Slashdot Mirror
New Record For Solar Cell Power Efficiency
mdsolar writes "Renewable Energy Access is reporting that a consortium led by researchers at the University of Delaware has achieved 42.8% efficiency with a silicon solar cell. The method uses lower concentration (factor of 20 magnification) than the previous record holder (40.7% efficiency) so that it may have a broader range of applications, since tolerances for pointing the device will be larger. They are now partnering with DuPont to build engineering and manufacturing prototypes. They expect to be in production in 2010. On a roof, such cells would require less than half the surface area to produce the same amount of power as today's standard solar panels, which have an efficiency of about 17%."
Yes, but will it run Linux?
Actually, while I'm glad they are making a more efficient solar panel, when will they make a cost-effecient solar panel for mass-adoption?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Hopefully, Solar Cell efficiency will keep ahead of smog cover in major cities.
Never play chicken with a passive aggressive.
Im waiting for them to reach above 100% efficiency before I'll buy
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
a good grid tie system and these things will pay for themselves. I hope that panels of this efficiency are ready for public purchase when I am ready to be a homeowner. this is one of those things that makes economic and environmental sense and I hope it doesn't get stymied by people who are afraid to be "green" because they think it has to be more expensive.
thats right, I rarely use capitals. deal with it. but don't mistake my laziness for stupidity
I'm interested in solar power as a means of lowering the fossil dependency - but there are other, better means of doing so. The CE manufacturers need to meet them half way and mandate more efficient devices that consume less power and bring back the humble ON/OFF switch that actually did turn off the power. Is it that hard to walk to the TV? And, of course, wind and tidal need to be followed up.
The main problem is the general public. Everybody wants wind power (but not in their back yard) you have to actually change the law and rubbish collection to get them to recycle, and everybody needs to buy the latest and most powerful gadget on the market.
Making a more efficient solar cell is an excellent step, but I'd be more interested in a more *cheap* one so they can be taken up on a mass scale.
I'm working on a lunar cell at the moment... the other 50% of a day is totally untapped!!
On a roof, such cells would require less than half the surface area to produce the same amount of power as today's standard solar panels, which have an efficiency of about 17%.
Let me guess: you'll leave how your roof empty to produce the same electricity, or take the whole roof to produce more than twice the electricity. Hard dilemma...
At this point solar energy seems inevitable in our future. Not long from now we'll have more efficient electric motors and even more efficient solar cells, so that would make it a viable backup to a car battery charge and mean you can drive for days and days at long distance without recharging.
The big money now will go to those people who manage to best make use of our existing infrastructure and our new technologies (stellar examples include Toyota's hybrids... imagine if that electric motor they use also has few solar panels to help it in the next models).
I'm not a solar panel expert, but the statement
"On a roof, such cells would require less than half the surface area to produce the same amount of power as today's standard solar panels, which have an efficiency of about 17%."
purely based on efficiency is dangerous. A lot of solar cells require a certain minimal light threshold before they start producing energy, and for reallife application, a lower threshold matters more than a few percent more of peak efficiency.
IOW efficiency is a function of among others light intensity
OK, but how much of a typical house's power would that supply? (I realize this depends on location and time of year.)
Or how many panels would it take to give you a daily, full recharge of a plug-in hybrid in, say, Los Angeles? (Imagine that that would do for LA's smog.)
It seems the cells uses three different solar receptors (low, mid and high energy light), and doesn't need precise tracking devices.
A satellite-based solar panel could easily have the solar tracking device - however, tracking devices are expensive, could be affected by strong winds (for big installations), and use some power by themselves. Such a kit could bring higher efficiency in stationary panels, or (as suggested in article) could be used by the army as recharge packs for and instead of batteries.
that renewable sources of energy are a good thing.
why?
because my HOA (home owners association) does not permit them. As such it would take State or local laws to override the HOA; because in many States the HOA rules have strong legal backing at the State level.
This is akin to the problems satellite TV faced in many locales. There were numerous ordinaces, both at the HOA and local level which blocked satellite dishes. Even the small ones we are accustomed to today were blocked. It took a Federal Law to end that restriction. Unfortunately its going to take another such law to allow many of us to use renewable energy. Hell, I cannot even get rain barrels approved even though they would not be visible from the street.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
...than price per watt. We got plenty of space we can cover with solar cells so it's not important that they are extremely efficient, just cheap enough so it doesn't cost much to cover large areas.
The real problem with solar power is not getting more watts per square inch; it's getting more watts per dollar. From what I hear, high grade silicon is prohibitively expensive. It takes more than 3 years to pay back your monetary investment. This information is probably based upon old panels though.
These new panels may produce twice the energy, but is there any chance that they cost less than twice the dollars? What is the limiting factor in solar panel costs?
I've heard that some people are working on polymer solar panels, this would seem to deal with the dependence on expensive silicon...
I think you failed Humor 101.
...cover the front of solar cell with deep, open, honeycomb-shaped, reflective walls (e.g. Aluminum or silver) grid? That would effectively act as a light trap, making solar panel more "absolutely black body"-like. Or, even better, make open "boxes" with walls covered in solar cells. Photon should have very little chance to escape after multiple reflections...
Although these much-hyped "breakthroughs which are in fact so far from any kind of practical application that they are completely and utterly useless. Instead it just encourages expectations which cannot be satisfied.
Unless you have plenty of money, photovoltaics isn't practical for any but those with no alternatives. Even then people in that situation tend to have systems which provide nothing but the very basics. (Maybe run a light or two, and a radio.)
If you have plenty of money to spend on PV it's still not really practical from a purely financial perspective: the cost of the system will take many years to recoup. You'll save some money if you're grid-tied but average household electricity usage generally far exceeds that supplied from all but the biggest, most expensive installation.
You'll pay no electric bills at all if you're not grid-tied, but unless you have the hell expensive system (with its related ongoing maintenance costs) don't expect to be running the washer-dryer too often, or do anything like welding.
I'm all for PV and rely on it for my power needs. My site is too remote for AC Mains. But I can't afford a hypersystem to meet the kind of needs the average household expects to have on tap, therefore I live frugally. And these bullshit claims being plastered all over Slashdot every damn day about breakthroughs-which-aren't are really starting to piss me off.
Now get the fuck off my lawn.
It probably takes a lot more than three years to pay back the investment. A three year payback would be astounding. If that were the case, you could shut down all the existing power plants and run the country just on solar. OK, that's a bit exagerated because solar doesn't make power all the time. Even so, a three year payback would see a dramatic increase in solar use.
The calculation that produces a three year period says that you start saving money after three years. It assumes that you borrow money to buy the panels. After three years, the money you save on electricity is greater than the loan payments. The link below has a graph. You will notice that the savings take a big jump after twenty years. That's when the loan is paid back and you aren't making payments any more. So, using the link's assumptions, the payback on the investment is about twenty years.
http://www.ongrid.net/PVPayback.html
The point of the link is that, even if it takes a long time to pay for the system, you can still save money by going solar.
"At this point solar energy seems inevitable in our future. Not long from now we'll have more efficient electric motors and even more efficient solar cells, so that would make it a viable backup to a car battery charge and mean you can drive for days and days at long distance without recharging."
It was more than 15 years ago when similar comments were being tossed about, as the Japanese Govt. began pumping money into solar as a technology. The prediction then was that within the decade, solar energy would be a thriving industry and a large scale, reliable alternative power source for the masses.
At this rate, with not much having changed, it would seem a safe bet that 15 years hence we will still be hearing how solar energy as a commodity is 'just around the corner...'
To me spending $3 per gallon of gas. Now maybe they can manufacture these solar cells cheaper than the power company can make them. Personally, I think it is only a matter of time until we see either solar cells or a solar collecting stirling engines on each home to offset peak power usage...
"The CE manufacturers need to meet them half way and mandate more efficient devices that consume less power and bring back the humble ON/OFF switch that actually did turn off the power."
I recently had a new lady move in with me... and she insisted on actually unplugging things like my stereo when we were not using it. I was skeptical about the benefits of this tactic to save electricity, but being a curious person I was willing to humor her.
By unplugging all of my electronic devices (there are many of them) when not in use we saved around $30 U.S. a month. Where was all that energy going? Not sure.
If you are the type of person that has electronics in every room give it a try for yourself. Even if you don't care about being 'green' you will likely see a difference in your energy bill. Either way you win.
Regards.
The development of solar power will go a good way to lowering our dependency on fossil fuels, but to be practical we need to deploy the cells in a massive scale - I'm thinking thousands of square miles of solar farms - so what we really need is a relatively flat landscape in a location with significant sunshine levels. It would also be ideal if the region could provide the raw materials for the manufacture of the cells to save in transportation costs, but to be perfect the region would also have an abundant supply of fossil fuels to power the manufacturing plants until such time as construction was complete.
In summary, the ideal location would have:
Sun
Sand
Oil
You see what I did there!?
AT&ROFLMAO
Yes, this is great, but solar power will eventually fail completely, and there are no guarantees for long-term investments beyond five billion years from now.
I don't really see the problem with leaving devices on "standby". I'm not an electronics type, but it can't take that much power for a small IR receiver circuit to flick the power on for the main circuitry. The only problem with that is that governments allow people to sell goods where "standby" means "don't show a picture until they press a button". Other (PC-like) devices are starting to have extended startup times, and so standby is starting to mean "keep memory running, but don't show a picture...". Maybe what we need is to differentiate between "sleep" mode and "remote power-on" mode.
What matters to me: Do those new cells finally "produce" more energy during their life than they required during manufactoring?
There was talk a while back of beaming microwave energy to earth from solar-power-collecting satellites, since they're outside the atmosphere, and in the sun at times when other spots on earth aren't. The moon might also fit into that satellite model, except that it's further away.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Concentration of a larger solar input area onto a smaller solar cell is nearly always better than straight 1:1 reception. The efficiency goes up with these materials, which of course is good.
But also the concentrators are a lot cheaper than the cells. The concentrator is usually a cheap (compared to the cell) lens or mirror. So a 20x concentrator gets 20x the input energy, but for a much lower cost than 20 cells. And that cell is operating at higher efficiency, on 20x the input. So a $10 cell fed by 20 $5 concentrators costs only $110 instead of $200. 5% more efficiency in the cell is applied to all 20 concentrators, not just the 1 cell, for 200% efficiency. So it's double the efficiency at 55% the price, or over 3.6x the $:energy efficiency. In reality, the concentrators are better than 5x cheaper, and the efficiency gains can go higher than 5% greater.
And then there's all the savings from cheaper replacement concentrators, which could even last longer than the cells (though the cells typically last >30 years), and dropping all the other HW from the 19 (or however many) extra cells in favor of "dumb" concentrators. In fact, since concentrators are so cheap, the cells might not require HW to track the Sun for maximum absorbtion, but just array the concentrators in an arc (or bubble) that always leaves an array of concentrators facing the Sun (and the rest off-axis), without consuming energy to move. Or extra parts, or computing, and saving all the maintenance costs, too.
So the more concentration, the better. After all, that's how the engineers thought up this stuff.
--
make install -not war
I looked into this recently. Installing a ground based heat pump instead of a regular air conditioner would have been around $6K (instead of $2K for the AC). Note that this was for an old style 12 SEER AC unit that's no longer available against a 25+ SEER heat pump (get added bonus of generating heat). AC units have almost doubled in cost, and now are about $4500 installed (new US regulations require higher SEER units).
Why didn't I get the ground based system? Because when it's over 100 F and your main AC unit dies, I couldn't wait for the ground based unit installation taking over a week. I will plan for one at my next house though.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Is why every building/house isn't required to have at least one solar panel on the roof. I could care less about their efficiency, or the ability to run my whole house on them, but the relative low cost and huge amount of energy would benefit everyone. Give people a tax break like they do for weatherproofing your home and make it mandatory.
Full systems to run a home only cost $10k-15k, and single fairly large panels and the needed wiring are ~$1k without batteries or other complexity.
It would also bring down the costs and fund better efficiency and research due to the increased demand. Then some people would be more likely to add a few more or go fully solar, while others don't have to do anything more. It's a win-win. And yes, $1k is a lot for some, but I'd rather see energy co's and the government spending here than in forcing and subsidizing grandparents to get digital TV converters.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
mod parent +1 clueless and +1 physics major with no job prospects
It doesnt seem they included this device in their calculations. I wonder why? :)
I remember reading that there was a research program trying to make solar cells work with UV as well as visible spectrum light. That way, you can still make use of the UV part of the spectrum even on cloudy days.
Speaking of solar power, have we yet come up with a way of capturing ambient heat and doing something with it? When I look at my car in the midday sun, I'm reminded of Texas prison movies with prisoners getting put in "the box." Sheesh! Can't somebody do something with all that heat just sitting around, doing nothing?
In the past, most of the ginchy-keen ideas for alternative fuels always got shot down because fossil fuels were cheaper. You aren't going to get anyone to pay a cent more per kilowatt-hour than they have to. "For the environment?" you suggest. "Die, hippie fag," they reply. But the moment fossil fuels become more expensive, they'll be coming right back all like "Hey, buddy, what was that you were talking about, a hemp-powered car? Did I mention I like the Dead?" I saw some great work being done with solar ovens for third world nations lacking a dependable supply of cheap cooking fuel. These ovens were just shiny sheet metal bent into focusing mirrors. Sure, that's not as advantageous for us westerners, especially when we want to toast up some leftover pizza at night. For people whose choices are solar oven or nothing, a little something looks a whole lot better.
Or look at housing. I live in Florida. Before the advent of the AC, a premium was placed on intelligent housing design to make things livable. The old-style Florida houses were designed for passive cooling and proper airflow through the structure. Once AC's came around, shit, who opens their windows these days? Build everything in blocks and use active cooling, elecricity is cheap. Well, now it ain't.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
While it is a step in the right direction, it is nowhere as good as they would like you believe.
Like was pointed out before this device has several complex parts that might be hard to manufacture. Also, from what i gather, it's only the light that hits the light collector that is captured with a 42% efficiency. Unless that collector covers the entire surface of the solar panel, I would be surprised if 100% actually made it to the solar cells itself. In this way, the efficiency is probably more around 30%, which is still good. Efficiency is not everything. The amount of light captured is as important.
Life cycle assessments are very important too. Until recently, it would take more energy to make a single solar panel than what it could give you during its entire lifetime. This is changing but, given the complexity of the proposed device, it could still be a problem.
So, while I encourage scientists to keep working on solar cells (it's my field too, btw), I think they should refrain from making such announcements too fast.
Think about this: Axe and Dove are actually the same company. Vincent L.B.
This is great news, but I am a little curious about the cost of these things... The biggest barrier to solar cells right now is cost, not efficiency. This new cell is about twice as efficient as your typical single layer panel but how much more expensive is it? 50% more expensive? Twice as expensive? 10 times more expensive? This thing has several layers and optics to separate the light... apparently in a much tighter package than similar devices in the past, but still complex and big relative to your standard single layer solar panel.
My HOA routinely tries to have my vehicle ticketed and towed after being parked for 72 hours in one spot.
I commute by bicycle and do most of my errands that way too. The HOA directors have no concept of someone actually NOT using their vehicle.
Is the parent really a troll?
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
The power of Bush compels you! The power of Bush compels you! But seriously, transfer 1/16 of the money from the oil wars to research on making more efficient and cheaper solar cells and we will will have a energy independent North America and far less air pollution before the 2050 point of no return.
I razzed New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson on my blog yesterday saying he is trying to keep the southerneastern US off solar so he can build a huge New Mexican Solar Power Monopoly to supply them: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/07/new-mexicans-c onspire.html(tinfoil hat warning). One of the projects linked there aims to do just this, havesting the heat generated at the panels for building heating. Engulf and Devour, that's his motto.s -selling-solar.html
--
Register your home for solar power; fixed competitive rates for up to 25 years: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Hi,
I will try to put a summary to the interested folks around:
A photovoltaic system is composed today by:
- Module
- Inverter DC/AC
- Mounting system
- Cabling
- Measuring/Protection electrical stuff
Most of the cost today is the module. Systems go (net) for 4-5$/Watt.
More efficient cells (and modules) mean less installation costs. For the future, it will be important since cell and module prices will go down.
Today, in California, if you take a system lifetime of 25 years, the kWh equivalent "price" is about 25-30cent.
System price decrease is expected to be 5-10% yearly for the next 5-10 years at least. This means that very soon the PV power will be cheaper than the one sold by the utility.
PV systems are perfect for distributed energy: a centralized power plant is not really cheaper or more efficient than a 5kW roof installation. And the energy transport kills the small margin that you had in favour of the big thing. That is why most utilities are not hot about PV: it is against their business model.
For the moment, it is not cheap to get "disconnected" from the grid. Therefore, a mix of PV and other electricity is necessary. PV has a nice peak at max. consumption peak. However, the evening consumption must be covered otherwise. Wind, biomass, ocean waves, geothermal, whatever.
PV in order to charge e-cars is OK today already. A car that uses 10 liter to do 100km, at a 20kW mean power, is using 20kWh energy for 10 liter gas, at 1$/liter it would be 50 cent/kWh. Make the calculation with your local gas price/gallon and you see that, even today, it is competitive. And cleaner. Only e-cars are not yet developed/deployed as they need to be.
About Solar-thermal energy for cold- it works for mid-big sized equipments, it is cheaper and especially more reliable than electricity... PV supporting electrical AC is still a bit more expensive but both run a nice race.
Ah, the typical guy asks about energy payback times: depending on technology, after 1-4 years your system has produced the energy needed to make it. Longer times belong to PV prehistory and to right-wing-thinktank analysis.
Cheers!
"Solid state"
> On a roof, such cells would require less than half the surface area to
> produce the same amount of power as today's standard solar panels,
> which have an efficiency of about 17%."
The article being quoted clearly states that these cells require concentrated sunlight -- this is true of all thin-film high-TSE cells. So basically you can't mount them on the roof, you'll get no power at all.
Further, most solar panels get about 11% efficiency. There are ones that get into the 15-17% range, but these are much more expensive and see considerably less use as a result.
These new cells will be very useful for large-scale energy developments, like large solar farms in the desert. They are completely useless for rooftop deployment.
Maury
Does anyone know how efficient stirling engines installations are compared with solar panels?
I did not see anyone mention this, but let's say you put some solar panels on your roof or have a solar array in your yard. If you are in a really sunny area and are not home much during the day so are not using as much energy as is being produced, any extra power produced is fed back into the power grid. Legally (in the US at least) your local power company has to purchase that power from you. I have heard of some people that have done this that ends up with a check from the utility company at the end of the month instead of a bill.
Solar power, cheap, efficient, durable, pick two.
Records being broken for efficiency gains etc. are fine. But why are no new hone systems available today getting more efficient and better priced? It's always "tomorrow is the promised land". Enough already.
The article isn't extremely clear, but these aren't made of just silicon. If that were the case, this would be much more awesome (and is why I was initially extremely excited). They split the light into high, medium, and low energy so that the most appropriate semiconductor can be used to absorb it. Silicon might be used for the medium or low energy light, because it has a band gap of 1.3eV. Something else would have to be used for the other two, running into the problem of gallium being unfortunately rare for widespread use.
The article was editied. I made the comparison to point out that this leaves roof area for charging a plug-in hybrid. Under most net metering laws you don't want to generate more power than you use because, after a year, the utility just confiscates the extra power, paying you nothing for it. Most home roofs have enough surface area to handle the power used by the building but it can be a tight fit. Adding in charging a car could mean drawing more from the utility, possibly at a higher price than today's electricity. So, developing the option to get more power from less area enables powering transportation as well as the home in most cases. To be fair, kdawson did add in the 17% number which I had left vauge. It is actually system efficiency that stands near 17%, panel efficiencies are a bit higher (about 19%).l ashdot-users-selling-solar.html
--
Get solar power that matches your changing use of electricity:http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/s
Damn, did somebody urinate in your coffee this morning?
It will be even faster once normal grid rates jump, which they will. and homeowners can't get long term electricity price contracts from the local power monopoly, but with solar they can.
On second thought, everyone, I've decided that I myself am an idiot who spells physics with a capital P.
But, what are the costs of manufacturing? If the new panel costs more than twice as much as "today's standard solar panels", what's the use? (OK, energy density is nice if you have a small roof area, but that's about it). Now, if the cost is roughly comparable per surface area, that would be great - twice the watts for the same money.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
I saw a Nova (IIRC) where Germany is subsidising individuals to put up solar cells. Farmers are covering entire fields with them. They have a contract so that they are garunteed to recoup expenses and make a profit.
Germany lines all of its freeways w/ solar cells. That is making good use of otherwise wasted space.
I hope other countries (the US included) take some lessons from the Germans.
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
brilliant and informative, many thanks.
I would mod you up, but I have already posted the parent on this thread, anybody else care to do the honours?
My own interest is because I used to work in the CE field writing software for for CD players, the idea of "standby" they had in china when they were being integrated was simply to turn off the display panel and light up a standby light. This meant the standby power was almost exactly the same as the normal power. Apparently it cost too much in HW and developement to put in a real standby.
I don't work there anymore.
But it really does annoy me. The EU has made a start by banning incandescent light bulbs - they need to follow up this by mandating maximum permissible normal and standby power to a range of CE devices. I know this will be contentious, but I also know the technology is there to do it and unless this is shrouded in law then the manufacturers will still follow the cheapest bottom line. The best thing is they build to the least common denominator - the stuff we developed would go into every market in the world with minor label changes. The point here is that if they have to lower to power consumption for the next batch of 15 million for only one region then they will across the board.
A couple of simple regulations would then add up to one serious power saving.
The bad news is that big business would fight this like nothing before because of the precedent it represents.
For reference, is there a generally accepted efficiency rate of trees and other vegetation? Just curious.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
The device in question, along with the other one it just surpassed, both are concentrators: they have big optic systems focussing light on small silicon PV cells. The whole point of this area of research was, originally, to reduce the cost per watt -- you make more optics, which are cheap, so the same amount of photovoltaic, the expensive part, sees more sunlight. It's a nice side-effect that it's more efficient, because photovoltaics are nonlinear, but the original reason people were looking at these was precisely to lower the cost-per-watt, and that's really what's important about this research.
The most recent material I've seen from NREL research indicates the payback time for currently-available solar cells is about 10 years, which is still not bad, given that they have at least a 20 year lifetime. If someone else has a link or other numbers I'd be interested in hearing them.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Am I reading this right? This story is about breaking the record and increasing by only 2.1%? Is that really news? If it was 50%, 25%, hell even 10% that might be something. But 2.1%, gimme a break! Not only that, but this is a singular event, not something being currently translated into the 17% technology....
Perpetual motion machines break the laws of physics as we know them. All processes increase entropy, and energy is never created out of nothing. In your example, LEDs use minimal electricity, so the light they produce is also low energy. You can't get more power from any light source than it takes to produce the light. Because some energy is lost as heat, you can't even break even. Read the Laws of Thermodynamics and come back.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
In fact, roof top concentrators look quite practical: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18718/. I wish the original article had given a diagram of how their system is laidout, but it definitely mentioned rooftop use.
s -selling-solar.html
You won't be all that competitive is you are producing 11% efficient solar today. I think perhaps you are thinking that most solar panels already sold have a lower efficiency. One company is selling at $3.00/watt for lower efficency panels as compared with $4.20/watt for most. You have to compete on price to offset the higher installation costs of lower efficeincy panels.
--
Solar power you can afford: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Don't confuse cell efficiency with module efficiency (numerous cells connected together, put into something that can go on your roof, and make useful energy). By the time you add an inverter (to convert the module's dc to ac) and especially if you add storage batteries (as opposed to a grid-tied system), the efficiency goes down further.
That said, this is great news. Folks in enlightened states, like Kullyfornia, are already using rebates to make clean energy at their homes. Even without rebates, for the price of a Hummer, you can cover almost all your electrical needs from the sun TODAY ("Air conditioning not included!").
With research cells (as opposed to commercially available modules) poised to get 40%, it's only a matter of time before the nuke and coal industries *really* start to hurt.
See this article from a decade ago musing about 18% efficient cells http://lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/pure-sola
I've got my black colored glasses on, but to me it seems like almost every headline lately is either bad news for some group, or at least provokes a political brawl. But finally, after what seems like a brutal decade, there's been a bit of good news for Team USA. GM and Ford are both making money, and now someone has made a real advance in solar cell efficiency. As someone who lives in Delaware, and has seen banks slash their staff and Chrysler announce the closure of a key auto plant, the prospect of any industrial expansion is a welcome bonus.
Let's say something political, now. Let's hope that the Government can come together with the kind of tax incentives they are waiving around for Ethanol and Oil production to help building owners migrate to solar cells. I think we've beaten the crap out of each other enough debating energy independence and its just time to get rolling.
This is my sig.
Making a more efficient solar cell is an excellent step, but I'd be more interested in a more *cheap* one so they can be taken up on a mass scale.
More efficient cells would go a long way towards achieving that goal. From the summary:
On a roof, such cells would require less than half the surface area to produce the same amount of power as today's standard solar panels
Assuming that they are similar in price to construct, you'd pay about half to purchase these efficient cells versus the older ones they're being compared with. And half in mounting hardware. And the failure rate (again, assuming they are similar) is half as well.
More efficient cells are an excellent step towards affordability.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Read this:
Solar-hydrogen homes try to overcome doubts, International Herald Tribune.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I think most people would be surprised what can be created with technology when you only have to make a few of them. It's the mass manufacture of "scifi" like devices that is HARD.
If I wanted to create super sci-fi stuff for my spy that's not so hard, custom made stuff with lots of money behind it can do amazing things.
I'm really hoping that their method is mass manufacturable.
I don't want half the space. I want Twice the Power!
Power is great. I can do more with more power, including selling more if it back to my utility.
This whole mindset of "now you only need half the space now to do what you do," has irked me for a long time. I first remember it when IBM tried to replace the original PC/AT bus slots with MCA (Micro Channel Architecture, for those of you new here). The MCA cards were half the size, and provided less power, and the argument was that what took the old form factor and footprint 3 years earlier, could now be done in less space and power. The problem was, I didn't want to still do what I could do 3 years earlier. I WANTED TO DO MORE!
I feel this approach was part of what doomed the MCA bus in PC's.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Can the impending disaster of Peak Oil be solved, and widespread adoption encouraged, by a feeding frenzy of expensive research, patents, and the overpriced result?
As has been said SO many times before, for 90% of the applications neither size nor efficiency are really the issue... cost per Watt generated is the issue. There's no shortage of roof space for solar arrays. The reason more people don't install even the "low" efficiency varieties available now is COST.
Perhaps instead of obsessing over improving the efficiency of the cells, that obsession should be refocused on the efficiency of the production process and making the "low" efficiency cells we have now less expensive to manufacture?
because my HOA does not permit them
Then get on the board and change it.
Given a convergence of choices, I ended up in a HOA-run community. First chance I got I joined the board, and am trying to make things as lenient as possible. Rules can be changed, and (easier) waved entirely. I suggest you do the same. Rules don't change (or get waived) unless someone motivated enough to change them changes them.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Suppose people do care and start conserving energy. They pay less for their energy bill, so that means they own more money. What do they do with this money? Spend it on other things of course! So that means other people are earning more money, for example in other parts of the world that are currently using less energy. What will they do with this extra money? Yes, spend it and in that process use more energy than they would have before!
Net result? 0
No the net result is that the quality of life for a larger number of people was increased for the same amount environmental damage. And the future technology moves closer to a sustainable, high quality of living for the total population of earth because more efficient use is gotten from finite resources.
There are cases high energy costs hurt productivity and efficiency, but waste can be done with absolutely no benefit (flip side part of that not zero-sum game arguement.) Unless you actually use an SUV for things that cannot be done with a more fuel efficient vehicle, there was extra pollution for no gains in productivity. Pollution that will increase crop prices and lower quality of life for people. There is no reason not to charge through the nose for this privilege or disallow it completely (like requiring higher efficiency standards in cars.)
Q. How many slashdot pedants does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A. You can't screw in a lightbulb. It's too small! Two people would never fit in there and have enough room to move.
"This achievement is the direct result of the new architecture we developed under the DARPA program," Barnett and Honsberg said. "By integrating the optical design with the solar cell design, we have entered previously unoccupied design space leading to a new paradigm about how to make solar cells, how to use them, and what they can do."
Coincidentally, this gaseous exhalation also achieves a buzzword density of over 42%. We have "new architecture", "integrating", "unoccupied design space" and "new paradigm". I have no clue what point they are trying to make. For extra credit, try to explain the difference between "how to use them" and "what they can do".
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
I agree, who cares about efficiency? Total cost invested / total returns should be the only "efficiency" mark to look at in a given period of time.
...has achieved 42.8% efficiency with a silicon solar cell (during the day).
Efficiency drops considerably at night.
What? He's telling the fucking truth. Lack of job prospects or not, he's not "clueless" he's "correct".
Nothing like blowing your own trumpet.
The team was led by the University of Delaware's Alan Barnett, who has had many similar achievements.
His company AstroPower was founded on his new method for production of thin-film cells; the company was quite successful until the dot-bomb (when the supply of high grade post-commercial silicon for recycling dried up). It was eventually bought out by GE and Barnett went back to the life of a DARPA-funded university researcher.
I've tried to put stub articles up for Alan Barnett and for Vic Singer (the rocket scientist and community activist) on wikipedia; but if I conform to their new requirements for references my articles are rejected as "This reads too much like idol worship than a quality article" and if I don't they say "not sufficiently notable". Incidentally, both men are admirable and notable, but also quite irascible, so I certainly wouldn't want either one as a "idol".
In the old days, before the wiki police, I'd add both articles now, and regardless of how poorly I wrote them they'd be first rate within a week or so as the rest of the community added their contributions and polished up the work as a whole. I miss the old Wikipedia...
I'd be more worried about Smug. With all these people buying hybrids, Smug levels are on a record high!
If you subtract the energy used in manufacturing over the life span of the cell - say 15 years - You will find it produces zero energy.
This might be true if you kept a tarp over it for the first 13 years. Panels take 2 years to payback energy. If you are willing to keep using them until their efficiency is degraded to 40% of new (that takes 100 years or more) the the EROEI is 33, higher than just about anything else (air dried firewood is 25 in favorable conditions). If you then recycle panels, the recycled ones have a payback of 1 year since you did not have to refine the silicon. The eventual EROEI approaches 66, beating all other technologies.s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar for the future starting now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
How do you figure 2.1%?
42.8 / 40.7 = 1.052, or a relative increase in efficiency of 5.2%.
Simpler, consider an increase of 1% to 2% efficiency instead. It's quite obvious that you've DOUBLED your performance, not increased it by 1%.
It's nice to see the solar panel finally be able to power something more than a calculator. Though, I'd prefer one that uses infrared light. That way it works anywhere above absolute zero.
2010?
1) no moving parts
2) mature industry with processing plants
3) surely plants can be upgraded
4) see 1)
5) 2010?
6) massive growth and demand for solar panels
7) profit???
2010? That is... remarkable. Perhaps I am just so used to the computer years of development that a solar panel being ready in 2010 makes me wonder if we will see duke nukem forever before we can sow these panels. I guess they have to refine the design and that. Still. 1) no moving parts. Seems rather a simple process to me.
Any insights into why this is 2010 tech?
Can any one point out where this result was publsihed (other than the news release)? I would like to know the actual solar cell structure.