Altered Organism Triples Solar Cell Efficiency

An anonymous reader writes "By harnessing the shells of living organisms in the sea, microscopic algae called diatoms, engineers have tripled the efficiency of experimental dye-sensitized solar cells. The diatoms were fed a diet of titanium dioxide, the main ingredient for thin film solar cells, instead of their usual meal which is silica (silicon dioxide). As a result, their shells became photovoltaic when coated with dyes. The result is a thin-film dye-sensitized solar cell that is three times more efficient than those without the diatoms."

Comments

Re:120% efficiency!

[Jurily]

So, with the "breakthrough" a few months ago that three different dyes in a cell could capture 40% of light from the sun, does that make this more efficient than coal?

Well, it doesn't take millions of years to make more when we run out.

Diatoms, what cnan't they do?

[Khyber]

From toothpaste to DE Filters to solar cells.

I love nature - if mankind paid more attention to it we'd be so much more advanced than we are currently.

Re:120% efficiency!

[Red Flayer]

So, with the "breakthrough" a few months ago that three different dyes in a cell could capture 40% of light from the sun, does that make this more efficient than coal?

From an energy standpoint, direct solar has ALWAYS been more efficient than coal. How much sunlight do you think was needed to create the coal we burn? How much energy do we use to extract and refine it (when necessary)?

More cost-effective? That's a different matter, and impossible to calculate since we can't even properly measure the true costs of burning coal for electricity.

Re:What will the Libs do?

[x2A]

"even the PETA retards aren't that rabid"

Wanna bet? :-p

Anyone else notice?

[__aagmrb7289]

Did anyone else notice that the article didn't bother to compare the solar cells with, I don't know, other solar cells? They didn't talk about efficiency compared to any other existing method of making solar cells, except for the exact same methodology minus the diatoms.

Sounds like they are "fishing" for some more funding. Oh yes I can.

Re:Anyone else notice?

[vadim_t]

There's nothing wrong with fishing for more funding.

The important thing isn't the efficiency, but the price/performance ratio.

1% efficient cells that are dirt cheap still aren't worth installing on your roof.
95% efficient cells at $50K per square meter are only of interest for satellite applications.

But, a 30% efficient cell that's reasonably cheap is a whole lot more interesting than a 40% one that costs 5 times as much. Taking a cheap 10% efficient tech and making it 3 times better without making it 3 times more expensive is a very useful thing.

Re:Lousy Headline

[corbettw]

In tripling the efficiency of the not-so-good ones, did they bring them within cost parity of the better ones? If the better ones were four times as good and cost four times as much, and now these are three times as good at double the cost, then that's a significant breakthrough.