Solar Power-Cell Breakthrough

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers from the Nanomaterials Research Centre at Massey University in New Zealand have developed synthetic dyes that can be used to generate electricity at one tenth of the cost of current silicon-based solar panels. These photosynthesis-like compounds work in low-light conditions and can be cheaply incorporated into window-panes and building materials, thereby turning them into generators of electricity."

Comments

Cutting To The Chase

[w33t]

This is a very interesting collision of physical and organic chemistry. Discoveries like this are why I (and I'm sure many others) find myself (themselves) becoming a() bigger and bigger advocate(s) of solar power every day. There is so much power streaming out of the sun. really, every single power source on the planet (save perhaps nuclear) derives from a solar process. Our beloved/lamented fossil fuels wouldn't exist without the creatures that created those fossils -- creatures who ate plants, ate something that ate plants or were actually plants themselves: plants use the sun.

Even hydroelectric power owes its existence to the sun. Perhaps in very ancient times evaporation didn't require a star close by due to the young, heated surface of the planet. But today's surface temperatures just won't cut it without our friendly star.

Wind power...well, I'm not really saying anything new here. Everyone feel free to cringe at the thought of the inefficiency of grain ethanol!

Basically, if you are an advocate of nuclear power as clean power, well then you should probably turn your fandom towards the biggest nuclear power plant in the solar system...of course, I've personally got no problem with some breeder and a couple dozen pebble-bed reactors - just saying ;)

So what if we are just consuming its leftovers, with a giant picnic like that we ants can be assured of a bountiful feast of crumbs :)

Which brings me to my point which I had forgotten.

These researchers have taken a hint from nature's own, good-old photosynthesis. So to me, it seems as though we have cut the hydrocarbon out of the solar-food-chain. Rather than waiting a couple million years for plants to convert sunlight into food for themselves and other creatures, die off and then turn into black, sweet, sweet crude; we simply cut out the middle-men/middle-dinosaurs and make direct use of the sun's bounty.

Solar-power is the most elegant power source yet discovered. Now to harness it cleanly.

Coral

[normuser]

here are the coral links. site is slashdotted right now so I dont know when it'l get cached.

http://www.stuff.co.nz.nyud.net:8080/4017784a13.ht ml
http://masseynews.massey.ac.nz.nyud.net:8080/2007/ Press_Releases/04-04-07.html

A little about TiO2

[Ogemaniac]

First, Ti in any form is not particulary common, and good ores with an economically valuable Ti percentage are hard to come by (though NZ and AU are were most of it is found). Our current known reserves of good Ti ore are projected to run out by mid-century, but I always buy these projections with a bit of skepticism.

That being said, the amount of Ti used in such a panel is trivial, because the layer's thicknesses are measured in nanometers and microns. Your golf clubs have as much Ti as a football field of such panels. Refining of TiO2 to Ti metal is expensive and energy intensive, and I presume it is necessary in order to make these panels, even though the panels actually use TiO2. The process is probably Ti02 ore -> Ti -> TiCl4 -> TiO2 nanostructures. This is because the TiO2 in the panels needs to be extremely pure, and TiCl4, being a gas, can be distilled. It is then mixed with water under controlled conditions to release HCl and produce the nano-particles/structures necessary for the panels.

This article seems mostly hype to me. TiO2 nanostructures along with various dies are heavily researched around the world, with thousands of published articles. Since the article has no data, I presume all that happened was that these guys beat the previous efficiency record by a whee bit. The problem with these types of cells is that the efficiency still sucks...around 5% vs 20% for a standard silicon-based cell, and 40% for top of the line multi-junction cells (which are enormously expensive and are currently used for things like satellites or the Mars rovers). In a typical silicon cell, the silicon is about half the cost of the final package (not including the inverters, installation and all that jazz, however). Therefore, even if these TiO2 and dies cost ten times less, that won't even reduce the cost by 50%...and then you need several times the acreage to collect the energy you need.

For now, and for at least another decade in the future, silicon is king. Unfortunately, it is very expensive and there is a serious demand crunch right now, driving prices even higher (though many silicon manufacturers are heavily ramping production to solve this).

wavelength selection? titanium?

[smellsofbikes]

Weird article. Lessee.
>Dr Campbell said that unlike silicone-based solar cells, the dye- based cells are still able to operate in low-light conditions

I'm unfamiliar with these silicone-based solar cells: are those the ones you tape on Pam Anderson's breasts?

Titanium/titanium dioxide? All the dyes they talk about are organic: porphyrins are heterocyclic aromatics that complex a metal ion in their centers. Not titanium dioxide, the compound: a metallic ion all by itself. Probably iron or magnesium. Ditto hemoglobin.

With those complaints aside, one of the neat things about using naturally produced chromophores is that, well, they're naturally produced, so we could get them in enormous quantities. Similarly, they can be tuned, so you could have ones that absorb different wavelengths of light, with high efficiency, stacked, to extract more energy out of the sunlight than a single-bandgap cell like most photovoltaics.

But essentially they're trying to replicate the behavior of plants, and rather than messing about with dyes in solution, it seems way more productive (although, clearly, harder) to try and get plant cells to do this for us: harness the ion gradients in their chloroplasts, parasitize their electric potential. Most of the machinery is already there. We just need to get the voltage potential outside the cell.

Down with the "Overrated" moderation!

[drinkypoo]

Moderating my parent comment Overrated before it has even been up-moderated is an abuse of the moderation system. It is abundantly clear that the moderation was used in this case because someone did not agree with me, and knew that any other negative moderation would be denied in metamoderation.

The individual who did this is an enemy of slashdot, and is actively working to make the system not work - not that it needs much help, since the issues with the "Funny" and "Overrated" modes are a design problem.

The Overrated moderation provides an end-run around the system, and should be abolished.

solar tech within our reach

[mike1948337]

These guys already have that technology and are about to start production. http://www.nanosolar.com/

Re:Is there any real point to solar energy?

[Herak]

The question is, is that enough? With one square meter of 100% efficient solar cell providing only enough power to run little more than two household lightbulbs? First of all, I think you mean 7.5 household lightbulbs.

We have plenty of space. Are you using your roof for anything important? (Maybe you live in an apartment, so putting them on the roof never occurred to you...?) Even with today's solar panels at ~20% efficiency, people can and do power their entire homes with solar using just their roof space - although, it depends largely on how much power you use, obviously.

Even if you could only power 1/10th of your home, it would be worthwhile if it were cheaper than grid power - and that's not even considering the environmental benefits.

Space efficiency isn't really the issue with solar power. The important factor is cost.