Slashdot Mirror
Record-Breaking Solar Cells Tailored To Location
Urchin writes "The quality of sunlight varies depending on where you live, but off-the-shelf solar cells are all identical. A new solar cell designed by UK firm Quantasol is easily tuned to adapt to the local light conditions, which boosts its long-term performance. Its short-term performance isn't bad though — the single junction solar cell has a peak efficiency greater than any previous device, beating a world record that's stood for 21 years."
Wake me up when I can plug an extension cord from a tree to my data center.
They're quite environmentally sound. They're made of arsenic, and many caustic chemicals being used to refine and produce them. In short -- not suitable for mass alternative energy (like just about every other thing called "green").
Reality: Solar power's only economical use right now is for remote sensors and in locations where the power grid cannot reasonably be extended and delivering fuel is impractical.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
30%? 40%? Efficiency only matters if you're constrained by space (airplanes) or by weight (satellites). 15%-efficient solar cells are good enough that you can power your house with them by covering your roof -- or would be, if they were produced cheaply and in quantity.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
It translates into an acre of cheap mirrors instead of an acre of expensive solar panels.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
They are ALL lazy. Not just Slashdot. Since everything went online the quality of spelling and grammar has hit Elementary school levels. AP, Reuters, The New York Frikkin' Times, etc. ALL have various errors these days.
My mind seems to auto-correct for these mistakes pretty quickly while I am reading, but it does make me wonder if we would not be better off hiring 3rd graders to write these things out instead of journalism majors.
Let's face it. If you don't get a red line underneath what you are typing we know just assume that its okay to submit.
There's a difference between a decision of style (vs vs vs. - both are OK, it's a common stylistic choice not to use a period when an abbreviation ends with the last letter of a word, as in "Dr" or "Rd"), and an actual spelling mistake.
Grow a pair gothy faggot.
Yes, thank you, you've successfully tested my ability to read and recall memories. What I'd really like to know is how many of these cheap lenses and mirrors will now be necessary vs how many I was using before, and how much more efficient will the operation of storing energy be on days when the sky is not absolutely cloudless? I realize that the solar cell is more efficient at absorbing light, but how can this be applied to a "normal" usage pattern (when we're not talking about 500x the normal amount of light)? I don't mean for a satellite, or a solar farm, or anything like that. I'm talking about non-commercial usage, such as an individual home.
God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
My guess is that it's a lot more expensive. Semiconductor devices have to be processed in vacuum conditions and often at high temperatures; and the more precessing you use (triple junction has minimum 4 layers), the higher the cost. This is why there's interest in alternative, non-semiconductor devices like dye-based and conjugated polymer cells. Easy to produce in solution and at low temperature, no vacuum. There's a plethora of other undesirables in semiconductor solar cells too, like weight, inflexibility, etc.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
I hesitate to say because it feels too goddamn obvious but higher efficiency leads to lower cost-per-kWh, so you really should care. What you (or the manufacturer) really should be looking for is the pay-off point - where the improved efficiency matches or beats the older tech in cost-per-kWh terms.
The other point to make however is that irrespective of cost, more efficient technology can mean wider applications - where previously it would be pointless to put a solar panel because of, say, space limitations, the more efficient ones can possibly find an application.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
just assume that its okay to submit.
Does anyone else see the irony in this post? No? Well that's because all of us have the great advantage of the neocortex. You see, when you see a word in context, even if it's spelled wrong its meaning is properly interpreted. I know it's useless to yell at you grammar Nazis, but I have this small shimmer of hope that this message will make the following posters WRITE ABOUT FUCKING SOLAR ENERGY.
Help fight spam
A manufacturer does not sell a product for less than it costs to make. The cost to make it includes the cost of the energy that it takes to make it.
Assume I buy a 1 watt cell for $3 (No, you wouldn't buy a single watt cell). At $0.05/kwH, if half the cost was energy, it would take 30 kwH to make the cell. How much energy will I get out of it? Assume 6 hr/day, and the cell lasts for 20 years, then it would produce 44 kwH over its lifetime (1w x 6 hr/day x 365 day / year x 20 years).
Of course, I'm just making these numbers up, YMMV, etc. But, I can't see any way that it takes more energy to make than it will produce based on the math.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.