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."

15 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. It's vs its by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know I'm heading to the moderation cellar for this, but COME ON guys, don't be so damn lazy about your language. See my sig below.

    That kind of mistake is a huge cognitive speed bump for many readers. You're blowing your chance to communicate with your audience when you make (and belittle complaints about) adolescent mistakes like this.

  2. Greater than any previous *single junction* device by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

    Multi-junction cells are over 40%.

    --
    We should start dealing in those black-market beagles.
  3. Vs. vs. vs by sexconker · · Score: 5, Funny

    I know I'm heading to the moderation cellar for this, but COME ON guys, don't be so damn lazy about your language. See my sig below.

    That kind of mistake is a huge cognitive speed bump for many readers. You're blowing your chance to communicate with your audience when you make (and belittle complaints about) adolescent mistakes like this.

    1. Re:Vs. vs. vs by BKX · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just so you know, in most non-US English-speaking countries, abbreviations that end with the last letter of the world don't get a period after them. Examples:

      Mr
      vs
      Dr

      versus:

      Mich.
      Univ.
      Rev.

      In the US, we just got lazy and started using periods everywhere.

  4. Efficiency VS Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Efficiency doesn't really matter. What we really want is the lowest cost per kWh. What's the price of these?

    1. Re:Efficiency VS Cost by justinlee37 · · Score: 3, Informative

      More efficient technology does not mean wider applications irrespective of cost. Technology is defined as being more efficient BY what it costs; if it costs less it is more efficient. The science is still interesting but from a practical standpoint whether or not these will be used widely is directly related to the average cost of the electricity it produces. There is a reason that we don't use people pedaling on bicycles to produce electricity; because of the cost. If labor were much cheaper than burning coal then we would use that instead. Unfortunately the cost of labor is influenced by the COST of living.

      If the super-efficient solar panels are constructed of rare materials that cost millions of dollars, then the higher efficiency will not necessarily lead to lower cost-per-kWh. The OP does care, they're just being realistic and not jumping to conclusions, which is what you should do when analyzing any investment.

  5. Re:Environmentally sound... hehehe. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    But what if you injure yourself? How would you call for help if you have wrecked the phone?

  6. Silicon efficiency by ender06 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Current silicon cells are about 15-20% average efficiency, NOT 10-12%. They peak at just over 25% efficient as demonstrated by the research lab at the University of New South Wales in Australia.

    SunPower A300 silicon cells average about 20% per bin.

  7. Re:Greater than any previous *single junction* dev by elashish14 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's true. The Fraunhofer Institute itself has produced more efficient cells. And all use multiple junctions.

    Examples:
    Fraunhofer - triple junction
    NREL - triple junction
    University of Delaware - bream splitting

    All claim to be the record because there is no standardized way to measure power efficiency. However, the concept of quantum wells used in solar cells is a new concept.

    --
    I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
  8. Re:Wanted: cheap, not efficient by jcaplan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article mentions the efficiency of the cell at 500x normal sunlight, so the idea here is to use inexpensive mirrors to concentrate the light onto expensive cells. The setup is bulkier, but could be cost effective, even with very expensive cells, since you buy fewer cells. With mirrors and high efficiency cells, you also can get the same power out of a much smaller installation. This setup might not be ideal for residential rooftops, but would work for large flat-roofed buildings and desert installations.

  9. Re:Greater than any previous *single junction* dev by elashish14 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  10. Re:What about average efficiency? by fractoid · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you're already buying an acre or more of heliostatic mirrors, it'd probably be cheaper and more efficient to use a solar fired steam turbine to do the generating. Then, if you use a molten salt reservoir, you have some energy storage for night-time power generation as well.

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  11. Re:What about average efficiency? by cpotoso · · Score: 5, Informative

    It translates into an acre of cheap mirrors instead of an acre of expensive solar panels.

    Not quite the same: concentrating mirrors suck in anything but a perfectly clear day (i.e. no clouds), but a simple non-concentrated PV panel still works quite well with some (not much) cloud coverage. In other words: unless you live in AZ or some other desert, stick with non-concentrated PV panels.

  12. Re:500x normal sunlight. by ender06 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Spectrolab has the solar cell world record with their triple junction GaAs cells at 40.7% at about 400x or 500x. Amonix Corporation has the silicon world record at 27.6% at approximately the same concentration level.

  13. Re:Environmentally sound... hehehe. by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...and thus might end up being as cheap as nuclear energy if you count in the nukes' externalities like reprocessing, security, radioactive waste that are mostly dealt with by the government

    In the US at least, nuclear power plant operators are required to pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund for just this purpose. "As of March 31, 2005, the total revenue paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund amounted to $24.9 billion. Of that amount, only $8.9 billion has been spent on program costs, leaving a balance of $16.02 billion that has been collected, but not applied to the used nuclear fuel disposal program." So there is a big (and growing) pile of money for whatever long-term solution we eventually settle on.

    I am not sure of the degree to which security costs are externalized. I think they pay their own dedicated protective forces, or pay the NRC a security fee. But after 911, the National Guard also got involved, which sounds like an externality, though I don't know whether that was permanent.