Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Step Closer To The Optimum Solar Cell

Posted by timothy on from the warmth-too dept.

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."

5 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. Solar energy . . . the big picture . . . by StateOfTheUnion · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    1. Re:Solar energy . . . the big picture . . . by Infinite93 · · Score: 5, Informative
      The last issue of HomePower www.homepower.com contains a list of RE myths 'debunked'.

      The ROI (for retail and manufacture cost) and the Enviromental impact of production is addressed.

      Granted the source is an RE magazine, but they do list references on some of the studies if you want to follow up.

    2. Re:Solar energy . . . the big picture . . . by raygundan · · Score: 4, Informative

      The panels you can buy and use for your house today have a 3-4 year energy payoff. (ie, they make an amount of energy equal to what was put in to them in production) They last in the neighborhood of 20-30 years.

      There are some nasty chemicals required for production. The total environmental impact, however, is significantly smaller than obtaining the same lifetime amount of power from any other source available. The waste produced by a similar amount of power from coal, nuclear, gas, etc... over a similar lifetime is significantly larger.

      The pollution only happens once, for 20-30 years worth of power. The pollution from any other option doesn't stop unless you stop using it.

  2. Re:Something wrong with nuclear power? Oh yeah... by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 4, Insightful
    t is extremely expensive and dangerous,
    If I am not mistaking, nuclear power is the cheapest.

    A bucket of fission waste under your bed, or a bucket of coal.
    Don't compare these things. The first is a waste product, the second is the raw material.
    The choice should be between a bucket of fission waste and a room filled the ashes and gasses that resulted from burning coal. I am not sure what would kill you first.

    I don't want either of them. But the fission waste can be stored and handeld. I a century or so, we might find a solution for it. The gas on the other hand goes in the atmosphere. You try getting it out. It too might be possible in a century. At least with fission waste the poles don't melt and the climate doesn't change. Although I do have to say that the sun is also partially responsible for a temp-rise.
    I don't understand the problem people have with fission. Sure it aint pretty, but it's the best we have so far.

  3. Re:Something wrong with nuclear power? Oh yeah... by dbIII · · Score: 4, Informative
    If I am not mistaking, nuclear power is the cheapest.
    Sorry, you are mistaken. Perhaps Thatcher didn't build any more nuclear plants because she was a raving greeny (for those who don't know any recent history, Thatcher was a long way to the right), not becuase of the enormous losses of British Nuclear Fuels. Nuclear power is only cheap if you cook the books by not counting subsidies - it's a very expensive way to boil water.
    The choice should be between a bucket of fission waste and a room filled the ashes and gasses that resulted from burning coal. I am not sure what would kill you first.
    This is just silly, enough of either will kill you - gas at a few hundred degrees will certainly burn, ash will bury. The nearest office building to you may well contain a lot of coal ash used to make lightweight concrete - the majority of ash is silica in some form or another. Suphur and Nitrogen oxides are not good things to be released, which is why coal fired plants have "scrubbers" - the NOx and SOx is dissolved when the hot gas bubbles through water. It's not an expensive technology at all and has been in use for decades in most of the world. Carbon dioxide is the problem, but nuclear power is still just a 1950's white elephant used as the nice side of nuclear weapons. There are a lot better things to do with radioactive materials than boil water - it costs a huge amount to contain a process like that. Don't blindly believe the advertising agency line for nuclear power - "clean" is not the word that should be used for anything that will kill you on contact or in close proximity.
    But the fission waste can be stored and handeld
    Name one successful long term storage project. Synrock showed enormous promise, the the funding was cut before the project was finished. Dumping the stuff in the ocean in stainless steel drums, or stacking the stuff in tunnels is the current answer.

    Anyway, this is a discussion on solar cells, which lend themselves to distributed power generation of some form or another - they don't have to be big. More efficiency there makes the solar powered laptop easier to acheive.