe has revealed a new force of nature.
    http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/05/21/ gravity.m ystery/
    "It's the same magnitude and the same direction, namely pointed
    toward the sun. The force points to the sun in both cases," said
    Anderson.
    http://physicsweb.org/article/world/12/ 1/5
    The motion of these spacecraft is governed by the gravitational
    fields of the known bodies in the solar system, and can be
    calculated very accurately from general relativity. Anderson's
    analysis shows a small but systematic departure from the
    expected motion. Indeed, the spacecraft move as if they were
    subject to a new, unknown force pointing towards the Sun. This
    force imparts the same constant acceleration, ap, of about 10-7
    cm s-2 to all three spacecraft, about ten orders of magnitude
    less than the free-fall acceleration on Earth. Such a finding,
    if it were not explained away by some mundane effect, would be
    a major break with accepted physics.

    1. Re:Additional Propulsion by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh Puleeze. Isn't it obvious? These spacecraft are not accelerating toward the sun, the Universe (and thus the Solar System) is expanding past them. Sheese.

      What was that you said about hats?

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    2. Re:Additional Propulsion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was that you said about hats?

      Tinfoil is better than aluminum!

    3. Re:Additional Propulsion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you mean the nevdull list?

    4. Re:Additional Propulsion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't tell if you are serious or just trying to be funny but the universe doesn't expand past anything. The spacecraft is in part of the universe and the space it is in would be expanding too. The expansion of the universe can never be blamed for things being closer than they should, only farther away then you'd think otherwise.

    5. Re:Additional Propulsion by efuseekay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How can a clearly Offtopic -1 post be modded up as Interesting +1?

      I find the pioneer-10 grav anomaly as interesting as the next person (who happens to be an astrophysicist right now), but come on! This is a topic on Solar Cells for chrissake!

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    6. Re:Additional Propulsion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just answered your own question. It's Interesting +1 because it's interesting. Why would you ask such a dumb question?

    7. Re:Additional Propulsion by hymie3 · · Score: 1

      No doubt for the same reason that a person complaining about a post being offtopic can be modded Insightful +1 (twice).
      Did ya really need to use your +1 score bonus to vent?

    8. Re:Additional Propulsion by aminorex · · Score: 2

      There's absolutely no reason why a post can't be
      both offtopic and interesting. It's fair
      moderation. However, both your post and mine,
      being niggling meta-content, are (while still
      offtopic) entirely uninteresting.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    9. Re:Additional Propulsion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      looks more like the origonal poster has his own personal trolls now

    10. Re:Additional Propulsion by efuseekay · · Score: 1

      Question : if I makes an interesting post about the Quantum Dot in a topic titled "Linux Kernel 2.5 released", would I get modded +1 Interesting?

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    11. Re:Additional Propulsion by efuseekay · · Score: 1

      Well, I didn't ask for the +1 Insightful. Actually I found it extremely amusing to see it get modded up!

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
  10. is there a spray on type of meept? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Possibly, if you go to

    http://www.theGloriousMEEPT.com

    But, we've all been waiting a long time. Maybe the Meept has forgotten us. Or maybe they've got something else in mind. Speak to us!

    I'll see your MEEPT missionary status, and raise you one.

    I noticed one or two possible true "meept" posts on Slashdot recently, with kappa references.

    Note to the moderators: If you want to vote for Meept, then mod this up +1. Don't mod it down, and then become a "me too" when meept revives.

    Just a plea from a slashdot oldtimer who never became a moderator.

    Thanks.

  11. truck bed liners? by AlaskanUnderachiever · · Score: 1

    I just got a spray in bed liner. Now imagine if that same stuff (I think it was RhinoGuard?) with the same durability could also supplement my charging system, act as a trickle charger for my battery, or run camping gear while I'm out in the bush. Spray on sounds pretty cool, but I'm only going to be interested if it's durable.

    --
    Find out about my new childrens book: SS Death Camp Criminal Batallion Go To Monte Carlo For The Massacre
    1. Re:truck bed liners? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      If it was flexable as well as durable, spray it on the tent. Of course, you'd still have to haul along batteries/fuel cells to be charged, as well as things to use that power. (The question of being able to run computers, stereos, XBOX/PS2's in the middle of the woods, being a "good thing", I leave to somebody else.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  12. Can of what? by div_2n · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This brings a whole new definition to the term "Can of whoop ass" doesn't it?

    1. Re:Can of what? by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      You mean this?

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    2. Re:Can of what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah

  13. Yesterday's news by blamanj · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=58 5&u=/nm/20020328/sc_nm/science_solar_dc_2

    Whine:* 2002-03-28 22:53:09 Paint-on solar cells (articles,news) (rejected)

  14. This field is crazy by aphexbrett · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The cool thing that most people don't know is that this type of technology is going to be everywhere. For example, I'm sure most people have heard of OLEDs (orgainc light emitting diodes, Alan Heeger won the 2000 Nobel prize for this stuff among other things), the newest research is being done on small organic polymers that absorb photons at almost 100% quantum efficiency. What this means is, one day you'll paint your house and the whole thing will be a solar panel, you won't need specialized tiles. This will also be extended to cars, boats, etc. the implications are truly amazing.

    1. Re:This field is crazy by MrScience · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't 100% efficiency mean that when it comes to choice of colors, you can choose... Black? :)

      --

      You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco

  15. Solar Fields by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 1

    Just imagine the suburbs in years to come... Huge expanses of similarly shaped houses all with sprayed solar cells on their roofs used to heat their swimming pools.

    --
    That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    1. Re:Solar Fields by reverius · · Score: 2

      Which is necessary of course... how could solar energy heat a swimming pool in its current form?? :)

  16. I wonder how long it'll be... by VValdo · · Score: 2

    Something like this could make us much less dependent on coal or nuclear-based energy sources. And using this w/electric-powered vehicles...hmm.

    Sounds bad for the "energy companies".

    So, uh, when does the FUD campaign begin? Lobbyists, start your engines...

    W

    --
    -------------------
    This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:I wonder how long it'll be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a beowolf cluster... yada yada yada

  17. story link lame humour by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just spray it on your bare computer components and you have an ass-ugly computer with no case AND no power cord!

    HEHEHEH sorry but the link just had to be made.

    graspee

    1. Re:story link lame humour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would be perfect for the tin hat linux people to be able to use desktop machines since using power cords that extend outside of their metal cages break their security.

  18. I can see it now... by raelitycheckbounced · · Score: 1

    captain planet pulls out a can of spraypaint and squirts it a bunch of punks defacing a building. The punks are instantly turned into enviornmentally freindly power sources...

  19. Kind of sounds like... by cscx · · Score: 2, Funny

    That spray-on hair replacement "substance" of infomercial fame, to cure male-pattern baldness.

  20. Another link (blatant Karma whoring) by Grumpman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here ya go Not much more info, but a pretty picture of a non-painted solar cell ;-P

  21. PV powered future by cowscows · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm studying architecture, and sustainability and enviromental design is starting to be a big thing in buildings. Solar Power is one of the major technologies that will make it all work. The biggest obstacles to widespread use in architecture are price and appearance. Both of these will be overcome, and I imagine that photovoltaics will be integrated into most building materials. Right now they're seperate pieces applied to a building, but I think they'll some how be integrated or sprayed onto more traditional (or at least more traditional looking) building materials, so their existance could be a non-issue, at least from a visual standpoint.

    On a larger level, I imagine urban areas becoming communities of buildings, all saturated with PV, generating all sorts of power. The buildings would on average generate more electricity than they need, and just release the extra into the local power grid. Instead of everyone getting their energy from a single provider, production would be distributed through all of the buildings, and energy would flow freely to where it was needed. A lot like the distributed internet systems we're starting to see now. There would most likely need to be some sort of external system for peak useages, and I'm sure heavier industrial buildings can require more energy than their buildings could provide, even with maximum PV use. But the advances in PV, along with the growing popularity of energy conserative design should make the power companies nervous

    --

    One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    1. Re:PV powered future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, correct me if I'm wrong here, but if you're absorbing major-league percentages of photons, there aren't going to be too many left to turn into a white exterior. If that's the case, considering how few buildings in sunny places are dark colors, I think it might be a visual issue.

    2. Re:PV powered future by cowscows · · Score: 2

      Go find a building with a large white exterior surface that gets direct sunlight, and stare at it on a sunny day. I think you'll find that it's plenty bright, often to the point of being rather uncomfortable to look at. Something that could tone that down might be nice.

      PV doesn't have to effect the light that much. It's already possible to coat windows with solar panels. And you can still see through them readily. It's kind of like tinting them, only you're getting electricity as well.

      Buildings in sunny places are often lighter colors for heat gain issues.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    3. Re:PV powered future by Perdo · · Score: 2

      "There would most likely need to be some sort of external system for peak useages, and I'm sure heavier industrial buildings can require more energy than their buildings could provide, even with maximum PV use."

      Luckly, peak use and night time do not coincide.

      Only now we need to make batteries as easy as solar cells. Can you imagine 2 tons of lead acid batteries in every house in SanFrancisco?

      Can you say fire?

      How about earthquake?

      Nasty implications of a distributed grid.

      --

      If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

  22. Re:Err, "It's not a bald spot..." by UsonianAutomatic · · Score: 2

    "...It's a solar panel for a sex machine."

    D'oh!

  23. Combine this with the other story.... by r_j_prahad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe the guy who built the spray-foam PC in the earlier Slashdot article could coat the whole mess with this stuff too. Add some 802.11b and it'd be completely self contained. A little spray paint, and voila!

    Cyber-turd.

    1. Re:Combine this with the other story.... by RedWolves2 · · Score: 1

      Took the words right out of my mouth.

    2. Re:Combine this with the other story.... by i_am_nitrogen · · Score: 2

      Uh yeah, but like.. The spray paint would block the light. Plus, I think that they didn't mean paintable in the traditional can-and-brush sense, but in a controlled laboratory they can apply it in a liquid state to manufactured panels and/or materials.

  24. consumer electronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    this is great for small cheap consumer electronic things, ie: calculators, spell checkers, orginizers. Today, things are being built at 1.8v, imagine never replacing the battery in your calculator, or pocket orginizer.

    Forget your pocket-pc or palm - they draw too much current. I'm talking about those cheap $5 to $10 products that have a small coin or button cell. No more button cells, no more coin cells. This is great.

    It can save lots of money..

    1. Re:consumer electronics by aminorex · · Score: 2

      With reflective LCDs, decent demand throttling,
      and magnetic RAM, you should be able to make a
      competitive lap that runs on it's case paint.
      Reaching even deeper, imagine it was running an
      SOI/copper self-clocked reversible CPU. The thing
      could probably run on hand warmth. (That's
      hyperbole.)

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    2. Re:consumer electronics by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 2
      imagine never replacing the battery in your calculator, or pocket orginizer

      Hey, I already have a solar-powered personal radio and a soloar-powered calculator -- I bought them both quite a few years ago.

      I also have a solar-powered battery charger that I use to recharge the NiMh and NiCad batteries I use in some of my other portable electronic items such as my LCD pocket TV and my Walkman.

      The future is already here -- you just have to look for it ;-)

    3. Re:consumer electronics by gewalker · · Score: 1

      Actually, if the handheld trickle charged from a PV coating, it would extend battery life significantly, if not indefinitely. Most people don't use their handheld anywhere near 8 hours a day. Next generation combination gameboy, handheld, cellphone, wireless web, etc. may have a much higher duty cycle and the trickle charging effect may not be enough to help significantly.

      Cheap PV is not even close for the rest of the world to tell the oil-producing nations to stuff it. Breakthroughs in energy storage are also essential. The tranportation sector used 26.6 percent of the total USA energy demand in 2000. But consumed 68% of the petroleum used. Why? -- primarily storage density, convenience, and portability. Coal is messy for end-consumers, nuclear & hydro are not portable (as are non-solar renewables). This leaves petroleum as a practical transportation energy source.

      Duty cycle is very important for PV charged devices. Daily commute on PV charged electric vehicles, no problem. Driving from Chicago to Disneyland for vacation, big problem. Hybrid vehicle with PV charging, and gasoline burner to charge system when duty cycle is extended sounds great. Problem is energy storage density in the batteries

      The Honda Insight hybrid is a good consumer design hybrid because it does not attempt to store a significant amount of power -- only 6.5 amp hours (144 volt). This is enough to run the 10 KW electric motor at full power for 5.6 minutes. To make PV trickle charged vehicles useful for the typical consumer, energy storage must be improved, and that has been only slowly getting better.

      Cheap PV charging for long-haul trucking, etc. does not help significantly because the duty cycle is simply insurmountable, but could be useful for running the refrigeration units, or reducing energy costs, but these types of vehicles will still need a means to quickly take of fuel / recharge while in use.

      Finally, the energy storage mechanism is just as big of a problem for distributed grid power. Electricity is produced on demand, and only rarely stored becaused there is not an economical method to store/retrieve large amounts of energy. Due to large differences in peak/nighttime energy cost off the grid, there are some systems in place that work, but none of them are really economical for large scale deployment, and they also lose a large fraction of the energy. Energy trasnmission losses are generally under 5%, mostly much lower. Store/release energy loses are sometimes higher than 30% (pump water uphill at night, flow downhill through a turbine at peak -- one of the more successful methods BTW). Possible energy storage methods include : better batteries, rechargable fuel-cell (aka battery), synthetic hydrocarbons, hydrogen, or other substitute for petroleum.

      I'm not knocking cheap PV, but don't think this solves all of our energy problems. You want to be as rich as Bill G, solve the energy storage problem. If you would be happy just being as rich as your average billionare, solve the problem with converting all the cheap PV direct current into alternating current (with small loss in a low-cost, low-maint device, able to sync with the grid)

    4. Re:consumer electronics by gewalker · · Score: 2

      Minor correction to myself. Grid losses are generally less than 15%, not 5%. IIRC, national average is 8%

  25. poetically speaking... by envelope · · Score: 3

    Spray-on solar cells
    Collect energy for free.
    Good-bye fossil fuel.

    --

    appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars
  26. Same old same old by Debillitatus · · Score: 2
    "The Sacramento Bee reports about custom-tailored molecules and spray-on plastic could someday create the next generation of solar cells -- more flexible, more efficient and much less expensive than existing sources of solar power.

    Quantum encryption and quantum computing may be just around the corner!

    --

    Come on, give it up, that's

  27. Solar powered laptops, PDA's ect by t0qer · · Score: 2

    Are those things that should be out there, but isn't.

    Thing is they could do it with current photoelectric power cells.

    1. Re:Solar powered laptops, PDA's ect by stalbott972 · · Score: 1

      Actually they allready have them. Check out the following website. http://www.aurorasolar.com/

      --
      Only 8 away from being prime (569919 - 569927) And mom told me I'm unique!!! Sheesh
  28. Big Oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Solar power is supposed to help us rely less on oil. However, these new solar cells are made from plastic, which doesn't help our dependency on oil. Also they don't mention how long these solar cells will last. Plastic is degraded by UV radiation and these solar cells might not last nearly as long as the silicon solar cells.

    1. Re:Big Oil by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Solar power is supposed to help us rely less on oil. However, these new solar cells are made from plastic, which doesn't help our dependency on oil.

      That's OK. We use the rest of the oil in the ground to make plastic solar panels. It will generate orders of magnitude more energy per barrel of oil than burning it.

      When it's worn out, much of it can be recycled. Even with recycling, after a long time, all of the oil will be depleted. At this point, we can start converting coal into hydrocarbons to make plastic. We'll have 1 or 2 orders of magnitude more plastic available.

      I would guess that be enough plastic to get us through the next 20000 years or so. After that, we might need to think of some other way to get energy.

    2. Re:Big Oil by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      Solar power is supposed to help us rely less on oil. However, these new solar cells are made from plastic, which doesn't help our dependency on oil.

      No, it does help. I expect the amount of "oil" needed to produce a photocell is very small compared to the amount of "oil" needed to produce, via combustion, the equivalent amount of power generated by the photocell over it's lifetime.

    3. Re:Big Oil by spike+hay · · Score: 3, Informative

      However, these new solar cells are made from plastic, which doesn't help our dependency on oil

      To power your house for 20 years, you might need 10 pounds of plastic. That is 10 pounds of oil, or roughly a little over a gallon. Compare that to the thousands of gallons you would otherwise use. Just think more critically. Even with all the plastic we use today, it barely makes a dent in oil usage.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    4. Re:Big Oil by weiyuent · · Score: 1

      A "plastic" is any material that is easily molded at a low temperature into the desired shape of a final product. Though many plastics are derived from petrochemicals, some are derived from alcohol-based polymers, and some others from vegetable resins. The name "plastic" describes a material's physical properties, not its composition. Also, not all plastics are affected by exposure to UV light.

      Based on my quick skim of the articles on this invention, I'm not aware exactly what type of plastic is being used. But it is the nanorods that are the breakthrough "active ingredient", so it should be fairly easy to substitute whatever plastic would be most appropriate.

  29. How long will it be before... by erroneus · · Score: 2

    ...self-healing chip technology? Think of it. With nano-tech building and arranging molecules, you could boost or repair a memory array. Oh, that technology warms me from the inside.

  30. The sun IS a nuclear based energy source.... by TheCaptain · · Score: 1

    and for that matter, what makes you think that the energy companies wouldn't love to sell this to you. I doubt it would last forever, and you'd need alot of it. There'd likely be a continous demand really...and to top it off, they don't have to even transport energy to you anymore. (Any idea how much they lose to line resistance over distances?! That is money down the tubes to them.)

    Oh...yeah...sorry. Didn't want to interrupt a cheapshot on the Administration.

    1. Re:The sun IS a nuclear based energy source.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For mainly the same reasons the energy industry has opposed or resisted all other energy alternatives. Because it would significantly decrease the value of many of their assets. Building nanotech plastics does not seem like an easy transition for someone who has rights to huge coal reserves and a number of coal burning power plants.

      I would think it far more likely that they would be interested in buying the rights to this technology and putting it on a shelf.

      It is also worth noting that you made the link between the current Administration and the energy industry, not the previous poster. No matter what the administration, I would assume a major industry would lobby to protect their interests.

  31. Black Power by Romancer · · Score: 2

    This is exactly like the "Black Power" described in Larry Niven's "Flatlander" series. A black substance sprayed onto any surface to provide solar collection.

    I love it when science fiction leads the way to science fact.

    --


    ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
    ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
    1. Re:Black Power by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2
      This is exactly like the "Black Power" described in Larry Niven's "Flatlander" series. A black substance sprayed onto any surface to provide solar collection.
      But is it subject to Pupetteer-engineered supraconductor plague???
    2. Re:Black Power by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

      Nope, Mr. Niven never said it (black power) was superconducting in nature.

      --
      If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
    3. Re:Black Power by Drakin · · Score: 1

      It's actually rather amusing to see jus how many technological advances are based on concepts from science fiction.

      It's also amaising, how in the "golden age" of science fiction how many of the authors were also engneers or had learning in some sciences...

    4. Re:Black Power by Romancer · · Score: 2

      "Flatlander" by Lary Niven,
      Page 328
      Sixth paragraph down,
      and I quote:

      "What's finally knocked the bottom out is this new solar electric paint. Black Power, they call it. It turns sunlight into electricity, just like any solar power converter, but you spray it on."

      "Flatlander" is a collection of stories about Gil "The ARM" Hamilton and the short story that this is quoted from is called "The Woman in Del Rey Crater" It's the sixteenth page in the actual story.

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
    5. Re:Black Power by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

      so...are you saying i'm right and he never mentions it being superconductive?

      --
      If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
    6. Re:Black Power by Romancer · · Score: 2

      I'm saying that the technology and the process described in the article are just like Niven's description in the book, neither the article nor Niven's book state any superconduction properties.

      My statement:
      This is exactly like the "Black Power" described in Larry Niven's "Flatlander" series.

      Your reply:
      Nope, Mr. Niven never said it (black power) was superconducting in nature.

      My comment:
      Read the article. It never says that their invention is superconducting in nature. So they are the same concept.

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
  32. Interesting by erc · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Interesting that I submitted stis story over 24 hours ago, and it was rejected only to have been accepted by someone else, later. Seems like Rob and Company are only accepting submissions from their buddies...

    --
    -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
  33. Technically, it IS running on solar power. . . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 1
    . . .after all, wood, oil, and coal are just stored solar energy. And you could argue that since all the heavier elements are the result of extended stellar fusion, so is nuclear power.

    But in all seriousness, unless you cover a LOT of area with solar panels, even of the spray-on nanotech variety, it won't be enough for really heavy industry. OTOH, it WILL make roads and parking lots additionally useful as power sources. . . .

  34. This is a ways off. Until then by spike+hay · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We can use nuclear power until cheap solar, and hydrogen from solar power, becomes a reality. We can build lotsa nuclear plants to make hydrogen to power pollutant-free hydrogen fuel cell cars.

    One of the big culprits of smog is obviosly cars. We need to switch to hydrogen fuel cell cars. However, many people seem to think of hydrogen as an energy source. It isn't. You need electricity to make hydrogen.

    Until we have cheap solar, you need to get the electricity from one of our old sources: coal, oil, nuclear, natural gas, etc.

    Coal pollutes too much. We'd be overrun with smog if we built many more coal plants for hydrogen cars, much more so than if we used gasoline engines. We don't have enough oil to be energy independant. Natural gas is too expensive and we will run out of it in about 30 years. That leaves us with nuclear. Nuclear power is not as dangerous as people think. Also, Chernobyl-scale meltdowns in U.S. PWR are impossible. The Chernobyl reactor was a crappy commie RBMK reactor with no containment building. Of course we had the TMI reactor problem. However, that killed or injured no one. And, according to the World Health Org, only 31 people were killed in Chernobyl.

    Fears of nuclear power are overblown. Radiation is just like any other pollutant. And you need a shyteload of radiation to really harm you. Nuclear power has killed a grand total of 35 people in it's entire exsistence. Coal power has killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 million people in this century, of emphysema, lung cancer, etc, etc.

    Little known fact, but according to the Lawrence Livermore Nat'l lab, coal power realeases more radiation than nuclear power. Coal naturally contains some thorium and uranium. When you burn coal, this is realesed into the air. We burn so much fscking coal that we realease around 150 thousand tons of uranium and 350 thousand tons of thorium!!! The study is here. Nuclear power is also cheap. With some new tech, they have gotten the cost of some nuclear power plants below the cost of coal.

    There is not mountains of nuclear waste made by our plants. Each plant only uses several tons of uranium a year. That would fit in an area just a few feet square. The total amount of waste ever created for a whole family for their whole lives would fit in a shoebox. If we reprocessed our fuel, it would fit in a pill bottle. Compare that to mountains of highly toxic coal waste with arsenic, cyanide, and other good stuff that just sits on the ground and leaches poisons into the groundwater.

    Nuclear waste storage is very good. It's not like they are hauling it around in thin metal barrels like the environmentalists want you to think. No. The waste is transported in thick metal containers that have been tested by being thrown off cliffs, rammed into locomotives, and all sorts of crap. In Yucca mountain, the waste is stored inside these metal casks, which are in turn inside an ultra-thick concrete subterrainean room. Also, the storage place is 2,000 feet above the water table, so you're OK there.

    Anyway, this plastic solar thing looks like it could be amazingly cheap and very clean. It would probably be easier for everyone to have these solar cells at their own homes. If Joe Smith put up 3,000 dollars worth of these solar cells, he could power his house for much cheaper than coal or nuclear.

    However, you still have the energy storage problem. What happens to the power after dark or when it's cloudy? With this, you have an electrolyzer that takes some of your solar cell power during the daytime and splits it into hydrogen and oxygen. Then at night you recombine these components in a fuel cell to get power.

    Home based solar plants are better than centralized ones for a few reasons:

    1. Power loss over the lines. You lose over 10% of your electicity in the lines. Plus loss in transformers, etc.

    2. Fuel cells are small devices. They are more suited for home use.

    3. Independance from power companies (i.e. Enron)

    Anyway, I don't think these solar cells will be ready for another 30 years or more. That is just my gut feeling. In the meantime:

    1.Replace your incandescent bulbs with compact flourescent!!! The better brands put off a better, more natural light than even incandescent. They use so little electicity and last for so goddamn long that they are cheaper in the longrun.

    2. Turn off the lights when you are not in the room!!!! There is no reason to have all the lights on. If you live in a house with you and your spouse, only one or two rooms should have the lights on. If you have your whole house lighted at night, you are really wasting energy.

    3. During the daytime, set your hot water heater to "vacation." You don't need it to keep your water continously warm when you are at work. Turn it on when you get home. By dinnertime you will have plenty of hot water.

    4. Buy "Energy Star" appliances. These will save you money in the long run.

    For more info, go here.

    It's pushback.com, San Francisco talk show host Dr. Bill Wattenburg's website. Lots of info on energy conservation and lots of other stuff, coming from someone with a doctorate, a masters, and a B.S., whos worked for Lockheed Missile and Space company, IBM, Lawrence Livermore, and other places. He is a rocket scientist. Listen to what he has to say.

    --
    If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    1. Re:This is a ways off. Until then by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      And don't forget that conventional solar cells generate a large amount of very toxic waste to manufacture.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:This is a ways off. Until then by drDugan · · Score: 2


      Don't you get it? -- no matter how much sense
      it makes, in our current system, the people
      with the power to keep the status quo are the
      ones profiting from our screwed up current system.

      Not until you start looking at the larger
      context does it make sense that we still burn
      coal. Companies with money can support
      blatant lies if they spend enough to media
      brainwash them into the general public. And we
      all just accept it.

    3. Re:This is a ways off. Until then by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2
      1. Power loss over the lines. You lose over 10% of your electicity in the lines. Plus loss in transformers, etc.
      Out of curiosity, do you have a reference for that? I've seen graphs that imply 2/3 (or 1/3?) of electricty produced is wasted -- though how much of that is because of excesive off-peak production or other factors, I don't know, and it wasn't entirely clear how to read the graph. I'm very curious what the real deal is.
    4. Re:This is a ways off. Until then by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 2

      Not until you start looking at the larger
      context does it make sense that we still burn
      coal. Companies with money can support
      blatant lies if they spend enough to media
      brainwash them into the general public. And we all just accept it.


      Yes, and disreputable and dishonest organizations can support blatant lies which kneecapped nuclear power in America. The electrical power utilities don't have any vested interest in coal, or they'd never have bothered to build what nuclear plants they could!

      Face it, it's goofy, NON-PROFIT environmental organizations which are "brainwashing the general public", not "companies with money".

      ASA

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    5. Re:This is a ways off. Until then by Mobutu · · Score: 1

      Everything You wrote is true, for as far as I can verify(although I do think that much more people have died from cancer related to Chernobil...), except for your conclusions. If I get it right, you think it's OK to use nuclear energy until a better solution arrives, because it is safe to use and does not generate much pollution.

      I agree that it's safe to use, but nuclear waste is a serious problem. I don't have the numbers in here, but let's say we have to store things for 500 years. Now 500 years doesn't look like much. We both know it has to be stored much longer than that.

      Now look 500 years back. Here in europe we were just escaping from the dark ages and America was still inhibited by indians. 500 years is NOT something we can oversee, but despite that we are generating nuclear waste and leave our children (and theirs and theirs and so on) with the problem. In times of war nuclear waste depots will be a vailable target.

      I don't have the solution, but I just wanted to say yours isn't one either.

      Cheers.

    6. Re:This is a ways off. Until then by Dave_bsr · · Score: 1

      shoot it into space. take all your buckets of waste and launch them out of orbit into the vast unknown. seriously...in 5 years who's to say we can't do this all the time? Maybe in 5 years we can just recycle it all.

      --


      Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
    7. Re:This is a ways off. Until then by Mobutu · · Score: 1

      Well, two reasons:

      1. imagine something goes wrong during the launch (which is what you can expect whenever you launch these kind of transports on a regular basis)

      2. It still costs a hell of a lot of energy to shoot something into space.

    8. Re:This is a ways off. Until then by spike+hay · · Score: 2

      Out of curiosity, do you have a reference for that? I've seen graphs that imply 2/3 (or 1/3?) of electricty produced is wasted

      That is just what i have heard before. Are you sure about 2/3-1/3. That seems like a lot.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    9. Re:This is a ways off. Until then by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2
      I just looked through old posts for a reference I had found at one time -- but it was only an inferrence, not a direct reference, and I couldn't even find it. I have yet to find a clear authority on how efficient electric distribution is -- like the simple number, how much electricity is produced at plants, and how much is ultimately consumed (in a productive way of course -- after all, it's all consumed somewhere).

      In other people's posts I see wildly different numbers on how much is wasted -- 5%, 10%, 50%, 90%... but no one provides a reference, so I don't know who to believe.

  35. Forget it for cars. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    Imagine the uses, spraying it on electric cars.

    The amount of energy required for a car (even a hypothetical "supercar") is orders of magnitude beyond the amount of energy in the sunlight that hits its surface.

    Pave your yard with cells and you're starting to approach it.

    Or move to a billiard-ball flat planet with no atmosphere.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Forget it for cars. by ParisTG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We who design solar cars beg to differ :).

      Although you're right, current generation solar cars can only generate about 1-1.6 kW or so, but even then they can cruise at or above 75 km/h.

      Of course, right now it's not very comfortable, only seats one person (usually), and is bloody expensive, but who knows what the future will bring?

    2. Re:Forget it for cars. by Snard · · Score: 2

      The solar cells don't have to run the car (although that would be nice), but they can certainly boost the batteries, or recharge them while it sits in the parking lot for 8 hours, after your 30 minute drive to work (those numbers might vary, of course)

      --
      - Mike
  36. Does this mean a new version of Goldfinger? by dinotrac · · Score: 2

    I can see it now:
    Pretty much the same movie as before, but jazzed up a bit.
    The big diff: When poor Jilly gets the all-over spray paint makeover, she no longer suffocates.
    Not only is she electrocuted, but her body continues to power a flashing neon sign that says simply, "This, 007, is a clue."

  37. Energy density by AJWM · · Score: 2

    This is great stuff, and sprayable solar panels will go a long way where the silicon haven't.

    But there are some applications where it just won't be that useful. The energy density of full sunlight is just a bit over one kilowatt per square meter -- and that's the sunlight intensity, multiply it by the conversion efficiency to get the electrical power, then add in cloud filtering, nighttime, and sun angles at other than local noon in the tropics.

    It might run your air conditioner in the summer if you have a roof covered with the stuff, but it isn't going to become the sole source of power for electric highway vehicles. (Look at the designs of the solar race cars.)

    But it's still cool.

    --
    -- Alastair
    1. Re:Energy density by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

      I was struck by the thought of using high temprature superconductors as house wiring for soem strange reason...waste all the energy gathered from the spray-on solar panel to run the cooling system for the wiring.

      But the other thought was what if you spray paint the high way and and sue that to power the electric cars...you wouldn't get much energy during ruch hour, but nobody's moving anyways...

      --
      If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  38. On roadway surfaces? by babymac · · Score: 1
    What I'd like to see is this stuff sprayed onto the surface of every interstate highway in the country. Let's not forget the major roadways either. If this substance could be made durable enough, it could be the answer to our power problems forever.

    YES, I'm serious...

    --
    "War makes me sad." - Me
  39. Environmentalist Vandelism by Jagasian · · Score: 2

    I can just see it now. Environmentalist fanatics running around cities like 1980s gang members with spray paint cans, spraying grafitti on anything and everything... all in the name of polutionless electricity.

    1. Re:Environmentalist Vandelism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what?

  40. Nanotechnology? by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 1, Troll

    Sounds grrrreat! WOW! This could change everything.

    Oh, except the whole 'nanotech' thing.

    Everytime I hear a phrase that says, "the process could be improved with nanotech," I immediately think about all of the people that throw up their arms and scream halleluia everytime someone says that they have made the next 'cold fusion.'

    If they even speak the words nanotech or cold fusion, it is basically saying, "this is a good idea, but right now our discovery is complete bullshit. Yes, we're bullshitting you."

    Some scientist says that some device would be better improved with nanotech.
    I would have to respond with "WEEEEEL, for goodness sake, what invention wouldn't be improved with the uncanny abiltity to control every stinkin' molecule?"

    You know, with that ability, I could live forever. Get it out of your head. It ain't going to happen. There are not going to be machines run throuhg your body that sweep out your diseases. We have those, they're called white blood cells. All this nanotech bull is great material for science fiction novels and movies. Its great brain candy to think about. I like good bull in my stories and movies. I, however, don't like it in the REAL STINKIN' WORLD, where people do REAL FREAKIN' SCIENCE.

    I am going out on a limb, but on the surface this appears to NOT BE A LEGITIMATE STORY.

    1. Re:Nanotechnology? by Shade,+The · · Score: 1

      Nanotechnology - two words. Nano. Technology. It is technology. Is is on a scale measured in nanometres. Therefore it is Nanotechnology.

      Nanotechnology does not necessarily mean having lots of little machines to control every single molecule. At it simplest, it just means building things on a molecular level, like buckyballs for instance.

      Ok, so I know I'm likely replying to a troll, but it had to be said :)

    2. Re:Nanotechnology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it may sound like science fiction to you, but much of today physics do that to most people.

      I am studing physics at the University of Copenhagen, and this summer they are starting a new education i nanoscience.

      http://www.nano.ku.dk

      And check out the American National Nanotechnology
      Initiative.

      http://www.nano.gov

      To me it looks like people who actually know what they are talking about, are taking nanoscience VERY seriously.

  41. Current solar and other alternative energy.. by Ogerman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just in case anybody is wondering, the solar panels available today are neither "clean, renewable energy" nor cost efficient in terms of long-run payback. In almost all cases, the energy used to produce today's solar panels is greater than will ever be recovered by use within their approximate 10-12 year lifespan. When you add the energy and waste cost of inverters, lead-acid storage cells, etc. you end up with a power supply with far worse environmental impact than typical utility-provided power--especially if your local utility is nuclear--yes, nuclear is clean power, folks. Many solar installations also will never pay for themselves. So basically, today's photovoltaics are in essense expensive batteries. Lots of energy is put into their production, then they're shipped off somewhere else and they give you some of that energy back.

    Right now, unless you live in a climate with very abundant sunlight and are off the grid due to location, the best alternative (electrical) energy sources are wind and possibly some of the new home fuel-cell units just arriving on the market. Plastic or other more exotic solar cells will definitely be interesting if they materialize, though--especially if they last longer and are easily/cheaply recycled.

    But don't forget passive solar!! You don't have to convert it into electricity to make use of the sun's plentiful energy. With the right engineering and a suitable location, it is quite possible and inexpensive to use solar for most or all your home heating/cooling, cooking, water heating, etc. needs. Look around online; there's some interesting ideas out there. Plus-good for geeks who want to beat the system and whatnot. (-:

    1. Re:Current solar and other alternative energy.. by leucadiadude · · Score: 2

      Wish I had a mod point for ya. You are spot on (speaking as an person with some direct experience in the field).

    2. Re:Current solar and other alternative energy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...Just in case anybody is wondering, the solar panels available today are neither "clean, renewable energy" nor cost
      ... efficient in terms of long-run payback. In almost all cases, the energy used to produce today's solar panels is
      ....greater than will ever be recovered by use within their approximate 10-12 year lifespan. When you add the energy
      ....and waste cost of inverters, lead-acid storage cells, etc. you end up with a power supply with far worse
      .....environmental impact than typical utility-provided power--especially if your local utility is nuclear-

      Inverters (and other control electronics) will have a useful live of ...oh, forever. Lead-acid is not the only storage
      mechanism. Some power can be used straight off the cells and not stored at all so only some needs to be stored.
      10-12 years is an assumed life which I'm not convinced is correct. Besides once you get to 10 years plus, the
      dominant factor is usually going to be whether the return on investment is higher than prevailing interest rates.

      ....yes, nuclear is clean power, folks.

      Well, nuclear power is both clean and cheap, if you ignore the costs further down the line of what to do with the waste and
      the decommisioning costs. (Oh and if any maintainence is required on a nuclear plant, it is ***really** expensive, due to
      the procedures required. And you have to do something with the old contaminated parts)
      Once all of those costs are taken into account, it is questionable whether nuclear power makes any economic sense at all.
      (even before factoring in the risks).

      Personally I reckon you are Mr Burns from the Simpsons.

      .....Many solar installations also will never pay for themselves

      I'm not sure I can agree with you. Consider a 60W (small indeed) solar panel array available today for #149. (thats retail price
      that anyone can get for a one off small scale panel, so the manufacturing costs must be less than that).
      At 8hours per day, say 300 days per year that gives me 8*300*0.06 = 144 KWHrs.
      (Yes,this is for a fairly sunny location). 144KWHrs is worth approx #0.05*144 = #7.2.
      So thats, 7.2/149= 4.8% return on capital.
      Not going to make you instantly rich, but not as uneconomic as many folks would make out.

      Don't just listen to the promotional material (propaganda) put out by the nuclear, oil, or environmental
      lobbyists. Do the sums for yourself.

      (and I could also get 750W for #1399, which gives a 6.4% return [ (750/1399)*(149/60)*4.8 ] which is
      pretty good compared to current interest rates. (Although at the end of the period you consider,
      you have a solar plant with it's capital value, rather than the original cash capital in the bank)

      Basically, nowadays it comes down to a question of whether the return on the initial upfront cost is better invested in the
      bank at current interest levels and used to buy electricity produced by other means, or invest the cash in something which
      will produce more worth of electricity than the interest on the capital cost.

      ...Right now, unless you live in a climate with very abundant sunlight and are off the grid due to location, the best
      ...alternative (electrical) energy sources are wind and possibly some of the new home fuel-cell units just arriving on
      ...the market. Plastic or other more exotic solar cells will definitely be interesting if they materialize,
      ...though--especially if they last longer and are easily/cheaply recycled.

      Wind is good if you are somewhere windy.
      Fuel-Cell units are not a means of *producing* energy. They just let you convert stored (usually) hydrogen into energy.

      ...But don't forget passive solar!! You don't have to convert it into electricity to make use of the sun's plentiful
      ...energy. With the right engineering and a suitable location, it is quite possible and inexpensive to use solar for most
      ...or all your home heating/cooling, cooking, water heating, etc. needs. Look around online; there's some interesting
      ...ideas out there. Plus-good for geeks who want to beat the system and whatnot. (-:

      Indeed, solar water heating (not photovoltaic) , is economically feasible (and has been for a long time) , especially
      if you keep the costs down by doing a D-I-Y installation (and don't use silly overpriced vacuum tubes).

    3. Re:Current solar and other alternative energy.. by WoodsDweller · · Score: 1
      • Just in case anybody is wondering, the solar panels available today are neither "clean, renewable energy" nor cost efficient in terms of long-run payback. In almost all cases, the energy used to produce today's solar panels is greater than will ever be recovered by use within their approximate 10-12 year lifespan.
      There may have been some point in the past where the energy payback was negative. The solar industry today claims a 2 year energy payback, and most of that was for fabrication of the aluminum frames. My panels came with a 20 year warranty to produce 90% of their original output. How long do terrestrial (i.e. not orbital) panels last? We don 't know, none have ever worn out.
      • yes, nuclear is clean power, folks
      As long as you ignore radiation, I suppose.
      • Many solar installations also will never pay for themselves. So basically, today's photovoltaics are in essense expensive batteries.
      True in terms of dollars, home-scale solar is something like fifty cents per kwhr, depending on your assumptions of finance cost, and will not pay for itself compared to ten cent grid electricity. However, PV being expensive batteries is just a myth.
      --
      There are two kinds of societies: sustainable and doomed.
    4. Re:Current solar and other alternative energy.. by cybercuzco · · Score: 2
      As long as you ignore radiation, I suppose.

      Like we ignore the radon that is released when coal is burned? Coal power plants release more radiation into the atmosphere every year than all the nuclear accidents in the US combined. If you want to cut down on the amout of radiation released into the atmosphere you would immediately convert all coal power plants to nuclear power plants. Of course that ignores other power supplies like renewables, but while progress is being made, wind and solar simply arent ready yet to provide all the nations power.

      --

  42. forget solar powered houses... by iplayfast · · Score: 1

    Imagine the roads being painted with this stuff. It would be like slot cars all over the country.

  43. here we go again by cats-paw · · Score: 2
    Alivisatos and other team members believe their design could be beefed up for use in calculators or other small solar devices in two to five years.

    Who the f*ck cares ? You can already buy solar powered calculators. In 2 to 5 years they are going to do something you can already do ?

    Every few years there is going to be a big breakthrough in solar. First it was amorphous, now it's polymer. As long as research programs like this are getting 100's of thousands of dollars while the wars the US fights to keep oil supplies stable cost 10's of billions of dollars - don't bet on solar.

    --
    Absolute statements are never true
  44. I seen this once before by Bork · · Score: 0

    Popular science had something like this a few years back but involved a chemical that you sprayed on sand that was spread out on foil. Do not know what your but it was on a APRIL 1 edition.

    1. Re:I seen this once before by Bork · · Score: 0

      Do not know what your but ...
      should be
      Do not know what year but ...

  45. How about April 1 by Bork · · Score: 0

    Last time I saw this feat was with sand spread out on foil and sprayed with this wounder fluid.

    It was a April 1 issue

  46. Are They REALLY Here At Last?? by serutan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My oldest memory of reading about amorphous semiconductor photocells of the future is from the early 70's. They were the brainchild of Stanford Ovshinski, who later invented metal hydride batteries. Good to know amorphous solar cells might finally be taking off.

  47. Spray-on solar cells? by msm1th · · Score: 2

    The implications for quantum computing are staggering!

    1. Re:Spray-on solar cells? by RandomInAction · · Score: 1

      Sorry I meant to ask; What.. like HOW? WHY?

  48. Cheap Spray-on Plastic Solar Cells Coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're not even breathing hard yet!

  49. Oh, great.!!!! by EvilStein · · Score: 2

    So not only can the Sacramento Bee not manage to deliver a paper to my apartment in a timely manner, but now thanks to the /. effect I can't even get to their website in a timely manner.

    I guess it's time to read the SF Examiner again. :P

  50. Re:Technically, it IS running on solar power. . . by bmw · · Score: 1

    This sort of stuff would only work on roads if...

    1. Vehicles could still get enough traction.
    and
    2. It can withstand the normal wear and tear that roads are subjected to.

    If it would work, it would indeed be very cool.

  51. Global cooling? by pete-classic · · Score: 2

    First, I think the spray on cells are a great idea. They could use CFC propellant as a method to improve gain as they are deployed.

    But I jest.

    More seriously, has anyone looked at the potential for global cooling of converting significant amounts of solar energy to mechanical? Sure some of the input to machines is returned to heat, but any movement is solar heat the we'll never get back.

    I'm serious.

    And let's not forget that Earth Day was organized to fight global cooling . . .

    -Peter

    1. Re:Global cooling? by jgoemat · · Score: 1
      If you're thinking about setting up something to do that just to cool the earth, it would be simpler and more efficien to paint everything white to reflect the light back into space.

      Jason

    2. Re:Global cooling? by pete-classic · · Score: 2

      The potential for English sentences to have multiple, conflicting interpretations never fails to amaze me.

      I meant "Has anyone looked at the potential negative environmental impact of unintended global cooling from photoelectric proliferation." or something.

      Damn ambiguous language. I might save this for an example for when people ask me "why can't I just tell my computer what to do in English?"

      -Peter

  52. Hey now... by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

    what's wrong with nuclear energy?

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
    1. Re:Hey now... by VValdo · · Score: 2
      --
      -------------------
      This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  53. Real cheap, yeah, right by Animats · · Score: 2
    Amorphous solar cells were supposed to get real cheap too, but they've stayed about the same as crystalline cells, which are made like ICs. And the efficiency still sucks.

    Remember, Moore's Law doesn't help solar cells, because smaller isn't better.

  54. Instructions for getting a +5 on slashdot. by deglr6328 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1)Liberally pepper your post with oversimplified pseudoscientific pablum such as "...And, according to the World Health Org, only 31 people were killed in Chernobyl" thereby craftily distracting your audience's attention away from any actual facts about the true magnitude of the disaster. For instance that annoying little statistic of Thyroid cancer(yes I did specifically pick a site from the WHO as a jab at your laughably out of context quote) incidence increasing by oh, 10 times or so. Or maybe the statement by the Board on Effects of Ionizing Radiation and the International Commission on Radiation Protection that the collective dose of 600,000 person-Sieverts released from Chernobyl to the population of the USSR would correspond to 24,000 additional deaths(from the Federation of American Scientists) in that area?

    2)Proclaim your unquestioned infinite knowledge on all things related to the topic at hand: "In Yucca mountain, the waste is stored inside these metal casks, which are in turn inside an ultra-thick concrete subterrainean room. Also, the storage place is 2,000 feet above the water table, so you're OK there." Phew good thing we have people like you to tell us such important things lest we waste millions paying doctors of geology to try to figure out such things.

    3)Regurgitate amateurish propaganda supporting your cause which contains self-parodying scare tactics aimed at any opposing viewpoints: "Coal naturally contains some thorium and uranium. When you burn coal, this is realesed into the air. We burn so much fscking coal that we realease around 150 thousand tons of uranium and 350 thousand tons of thorium!!!". It's important to remember that while using this shoe-in of a tactic to attain your +5 that you should ignore all obvious holes in your strawman theory such as the fact that coal has BACKGROUND levels of radiation, and burning it has negligible effect on concentrating this radiation. By Spike hay's logic I could argue that the millions of human bodies incinerated every year in cremation ceremonies increases the radioactive pollution of the atmosphere and soil because of all that Carbon-14 and Potassium-40 released when your body burns. Why it must be thousands of tones total every year!!

    4)Finally if all else fails, just make a link like he does to to the nearest nut job you can find whose home page should have the latest instructions on "How to Find Osama bin Laden with guaranteed anonymity" apparently using some whacked out pin number conspiracy theory or some such scheme.

    That's all! Your're on your way to karma whore heaven! (p.s. i'm already at 50 so I don't really give a crap about what happens to this post)

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  55. Spray a cow by pcwhalen · · Score: 1

    and have enough power to run a small neon sign off a cowbell battery. Light up the fields at night to make for easier tipping. Better living through chemistry

    --
    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
  56. Student solar car projects will benefit by CanadaDave · · Score: 2

    This will be good for student solar car projects, which in a way are paving the way for new age solar cars in the future. They are plagued by the high costs of the solar cells though...

  57. self-powered computer possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Combine spray on photovoltaics with a previous story's 'spray on computer case' and you may some day have a portable computer that requires no connection to power sources.

  58. Nuclear fuel 'clean'? by vandan · · Score: 2

    I agree with all your points apart from the bit about nuclear fuel being clean. I don't think anyone can predict what is going to be happening at any point in the world in 50 years' time, or 500, or 5000, or 1,000,000. But if you produce radioactive material, you have an obligation to make SURE that your waste material is not going to harm something down the line, be it human or whatever takes over when we get wiped off the face of the earth. The incredibly long half-life of waste material coming from nuclear reactors makes nuclear energy about the most irresponsible thing we can do to the planet.
    Now if you send it (waste) into the sun, I may be interested... But I don't think that's economically feasible.

    1. Re:Nuclear fuel 'clean'? by cybercuzco · · Score: 2

      Nuclear waste is a pollitical problem more than it is a scientific one. There are methods for converting waste fuels into new fuel for nuclear power plants (IFR, ALMR) These plants would essentually eliminate all the nuclear waste we currently have. Granted, the process still produces radioactive waste, but the half life of that waste goes from millions of years to hundreds of years. Pollitically howerve, this cant be done, since plutonium is an intermediate step in the process, and we dont want to promote proliferation of nuclear weapons.

      --

  59. Obligatory Comment by stalbott972 · · Score: 1

    Now can you imagine this on a beowulf!!!! Sorry Had to be said

    --
    Only 8 away from being prime (569919 - 569927) And mom told me I'm unique!!! Sheesh
  60. The old myth again by basfromasd · · Score: 3, Informative
    How much longer will we have to deal with the old myth that PV systems will never pay back the energy they cost to produce? Instead of just repeating the old mantra you might read on what people who have actually done the math (a method called Life Cycle Assessment) have found. Depending on the technology used (crystalline silicon vs. thin film technology), a solar panel delivers the energy it cost to produce in less than one year upto a few years. If you use a solar panel instead of roof tiles the energy payback time is even (a lot) shorter. And it's not like this information is new. A search for life cycle assessment photovoltaic returns almost 6000 hits on Google.

    Now in terms of economic value: given the fact that prices of PV systems have come down dramatically over the past decades, while electricity has only become more expensive, it is already economical in my country to install PV on homes and other buildings (and the Netherlands is not a particularly sunny country!). It will not make you rich and it takes years to pay for itself, but it will in the end.

    And nuclear energy is clean and cheap? Give me a break! I thought we all knew better than that. It sounds like Dick Halliburton Cheney is speaking.

    I do agree on the statement that solar heat systems (hot water) are much more economical and pay back for themselves much quicker. And yes, wind turbines work very well too and pay back for themselves (at least in this windy country).

  61. Solar cells are not very efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    To all those people who think solar cells are efficient and clean: What do you say about the fact that it takes more energy to produce a solar cell than the cell will ever gather in it's ENTIRE lifetime?

    1. Re:Solar cells are not very efficient by RandomInAction · · Score: 2, Informative

      ..whatever, please provide a link? I can't spend the time looking into every claim I read on the web.

      Regarding solar cell efficiency; you're right about them being inefficient.

      takes more energy to produce a solar cell than the cell will ever gather in it's ENTIRE lifetime

      Is this a fact? Could you give us a link?

  62. Cut and paste your way to big atomic karma! by Mandelbrute · · Score: 2
    Fears of nuclear power are overblown. Radiation is just like any other pollutant.... etc
    An enormous chunk of the same message came up for the tidal power thread. Reposted for big atomic powered karma?
    Little known fact, but according to the Lawrence Livermore Nat'l lab, coal power realeases more radiation than nuclear power.
    I answered this before on the tidal power thread: sedimentary rock is mildly radioactive, coal is a sedimentary rock, heavy metal oxides don't reduce or vapourise in a coal fired plant (not enough heat or CO) and sink to the bottom in separation, leaving you with something no more radioactive than the average kindergarden sandpit - and nothing in the air apart from those NOx, SOx (if the filtering is crap) and CO2.
    Home based solar plants are better than centralized ones for a few reasons
    To back up a statement like this you need to use a few numbers - it all depends on how well it scales down and the competing solar and storage technologies - plus other things like siting an enormous plant in the desert versus local supply on the Washington coast (heard it rains a lot there).

    No more karma guys, I got big atomic karma replying to an almost identical atomic message before.

  63. Screw the car, Solar-Asphalt ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... You could mix conducting plastic compounds with highwy asphalt and the vehicle's tires! This closes the energy circuit and you have something akin to a maglev train with the solar asphalt road transfering energy through the tires into the car! Hmmmmm ... this thought brought to you by lots of caffiene and an overactive underutilized imagination.

    - Long live Tyco, Icarus. ;-)

  64. How many cows are there in the world? by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    I think the reason they used humans was that there were so many of them to begin with, billions and billions. Now, their might be millions of cows, but not the numbers that could provide so much energy (combined with a special form of fusion, of course). And of course, since their tech is all designed to use people, it only makes sense for them to keep going with 'em.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:How many cows are there in the world? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, no, they used humans because they had to have _SOME_ ridiculous as it may be, excuse for that VR-world plot thingie.

      Zeesh, if they were even only have them use muscle power to drive generators instead of treknobabbling about some incredibly stupid brain or biovoltage, or whatever.

  65. Yes. We already know people don't like nuke power by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Now the question is why. Btw, the corosion in that tank harming anything at all, and while it did uncover some kind of flaw, there were other safegaurds to prevent anything from leaking out.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  66. New way to provide power to stores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cover the parking lot with the spray on solar cells and one would have enough power for the store.

  67. Not dinosaurs, says Professor Emeritus @ Cornell by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
    oil is from compressed carbon compounds (dinosaurs, etc.)

    This wouldn't be the Internet if there wasn't at least some dissenting opinion around. (-: This from a Professor Emeritus at Cornell.

    Here's a soundless-bite from the abstract in case you think I'm kidding:

    Thomas Gold

    U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1570, The Future of Energy Gases, 1993

    Modern information re-directs attention to the theories of a non-biological, primeval origin. Among this information is the prominence of hydrocarbons-gases, liquids and solids-on many other bodies of the solar system, as well as in interstellar space. Advances in high-pressure thermodynamics have shown that the pressure-temperature regime of the Earth would allow hydrocarbon molecules to be formed and to survive between the surface and a depth of 100 to 300 km. Outgassing from such depth would bring up other gases present in trace amounts in the rocks, thus accounting for the well known association of hydrocarbons with helium. Recent discoveries of the widespread presence of bacterial life at depth point to this as the origin of the biological content of petroleum.



    You'll be pleased to discover that an awful lot of other stuff you `know' is completely wrong. (-:

    For another example: most modern aircraft, notably jetliners and military aircraft don't rely on the Bernoulli effect (you know, the faster-air-lower-pressure-over-wing thing you're taught in science classes at school) to fly. Think about it: if Bernoulli kept aeroplanes in the air, how could you fly one upside down? (-:

    Are you interested in a few other foundation-shakers for you knowledge base? There are plenty of them around! (-:
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  68. Free-range plastic by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
    could someone please explain what "free-range" plastic is?

    There's a pop-hole at the end of the factory, which the plastics product can nip out through for a breath of relatively fresh air, some sunshine, and a bit of a peck and a scratch. Free-range eggs work the same way, the little blighters are always getting out through the mesh fencing because of their streamlined shape.
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  69. Electro Vandals | The Great Slashdot Blackout by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
    they didn't mean paintable in the traditional can-and-brush sense, but in a controlled laboratory they can apply it in a liquid state to manufactured panels and/or materials.

    Someone will find a way. If your driveway does basically nothing all day, would you pay, say, $3000 to have it and your roof sprayed and hooked up to your synchronous inverter, to save you $500 a year in electricity bills?

    I think the vandals will start using it when it has storage and spray-on LEDs included. The spray-on LEDs are already done, storage could be an issue. Maybe super-capacitors backing each solar nodule...? It would cause a revolution in the bubble printer ink industry as well. Wouldn't you pay more for ink that went into a photonic frenzy when it got warm or was exposed to light? A bit for self-organisation and you could have blinking ink, or even ripples or marquees...

    BTW, the biggest fly in the ointment for T(H)GSB is that everyone will clock on to see if it's working. People are like that. There will be record-breaking hit counts on that day. (-:
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  70. OT: Re: The Great Slashdot Blackout by i_am_nitrogen · · Score: 1
    BTW, the biggest fly in the ointment for T(H)GSB is that everyone will clock on to see if it's working. People are like that. There will be record-breaking hit counts on that day. (-:
    Sure, I don't think it'll work... and I agree with you about the record breaking hit counts. I just figured, "Aah, what the heck," and put it in my sig.
  71. THE SOLUTION! by Snover · · Score: 1

    If cold fusion is impossible (or at least highly improbable), let's use COOL FUSION! YEAH!

    --

    [insert witty comment here]
  72. How's it connect to the power drain by Rares+Marian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How does the solar energy get to my laptop in the house? All the shiny dust in the world won't power a light bulb unless there's a path from the + to the -.

    --
    The message on the other side of this sig is false.
  73. Re:Nanotechnology? Nanobullshit detector. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Nanotechnology does not necessarily mean having lots of little machines to control every single molecule. At it simplest, it just means building things on a molecular level, like buckyballs for instance.

    Tsk, tsk. That's called chemistry, boyee.

    How about YOU tell me how you are going to actually draw power from a completely unorganized mass of sprayed-on photovoltaic cells?

  74. Costs by olman · · Score: 1

    Just *imagine* the insurance premiums on orbital craft stocked full of processed, highly active radioactive waste.. Can you say Arm + Leg?

  75. Flower power by olman · · Score: 1

    Hmm.

    Well, I'd like a little bit less sensationalist approach to the subject issue.. Maybe this kind of writing is what might get throught to all the green party people hell-bent on killing off european forests thru banning of nuclear power. No nuclear power, increased coal use, increased acid rain.. Need I say more?

    I kind of doubt only 31 people had their lives shortened because of Chernobyl.. But the real figures are not going to be tallied for a while yet. You'd have to look at statistical cancer-related deaths over a wide region in a few generations and look for a statistical spike.

    Oh, I'm an EE designer, as soon as the eggheads get fusion power out of the high energy labs and into regular R&D, I'll do my part to bring cheaper and less scary nuclear energy to everyone so you can keep on bitching about it on slashdot. And that's a promise.

  76. Re:Not dinosaurs, says Professor Emeritus @ Cornel by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
    For another example: most modern aircraft, notably jetliners and military aircraft don't rely on [monmouth.com] the Bernoulli effect [andrews.edu] (you know, the faster-air-lower-pressure-over-wing thing you're taught in science classes at school) to fly. Think about it: if Bernoulli kept aeroplanes in the air, how could you fly one upside down? (-:

    While I can't confirm if most modern aircraft don't rely on the Bernoulli effect.
    I can say it's possable to fly a plane upside-down. You just adjust the angle of attack to compensate for the Bernoulli effect pulling the plane down. The plane's nose would be pointing upwards slightly. Not the most efficient way, but still quite possable.

  77. How amazing by n8chz · · Score: 1

    This is even better than polkadot spray paint, and on the horizon sooner than "bauble" technology...

    --
    Keep the aspidistra flying!
  78. Great Scott! But will it generate 1.21 gigawatts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If not, Doc will have to wait for that lightning strike after all.

  79. On a steep angle of attack and a prayer by leonbrooks · · Score: 2

    I can say it's possable to fly a plane upside-down. You just adjust the angle of attack to compensate for the Bernoulli effect pulling the plane down.

    It's also possible to do sideways, like this. This 'plane is not being held up by Bernoulli. (-:
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  80. Use with Conductive Concrete by ijcd · · Score: 1


    Combine this with the conductive concrete from a few weeks back and you'd have a great way to turn roads and buildings into power sources.