A Step Closer To The Optimum Solar Cell

An anonymous reader writes "Besides cost, solar cell efficiency is the second most critical criteria. Scientists from Berkeley Lab and other institutions, have announced a new solar cell material that may be able to achieve an extraordinary efficiency of about 50 percent -- twice the amount of the current record holder."

Comments

...when I see it

[samael]

I used to jump for joy whenever I saw things like this.

But experience generally showed that Breakthrough X which would produce cheap power/double battery life/allow 5 terabytes in my computer never actually arrived at the market.

I'm still waiting for holographic storage from 10 years ago!

Solar energy . . . the big picture . . .

[StateOfTheUnion]

Though a lot of the green crowd have been big proponents of solar cells, solar cells are pretty nasty beasts containing gallium, tellurium, and other heavy metals and nasty components . . . manufactuering them also produces a significant amount of nasty byproducts and waste.

One things that I've never seen is the lifetime and disposal costs of solar cells . . . that never seems to be factored into the so called "solar renewable energy" equation.

Re:Solar energy . . . the big picture . . .

[ttfkam]

I find it odd that the first page says "Myth: Solar living means sacrificing conveniences," while later on it says, "A PV system provides the required electricity. This type of design is not the norm by far--it's just a little too expensive
up front for most people--and it might require the owners to put on a sweater indoors a few times a year." Turning up the heat when you're cold is a convenience. Having to put sweaters on, however simple and beneficial a solution it may be, is NOT a convenience. Hint: If you are forced to seek an alternative, it is not as convenient.

Myth: You can't use solar energy in far northern latitudes.

When it's sunny, yes, you can use it in northern latitudes. What happens during the rainy season? In many northern states, the rainy season is at least half the year. Go on battery the whole time the sun isn't visible? What happens if (when!) the battery goes dead? Americans used

And let's discuss cost. The brochure you presented states that costs are so bad. Last I checked, good solar panels for the home were upwards of $30,000. If you are already paying for a new house, the extra cost of setting up solar is marginal. For folks who are just getting by (everyone with kids in college), $30,000 just isn't there. Costs from environmental damage where we don't immediately see the price tag? That's fair. Absolutely that's a fair statement to make. Then again so is saying, "What about the hidden costs of completely ripping out an established infrastructure in favor of a new one?" Isn't that fair too?

The idea is to minimize the impact of microhydro by following some simple rules. Always leave enough flow in the stream bed for aquatic life. If migratory fish use your stream, make sure that they and their fry can swim past our diversion, and cannot be drawn into the enstock intake. Always put the diverted water back into the same stream bed in a way that does not cause erosion.

Once again, a fair statement. However how is microhydro going to handle the macro scale when you (a) can't pack them closely together and (b) cannot disrupt the normal activity of the surrounding water? Put more in to get more energy? Remember the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. As it is not created nor destroyed, if you use a sufficient amount of energy in one system, that amount is removed from another system. Environmentally sound? Reducing the energy by a significant amount would be environmentally sound? Most of the world's creatures live at or near a coastline. Carefully consider whether or not you want to mess with this substantially.

Nukes produce nuclear waste, and even after spending billions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars, no acceptable disposal solution has been brought to the table.

This one kills me. First of all, the term "nukes" usually refers to "nuclear weapons." The requirements for nuclear power are dramatically different from those of bombs. You might as well assert that electricity should be banned because electric chairs are made. It has no place in a power generation conversation. Second of all, there are nuclear reactors such as IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) which were designed specifically to address critics' problems with nuclear. It does not rely on coolant, computer control, or human interaction/intervention to prevent accidents; Safety is dependant upon natural phenomena and the laws of physics to operate. The working prototype for IFR conducted a series of tests where coolant was shut off and all of the usual precursors to a meltdown were put into place. No damage. No leakage. Nothing but a safe, controlled shutdown -- without human or computer interaction. This is not hypothetical. This is historical fact. In fact,

Re:The only equation that matters

[PrinceAshitaka]

this equation matters if you are planning on investing in a solar power plant. I would believe that there is a market for solar powqer for people that would like to live off the grid. unlike nuclear or coal power it is plausible to have a solar power generator for a house and a neiborhood.