Slashdot Mirror


New Material for More Efficient Solar Cells

PunkerTFC writes "Space.com has an article on a new material that could create relatively cheap solar cells which are up to 50% efficient. This is much better than the 25% efficient silicon solar cells (most common) or the 36% efficient multi-junction solar cells (very expensive). The material was created by "forcing oxygen into a zinc-manganese-tellurium crystal" creating more band gaps, which allow the cell to create electrical energy with three seperate frequencies of light. This could lead to cheap, high-output solar cells in the future, but it will take at least 3 years to assess the feasibility of the new technology, according to the researchers."

18 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. Solar Cell Technology by Laebshade · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Solar cell technology seems to be getting more and more advanced. When will the time come when we are able to use it to effectively power a complete house?

    1. Re:Solar Cell Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    2. Re:Solar Cell Technology by WegianWarrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Solar cell technology seems to be getting more and more advanced. When will the time come when we are able to use it to effectively power a complete house?

      We are there today. In fact, we where there several years ago. The trick is not to need more power than the solar cell generates... so obviously you can easily supply the energy a house needs from solar cells if your house don't need much energy. Say, if you live in the tropics or subtropics, there is no big deal to power everything electrical with solar cells today (even more so if you use natural gas for cooking and running the frigde). If you live above the arctic circle, the day will never arrive that solar cells are efficient enought - since when you need them the most (ie; in winter), the sun just isn't over the horisont... up here it's more a question of efficient storage of the electricity.

      I'm more interested in getting really cheap solar cells than super efficiant ones - if I can put up ten cells produsing (say) 1kWh each for the same price I can put up two producing 4kWh each, the cheaper ones are the better choice - as well as making replacing broken arrays cheaper.

      Off course, the day I can get solar cells that are both cheap and efficient, I'll pick them without a second thought ;)

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    3. Re:Solar Cell Technology by busterRey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I looked in to doing a PV installation on my house about two years ago. I live in California in the Santa Clara county and for most of the year there is plenty of sun. The cost of putting up enough panels to power the whole house was around 17K. At the time I figured the system would pay for itself in about 15 years. The problem for me was that the basic system most solar companies sell is still connected to the power grid and your payback is based on selling your excess back to the power company. During the day you supply the grid and you use the power grid as your night time battery. I wanted to be totally off the power grid because frankly I don't trust PG&E to pay me for my electricity (some folks in my area with these system have had that problem) and I don't want to be subject to their power problems. With system I was looking at if the PG&E power goes out your system goes dark too to protect itself. When I asked about at total off grid solution, the company I was talking with kind of choked a little and said they could set up a battery system for me and added about 10K to the price for the batteries and the extra gear needed to manage the batteries - and asked which part of the garage I was going to give up to house all of it. The other problem is that the batteries had a much shorter life span (5-10 years as I recall) and would have to be replaced much more often than the solar panels on the roof. I was told that the panels have a 25 year life span. Very quickly the economics didn't work out as I would end up paying more for solar power then I would buying from the power company. I still may do a solar installation at some point but I have decided to wait another year or so to see if the technology improves. I am not sure about the environmental impact of disposing of batteries. I guess they could be recycled to some extent but it would be problem. The bigger question is which is worse for the environment - dealing with the dead batteries my installation would generate or burning the fossil fuel to generate the power for my house. I just don't know. I would really like to see more efficient solar cells but we also need better storage systems. I was kind of hoping that fuel cell technology might help out there but don't know enough about it to say.

      --
      The moon may be smaller than the earth, but is it futher away - buster
    4. Re:Solar Cell Technology by f97tosc · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could always electrolyze water and store the hydrogen and oxygen in tanks. The tanks of gas become your battery and a power cell can be used to generate electricity on demand.

      I am not denying that this is possible, but it has to be acknowledged that now the main cost driver of your system is probably not in the solar cells but in this oxygen/ hydrogen separation, storage and electricity generation system. Which illustrates my main point which is that good solar cells are not by themselves sufficient to enable this form of a solution (although of course they are a great step).

      Tor

  2. Competing Projects? by crem_d_genes · · Score: 5, Informative

    This has been released very recently - it's based on PbSe crystals instead - at Los Alamos but also through University of California.

  3. Solar power is nice by dark404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...but until it progresses to the point where we don't need a surface of cells an order of magnitude larger than the structure they will power to use them, they're still impracticle for primary energy needs.

    I don't think we'll ever see solar cells as primary terestrial energy sources though. Cloud cover and night ruins their feasibility, but I'd wager money on them being used to augment other alternative energy sources in the future. Maybe power will go the way of Intel's new chips, multiple sources at lower power instead of one giant one at greater.

    1. Re:Solar power is nice by hawkbug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I suggest you visit:

      www.homepower.com

      Solar power is very real, and many people already use it. Is it expensive? Yeah, for example a solar system to generate enough power for the average home would cost anywhere from $20k to $30k. Some states have to reimburse you for half your cost though - so immediately, you're down to $10k or $15k. Then, imagine that costing you about what a car payment would be for 5 years. Now imagine having that car payment *instead* of a utility bill. Now even better, imagine being paid off in 5 years - and then the panels and setup usually last 30 years. So, that equals 25 years of FREE energy. Most of these homes are still plugged into the grid so that at night they can either use the grid or batteries, while pumping excess onto the grid during the day to the power company has to buy that from you to power other homes in your area. Solar is great, and with rising natural gas costs, it's going to spread like a wildfire from global warming...

    2. Re:Solar power is nice by jo_ham · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's a question of what we can harness. Enough energy falls on the surface of the Earth every day from the Sun to supply the World's energy needs for weeks, we just can't harness it effectively.

      Large scale solar farms in desert and offshore areas would be a very useful source of power for the future, even if it isn't used as a primary, continuous source. An offshore solar farm could be used to electrolyse seawater to produce hydrogen for fuel cells, for example - it is currently expensive to do this because you get out less energy than you put in. Using solar energy though, that doesn't matter because the sun is free (unless the US Patent Office grants someone a patent on "a large ball of gas and dust undergoing nuclear fusion that the Earth orbits around".

      SCO will no doubt claim that the Sun also contains System V code. Darl McBride is welcome to visit the sun in an Apollo capsule to inspect it for himself. How he's going to get to the Sun's kernel is beyond me. He'd better pack some sunblock.

  4. Solar power is going to be big by ites · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oil reserves appear to be running out (looking at the recent problems Shell had with its overstated reserves, and seeing how some of the other large oil companies make even larger estimates than Shell's old ones). The future of energy production is going to be nuclear, wind, and solar. So it's very timely news.

    Personally I think the collapse of the oil supply within the next 15-20 years will be the most traumatic event in recent human history.

    Solar cells will help a lot in some ways but they won't be enough to stitch together a modern society built on the motor car and cheap fuel.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
    1. Re:Solar power is going to be big by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I'm still waiting for the announcement that someone made a useful cell that doesn't take more power to create than will ever be generated in its lifetime.

      Then your wait is over. From the Renewable Energy Myths Debunked article at homepower.com:

      Myth: It takes more energy to build PVs than they can ever produce.

      Some skeptics of solar energy claim that it takes more energy to make a photovoltaic module (PV) than it can ever produce in its lifetime. The truth is that PVs typically recoup their embodied energy in two to four years. According to an article published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), today's single and multicrystalline modules have an energy payback of about four years, and thin-film modules about two years.

      Most PV modules in the field are made from hyper-pure crystalline silicon. Purifying and crystallizing the silicon consumes the most energy in making these PVs. Thin-film PVs are made from considerably less semiconductor material, and therefore have less embodied energy in them. Most of the energy consumed is in the thin-film surface. The aluminum frame on any PV accounts for about six months of its payback time.

      Solar energy is an amazing technology considering that PVs go on to produce clean, pollution-free energy for at least 25 to 30 years after they have achieved payback. For more information on energy payback, see the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Web site (www.nrel.gov) and Karl Knapp & Theresa Jester's article titled "MPV Payback" in HP80.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  5. Re:Solar power is nice/false notions by adzoox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have false notions about the feasability of solar. You would be speaking of cheap solar whereas (as it is now) there ISsolar technology that:

    A) Doesn't have to cover the entire structure - but really is mute point - if you want solar - why not maximize its production - installation and deployment is 1/4 the cost - once it's being installed, install as much as possible - your goal is to "overproduce" if possible - did you know that your local energy untility has to BUY BACK power that you could place onto the grid if you overproduced?

    B) The GM solar race car is a marvel of engineering, is as fast as most street legal cars and it looks cool too!

    C) Cloud cover and night are of no consequence. Cloud cover only reduces production - besides power IS STORED in batteries anyway - it doesn't go straight from the sun to your light bulb or TV.

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
  6. Previous /. story: by jdrogers · · Score: 5, Informative

    This was already covered by /. a few weeks ago, but this new space.com article does seems tohave more details.

  7. Solar constant by garglblaster · · Score: 5, Insightful
    OK friends, before we get into some highly speculative terrain here, let's get some facts straight:
    The solar constant (see for example here is about 1.somethin kW per Square meter.

    That simply means you need quite some substantial area irradiated by bright sunlight to obtain a given amount of energy.

    I think this is a limiting factor for many interesting ideas out there..

    --

    perl -e 'printf("%x!\n",49153)'

  8. Cost per Watt by levram2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One alternate plan is to use cheap titanium dioxide to make less efficient solar cells that are significantly less expensive. Titanium dioxide is used to tint paint white and is available cheaply in bulk. While researchers are working on increasing the efficiency through nano particle techniques, do it yourselfers have made progress.

  9. Solar is taking over regardless by danharan · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Even without this advance, solar is poised for even more gains.

    Solar sales are up 30-40% every year, and have been growing at such a steady pace for a long time.

    The cost of electricity from solar cells remains higher than from wind or coal-fired power plants for grid-connected customers, but it is falling fast due to economies of scale as rising demand drives industry expansion. Solar cells currently cost around $3.50 per watt for crystalline cells, and $2 per watt for thin-film wafers, which are less efficient but can be integrated into building materials. Industry analysts note that between 1976 and 2000, each doubling of cumulative production resulted in a price drop of 20 percent. Some maintain that prices may fall even more dramatically in the future.(link)


    Naturally, this is a positive feedback loop. Lower prices mean it's affordable for more niches, which means more people buy, which in turn scales larger. At this point, it's pretty much unstoppable. It is useful in too many niches, especially where customers aren't connected to a power grid.

    There are now many countries that have more cell-phones than landline phones. It's likely that in 10 years, some countries will have more customers getting electricity from solar than from a central grid. Naysayers will say it's not ready... but then again, 15 years ago cell phones weren't either. What matters is not the absolute numbers, but the growth rate of the industry and the evolution of the technology.

    Of course, as the market matures, more people are doing R&D to find cheaper ways to build PV systems, which is only going to accelerate this momentum.
    --
    Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
  10. More actual info by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    Here's the paper from Physical Review Letters. This was published late in 2003.

    Tellurium is about $14/lb. Gallium, by comparison, is about $1000/lb, which is why gallium-arsenide photocells, which can reach 30% efficiency, aren't widely used.

    World production of tellurium is only about 100 metric tons. Gold production is 25 times larger. Tellurium is cheap because it is produced as a byproduct of copper smelting. Nobody mines tellurium directly at present. So there may be a supply problem if demand increases substantially.

  11. Re:Let's make this more concrete by danharan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And on that same page, they do mention that PV prices can go as low as "$3.58 Watt: thin film and $3.16 Watt: crystalline." $5.85 is an average, which includes PVs that are designed for different systems. In my case, I only care about cost per watt as I will have a sufficient surface, others have to worry about squeezing the most energy out of a limited space. Different needs, different models and different prices.

    The most promising route will probably be solar rooftops, where solar cells are integrated with construction materials. For new construction or re-roofing, this makes a lot of sense because you don't have to pay much more for installation. With net metering, you also wouldn't need the expensive batteries. Of course, that assumes you're on the grid; if not, connection charges can be more than going the cost of going solar, including battery array.

    Solar is still expensive for now, and this has led most people that consider it to use every trick in the book to lower their energy consumption. Better lighting, appliances, windows, insulation... if it cost less money to conserve than generate, it only makes sense to spend money on efficiency. You probably do not need 564kWh/month- you should be able to reduce that by at least a third, with a payback in under 2 years.

    There are other applications too where cost alone is not a huge issue. If reliability is important, being able to have your own power supply, batteries, and a net metering arrangement with the grid could be a cheaper solution than most UPS, and give you far more autonomy.

    While you may not see it as rosey, it's hard to argue with the fact that sales are still growing, year over year. And I can't think of anything that could stop that in the next 20 years: it's all but inevitable.

    --
    Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"