Slashdot Mirror
Breakthrough Efficient, Paintable Solar Cells
An anonymous reader writes "A new solar cell material has been discovered that converts 30% of the sun's energy to electricity." Here's another solar news story. These new cells can harness infrared light which is why they are so much more efficient.
It must be expensive.
.. as I've really been burnt up about the lost energy from my remote controls!
So if I spray that on my tinfoil hat and run a couple of leads to my laptop I could have unlimited power!
Trolling is a art,
If this pans out this could change the energy economy in this country. Not to mention the benefit third world countries could get from it. Imagine your grafitti powering your laptop.
Wearable solar panels... Resistance is Futile.
One key thing that isn't answered in the article (or almost any other articles about "alternative energy sources). How does energy does it take to make this material compare with home much energy it can produce?
--- http://davidnehme.blogspot.com
converts 30% of the sun's energy to electricity.
We are gonna need all that electricity because if the sun is 30% smaller than it was before this thing our heating bills are gonna go way up!
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
I always am skeptical when I see articles about new exciting energy sources in the popular press, but this looks exciting. I wonder what the material's physical properties are -- how it stands up to wear, radiation, etc., and especially, how much it costs to make and apply.
Behold the riant ape! Beware, his crooked thumbs!
Does this recharging unit make my ass look big?
I spend most of my daylight hours during the week under fluourescent lighting with no natural light (underwhelming cubeworld). Fluourescents don't give off much IR, right?
While I can see that it could be wonderful for some things, I think I'm better off plugging my phone into the wall to charge.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
IR != heat IR is radiation as a result of heat. Your CPU is primarily cooled by conduction (having a large heat sink absorb the heat, distribute it, then itself radiate the heat. You could surround your CPU with the stuff and get back some of the energy that was radiated through inefficiency (heat), but that wouldn't be too significant.
Well, so much for this entire thread . Can't believe we wasted all that typing.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
OK, I am being silly, what the thing should read of instead of
Converts 30% of the Sun's Energy to Electricity
Perhaps what they mean is
Converts 30% of the incident light energy to electricity
After all, the Sun is realeasing a lot of energy, most of which will never hit the Earth.
http://bpsolar.com http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=shellso lar
If you check the original press release, you'll notice UT says the 30% efficiency might be realized "with further improvements in efficiency". The reporter for CTV missed that little nuance.
Sweeping statements should never be made.
I'll believe it when I can buy it for a reasonable cost at a store in town.
For years we have every couple of months there a new revolutionary way to convert solar rays to electricity. Unfortunately none has managed to work in the real world except the good old silicon solar cells.
Markus
Couldn't they use it themselves and sell the electricity it generates through their wires?
destroys it and sweeps the remaining dust under the rug. Five times more effective - that sure sounds pretty dangerous to them.
Watch for PR campaigns explaining to the layman just how dangerous this plastic is, why it shouldn't be used and researched and just how much better the good ol' oil is.
I notice his primary theoretical application was painting shirts so that you can charge your Ipod. What about buildings damnit!
With a nearly 5x increase in power efficency, and the ability to simply paint it on this material strikes me as being ideal for partially powering houses. You paint your roof every summer (Or if the paint is particularly durable every 5 years) and get a grid tie in possibly paying nothing during particiarly sunny monthes.
Of course I supose it ultimately comes down to how expensive this stuff is. When I last looked into solar grid tie ins, it would have cost about 30,000 (cdn.) to get only a few kilowatts of output- the panels were insured for 25 years; and it would have taken 20 for them to pay for themselves, and that dosen't count the concept of any of them breaking in heavy hail, or snow buildup. Not a great investment.
If this paint is durable enough to be put on clothes, and cheap enough to have that done as well, I think that painting the roofs of houses should be the primary applicatino, not keeping all your portable gadgets charged...
-Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
Start your own energy company.
Invest in a technological breakthrough.
In a Free Enterprise system you are free to do that.
You don't have to wait around for anyone else, do it yourself.
There is nothing wrong with big profit as long as you don't enslave people in the process. Also, if you make a lot, then you can share a lot.
Wealthy and powerful people are not categorically and necessarily greedy and selfish as you seem to imply with your post. But being wealthy and powerful makes one (I believe) more susceptible to personality traits that are loathsome to many others.
With great wealth comes great responsibility. Wealth in this sense is a curse. But the curse can be overcome.
all too frequently, people use this misconception. Heat is not equivalent to infrared energy.
You see heat in infrared images because things of the temperatures that are common on the Earth (people, plants, cars, etc. ) have blackbody radiation curves that peak in infrared band.
Don't get me started on people that confuse light amplification with infrared cameras.
Slashdot does this every once in a while - announce some tremendous new solar energy technology. Folks, it's not easy to get 30%. And even if you do, you haven't won the war. The best, most expensive cells can make those ranges, but they are not something you can put on the assembly line.
I did some research into Cu(In,Ga)(S,Se) thin film solar cells, which have long been a promising material for this type of application. I don't claim to know all about the various options out there (there are a lot of them) but I feel I can safely say there just aren't any magic bullets to this problem. Let me give you some idea of what has to happen.
a) You need a cell with a high enough efficiency to make the power it can produce worth the hassle of installing it. This is hard and the focus of most solar cell research.
b) Even if you GET that cell, you have to be able to make a LOT of them. Cheaply. Very cheaplly if you want to compete with grid power.
c) These materials have to stand up to long term punishment, intense thermal cycling over the course of day and night temperature shifts for twenty years, etc.
d) You have to install the supporting systems - either connect it to grid, get a large energy storage array (i.e. batteries) or both. If you want a battery based local storage system that gets expensive, all by itself.
e) You need to build the industrial support required to make large scale deployment both possible and cost effective. Si, the current dominant material, has a lot going for it because a lot got learned over the course of decades of semiconductor technology. Those tools are somewhat applicable to Si. If you want to use something totally different (i.e. a thin film) you have to make all the gear more or less from the ground up. That's a big initial capital investment for a dubious return.
f) If you want flexible solar cells, you have a whole new set of problems to handle/test, like how the cell performs while being folded repeatedly in different temperature conditions, creased, beat up generally, etc. And flexible cells are a bit of a specialty market - the military likes the idea, sports folks like it, but for large scale fixed installation use (i.e. where bulk production would happen) flexible isn't all that critical. (Although it is nice when it comes to things like roofs withstanding hail storms, but apparently regular ones don't do so hot there anyway.)
g) THEN, after you solved the problems of cost effective production, storage, retrofitting of housing, etc. etc. etc. you have to convince people it's worth the trouble to install it. And I remind you this is the land of the SUV, so I wish you luck with any marketing effort that can't say "We're cheaper than grid power!". Grid power is CHEAP. VERY cheap. It's a really really hard target to hit, and the solar cell technology available today just isn't there yet. There are lots of "potential" 30% configurations - all you need to do, in theory, is have a multijunction device with the right bandgaps. But let me tell you, it ain't easy.
Now, somebody might make a sudden miracle discovery of a cheap 30% cell material. Such things do happen. But I'll want to see a lot of (reproducable) proof, and peer review, before I'll buy it. It's good advertising to claim high performance, but I'll be impressed when someone goes through the nitty gritty and comes out with a viable product.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
I hope he means "shock us all" figurativley.
30% of nothing. They figure it could in theory get 30% efficiency, just as soon as *INSERT BREAKTHROUGH IN CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL SCIENCE HERE* happens.
This sounds just like every other moon-man technology of the future. Hydrogen will revolutionize our economy! (Just as soon as we figure out how to collect and store it) A space elevator will mean cheap orbital trips, space tourism, extraplanetary mining, a trip to mars- all we need to do is invent the material we need to build it out of.
Bah.
They put metal in some paint and noticed it releases electrons when exposed to light.
It's called the photoelectric effect and it happens with all metals, and Einstein won a nobel prize for explaining it 100 years ago.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
What did the borg say to the room-temperature superconductor?
Sargent: "the new plastic composite is, in layman's terms, a layer of film that "catches'' solar energy. "
VC: looks sceptical
Sargent: "ummm, with the laser beams, umm, clayven"
VC: inks the contract
"They love all the big profit they are making, and would never jeapordize that"
Ok, so you're saying that they're in business to make money, but since this will presumably make lots of money and solve many power supply problems, they won't do it?
Explain how that makes sense.
Oil companies are businesses, not evil entities like you suggest. They are governed by boards of directors, who are (generally) LEGALLY REQUIRED to do what is in the shareholder's best interests (usually meaning make money). Yet you surmise we'll never get this technology because...why? If it can make money, we'll see it. Period. Because regardless, someone somewhere WILL develop it if it has potential, if it will make money.
For starters: heat is not the same as IR. ALL bodies (except perfect reflectors) at nonzero temperature radiate ligth. For very hot ones, this is visible, for rather cold ones this is IR (i.e. 'below red'). You can also heat something by shining other than IR light on it.
These devices don't suck the radiation out of stuff, just like a (digital) camera doesn't suck light from the object you photograph. You can therefore not use them to cool anything, afaik. CPU coolers suck heat out of your cpu because they offer it a lower temperature, and heat flows from low to high temperature.
These things are different from a thermalcouple in the sense that they are in a completely different ballpark. A thermocouply supplies you with electricity as long as you can maintain a temperature difference over it, or it will drain heat from its cold side and add it to its hot side (increasing the difference) if you supply electricity to it. The things in the article supply you with electricity when you shine a light on them and are probably destroyed when you supply electricity to them.
Z
I did some research work when I was a physics student, and I took data for a bunch of researchers at the National Renewable Energy Labs back in the mid-nineties. My specific project was working with a new CdTe based thin-film material to be used in solar cells. It was so easy to deposit on glass substrates that we referred to it as "painting the glass." This made it very easy to mass produce.
However, the new material mentioned in TFA is very different from that. The material I worked with only derived energy from visible light - this material works in the IR bands, and I find that even more interesting as it's vastly under-explored. I'm not so sure about his "weaving it into fabrics" idea, but for sure it will help boost traditional solar cell (PV) gain.
Converting 30% of it into electricity (temporarily) that is eventually dissipated as waste heat would not alter the energy balance that warms the earth.
That is so obviously wrong. I have not RTA but I can't help but point out that it should read "converts 30% of the perceived sunlight into electricity".
Cuz if you need a sure-fire way to fry Earth that'd be to convert 30% of the sun's energy to electricity down here.
Broken Hearts are for Assholes. - Frank Zappa
After all, the sun does set in most places, at least half of the time.
I agree that discussions of cost weren't mentioned, and that the big advantage is in its five-fold efficiency gains. If it is less than 5 times as expensive per watt capability, it'll be a tremendous boon for massive solar power generation.
Solar can only be a part of the green-e solution, due to the pesky Earth rotating in between the sun and the solar cells and mankind's desire to use electricity when the sun is down or behind a cloud. However, since solar production occurs during the day -- when we use the most power -- solar electrical generation does a great job of reducing the peak demand, which is a huge boon.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
2002 CNN article about "paintable solar cells".
The advance in here is that these new cells also use infrared. Also, solar cells are only ONE of the possible applications of this new technology (Nanoapex news article).
It sounds like some small scale prototypes of devices that can detect infrared have have been developed but there is no solar cell. My favorite quote from the University press release:
"Professor Peter Peumans of Stanford University, who has reviewed the U of T team's research, also acknowledges the groundbreaking nature of the work. "Our calculations show that, with further improvements in efficiency, combining infrared and visible photovoltaics could allow up to 30 per cent of the sun's radiant energy to be harnessed, compared to six per cent in today's best plastic solar cells."
The two key points being "calculations" and "plastic solar cells". In other words the 30% figure is a theoretical one and unlikely realistic. Also, six percent is accurate for plastic solar cells, but more modern multi-material cells are up around 35% or better. In short, this is just PR.
Although we are doing better with efficiency than we were doing in the 80s and early 90s.
Yes! Ummm... As long as you are willing to completely cover the Earth's surface with solar cell, this is true. If you take the sunlight for electricity generation, you lose it for other purposes: plant growth, heat, vitamin-D production, natural light, etc. I hate statements like these. They imply that the only reason we can't move to a completely solar economy is lack of investment, when there are larger issues at work.
The points about clothing and paint were very cool though.
I'd like to see the source of stats like this. Is this because the newer ones can capture such a wide band as infrared so that the percentages are being adjusted?
Not truly wireless; you'll still need a cable from your photovoltaic clothing to your cell phone/PDA.
These things don't have sufficient surface area to be recharged by having their outer skins be photovoltaic. In addition, many people carry them in their pockets or purses rather than on an external belt clip. Therefore you need an external power source (such as your clothing). This means the phone needs to be plugged into your clothing somehow. Not THAT big a deal, but one worth mentioning.
How well does it handle being washed in standard washing machines? Dry cleaning everything would be a major pain in the ass. (Assuming that the chemicals used in dry cleaning don't degrade the photovoltaics since the cleaning agents were not made with "quantum dots" in mind.)
I don't mean to be a naysayer, but the article is extremely vague and doesn't give a link to more information (if it's even available). I'd rather be skeptical now and see how it can be used rather than proudly (and prematurely) announce that this solves all our problems and cooks dinner to boot.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
So, how long before this new tech disappears forever after being bought out by the power companies? Remember that carburetor that lets gasoline engines burn water? I hear some Detroit auto-maker bought the design and buried it away for good. ;)
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
I would point out, that -mostly yer right- some elements can find non-standard solutions, near montery there is a lake that is used for hydroelectric generation on a 24 hour clock.. during the day this lake pours downhill generating electricity, and at night it gets pumped back up to the lake above.. in effect, a giant battery- profitable because the utility company pays via a time of day meter, enough for the daytime demand/rate of pay to the owners- over the consumption of the pumping during the night at a reduced electrical charge rate. Your point D is what made me think of creating my response, you cover it in the base, get a large energy storage array (i.e. batteries) these don't have to be chemical- and it's important people continue to look for solutions- "outside the box"-- I think you do.
ideas I've had sparking since typing this up-how many different mechanical means I wonder- are their, for a necassary 'energy storage array' -- compressed air, a normal water tower, a series of springsthat get wound up.. the options are quite broad....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
30% has been demonstrated in prototypes.
Gallium is rare and expensive. Huge areas of gallium arsenide cells aren't going to happen.
A shed is a radically different thing than a house. There is normally quite a bit of insulation between the roof and the ceiling. In all the houses that I have been in during storms, snow, and hail, the only time that I became aware of the roof, was during a very heavy hailstorm and also during a 4' (1.3 meter) snow where other homes had to go and shovel to avoid roof collapse (and some did anyway) and we could stay inside since the snow slipped on its own.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The twin problems are initial expense (which with traditional solar panels is horrible, typically you can expect economic breakeven (at today's wholesale electric prices) in around fifteen to twenty years), and the fact that we can never base our entire power production on (ground based) solar. Solar can be used a lot more than it is, but we can't do everything solar because we don't have a good way to store electricity.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Serbia has one large reversible power plant on Drina River. Its efficiency is about 2/3.
Water is pumped during the night (when thermal plants produce more than system consumes - and you cannot stop/start thermal plants every couple of hours), and it generates electricity during so-called "peak hours". Great thing, although a bit too large for our needs - it was designed for larger system (i.e. system of former Yugoslavia).
No sig today.