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."

9 of 361 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Off. The. Grid. by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, what will really piss them off is everyone using the grid as a giant storage cell.
    -nB

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  2. Cutting To The Chase by w33t · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Not again by slickwillie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is this the official annual "Solar Power Breakthrough" that is never heard from again?

  4. Re:Off. The. Grid. by nasch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, human greed will kick in - ie market forces. I don't know how you can say cost has nothing to do with it, because if you reduce the time that solar panels take to pay for themselves from (let's say) 15 years to 9 months (if this is both 1/10 the cost and works better on cloudy days) it's quite obvious that more people will buy them. I also don't know who this "they" is that will keep money out of our pockets. Barring patents, there will be competition in this market (and even if there are patents they'll expire). If company A can convert your roof to solar power for $X, and Company B can do it for $X/10, guess how much business Company A is going to get? "They" don't get to decide what the market price for the product is, the market does that. And if production costs drop by a factor of 10, that cannot help but affect the consumer price unless it's a monopoly market.

  5. Re:Off. The. Grid. by AshtangiMan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't think you've thought it through . . . if you look at the cost vs. efficiency the paint still comes ahead, even with the efficiency hit. You just bump the area requirements by 2, so you only get a 1/5 cost advantage, so you pay 20% of the equivalent silicon system. Still pretty good. To be sure the efficiency of both is what will change, and as they do this calculation will need to be redone. If you start running into area restrictions (ie the roof area no longer provides enough power) then this might also tip the scales back to the silicon.

    But, I've been hearing about doped polymer based PV cells for a while (along with this 1/10th the cost and 1/2 the efficiency) and they are still not something that I've seen actually working, not to mention actually deployable for a residential application. Interesting idea, hopefully becomes something.

  6. photobleaching by bodrell · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Also, we don't have a good idea of the durability of these cells. I'm a bit concerned because of the organic nature; how stable are they? What kind of reduction in efficiency will we see over, say, 20 years?

    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
  7. "Gradualism" bugs me by whistlingtony · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Off. The. Grid. by Almost-Retired · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That was the big problem with getting people to install solar. The initial cost was too much. We'll still have to pay for the breaker box upgrade so we can feed power back to the electric company, but at least it won't take 20 years to pay off the solar collectors now.

    I know a wee bit about dyes, probably just enough to be dangerous, and one thing these people are apparently forgetting, is that so far, no one has invented an organic based dye that doesn't fade, so in this case, what will be the annual recoating costs in order to maintain the efficiency at an acceptable level?

    Sorry to rain on all the parade plans, but I suspect the short lifetime might be a put off.

    --
    Cheers, Gene
    "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
      soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
    -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
    Zoe: "Sir, I think you have a problem with your brain being missing."
                                                                    --Episode #2, "The Train Job"

  9. Re:Off. The. Grid. by Iron+Condor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think you've thought it through: both for people putting cells on their house and for large scale installations, available area is either an absolutely limited or often an expensive thing to add (the area required per unit output is already one of the major drawbacks to solar plants for large-scale generation.) Anything that reduces efficiency is a losing proposition.

    If I cover only the south-facing parts of my roof with current Si solar cells, I can over-produce my own households consumption comfortably by a factor of ten or so. At, say, $5k or there abouts for the installation. If there were solar cells with twice the "efficiency", I could overproduce my consumption by a factor of twenty.

    And why would I want that?

    "Efficiency" is typical oil-industry brainwashing. Unambiguously the mindset of a consumer of a finite, limited resource. Sunlight is unlimited - "efficiency" doesn't play a role anywhere. I don't want, nor need solar cells that can squeeze a few percent more wattage out of a square foot of roof. I want cells that are cheap, period:

    If the whole installation was $500 instead of $5000, then I wouldn't care if the whole thing breaks occasionally or if its efficiency drops over time or whether I have to replace the complete thing every 5 years. I simply don't care. The only reason people keep whining about these things is because they keep thinking in terms of dense, high-power, expensive hi-tech nano-gadgets. Once you think of them as something low-grade, cheap, and abundant, there's a thousand times more surface area available than you could possibly need.

    A 2kW installation on each of 100million roofs in the US would cover the entire US electricity consumption right there. But let's say you can collect for really cheap - how about the surface area of not only all the highways, but the strip between the highways as well? Imagine a couple suare meter of cells on every single high-voltage transmission line tower - not for "generation" so much as for "regeneration"; supplying just as much as is lost in transmission between two of these towers. Suddenly the grid itself is a producer, and the larger it gets the less it matters whether there's actually any power plants plugged in anywhere. Heck, they're towers - why not have a little windmill on top of each one as well? As long as you're thinking "expensive equipment that needs to be serviced" that won't fly, but if you can swing it for cheap, low-efficiency it'll be worth it and you just won't care whether the one or other one breaks occasionally.

    There's no energy crisis. There has never been one and there will never be one. There's more than enough energy to go around. All we have to do is start tapping into it. Turns out that that is difficult to do in such a way as to make some few people super-rich -- and that is why it isn't done...

    --
    We're all born with nothing.
    If you die in debt, you're ahead.