Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hairy Solar Cells Could Mean Higher Efficiency

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the warm-fuzzy dept.

kitzilla writes "Two research groups working independently have come up with what they say are cheap processes for growing nanowires to be used with solar cells. The 'hairy' cells provide a direct path for electrons collected at the panel face to reach an electrode, something which has the potential to dramatically improve system efficiency."

3 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Let me guess... by AdamTrace · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Remember, solar power is generally available HERE and NOW.

    I just invested in a PV system for my house (in sunny SoCal). As a computer geek, I asked our guy if it was stupid to invest, since there always seem to be efficiency breakthroughs on the horizon.

    He reminded me that efficiency generally meant "smaller" and perhaps "cheaper". But since my roof was plenty adequate for what I needed, "smaller" wasn't really an issue. Cheaper will ALWAYS be the case, as it always has been.

    Don't get frozen by the thought that solar power isn't worth investing in today. It totally is.

    Adman

  2. Re:Dramatic efficiency improvements unlikely. by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    solar could maybe provide 10% of our needs at most. it can't supply base load, which is something nuclear can do very well. don't tell the tree huggers that though, they want to continue to live in their dream world.


    Just to be contrary: at least in theory, solar COULD supply base-load. All you need to do is integrate the Earth's power grids. Then you'd have a more or less constant amount of current available throughout the grid.

    Of course, this isn't practical - even ignoring the political implications, transmission losses would create serious problems. Getting away from AC current and using DC for all grid transmission could fix part of that problem, but that's not likely to happen any time soon.

    And yes, you're certainly right about nuclear. Realistically, it's our best option at this point in time. That's one thing that France got right.
  3. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why is it that in any conversation about alternative sources of energy someone will mention Nuclear power as "feasible", "sustainable" or any other optamistic decriptor that, based on a critical examination of nuclear power, clearly isn't the case? I imagine it's because based on a critical examination of nuclear power, it clearly is the case.

    long term isotope storage (or "waste") The "waste" of breeder reactors consists of relatively harmless elements (like lead) and radioactive substances with short half lives that within days decay into relatively harmless elements. And if you want to argue about breeders generating plutonium then by all means describe a disposal method for the plutonium from decommissioned bombs that guarantees it will never in its 24,000 year half life find its way into another bomb. My way is "destroying" it by using it as fuel in a reactor, which is the same place plutonium generated by breeders can go -- and in that case it can be salted with Pu-240 to ensure it can't be used in bomb making.

    considerable CO2 emmissions from the energy used in the production of U-235 for reactor cores As opposed to the CO2 emissions from the energy used in the production of, well, everything? Solar/wind/whatever included? That is, unless that energy comes from non-fossil sources -- which is the whole point of this exercise in the first place.

    CFC's leaked in the actual process are America's Number 1 source of CFC emmissions and are up to 20,000 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than C02. What is this, the 80s? CFCs were banned more than a decade ago in the US. They were used as a refrigerant in uranium processing just like they were used as a refrigerant in other applications prior to the ban. Now they use non-CFC refrigerants. Welcome to 1995.

    S.T.P is revealing itself to be completely viable alternatives to coal based on the capability to store thermal energy long after the sun goes down. That is the whole point of solar thermal power after all. How is it that you're ignoring the gp's point that solar thermal is hosed when you have a cloudy month? It certainly can't store thermal energy for that long. Forget about "put it in the desert" for the northeastern US. How do you propose to power New York City without its nuclear plants?