Carbon Nanotube Solar Cells On the Horizon

MikeChino writes Carbon nanotube news abounds as of late, and the next application for the up and coming material may be hyper-efficient and economical solar cells. Led by professor Paul McEuen, researchers at Cornell recently tested a simple solar cell (called a photodiode) crafted from a single carbon nanotube. Surprisingly, researchers discovered that more light shined on the nanotube created even more electricity, a huge difference from today's silicon solar cells where excess energy is lost in the form of heat rather than used to create more electricity."

Comments

The technology isn't important

[davidwr]

The question is, it it cost-effective?

New title:

More cost-effective Solar Cells On the Horizon

There, fixed that for you.

Re:The technology isn't important

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is, it it cost-effective?

New title:

More cost-effective Solar Cells On the Horizon

There, fixed that for you.

New solar cells that are "more cost-effective" require new technology.
New technology requires research.
Research is an expensive process.

To make new, more cost effective solar cells, we need to fund _some_ technology. Carbon Nanotubes are promising.
Press releases get a college department more funding, which buys new equipment and affords more people working on a subject area.

So, in short, the fact that this technology is related to Carbon Nanotubes is intrinsically important.

Re:The technology isn't important

[kheldan]

The question is, it it cost-effective?

If someone developed a 99% efficient solar cell, would you really care what it cost?

Re:The technology isn't important

[Idiomatick]

Yes... that's stupid. Of course it matters what it cost.

Homer says...

[Azghoul]

Carbon nanotubes... is there anything they _can't_ do?

Re:Homer says...

[Anonymous Coward]

They have yet to get me a date with Megan Fox.

Re:Homer says...

[idontgno]

We need a huge ticker-tape parade for our hero, Inanimate Carbon Nanotube.

Re:Homer says...

[kheldan]

Carbon nanotubes can't be mass produced economically yet.

There, fixed that for you.

Yikes, what an article!

[Maury Markowitz]

Did anyone else conclude that article was written by someone who had little idea what they were talking about? Note that "light" doesn't enter the description until after they talk about running power through it. And not one number.

Ooh, ooh

[russotto]

Another world changing technology that's just around the corner.

Re:Ooh, ooh

[H0p313ss]

Another world changing technology that's just around the corner.

Just for fun, if you're old enough, try to remember what things were like 35 years ago in the mid 70's:

• The internet was essentially a private network that most of us didn't hear about until the late 80s...
• No PCs, a portable computer was a dummy terminal PRINTER with a 300 baud modem
• Cell phones the size of lunch boxes
• Giant floppy disks with less that 1MB capacity.

These days the average (new) cell phone is more powerful than all the computing resources used by the Apollo program. Heck I carry my ENTIRE music collection around with me every day!

Now try to imagine the world in 35 years.... it's just around the corner.

Again with the #$##%# solar cells

[McGregorMortis]

Not a week goes by that you don't hear about yet another breakthrough in cheap and efficient solar cells. Every week, without fail, since 1979, I swear to God. Any more grains of salt, and I'll have a heart attack.

Re:Again with the #$##%# solar cells

[MyLongNickName]

Here is an anecdote I found in my search

"Scott,
The price of PV modules has come down in the last year, although not quite as much as the Times article suggests. I don't think there has been any significant drop in the cost of inverters, racks, cable, or installation labor.

My first PV module cost me $8.33 per watt in 1980. I paid $3.97 per watt in 2004, and $3.99 per watt in April 2009. Current PV module prices can be as low as $3 a watt, but only if you buy a whole pallet of modules. Otherwise you're still liable to pay $3.50 to $3.96 a watt"

So, since the year 1979 which the GP references, prices to the consumer have dropped more than 50%, even without adjusting for inflation. After accounting for inflation, you are looking at solar being 5 times cheaper than 30 years ago. Not bad.

I know it is poor form to extrapolate like this, but if we had a similar improvement over the next thirty years, then solar would easily become the number one source of energy worldwide. that may or many not come to pass, but the overall point is that despite the jaded responses from folks, we are seeing dramatic improvement in the price/performance of solar.

Re:On the Horizon? Really

[avandesande]

The important thing though is that with the linear response to photons light can be focused on the cells- even if they are expensive they could possibly be cost competitive with Si cells.