Slashdot Mirror


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."

43 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. When can I buy them? by wheeda · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Neat. When can I buy them for my house?

    1. Re:When can I buy them? by BikeHelmet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You don't have to buy them. You can get titanium dioxide from donuts and use that to enhance your solar cells.

      Our food really is filled with crap!

  2. Just had to ask... by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So does this mean we now have to call them dye-atoms?

    Don't bother throwing things...I've already taken cover.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Just had to ask... by poetmatt · · Score: 2, Funny

      This sounds like a good passover joke. If they had dyed the atoms, it would have been good enough for us.
      dye-atom!

    2. Re:Just had to ask... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's too bad they used Titanium instead of Lithium. We could have had DyeLithium Crystal solar power

  3. 120% efficiency! by Two9A · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    Could the ecomentalists finally have something to cheer about?!

    --
    xkcdsw: the unofficial archive of Making xkcd Slightly Worse
    1. Re:120% efficiency! by Jurily · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:120% efficiency! by MaxwellEdison · · Score: 4, Funny

      How long does it take to make a new sun? I mean...it will run out eventually...

      --
      -=Bang Bang=-
    3. Re:120% efficiency! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:120% efficiency! by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      I got er. I just keep them loose all over the place, help yourself.

      free range Hydrogen

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:120% efficiency! by WCguru42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How long does it take to make a new sun? I mean...it will run out eventually...

      When the Sun runs out it won't matter how much coal we have, (or any other energy source) unless we've used it to ship out far, far away from this solar system. Nothing is truly indefinite so your argument is mostly pointless.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    6. Re:120% efficiency! by MaxwellEdison · · Score: 4, Funny

      It wasn't even an argument...I was being wholly pointless. Jeez, a new "super efficient solar cell of the month" story comes around and everyone puckers their sphincters like they're about to be exposed to the vacuum of space...

      --
      -=Bang Bang=-
    7. Re:120% efficiency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      ..you don't get much solar energy at night...

      Solution: Flip the panels over and dig a deep, deep hole..

    8. Re:120% efficiency! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, we need to build an energy storage infrastructure... and factor the cost in.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    9. Re:120% efficiency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Modern coal-fired power plants are at about 30-35% efficiency on average.

      In any case, comparing the efficiency of two totally different kinds of energy sources is not necessarily useful for determining which is the better choice. There are also economic (cost of production) and environmental (real cost of GHG emissions, regardless of any state carbon pricing plan) metrics that need to be applied.

      The parent commenter should probably notice that it was the OP (pro-coal?) commenter who made the original (sarcastic) 120% claim. The rest of us here clearly understand physics.

    10. Re:120% efficiency! by Jurily · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nothing is truly indefinite

      Heisenberg begs to differ.

    11. Re:120% efficiency! by Jurily · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How long does it take to make a new sun? I mean...it will run out eventually...

      Let there be light.

  4. Diatoms, what cnan't they do? by Khyber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Diatoms, what cnan't they do? by Nutria · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I love nature - if mankind paid more attention to it

      Mankind is of and surrounded by "nature". We can't we can't do anything *but* pay attention to nature.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  5. Wait till PETA hears about this! by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nasty humans exploiting those defenseless unicellular creatures!

    1. Re:Wait till PETA hears about this! by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nasty humans exploiting those defenseless unicellular creatures!

      We'll call them Sea Puppies! Because who would want to hurt a sea puppy?!
       
      /In case you don't get the joke

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Wait till PETA hears about this! by Vegeta99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh dear lord. I don't call that a joke, I call that horrendous. The fact that the website seems to be targeting children gives me chills. If my son or daughter was suddenly upset with my fishing and hunting habit because PETA told her its mean to kill "sea kittens", I'm gonna be marching down to headquarters in my camouflage to take care of the problem MY way.

      Fucking PETA. I'm going to eat a creek kitten right now. A trout. And, by the way, PETA, I paid $30 to be licensed to actually catch that trout, and I have a limit to how many I can take daily. The money I paid for that license is used to A. Figure out just how many fish I can catch without too much of an impact on the ecosystem, and B. hatch me new trout for every season.

      And I'm gonna wash down my creek kitten meal with some milk. I'll do my best to make sure the milk comes from a cow whose offspring went to the veal factory, and for dessert I'm going to have bear-liver pate spread on bread made with yeast that were genetically engineered to feel the pain of being baked at 350F.

  6. OK... by Rollgunner · · Score: 4, Funny

    Diatoms that generate electricity... great! Who's in charge of soldering the leads to them so we can harness it ?

  7. an industrial waste angle. by bombastinator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    titanium dioxide is the main pigment base in modern (but not pre-70's) white paint. While titanium is not a particularly cheap metal, paint chips are something that is actually hard to get rid of. I wonder if they could be fed on waste drywall stripped from homes. that's basically paint, paper, and gypsum.

    1. Re:an industrial waste angle. by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What gets done with that sort of thing currently?

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    2. Re:an industrial waste angle. by maxume · · Score: 3, Informative

      Titanium is expensive because the oxygen needs to be stripped off of the ore; titanium dioxide is far cheaper.

      That doesn't mean that recycling paint is a bad idea, but the cost of titanium isn't going to drive it.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  8. Well Duh by sokoban · · Score: 2, Funny

    Of course diatoms are going to make better solar cells. I mean just look at the name, diatom is greek for two atoms. There's twice as many atoms there, so you'd guess they would make at least twice as good solar cells.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
  9. 3 times what? by SupremoMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Triple efficiency of what? I was only able to find this paragraph that put some numbers.

    Dye-sensitized solar cells are favored as a thin-film material because they work in low-light conditions and are fabricated with environmentally benign materials compared to silicon solar cells. However, silicon cells have more than twice the efficiency, as much as 20 percent compared to less than 10 percent for dye-sensitized solar cells.

    So Are we talking about 3x 20%? One could only wish. I think they mean 3x 10%, so 30% efficency, which is only 50% better than silicon solar cell. I guess that's still a big improvement.

    1. Re:3 times what? by hort_wort · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another thing I've run into in the past that was a problem: sometimes when people are talking about solar cell efficiency, they switch sensitive wavelengths on you.

      There was a young boy who received high praise for making a solar cell that was "20 times as efficient as comparative cells"... Well, since the other cells were already getting 10% of the output from the sun, and since there was no way the boy could be getting 200% from the sun, it means he just expanded the wavelengths of light the cell was sensitive to. Yippee. So instead of a "Solar PV cell", he ended up with a "Vega PV cell" (or whatever star or light source you want). He made something entirely useless, but still could say it was 20 times more efficient.

      I'm not saying they did that in this case, but it's something to watch for if you're paranoid.

  10. harvesting method? by bugi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do the diatoms die from shock?

  11. Lousy Headline by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Informative

    Lousy headline here. They haven't tripled the efficiency of the already best solar cells out there, but just some over variant that wasn't so very efficient to start with.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Lousy Headline by corbettw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  12. Re:What will the Libs do? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not for diatoms, maybe, but for nano-sea-kittens?

    --
    Not a sentence!
  13. Re:What will the Libs do? by x2A · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "even the PETA retards aren't that rabid"

    Wanna bet? :-p

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  14. I wonder.. by Anachragnome · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder what effect this will have on evolutionary processes in the diatoms.

    How will they respond to the titanium dioxide in an evolutionary context?

  15. Humans Who Don't Eat by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe they can do the same with humans, and we no longer need to eat: just hang out in the sun. My wife keeps telling me that I'm as lazy as a plant anyhow. Might as well go all the way.

  16. Re:Altered ...orgasm? by andrewd18 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sorry, but three times something you'll never have is still zero.

  17. Anyone else notice? by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Anyone else notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      FTFA:

      Dye-sensitized solar cells are favored as a thin-film material because they work in low-light conditions and are fabricated with environmentally benign materials compared to silicon solar cells. However, silicon cells have more than twice the efficiency, as much as 20 percent compared to less than 10 percent for dye-sensitized solar cells.

      In the low-light environmentally safe field, these are the "normal" solar cells.

      If you are looking for the replacement power plant cells (toxic, always aligned with the sun, typically out in the middle of a desert to avoid clouds) these aren't the cells you want.

      But if these are intended to be mass marketed and put all over the place, this is the type you want.

    2. Re:Anyone else notice? by vadim_t · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  18. Biology - Underutilized by WGFCrafty · · Score: 3, Interesting
    A lot of animals will alter chemicals in the same way regardless of whether it is natural to the organism.
    Dr. Alexander Shulgin talks about something similar, making a mushroom take care of his work.

    However there is a very interesting study that took place in Leipzig about 15 years ago. Jochen Gartz, a mushroom explorer whom I know quite well, has done some fascinating studies with Psilocybe species by raising them on solid media containing strange tryptamines that are alien to the mushroom. Apparently the enzymes that are responsible for the 4-hydroxy group of psilocin are indifferent to what it is they choose to 4-hydroxylate. He has taken things like DPT or DIPT and put them in the growth media and the fruiting bodies that came out contain 4-hydroxy-DPT or 4-hydroxy-DIPT instead of psilocin.

  19. 6-10% by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    30 seconds of googling reports that dye cells currently produce around 6-10%. If you can triple that, it makes a really good solar cell. If you can do that and keep costs low, it makes a great solar cell.

  20. The artcile is tagged "PETA" by joocemann · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... but diatoms are *Not* animals.

    They are eukaryote, but not animals. Plus, PETA doesn't really care about microscopic animals --- they care about the animals you would learn about in a book for children.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromalveolata