Slashdot Mirror


Next-Gen Glitter-Sized Photovoltaic Cells Unveiled

MikeChino writes "Sandia National Laboratories recently announced a new breed of glitter-sized solar cells made from crystalline silicon that use 100 times less material to generate the same amount of electricity as standard solar cells made from 6-inch square solar wafers. Perfect for soaking up the sun’s rays on unusual shapes and surfaces, the tiny solar cells are expected to be less expensive, more efficient, and have promising new applications in textiles, clothing, and building facade installations."

36 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. glitter - the new nano measurement standard by thomasdz · · Score: 4, Funny

    OK, we have a new standard of measurement... "glitter"
    I can handle that. After all I understood volkswagon-sized meteors, a station wagon full of backup tapes, a library of congress -sized disk farm, and of course the old favorite, a football field sized nuclear storage facility.

    --
    Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
    1. Re:glitter - the new nano measurement standard by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Funny

      My favorite measure is still the "buttload" as in, "We have a buttload of these old 1.6 gig Celeron machines, should we make a beowulf cluster?" There are instances of confusion when working between Asia or Europe and America, as the American (or imperial) buttload is larger that the metric buttload, however a buttload does imply plenty so things tend to workout in the end...

      I'm sorry, I'll get a cup of coffee and take my meds now....

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    2. Re:glitter - the new nano measurement standard by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmm... I always thought that a "metric buttload" was bigger, because people I've known tend to use it as a superlative over an unadorned buttload.

    3. Re:glitter - the new nano measurement standard by Donkey_Hotey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Er, you could cut Alaska in half and Texas would be the third largest state...

      --
      (There is supposed to be a Sarcmark® here, but my $1.99 check hasn't cleared, yet...)
  2. Does this tip the balance? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Up until now we have all known that trench-coat ninjas > glitter vampires > eye-liner pirates.

    Does this invention change this? Will glitter vampires now be able to overpower both eye-liner pirates and trench-coat ninjas?

    Or does the "solar" aspect of these tiny solar cells make them useless, even deadly, to glitter vampires?

    Also, can someone please explain where heroin-chic werewolves fit into the hierarchy? I'm having trouble placing them.

    These are the questions that wake me in the middle of the night, sweating and with racing heart.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  3. Re:Everything old is new again? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Funny

    And I thought glitter went out most of a decade ago. Time to dig into the closet!

    While you're in there, can you say "hi" to Tom Cruise for us?

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  4. and I bet by Pikoro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This technology will be mass produced in only 20 years.

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    1. Re:and I bet by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 2, Informative

      This technology will be mass produced in only 20 years.

      I think this could lift off pretty fast once it's incorporated in fashion, affordable goodies, want-haves, and is popularized in this way.

      Say, you would design an affordable line of clothing with a nicely hidden away mini-USB-cable to power your gadgets with the glitter displayed discretely (having a certain technological cool about it but also being aesthetical and fasionable, so not the "geek gear", or the over the top 80s like neon fad, but accessable for the general public being some added "I'm environmently friendly and techno cool"-patch)

      I think you can shave off on R&D time by driving up demand for this technology and investing in it with a sense of urgency.

      Just think of the possibilities of being a walking powercollector?

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    2. Re:and I bet by Swimsc · · Score: 3, Funny

      Finally a reason for the wife to Bedazzle the house. Thanks Science!

    3. Re:and I bet by grumling · · Score: 3, Funny

      My first thought when I saw the title was "Great, now women can get men to stare at their chest AND charge the iPhone!"

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  5. 14.9 really any good ? by yakumo.unr · · Score: 2, Informative

    As of now the solar cells are producing energy with 14.9 percent efficiency, which is pretty great compared to off-the-shelf commercial modules which range from 13 to 20 percent.

    I guess that must be good for the size, but Boeing announced 41.6 percent efficient cells this year and I wonder how the ex NASA employee & inventor of the super soaker is getting on with his work he claims could hit up to 60%

    1. Re:14.9 really any good ? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Spectrolab's cells are nowhere close to cost-effective for consumer (or even business) use on earth. They are a niche product to be used for satellites, other spacecraft, etc. The goal of Spectrolab's cells is to maximize power as a function of mass and volume.

      The goal of consumer-grade systems is to maximize power as a function of cost (including maintenance, etc).

      Johnson's system (the super-soaker guy) is simply a cell that harnesses a temperature gradient to generate electricity. He claims up to 60% efficiency, but the system requires an operating temp on the high-temp electrode stack of the cell of about 600 degrees C to hit this efficiency, which would require the use of a parabolic mirror setup -- hardly fit for consumer use. In truth, his cell isn't solar at all -- it's more like a special kind of fuel cell.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  6. When can I buy it by Danathar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Like most sensational announcements of breakthroughs in engineering on Slashdot; If I can't buy products that use it at my local hardware store or via Amazon for my iphone/laptop/electronic device, it might as well not exist.

    So what that it was invented. The REAL story would be an announcement of a product that will be SOLD. This story is just a teaser.

    1. Re:When can I buy it by MathFox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They say that some oil companies are heavy into alternative energy, buying start-ups and shelving their products. For them, "Never" is the answer to your question!

      --
      extern warranty;
      main()
      {
      (void)warranty;
      }
    2. Re:When can I buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're not interested in science en technology news then /. is not the site for you.
      There are plenty other sites that do only product reviews.

    3. Re:When can I buy it by dlt074 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      at the risk of yet another -Troll mod from the socialist whack-jobs running around here.

      which ever technology makes the most profit and has the best ROI is the one any real free market company will use. it's only when you get government involved and disturbing the free market that you have issues with political moves and motivations. such as shelving something to make a point.

      i'd be more concerned about the EPA coming in and saying that we can't manufacture this product on US soil because the process of making this eco friendly technology is too destructive to mother earth. again having to outsource more "green jobs" because of an unelected out of control government bureaucracy.

      the environmentalists in the US are all for alternative technologies, as long as they get manufactured in someone else's back yard.

    4. Re:When can I buy it by plover · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It has been said that in general Americans hate science intensely and distrust scientists but love technology - hence the evolution, vaccination and climate change fiascos going on in the USA when it is accepted elsewhere.
      Is that the view you have or am I just looking at things far too simplisticly?

      Oh, no, you've nailed it squarely on the head. Ignorance is easy -- just stop doing hard stuff like going to school, and there you are -- ignorant. Those who follow that path usually end up working hard in low paying jobs, resentful of the intellectuals who have "easy" high paying jobs. And they pass this prejudice to their ignorant children, who are in no position to understand why their mom and dad work hard but make no money, but dad's boss, the MBA, makes lots of money for doing "nothing". Thus we have an entire class of self-selected, auto-perpetuating, anti-intellectuals. The problem is that it takes logic to understand the problem, and it takes an education to understand the logic required to understand the problem. Catch 22.

      The thing about the large pool of uneducated people is that they still have the right to vote. And being uneducated, they're much easier to manipulate with advertising and sloganeering -- yet their votes count equal to those of educated people.

      As a result, politicians figured out centuries ago that a pro-science platform can never get enough votes to win: there is a limited set of people with the education required to understand a scientific point, and half of those will disagree with your other political positions. So they instead pander to the uneducated people with patriotic slogans and religion, which easily locks up a good half of the voters for cheap. A science-based platform would only alienate them. For example, George Bush hid his Yale education and east coast privileged upbringing as best as he could, and donned a cowboy hat and a Texas ranch in order to get votes from the anti-intellectuals. It obviously works.

      Those of us who have educations certainly don't help the situation any when we dismiss their uneducated opinions; but it's impossible to have a discussion when the political opponents trot out their slogans and promote ignorance instead of debating facts. We can't even restore intelligent dialog in this kind of environment. (I guess that's been the curse of politics since forever.)

      It is funny to see these fake anti-intellectuals outed. Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show (a comedic take on the news) recently skewered a far-right-wing TV show host, Gretchen Carlson, who attempts to identify herself with the "dumb soccer mom" crowd. In a recent show she said something like "Now I don't know what an ignoramus is, so I googled it, and found it meant an ignorant lawyer or uneducated person." She also claimed not to know what a "czar" was, so she had to google that word too. Jon pointed out that she graduated from Stanford with honors, and questioned whether someone that well-educated could possibly not know what an ignoramus or czar is. (Sadly, the dumb soccer moms don't have the education required to appreciate The Daily Show, so his efforts are usually wasted anyway.)

      --
      John
  7. Great where can I buy this by ickleberry · · Score: 3, Informative

    Over the past 5-10 years so many new efficient solar panels have been designed but you can't buy any of them.

    The best solar panel I can reasonably get my hands on is a a 15% efficient overpriced 100W monocrystalline panel off ebay for about $300 so it will take about 10 years even in Florida to break even.

    The strange thing is I distinctly remember reading a magazine article that mentioned the breakthrough that got solar panels from 10% efficiency to 15% and that was in 1999. So that means we should have the ones mentioned in this article by about 2017 if we are lucky. By that time of course we will be reading about 125% efficient solar panels that not only convert 100% of the energy from the sun but also suck up a substantial amount of ambient heat and convert that to electricity as well

  8. cheap highpower photocells, the ultimate vaporwear by nloop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anyone else notice every few months an amazing breakthrough in solar cells that will increase solar efficiency by 10^x power or lower the cost to nearly free? Meanwhile, the solar panels for useful applications are still expensive and space consuming?

    I'm kind of getting tired of it.

  9. Wiring them up by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm, I guess it is good news for China, since hundreds of millions of girls will need to be employed to wire these things up.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Wiring them up by baKanale · · Score: 2, Funny

      China doesn't have any girls, you insensitive clod!

  10. Re:cheap highpower photocells, the ultimate vaporw by RandomFactor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "or lower the cost to nearly free?"

    I think the term you are looking for is 'too cheap to meter' :-\

    --
    --- Mercutio was right.
  11. Re:cheap highpower photocells, the ultimate vaporw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is a reason for this. Up until about the past 5 years there has been minimal manufacturing capacity globally. Everything was limited to laboratory experiments at universities or venture capital companies that like press releases. Now that we actually have companies making cells in volume the $/Watt has been driven down immensely. Take a look at first solar currently running somewhere near $0.90/Watt (solar cell production not end cost to consumer)

  12. Re:Efficiency of current cells less than 1%???? by JrGrouch0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Glitter?

  13. PR BS by pz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One hundred times less material? More efficient? Glitter?

    Sounds suspiciously like sound bites designed by a PR office for pickup by the press. I thought that Slashdot editors saw through that sort of malarky.

    I'm going to go out on a limb: does anyone know if the limiting factor in determining the costs of a solar cell is the amount of material used? I had thought it was the intensive processing required to create a solar cell, rather than the cost of the silicon, which, thanks to the gargantuan and heroic efforts of integrated circuit manufacturers, is vanishingly small for incredibly high quality (what other industry delivers seven 9s purity?). If the amount of material isn't relevant, then reducing it by a factor of 100 isn't that interesting, is it?

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  14. How do you wire them up? by StayFrosty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd like to know how one would go about wiring these tiny solar cells up. It probably wouldn't be too bad on a flat surface but It doesn't seem like it would be very easy on flexible surfaces like textiles.

    --
    "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
  15. Silly You! by gbutler69 · · Score: 4, Funny

    A "Glitter" (si Unit, "gL") is a measure of conversion from Lumens/cm^2/s to kW/Hr. Get your facts straight!

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
  16. There's more than efficiency to consider. by gbutler69 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Efficiency alone is useless. You also must consider durability and cost. If something is 99.99% efficient, costs $ 1,000,000,000.00 per kW/Hr to produce and has a lifespan of 10 years, then, it's useless. If, on the other hand, it is 25% efficient, costs $ 5.00 per kW/Hr to produce, and has a life-span of 1 year, then "IT IS WICKED USEFUL!"

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    1. Re:There's more than efficiency to consider. by Patch86 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't need econ101 voodoo where something of infinite value which lasts forever is discounted to nothing to show that more efficient cells that don't cost much more and have a similar long lifespan are worth it (and especially so if they cost less than some things in use).

      Cost is all important. 2 devices might both last 500 years, and one might be 3 times as efficient as the other. But if it costs 10 times as much, it's not going to fly with average Mr Commercial.

      If I want to kit my house out with solar panels, it wouldn't make sense to buy the more expensive one. Sure it might pay off as the centuries tick by, but that just doesn't enter in to it. You want something affordable now, which will pay off over the next few years before you move house/die.

    2. Re:There's more than efficiency to consider. by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Informative

      They are f*ing silicon based things where the oxidised surface layer is the same stuff that is f*ing quartz - you don't get much more durable than that.

      Ok, dude. Why don't you pull the passivation layer off of your silicon-based CPU and see how long it lasts when exposed to the air and UV radiation.

      Hint: the problem isn't the bulk semiconductor. It's things like the delicate layer of transparent conductor over the top, or doping regions that are sensitive to parts-per-billion levels of additives.

  17. How to use the electricity? by srothroc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It would be interesting if these "glitter cells" could be suspended in some kind of "paint" or perhaps embedded in a capacitative tile. The paint especially would have a lot of interesting uses -- cover your car, for example.

  18. Let's get the econ right by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm awfully tired of these articles predicting something will be better, cheaper to make and therefore much cheaper to buy.

    Nothing in the history of the world that is better than an existing product has been sold for less.

        Things end up being sold at a price very near what they're worth to the end user, which often has no relation to their cost of manufacture. Think of perfume, diamonds, or celebrity-diet plans.

    Also for something exposed to the elements that has to last many years, there are so many ways to fail. Temperature cycles, moisture, UV, hail, corrosion-- all of these have to protected against,
    and the cost of these goes up as you make the cells smaller and more fragile.

    It's swell to have better (in some sense) cells, but that's just a small part of the overall picture.

    1. Re:Let's get the econ right by cellocgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm awfully tired of these articles predicting something will be better, cheaper to make and therefore much cheaper to buy.

      Nothing in the history of the world that is better than an existing product has been sold for less.

      You ever looked at the prices of, say, TV sets, or..... PCs?

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  19. Only makes it worse by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Populated areas only make the problem worse. People go out to work at about the same time, go home about the same time, it gets dark at the same time. It is nice that you can power the filled offices from the empty homes, but where does your energy comes from when you switch on the light bulb when it gets dark? From storage, that's what. Only, with that many people doing about the same things, the individual problem just adds up.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  20. The real press release by zogger · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is the real sandia labs press release with more detail

    http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/glitter-sized-solar-photovoltaics-produce-competitive-results/

    They suggest using an industrial "pick and place" machine to assemble the tiny cells onto a substrate for making the panel, at a cost of 1/10th a penny a "glitter", and you can also add a concentrator above each cell

    So I don't know with government work like this, do they license patents, is it automatically open (it should be) or what? Seems like a nice breakthrough, but it still just adds to the list of other incredible breakthroughs that have lead to not much at all for reducing watts per dollar at the retail level with solar PV in general. If some one company gets it and it is locked up in a for profit patent for years and years, they will just reduce their own costs then charge the normal global prices we have seen for the past long time, around ~ five bucks per watt. None of these dozens of breakthroughs we have seen are going to be all that useful until that situation changes.

    Energy independence is a national security and economic recovery issue, (along with all this climate change jazz they keep going on about) so maybe this tech will be freely licensed to drop prices and actually get this stuff to the end consumer in mass quantities.

  21. Great by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now, sell the rights to an American company and require that the work be done in America. It is frustrating that America does all this RD, and then sends it to places that will not even respect the patents.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.