Slashdot Mirror
New Solar Cell Sets World Efficiency Record
asoduk writes to tell us that a new world record has been set for the most efficient photovoltaic device. Topping the scale at 40.8% efficiency, the new solar cell differs significantly from the previous record holder. "Instead of using a germanium wafer as the bottom junction of the device, the new design uses compositions of gallium indium phosphide and gallium indium arsenide to split the solar spectrum into three equal parts that are absorbed by each of the cell's three junctions for higher potential efficiencies. This is accomplished by growing the solar cell on a gallium arsenide wafer, flipping it over, then removing the wafer. The resulting device is extremely thin and light and represents a new class of solar cells with advantages in performance, design, operation and cost."
Call me in 20 years when they're in production. Seems it always takes that long for these innovations to get to market nowadays.
cool? yes, but only in the most esoteric sense. I've said MANY times before, fantastic new photovoltaic technology is announced every 6 months or so, NONE of it ever reaches the market. Call me when the ROI on home solar breaks the 20 year mark in my area. Right now it's almost 100 years.
Even TFA doesn't say what the previous record was or provide any quantitative comparison.
I no longer get excited about stories like this, as it doesn't matter unless someone figures out how to mass produce this stuff and make it available for the market. If I'm not mistaken photovoltaic production hasn't changed in years despite all this new technology. Why not run a story on why mfgs are taking so long to adopt this.
That doesn't seem to matter to the health nuts. If there is even the slightest remote possibility it theoretically could cause cancer even only in the most unlikely of conditions they will do everything they can to make sure that this cell never happens.
"I would love to see for just once, an article that states that the mentioned technology is being produced en masse and possibly a website from where I can order it, wherever I may be at a reasonable price. I am asking too much, eh?"
So you want an advertisment?
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
I'm just curious-- not implying that your calculations are wrong. I'm at the extreme other end in Arizona, and payback appears to be in the 10-15 year range for us, not counting resale and using a constant price for power for the next 15 years. That's well within the system warranty time, but may still be a bit too much for people to pay for up front.
Payback speed depends heavily on your local utility, their rates, their incentives, and whether they allow net-metering over the entire year, or just monthly. It also depends on whether or not you are willing to consider resale value as part of your payback time.
I suspect Hawaii is even better than Arizona despite having more cloudy days, just because power is so freaking expensive there.
In the long run, I think leases will win out. A couple of companies are offering deals where you lease the system and panels, and they promise your new smaller electric bill plus the lease cost will be lower than your current electric bill. A deal like this makes things suddenly interesting to people who don't have $20k to drop up front.
These things will be *very* expensive, I'll guess that the main application will be in spacecraft solar panels.
First, they use gallium, which is an expensive material. Second, from the description in the summary (TFA is slashdotted), they do one side, then flip it over and etch the backside to get at the junction from the back. Seems like a costly manufacturing process.
Hmmm.. I wonder if the solar energy crowd would be into recycling?...
Price gouging: Not enough of it.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Does this need to be said again? There's no shortage of roof space and other places to locate solar cells, so the efficiency of the cells is only a marginal issue; the bigger issue is COST. Instead of focusing all the research on this penile my-cell-is-more-efficient-than-YOURS pissing contest, it ought to be focused on finding least toxic and least expensive means of production. Certainly large scale mass production will eventually reduce costs, but large scale adoption won't occur until they can be produced inexpensively enough in the first place to motivate widespread use. Efforts should be focused on finding the least expensive and least toxic method of production for now, and worry about improving efficiency once their use has become commonplace.
WTPOYSAIYHTWIANTITEIA? (What's the point of your stupid acronym if you have to write it all next to it to explain it anyways?)
source
Gold isn't cheap, either, but you can find it spread across a $15 NIC card.
Go figure.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I actually think there is a simple source to this. It's not so much to store energy but to re-direct it. If home owners with solar arrays are hooked up to the electrical grid they can sell power to the grid during the day to supply business and manufacturing. Then at night the grid will forward excess power not used by business back to the homeowners. There is no need to 'store' energy in the traditional sense.
Maybe it's time we start mining the landfills.