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.
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.
If light is absorbed but not converted to electricity, isn't the panel going to get hot?
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.
I don't understand why the break-even time on solar has to be on the order of a handful of years for it to be economically feasible.
The break-even time for nuclear is over a decade, and it's pretty long for hydro projects too. So why do we insist that solar has to turn a profit Real Quick Now?
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"
Well, getting hot water out of it is a feature, not a bug.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
For appeal to common users, and also for appeal to producers.
Now, solar is limited by two big things:
1. total cost (panels are expensive, so few people buy them, so few people produce them, so they are more expensive than it could be)
2. the Return on Investment is low (extreme cases - 10 years, but typically more than 20).
If a cheap production method can be devised, this will open the market to many buyers (many people don't even consider buying a $25,000 solar panel system, but will buy in a heart beat a $2,500 solar panel system).
Also, a cheap production method will allow (hopefully) a quick panel production ramp up)
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.
You hook a lightbulb up to a solar panel, and it will keep glowing forever. Obviously this has to be done in a completely sealed box so that none of the light escapes, so you are forbidden from checking that the light is still glowing.
Some would say it's useless, but it improves the quality of life of physicists' cats quite dramatically.
Talking of Nazis, did you know that every other use of an apostrophe in your first sentence was incorrect?