Slashdot Mirror
Nanopillar Solar May Cost 10x Less Than Silicon
Al writes "A team of researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, have developed a new kind of flexible solar cell that could be far cheaper to make than conventional silicon photovoltaics. The cells consist of an array of 500-nanometer-high cadmium sulfide pillars printed on top of an aluminum foil — the material surrounding the pillars absorbs light and releases electrons, while the pillars themselves transport the electrons to an electrical circuit. The closely packed pillars trap light between them, helping the surrounding material absorb more. This means the electrons also have a very short distance to travel through the pillars, so there are fewer chances of their getting trapped at defects and its possible to use low-quality, less expensive materials. '"You won't know the cost until you do this using a roll-to-roll process," says lead researchers Ali Javey. "But if you can do it, the cost could be 10 times less than what's used to make [crystalline] silicon panels."'"
"10x Less"? Is that like "twice as cold"?
Another major breakthrough for solar power. Especially if they can mass produce it, but even if not, I'm sure this sort of thing will just lead to further developments down the line. In addition to making it easier for a home user to purchase and have installed, think of a reduced cost for mass deployments either in power plants, or in space exploration uses such as on a permanent moon base.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
for last 5 years same shit gets posted over and over again - Cheap solar panals
5 years later - in some cases panels went up in price
Don't tell me. It'll be ready for mass production in 3 to 5 years. Somehow, I seem to remember stories like this from more than five years ago, and still, nothing happens and the solar cells are more or less the same as always.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
Nanopillar Solar May Cost 10x Less Than Silicon
...and then, it may not.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
This may have made it cheaper with this innovation, but what if no one wants it because power from coal is cheaper, more reliable, plentiful, and so on? Cap 'n Trade would change the market (not technology) to make this new technology (and others) more competitive in the marketplace. That's the idea anyway.
If it really was that good, then why would they talk about it after they prove the concept first...
You're absolutely right. From now on, all scientific research should be kept completely confidential until they have developed a product that is ready to ship. After all, there's no value to scientific knowledge; the only things worth talking about are consumer products.
Stupid git.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Thats right folks - for every time you see the words "May", "Might Somday", "Could eventually", you get to cover a number.
Bonus if you get to catch one or more instances of "In 5 years", "with continued funding", or "commercial quantities"
It seems the only people making flexibles these days are also selling them for a huge markup, and the technology is a lot less efficient than the monocrystal cells. But at least you can buy it. Today.
I used to actually follow up these articles by contacting the companies involved, and asking when they would be able to sell to me as a consumer. I still cant buy any of their products. Any of them.
The cost of solars cell is low enough that infrastruture costs are a significant portion of the total installed cost. The quoted efficiency, 6%, implies that these cells would take up more area than silicon cells, and structiral support costs are proporional to area (I did see the text about possible doubling of efficiency). Another disadvantage to low efficiency cells is increased thermal loading.
Moreover, I don't understand the pessimism of:
Leave it to engineers not to consider the ugly realities of supply-and-demand economics.
How else do we consider these ugly realities if not to study available materials, test the limits of what works and what doesn't, build prototypes, publish results, and work towards commercialization... ? Other materials may eventually be used in real devices (either after a period of using the relatively rare Cd and Te, or perhaps well in anticipation of those supply problems). Even if the device, as presented, doesn't mesh up with the realities of current supply-and-demand, it is part of the process of getting from a problem ('we need energy') to economically-viable solutions.
Because you first get the technology to work with whatever chemicals you can.
Then you find environmentally-safe alternatives.
Is it cheaper or not? Make up your mind.
If it's cheaper, it's more competitive. No communist-like government price controls needed.
Depends what you mean by "cheaper." The total costs of existing silicon-based solar panels are FAR lower than the costs of fossil fuel generation. However, the out-of-pocket costs are not, at least not in the short run. Those costs don't take into account the environmental damage of mining/drilling required to collect fossil fuels, the pollution they engender, or the eventual "cost" to society of being dependent on exhaustible resources.
Unfortunately, people (and the corporations that they make) are notoriously bad at accounting for these types of external costs. Cap & trade converts external costs to internal costs, and, unlike command and control regulation, it incentivizes exceeding standards. That way, one company can "go green" and reduce themselves well below the cap, then trade their credits to some other company that has no desire to change what they're doing. It gives people choice, creates competition, and captures external costs.
But I guess some people just HAVE to complain about them pesky humans who want to preserve their habitat. I mean, those environmentalists act like they own the world... or at least are responsible for it.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
"Times less" is marketing speak. It is used because "Ten times as efficient!" sounds better than "Uses 1/10th the energy!" It's a backwards way of describing a fraction. Sure it still works, but English would still work if I artedstay alkingtay ikelay isthay.
You can start ridding yourself of the marketing speak that's crept into the language by not using it.
Also, using your metric for validating language, 'I can haz' is now acceptable. 12.6 million results confirm it. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=I+can+haz
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Not dealing with the limited resources problem == suicide. If you don't want to intelligently deal with survival issues, fine. I have no problem with you taking your own life. But if you want to continue to deplete our limited resources at an insane rate don't be surprised if you run into severe conflicts with those of us who would prefer to have our species continue.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Sure. Ridiculous.
Ridiculous, like covering 40% of your average city with ugly, black, heat-island-creating road tar? (Which, btw, could conceivably eliminate your "ugly solar farm" argument entirely)
You don't realize just how much of a city is parking lot until you see it from the air at low altitudes. Google maps helps, but it's just not close because you don't really get the sense of scale. So it's a double-benefit: Parking lots create power, and by putting solar panels above them, keep your car at a comfortable 80-90 instead of an energy-sapping 140.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.