Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DOE Shines $14M on Solar Energy Research

Posted by samzenpus on from the government-heliotrope dept.

coondoggie writes "Eleven university solar research projects aimed at developing advanced solar photovoltaic (PV) technology manufacturing processes and products got a $14 million boost today from the Dept. of Energy. Photovoltaic-based solar cells convert sunlight directly into electricity, and are made of semiconductor materials similar to those used in computer chips. When sunlight is absorbed by these materials, the solar energy knocks electrons loose from their atoms, allowing the electrons to flow through the material to produce electricity."

8 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. This has to be good news by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Once costs are the same as that of power from the grid then people will use this. It will help the environment and energy security. The only worry is that peak power production will still have to deal with night-time demand. We need to look at efficient, cheap energy storage.

    1. Re:This has to be good news by Aglassis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Once costs are the same as that of power from the grid then people will use this. It will help the environment and energy security. The only worry is that peak power production will still have to deal with night-time demand. We need to look at efficient, cheap energy storage. I think the first solution should be to rush into production the superconducting electric grid part of the Grid 2030 project. Being able to efficiently transport power across the country would significantly increase the stability of the electric grid which would allow more solar and other renewable energy projects to come online. This would also be a lot cheaper efficiency-wise and capital-wise than the massive civil engineering projects that will be required for pumped storage. It would also give a lot more flexibility in the use of peaking plants for nighttime use. Until an efficient electric grid is implemented where you can easily and economically transport electricity thousands of kilometers (such as with a high voltage DC grid or a superconducting electric grid) you are still going to need tons of local peaking plants and your renewable energy plants (excluding hydropower) are only going to occasionally cut into the load of your base load plants which will make them less economical. The Albany superconducting line seems to be working well so it is time that a larger system is implemented.
      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    2. Re:This has to be good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      look into beacon power systems...

      they're making large flywheel systems to store off peak power to release during peak demand... DOE funding them too.

    3. Re:This has to be good news by necro81 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Another business model is to do energy-intensive things at night, when electricity is cheapest. A local school district, in their new elementary school, has an AC system that produces huge amounts of ice overnight, then uses that to produce cool air during the day. I believe some high-rises are starting to do this, too, because the cost of electricity for cooling during peak hours of the day is exceptionally high. More large buildings would probably do this, but are too short-sighted to see that a larger capital expenditure up front can be cheaper over the long haul.

  2. Re:On the basis of the evidence... by kaos07 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you want cheap energy, go coal

    The cost of setting up a plant is hardly "cheap" and what happens when coal becomes scarce? It IS a finite resource - unlike the sun.

    If you want cheap clean energy, go nuclear.

    Once again the cost of setting up a nuclear power plant is in the billions. Fissile materials are also finite, when they begin to run out we'll see huge increases in price. See the case of oil now.

    I also take issue with your point that nuclear energy is "green". Even if we say that plants are entirely safe (Which seems to be the Slashdot consensus) there are many other issues. First of all, what does one do with the waste? Plutonium 239, the most common material used, has a half life of 24,000 years. That's longer than civilisation has so far existed. None of our current methods of storing waste are viable and many have been proven useless.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0606/S00198.htm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/4589321.stm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7068041.stm

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/18/japan.justinmccurry1

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003816157_webhanfordleak01.html?syndication=rss

    Let's not forget the insane amounts of energy required to both commission a plant, continually mine and transport uranium and then decommission it.

    I don't understand how you can argue that replacing our dependence on finite resource that pollutes the environment with another finite resource that pollutes the environment is a good thing. I suggest you read the recently commission Garnaut Review (Professor Ross Garnaut is an economist at the Australian National University) which states that nuclear is a non-viable option and the world must develop renewable sources of energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnaut_Report. Or the Stern review (also made by an economist) which reaches a similar conclusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review. I do believe these two in particular have a broader depth of knowledge surrounding economics than you do.

  3. Re:On the basis of the evidence... by mhalagan · · Score: 4, Interesting
    As far as the USA is concerned, weather is not as large a factor as it is made out to be.

    Considering that Germany(the solar capital of the world) recieves roughly the same amount of sunlight as Seattle. Almost all of the USA could take advantage of solar energy.

    Also the average home in the USA recieves enough sunlight on its roof to power itself for 2-3 days worth of energy consumption. (assuming the sunlight was harnessed)

  4. Re:What will $14 million achieve? by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Exactly my thoughts. 1.27M per research group will be about enough to setup a lab and run it for 1-2 years. Yippy. They might be able to buy enough solar cells to power there computers :)

    There is a big push to use coal power because the US has so much natural reserves of the stuff and it will help develop the some of the areas of the country that currently have little job prospects. I think the worry with solar is that you'd find a great way to manufacture the cells, but then all the manufacturing would go overseas. Less US jobs created + you still don't have energy independence.

  5. Real solar, from Applied Materials by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Last year, I heard a VP from Applied Materials give a talk on their solar panel operation. Applied Materials is a big, profitable company that makes a big fraction of the world's semiconductor and flat panel fab gear. Key points:

    • From their perspective as a semiconductor wafer fab equipment builder, this looks like a nice business. Their costs are going down, and the competition (oil, gas, etc.) has costs that are going up. The market is nowhere near saturation. They see big profits in the near future.
    • Charts of costs per watt vs time show a steady decline, like most other things in semiconductors. Their costs fell below other energy sources in very sunny areas around 2006-2007.
    • Half the installed cost of a solar system is installation. They need better technology at that end than "a guy with a pickup truck". They're working on panels that form roof, wall, or window sections, rather than just being bolt-ons.
    • Applied Materials is ready to build a "gigawatt fab", one that makes a gigawatt worth of panels a year. (One such fab could build enough panels to power most of Southern California's air conditioning load in a decade.)
    • Their solar technology is derived from their flat-panel display technology, where they make five square meters of panel at a time.
    • Applied Materials has much better quality control than many solar-only companies, because their technology is derived from IC and display fab, where the allowed defect level is very low. Their whole production process is heavily automated and monitored under tight software control, using Applied Materials software and sensors from semiconductor fab control.
    • It takes two years worth of energy output to pay back the energy used to make an Applied Materials solar panel. They think this can be brought down to six months worth of energy.
    • They bought a "roll to roll" process company because they think that approach might eventually be cheaper, but for now, the flat-panel like fab is better. They see R&D as steady process improvement, as with semiconductors. If somebody develops a breakthrough technology, they'll buy or license it and make it work in volume. If not, they'll continue to improve their processes.
    • Their business goal is to have 75% of the world's solar panels made by Applied Materials machinery.

    This was a big-company manufacturing executive talking. He never mentioned "green" or "eco" anything; he focused on volume and profitability. That's encouraging. This is finally happening for real.