Slashdot Mirror
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."
The power companies are gonna be pissed.
Technoli
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.
My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
Photosynthesis isn't a compound; it's a process.
Come on, give the editors credit for using a word larger than 4 syllables and spelling it correctly. You want it to be used in CONTEXT as well? Sheesh, there's no pleasing some people.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Is this the official annual "Solar Power Breakthrough" that is never heard from again?
Not the world, just day-to-day life as we know it.
Here's the problem with that: even if we started cutting back our CO2 output (disregarding all of the other pollution we put out that's causing us problems now) by 1% cumulative per year it would still be a long time before we stopped putting out more CO2 than the system can ordinarily handle. But the system is already overstressed, and as you point out the total amount of CO2 will dissipate only slowly. Even if we stopped emitting CO2 today, aside from that which is absolutely necessary, there would still be too much CO2 for quite some time to come.
Besides global warming, there are other excellent reasons to reduce CO2 output (and that of other undesirable emissions.) Probably the most serious issue at the moment is the acidification of the oceans. We've already been killing off oceanic algae with pollution, like oil spills. Now we're not only threatening algae, which definitely prefers a certain Ph range, but coral reefs have been hurting badly and the acidification of the ocean due to CO2 gas exchange is implicated. Oceanic algae produces the vast majority of the oxygen that we need to survive. CO2 is also toxic and even small increments in the percentage of the atmosphere it makes up causes health problems including dizziness, nausea, and general malaise. Although we can survive exposure to environments which are over the usual amount, it's not good for us - or probably any other mammal.
The point is that we really needed this technology decades ago, and we're already late on getting started using it. Putting sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere is simply a Bad Idea(tm). Anything we can do to reduce that NOW means that we're going to be in less trouble later. Since we can't immediately stop all CO2 use and we can't go back in time, the problem will get worse before it gets better.
I cannot disagree strongly enough. If we could actually follow the so-called radical agenda, which I like to call the rational agenda since we all live in the atmosphere and we will all suffer if it becomes less hospitable to human life, then it would be a positive thing. We are quite simply living beyond the means of the Earth to sustain us. The only truth in your statement comes from the fact that the "radical" environmentalists can only push the obstinate defilers of the planet so quickly. But without them asking for a certain level of change, we would be unlikely to have even the positive change we are currently implementing.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Very good question. These are not just dyes--they're fluorescent dyes. They absorb a photon in a certain energy range, which puts and electron in an excited state. After a certain amount of time in that excited state (i.e., the "fluorescence lifetime") the electron drops back down to the ground state and emits a photon of lower energy (the difference in energy between absorbed and emitted photons is called the Stokes shift). Every time an electron jumps to that excited state, it can potentially react with an oxidant and destroy the fluorescence (this is known as "photobleaching." If you mix antioxidants with the dye solution you can decrease the rate of photobleaching--such an antioxidant solution is called an "antifade." There are other ways to reduce photobleaching, such as sticking certain chemical moieties onto the dye.
In short, the stability of the dye system really depends on the dye structure and the presence (or absence) of oxidizing molecules. There are plenty of fluorescent dyes used in lasers, but I don't know how long they last before bleaching. If the dye is in the right solvent (such as DMSO, perhaps) it might take a damn long time to bleach. But the point is that dye is cheap compared to refined silicon, and replacing bleached dye might be as simple as flushing out the old stuff and pouring in a new solution.
In my opinion there are only two reasonable long-term solutions to solar energy production: 1) Imitate photosynthesis using fluorescent dyes. 2) Let the plants do all the hard work of turning photons + water + carbon dioxide into sugar, then figure out how to imitate cellular respiration and turn sugar into energy (specifically, a separation of charge).
This site has tons of information about various fluorescent dyes, though it's geared towards use in molecular biology, not photovoltaics (unless you count the voltage-sensing dyes).
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
It's a funny thing, people everywhere always have the idea that technology will come along and save us. Some future tech will make it all better....
.....
Bah Humbug. We have everything we need right now.
solar power can be put on new homes. It just isn't.
small and quiet wind generators exist. They could be put in everyones back yard. They just aren't.
We have efficient vehicles. They're just not popular.
Most people live within 10 miles of their work. They could bike. They just don't.
We've had the tech to clean water using plants for 40 years. It's just not used.
We have the tech to build efficient homes. Instead we slap up quick and crappy ones.
Etc.
We have the tech. Tech is not the problem. The only thing holding us back now is the culture and will to do what we can already do.
Don't go looking for a miracle solution. They exist, lazy people just don't use them.
-T
P.S. I hate you all.