Slashdot Mirror


Solar Cells Get Boost

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers from Los Alamos National Laboratory have tapped the efficiencies of nanotechnology to double solar cells' potential energy production. The key to the method is the use of lead selenium nanocrystals which can produce 2 electrons where 1 was produced before. Other optical applications can also benefit."

16 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. Will this work with other materials? by sacremon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article seems to imply that the technique would be applicable to existing materials, but also seems to imply that it has only been show to work for lead-selenium nanocrystals. So will the technique of using nanocrystals work with other materials? If not, will incorporating the lead-selenium nanocrystals in a matrix of conventional material, nanocrystal-sized or otherwise, generate two electrons/photon? And finally, does the cost of making the nanocrystals make the whole thing not cost effective, other perhaps in something like spacecraft, where every once saved is of tremendous worth?

    --
    If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
    1. Re:Will this work with other materials? by Intrigued · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I simply don't know enough about the physics, but... can this be applied with the other developments like multi-band gap improvements? (New Material for More Efficient Solar Cells) I know that these use different materials but can the same principles be applied?

      If so, it should multiply efficiency. I would love to see multi-band gap using 2-3 times wider percentage of the light to move multiple electrons. You should be able to pull 80%+ efficiency if that is possible.

      Someone contribute some understanding on the physics please.

    2. Re:Will this work with other materials? by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 3, Informative

      I simply don't know enough about the physics, but... can this be applied with the other developments like multi-band gap improvements?

      I'm on shaky ground here, but I think the answer is likely "no". The idea behind this technique is that you can use surplus energy from a photon absorption event to release a second electron, while the point of split bandgap cells is that you can absorb light with less surplus energy (more deposited in a useful manner into the first electron).

      Ask a semiconductor physicist to get the correct answer :).

  2. If I had a nickel... by heldlikesound · · Score: 3, Insightful

    for every time I heard about cheaper, more efficient solar cell, I could buy a solar powered calculator. Which is just about all I've seen solar power be good for at the consumer level.

    --


    Cloud City Digital: DVD Production at its cheapest/finest
    1. Re:If I had a nickel... by daeley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah I guess the outdoor lighting, pool heating, and housing industries (just to name a few), are pretty miniscule consumer applications. :P

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  3. Electrons are not "produced" by solar cells by I_Love_Pocky! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Solar cells harness engergy by absorbing photons, which cause electrons in an atom (which are already there) to move to a higher energy state. This technique moves two electrons per photon, rather than one. The point I am making is simply that electrons are being moved, and not created. That would have amazingly different implications, as that would be creating matter from the energy in a single photon, which would only work with very high energy photons.

    1. Re:Electrons are not "produced" by solar cells by SandSpider · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have to say, this is a little picky. First of all, the article description states that the new substance "...can produce 2 electrons where 1 was produced before", so it does not imply a change in the fundamental mechanism so much as the yield. Anyone who knew how solar cells worked before reading this description would be able to make the leap that no laws of physics were being violated to produce this electron.

      Second, the description does not say that the electrons are being created at all. The dictionary definition of the word produce indicates, in the first entry, that produce means "To bring forth; yield", which is good enough, but skim the third entry and its example, "To bring forth; exhibit: reached into a pocket and produced a packet of matches". I think the first is more accurate, but the second indicates just how far the definition of produce does not imply creation.

      =Brian

      --
      There is nothing so good that someone, somewhere, will not hate it.
  4. The holy grail of solar power by n1ywb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is it folks, this is what we've been waiting for. As it is, solar panels are a pretty marginal energy source for most applications. We've all seen the specially built vehicles that are basicly a big solar panel on wheels (some of us (like me) have even built one). We've all seen the houses with the roof covered in solar panels and they still have to buy all whacky expensive 12v high efficiency appliances and forget about an electric drier. With solar cells like these, solar power just lept from impractical to practical. Make way for the days of solar powered PDAs and cell phones, cars, houses, buses, airplanes, you name it. This is the breakthrough that will lead the way. Unless it flops, of course.

    --
    -73, de n1ywb
    www.n1ywb.com
  5. Earth is bad for the environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Earth is bad for the environment. It contains lethal amounts of lead, selenium. Dangerous amounts of dihydrogen oxide (which kills many thousands a year) have accumulated on its surface.

  6. Re:bad for the environment by n1ywb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think you're trying to make a funny, but in case you aren't... They are nano crystals. That probably means that while they're made from lead, there still isn't much lead in each cell. Also, solar cells can easily last for 100 years, it's not like they're disposable. Not to mention the fossil fuels they displace.

    --
    -73, de n1ywb
    www.n1ywb.com
  7. Price? by phlack · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Unfortunately, the article didn't mention price, at least not directly. It stated "would become practical in 2-3 years", which I can only assume means they'd be the same price as today's cells.

    It is indeed a shame that more interest in this technology doesn't exist. The lack of responses to this article is pretty disappointing, especially since I would think /.ers would be one of the main supporters. Doubling the output of cells is a definite improvement.

    I remember reading somewhere (IIRC one of the Real Goods Source Books) that had the phrase similar to "Solar Panels will never become widely accepted until they are available from your local Home Depot." This definitely rings true. Aside from the solar powered walkway lights (total garbage), they have very little to offer there. Solar Cells need to be cheaper and more powerful if people are going to use them.

    It's good to see that progress is being made, though, as this article describes. Perhaps one day it will indeed become practical to use solar panels. Until then, we're stuck with calculators.

  8. Not quite there yet by Retric · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From what I can tell there not manufacturing solar cells using "lead selenium nanocrystals" but rather they found a method of detecting "impact ionization" via the delay between the photon impact and electron emissions. They then tested several substances and discovered that lead selenium nanocrystals produced impact ionization on close to 100% of photon impacts.

    So if you really want to know what's going on you need to discover how efferent lead selenium solar cell's are and what it takes to mass produce lead selenium nanocrystals in a cheep long lasting solar cell.

    So it's a long way from producing 60+% efficient solar cells but it's still cool.

    1. Re:Not quite there yet by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 3, Informative

      So if you really want to know what's going on you need to discover how efferent lead selenium solar cell's are and what it takes to mass produce lead selenium nanocrystals in a cheep long lasting solar cell.

      Nanocrystal films would typically be grown by chemical vapour deposition (chemical constituents react as a gas at low pressure, seed crystals grow in-flight, and grow further after being deposited).

      The problem is that it's very hard to produce crystals that small (they tend to keep growing after being deposited, because the source materials are still present - this is how you normally do CVD, actually). You also have difficulty producing a narrow range of sizes, because that requires that the growing environment of each crystal be identical.

      Still an interesting discovery, though. The fabrication problems will eventually be solved.

      What's especially interesting is looking at what happens when you fabricate oher types of semiconductor microstructure or nanostructure by more conventional techniques. As the size of a feature shrinks, you can no longer pretend it's near-infinite in extent when figuring out what the energy levels are within the crystal. This has already been used to alter the properties of silicon (fabricating LEDs in silicon, which normally emits very poorly due to having an indirect bandgap). Quantum wells, wires, and dots are an extreme case of this (dimensions comparable to a few electron wavelengths). When lithographic feature sizes start approaching this range, lots of new devices will be possible in mass-market chips that are only possible now if you have an e-beam lithography setup handy.

  9. Storage Storage Storage by tino_sup · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Renewable energy has made phenomenal leaps, but the storage restriction is the crux. Efficiency is great, and is a move in the right direction. What remanins is the development of efficient and economical storage devices. Imagine your car operating for a week on a one hour solar charge stored in a device the size of 4 D sized batteries.

    --
    I am me...I think
  10. No it's not. by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The real issue with solar energy isn't watts/m^2 of panel, but watts/$. We have more than enough square footage to power our houses and businesses even at current efficiencies, but the capacity is still so expensive that it is very marginal. If Pb/Se nanodots can be made more cheaply than the same wattage of silicon, we'll be ahead; otherwise we won't be.

    If we get really lucky, this technology will work well at high light flux and high temperatures (~100 C). This would allow use of concentrating collectors and use of the waste heat for space heat and domestic hot water, multiplying the benefit of the collector and making the whole affair much more economical. Imagine a house that powers its own appliances, stores enough hot water for several days of hot showers and its own heating load, and on sunny days has plenty of juice left over to feed to electric cars. This house would be almost completely independent of fossil fuels and offset fuel use elsewhere, and I'll bet that we could build it now if cost was no object - if we can get 50% or even 40% efficient solar cells at $2/watt working at 100 C, we'll be there.

  11. Storage can be TOO good by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Imagine your car operating for a week on a one hour solar charge stored in a device the size of 4 D sized batteries.
    Let's see, if you drive 250 miles a week and get 25 MPG, that's 10 gallons of gasoline or about 60 pounds. Gasoline has about 9 times the energy of combustion as TNT (because TNT carries its own oxygen). So: Imagine the energy of several hundred pounds of high explosive in a device the size of 4 D-size batteries. Not so appealing any more, is it?