Slashdot Mirror
Caltech Makes Flexible, 86% Efficient Solar Arrays
strredwolf writes "Caltech has released a flexible solar array that converts 95% of single-wavelength incandescent light and 86% of all sunlight into electricity. Instead of being flat-panel, they stand thin silicon wires in a plastic substrate that scatters the light onto them. The total composition is 98% plastic, 2% wire — the amount of silicon used is 1/50th that of ordinary panels. So as soon as they can get these to market, solar could be very viable and cheap to produce." Update: 03/01 21:02 GMT by KD : Reader axelrosen points out evidence that the 80%+ efficiency figure is wrong. MIT's Tech Review, in covering the Caltech announcement, says that the new panel's efficiency is in the 15%-20% range — which is competitive with the current state of the art. And the Caltech panel should be far cheaper to manufacture.
Holy balls. If this article is spot on, they've doubled the efficiency of the current technology (which converts at about 40%) AND done it in such a way that the stuff is cheaper to manufacture AND made it flexible. This is the sort of thing that can have a real (and probably positive) impact on the world we know. Amazing. The only remaining question (I didn't see anything about it in TFA) is how durable this stuff is compared to the current panels.
As far as I can figure from the article what is says is 95/86 of the light is absorbed, it doesn't say that all of this light is converted into electricity as is stated here on Slashdot. That is also impressive numbers and very interesting, but my guess is that the efficiency of the solar panel is going to be a lot lower than those numbers posted on the parent, most likely at least a factor 2 lower.
All these idiots working on solar panels when what is really needed is overcast panels to get power from gloomy days when you use more light bulbs.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
It's not incandescent light, it's incident light. sigh.
If we set up solar devices so that they can float in water and function as an interconnected grid, we could drape a network of them over the Pacific Garbage Patch so no one would notice it.
From TFA:
The silicon-wire arrays absorb up to 96 percent of incident sunlight at a single wavelength and 85 percent of total collectible sunlight.
I beg to differ. This is exactly what we should be using our oil reserves for: building up a supply of renewable energy. Look at it this way: we can burn our oil; or we can use it to create systems that will generate energy for us, without needing further input of oil.
I'd dearly love to see us in a world where we no longer need to burn oil or coal for energy, or if we do need to do so, we use oil we've produced ourselves - using only water and carbon dioxide as the essential inputs. On that day, we will have overcome one of the major problems facing our society today.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2010/February/14021001.asp
'We have shown the optical absorption efficiency and charge carrier collection efficiency of a silicon wire array cell is comparable to a conventional silicon cell, but a wire array cell uses up to 100 times less silicon due to enhanced light-trapping effects,' says Atwater. Significantly, the wire arrays absorb infrared light more efficiently that conventional silicon surfaces, further improving the performance of the new device.
So the gist is that it's more efficient because it converts infrared, uses some type of clear polymer with alumina "reflector particles" in place of 99% of the expensive (doped) silicon, and is flexible and therefore easier to manufacture.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
This is interesting work, but it is in a very immature stage of development. They seem to be no where near demonstrating a practical solar cell, and speculated conversion efficiency numbers like 86% are laughable. One of the fundamental limitations of a cell based on Si wires is that the higher a photon's energy is over the bandgap of Si, the more energy is lost as heat. I believe the theoretical maximum conversion efficiency for a Si solar cell is around 30%, and commercially viable cells are limited to around 20% because of practical issues in creating solid state cells such as making electrical contacts to the device, the high cost of making higher efficency (20+%) Si cells. This work doesn't begin to address such issues. I think it is unfortunate that over-hype like this can take luster off of progress in photovoltaics that seems less spectacular but is much closer to practical realization.
Saturn vehicles. Body panels are solid plastic, and I know Saturn has been around since the 90s.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
You've never left them out in direct sun for ten to twenty years then.
Here's the actual scientific paper, "Predicted Efficiency of Si Wire Array Solar Cells". That's by the same authors mentioned in the press release. While the thing does trap most of the light hitting it, only a fraction of the energy in that light is converted to electricity. In fact, this thing is currently less efficient than the better commercial solar cells.
From the paper: ... simulated photovoltaic efficency of 14.5%. ... Conclusion: ... "Si wire array solar cells have the potential to reach efficiencies competitive with traditional Si crystalline solar cells."
So, an interesting development, but no big breakthrough. There's a claim that it might be a cheaper way to make solar cells, but everybody who comes up with a new design makes that claim. (Nanosolar comes to mind; their technology is supposed to be cheaper, but so far they've spent half a billion dollars and apparently have only produced sample panels.)
'94 Saturn ... parked in the Arizona sun for many years ... multiple electronics failures ... engine oil leak
Survived the sunlight just fine
It sure sounds it.
*ducks*
PhD candidate doing my research in new materials for photovoltaics here.
I'm sick and tired of all this mis-reporting. These are NOT 86% efficient cells. If they were, (and they were inexpensive) it would be the greatest discovery in 50 years and it would have been all over every newspaper in the world 2 weeks ago when this paper was published.
They simply absorb 86% of light that hits them. When you say a cell is X% efficient without qualifying it, it's taken to mean power conversion efficiency [PCE] (optical power in/ electrical power out) That and dollars per watt are the numbers that really matter. Read the Nature Materials paper that drove this and you'll see that theory says this design could be up to 17% efficient. That compares unfavorably to mid to high-end commercial cells on the market today.
I'm not saying that this research is a worthless endeavor, maybe they can hit the maximum theoretically possible PCE and keep the cost down. That might have real-world impact.
The caltech news brief quotes Atwater (the PI for this research) as saying that the photons are not only absorbed, but they're also convertedto charge carriers (which is a good step). The problem he doesn't mention here is, these charge carriers loose all their energy (voltage) before they exit the cell. Solve that problem and we've got a winner.
The fundamental issue with nano-structured designs like this is the surface area of the P-N junctions in them. Large surface area means high dark current which means low voltage output. Low voltage output means low PCE. Unfortunately, nothing in this research solves that problem.
There's plastic, and then there's plastic. Some modern plastics are quite explosive.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
"as soon as they can get these to market, solar could be very viable and cheap to produce." And if a frog had wings his ass wouldn't bump the ground when he hops.
I appreciate Slashdot acting like an old Popular Mechanics here, but I wouldn't get too excited just yet. As somebody pointed out in another forum, when you compare ethanol with gasoline in terms of efficiency, if all we had was ethanol primarily from "corn" (U.S. term, UK term is "maize") and then someone invented gasoline, we would be raving about the improvement in efficiency and economy. IOW, I will believe cheap, efficient solar power when I see it on the neighbor's roof. Until then, this is one more expensive quest for a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. In the meantime, we could be practicing more energy efficiency.
FWIW, I knew W was full of crap with that whole "hydrogen economy" nonsense back around 2005. That was an absurd sop to deflect a little criticism that he was as much a tool of Big Oil as his Old Man. Make note that I served in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm and when it was over, George H.W. Bush was sitting on a 91 percent approval rating based on a war we had to fight to maintain a steady supply of petroleum for the Western Powers and Japan. From the desert, I wrote my Senators and lobbied them to get a bill going to get us to start weaning off Mideast Oil. That S.O.B. Bush didn't raise a finger, nor did our Congress and eventually Western wealth transfer begat Osama Bin Laden, 9/11, Iraq War II, and Afghanistan. Wouldn't you think a 91 percent approval rating might have been enough political capital to change things a little? It may even have made Bush the Elder seem like the President of the U.S.A. instead of President of the New World Order since he rightfully earned a reputation for being allergic to domestic policy. His detachment had a lot to do with getting booted in '92. A review of the stock market back in '90 - '91 reveals that Big Oil shot up and helped a lot of folks in that business recover from the very hard times they went through in the late '80's. Though I was a conservative and a combat veteran, I campaigned for Bill Clinton in '92 as I was so disgusted with Bush the Elder. Still am. God save us from another Bush.
Most of us know in our heart of hearts that our troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the continued grip the Mideast has on Western economies. In World War II, the U.S. national speed limit was 35 mph and gasoline was rationed with coupons. This was done to make sure the military had plenty of fuel. If some shared sacrifice was called for now, I think most Americans would grumble, but go along with it for the sake of untangling from the Iraq and Afghan Wars. How about bringing back the 55 mph speed limit of the '70's and '80's? What about a tax based on the weight of a vehicle? If we cut back on petroleum use, we help our independence and the environment at the same time. Now that's what I call "conserve-atism".
If you want to see what needs to be done about our dependence on petroleum, just look for the occasional Charles Krauthammer piece on it. He makes the same recommendations about every 5 years, the centerpiece of which is a flexible tax on gasoline that seeks to wean us off cheap oil while keeping the price of gasoline fairly steady.
In principio erat Verbum.
Talking of Nazis, did you know that every other use of an apostrophe in your first sentence was incorrect?
The original article is poorly written (no, not even close to 86% you stupid twats) and kdawson is equally foolish for echoing this garbage. This is why this site sucks. Brain-dead slashdot editors, time and time again, post shitty articles that make extraordinary claims which end up being completely false or misleading.