Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar Panels

Posted by timothy on from the leaping-frogs-would-be-cool dept.

ByronScott writes "Could the next solar panels be in the shapes of origami cranes? They could be if MIT power engineering professor Jeffrey Grossman has his say. Standard flat solar panels are only optimized to capture sunlight at one point of the sun's trajectory — otherwise they need automated tracking systems to follow the sun. But Grossman found that folded solar cell systems could produce constant power throughout the day sans tracking and his new designs are up to two and a half times more efficient per comparative length and width than traditional flat arrays."

140 comments

  1. Interesting but expensive by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's an interesting, nerdy endeavor, but less practical than automated tracking systems; the expensive part of solar is the panels themselves. From TFA: His new designs are up to two and a half times more efficient per comparative length and width than traditional flat arrays.

    If solar cells were free, than this would indeed be more efficient, and if there's limited space thay MAY be more practical.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
    1. Re:Interesting but expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you get it? It's origami. The new panel will be made of paper!

    2. Re:Interesting but expensive by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's an interesting, nerdy endeavor, but less practical than automated tracking systems; the expensive part of solar is the panels themselves. From TFA: His new designs are up to two and a half times more efficient per comparative length and width than traditional flat arrays.

      If solar cells were free, than this would indeed be more efficient, and if there's limited space thay MAY be more practical.

      Exactly!
              consider the simplified case of sun's arc not moving with the seasons. then you could put down the panels in a 90 degree zig-zag. this way all light that is reflected is assured to strike a second panel. this would dramatically increase the efficiency and reduce the variation throughout the day. but it would take 1.4 times as much panels to cover the same area as a flat panel. if you go for the 3D full corner cube then it's 1.7 times as much.

      If you were to spread this out you would have 40% more area. this would mean that at peak power you'd get 1.4 times as much, but at obtuse incidence angles were the reflection is high you'd take a loss. the trade off point is when the reflective loss is greater than 40% I think.

      another problem with a highly faceted desing is going to be in making the nominally circular cells conform to odd shaped facets, and for mass producing these. If you look at conventional panels you see they cut they often circular cells into half-circles then put these down in a row laternating the directions. this allows them to make mass producable long sections that dont have as much dead space when the components are placed side by side. If you have facets of differenting shapes you have to make eachone differently and the chips may have to be cut differently.

      The best part of this idea is the continuous power level however.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    3. Re:Interesting but expensive by radtea · · Score: 1

      If solar cells were free, than this would indeed be more efficient, and if there's limited space thay MAY be more practical.

      Or one could go with concentrators, which have the same effect and don't require any more solar cell surface (in fact they require less.)

      I wouldn't be the least surprised if his fancy genetic algorithms came up with something pretty close to the Winston cone, which is pretty much the ideal concentrator shape. Cover the interior of one with semi-reflective solar cells and you'd get considerably greater efficiency per opening area than you'd get with a flat panel.

      So scientists of the future take note: your idea doesn't have to be any good, or even very original. But if you "take inspiration from nature" (which engineers have been doing for centuries, so why anyone mentions it is beyond me) and invoke an obscure oriental art that has nothing at all to do with your results other than a superficial resemblance in form, you'll get noticed.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    4. Re:Interesting but expensive by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Looking at the slides more carefully, I think there's some substantially strange assumptions being made. Notice that he starts from completely random and non-symmetric shapes and these are evolved in genetic algorithms. the results he shows are all highly symmetric. some have 3 C4 rotation axes.

      this makes no sense to me. the suns seasonal variation and arcs do not illuminate the ground symmetrically. So it is hard to see why it would evolve to a symmetric structure.

      so there have to be some assumptions here the article is not exposing. like enforcement of symmetry.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    5. Re:Interesting but expensive by FauxReal · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting, nerdy endeavor, but less practical than automated tracking systems; the expensive part of solar is the panels themselves. From TFA: His new designs are up to two and a half times more efficient per comparative length and width than traditional flat arrays.

      If solar cells were free, than this would indeed be more efficient, and if there's limited space thay MAY be more practical.

      Maybe they're factoring in the cost of making a flat solar cell able to track the sun, you'd need a control system and a motor which both have a monetary and electrical cost to run.

      --
      Deltron 3030 - Virus (music video)
    6. Re:Interesting but expensive by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      The motor and light sensor can be run off the panel, and they only move small increments about a dozen times a day

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    7. Re:Interesting but expensive by sxltrex · · Score: 1

      Not to mention mass. The more mass the more expensive it is to put in space, and that mass also has to come at the expense of other equipment, supplies, fuel, etc.

    8. Re:Interesting but expensive by ThreeGigs · · Score: 1

      another problem with a highly faceted desing is going to be in making the nominally circular cells conform to odd shaped facets, and for mass producing these. If you look at conventional panels you see they cut they often circular cells into half-circles then put these down in a row laternating the directions. this allows them to make mass producable long sections that dont have as much dead space when the components are placed side by side

      That's because nobody has thought to slice the silicon ingots _lengthwise_ which would yield long (although varying width) rectangular strips, which could be cut into square or rectangular shapes which would fit more densely into square panels.

    9. Re:Interesting but expensive by godel_56 · · Score: 2, Informative

      another problem with a highly faceted desing is going to be in making the nominally circular cells conform to odd shaped facets, and for mass producing these.

      That's because nobody has thought to slice the silicon ingots _lengthwise_ which would yield long (although varying width) rectangular strips, which could be cut into square or rectangular shapes which would fit more densely into square panels.

      Already been done: see www.sliver.com.au.

    10. Re:Interesting but expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, I'm sure no one has thought of this.

    11. Re:Interesting but expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      so there have to be some assumptions here the article is not exposing. like enforcement of symmetry.

      It took me a long time to find the real article. I think this paragraph addresses your concerns.

      Interestingly, all the GA structures show similar patterns in their shapes, even for different heights. They contain no holes running across the bounding volume, which is necessary to intercept most of the incoming sunlight, and (less intuitively) they all have triangles coinciding with the 12 edges of the bounding box volume, so that they would cast the same shadow on the ground as the open-box. We emphasize that these patterns emerge from randomly generated structures, are not artifacts of the simulations, and are a fingerprint of emergent behavior resulting from the GA calculations.20 The primary shape of the GA structure [Fig. 2a] is a box with its five visible faces caved in toward the midpoint. A simplified, symmetric version of this was constructed, as shown in Fig. 2b; this idealized structure, which we refer to as the "funnel," generates only 0.03% less energy in the day than the original GA output, and therefore contains most key ingredients of the complicated GA structures.

      Of course, is is pretty darn funny. Turns out after all this genetic algorithm stuff. A very simple structure is close enough to optimal to make other more complex structures pointless.

    12. Re:Interesting but expensive by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      hopefully that is in jest.
      In case it wasn't:
      the fabrication technology required balanced wafers for chemical deposition (spin deposition).
      If you had odd shaped wafers you would have to come up with an amazing new process. Also, your machines are big enough already, I don't think they want to make bigger machines. Finally, 300mm wafers look to be the largest doable with Si, else they start to break under their own weight. Same reason GaAs tech hasn't gone to 200mm (not sure if it even is at 100mm honestly).
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    13. Re:Interesting but expensive by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      And note to the easily bamboozled: the significant cost here is energy, not dollars. Will you get and use more energy from these things over the course of their working life than you put in to make them? Are they generators, or just very slow discharge batteries?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    14. Re:Interesting but expensive by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm..... So if I had to guess then the symmetry is an artifact of the bounding box. That's curious. You'd think it would have residual asymmetry from the sun trajectory. I suspect there is some funny assumptions being imposed directly or indirectly. e.g. perhaps the layoput of the alelles in the genetic algorithms itself slightly favors self similar patterns

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    15. Re:Interesting but expensive by ThreeGigs · · Score: 1

      It wasn't in jest. It's my understanding that solar cells are generally made using vapor deposition processes, which don't require spinning. Spin deposition is generally used for photoresist application, isn't it? I can't think of any use for photoresist on photovoltaics. You're confusing semiconductor manufacturing with solar cell manufacturing.

  2. Duh by EkriirkE · · Score: 0

    This just in! Having multiple spot lights pointing in different directions spreads light in more places!

    [patent pending]

    --
    from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
  3. Folding@home? by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, we could use these folding panels to power computers folding@home, and the waste heat can warm our houses as a green solution to heating. Just be ready to spend more of that other green folding stuff ...

  4. shaded panels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    i thought that if any portion of the panel was shaded, power is interrupted because current setups are inverter-limited.

    1. Re:shaded panels? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Power isn't interrupted, it's just reduced a little bit. Maybe that's what you meant. In either case, this allows more surfaces to be "collecting" than shading, from the looks of the few images I could see, which would still be a net gain, rather than a loss. It is probably why the efficiency is only 2.5 times as high rather than something like 5 times as high, though.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    2. Re:shaded panels? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      When solar cells are connected in a series string, the current output of the string is limited by the current output of the cell (or paralleled set of cells) with the least current output.

      Typical solar panels are either a single series string wound serpentine style back-and-forth over the panel, or a set of several series strings connected in parallel with paralleling jumpers across them every few cells. In the first case shading out any single cell drops the output of the whole panel. In the second, localized shading knocking out one or a few cells will similarly produce a drastic drop in output.

      But if the array is built of many cells and intended to operate with various patterns of shading, they can be connected in parallel groups so that the total of the group is pretty much constant, then these groups connected in series to achieve the desired voltage. Alternatively, each small patch (which would pretty much be all illuminated or all dark) could be made up of a series string of cells, and these strings connected in parallel to form the array. In these cases the problem would either not arise or be greatly mitigated.

      Since the panel is being designed for patchy and varying illumination the interconnects can be co-designed to work properly.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  5. Useless approximation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Great, this will work wonders for my zero-cost zero-thickness self-intersecting perfectly rigid solar panels. I just hope my spherical vacuum-chickens don't try to nest in it.

    1. Re:Useless approximation by evanbd · · Score: 1

      Great, this will work wonders for my zero-cost zero-thickness self-intersecting perfectly rigid solar panels. I just hope my spherical vacuum-chickens don't try to nest in it.

      I recently upgraded to the clear spherical vacuum chickens, so I no longer have this problem. I highly recommend them.

    2. Re:Useless approximation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, this will work wonders for my zero-cost zero-thickness self-intersecting perfectly rigid solar panels. I just hope my spherical vacuum-chickens don't try to nest in it.

      I recently upgraded to the clear spherical vacuum chickens, so I no longer have this problem. I highly recommend them.

      Just don't make the same mistake I did and opt for the colorless green spherical vacuum chickens - lazy bastards sleep so furiously that they never get off the nest.

  6. RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar Pane by rainmouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Earth is already covered in efficient origami solar panels, its just that regular people call them plants.

  7. But space is often limited, and tracking is a main by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But space is often limited, because we don't want to cover the landscape in solar panels. But we can put them in places that are already build-up.

    And automated tracking systems need more maintenance then fixed systems, that is why roof top solar panels of various sorts don't tend to track. Better accept the lesser efficiency then risk having to have maintenance done on a roof that without solar panels can go for decades without maintenance.

    I just found the shapes puzzling, got to wonder how the sunlight enters that first blue one with the spiral in it. It is an intresting idea, but I wonder if they are usable on a roof, some look like their would be really good at catching the wind (read blowing off).

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  8. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How is this new? Similar things have been done for at least a decade now.... Oh MIT news, is there anything you cant claim credit for.

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The MIT Media Lab, finding new ways to get the MIT name in the media.

  9. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. Expect to see more solar panels designed like plants. There's a reason they evolved (or were created, etc.) that way; it's at least partially to lead to efficient absorption of sunlight.

  10. Simulated solar cells of the past by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazing. The RTS game Total Annihilation (Release Date: August 25, 1997) has wind, solar and hyro for initial power producers until you can ramp up to fusion and even larger scale power power producers.

    Even better the solar units were triangle shaped and opened each of its sides to a flower like configuration - so to catch the max amount of sun : )

  11. Re:But space is often limited, and tracking is a m by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

    I just found the shapes puzzling, got to wonder how the sunlight enters that first blue one with the spiral in it. It is an intresting idea, but I wonder if they are usable on a roof, some look like their would be really good at catching the wind (read blowing off).

    According to TFA, they used genetic algorithms to evolve the design, so there really isn't a good explanation for the shapes. They just happen!

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  12. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Rallion · · Score: 2, Informative

    The linked page actually mentions that the guy who came up with these was inspired by the way trees grow.

  13. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course those also have automated tracking systems built in.

  14. Folded Solar Cells by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

    Folded Solar Cells
    Capturing sunlight all day
    It's been done before

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  15. A Noticeable Trend by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, I've come to the conclusion that anytime anyone claims to be working with "super-, ultra-, or mega-" efficient anything, the product never seems to make it to market. Can we start using some buzzwords that actually mean something, like maybe, "MIT works on practical, efficient solar cells." Or perhaps, "MIT works on deployable, efficient solar cells." Or maybe, "MIT works on manufacturable, efficient solar cells."

    Then those announcements might mean something. Wait, you mean to tell me that the project likely isn't practical, deployable, or manufacturable? Oh, well.....

    --
    Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
    1. Re:A Noticeable Trend by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Self-response. After RTFA, it seems that the news item, "MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar Panels," isn't even remotely correct. Apparently, the professor and students working on this project, have managed to develop a computer program that designs solar panel geometry to maximize solar absorption throughout a day. So, MIT isn't making anything. No new solar cell technology has come of this. Basically, some computer modeling has determined the optimum configuration for something given some input parameters. Wow.

      Now, I don't mean to trivialize the educational value of this kind of research for the students working on the project. However, as a news item, this doesn't seem particularly newsworthy at all.

      Maybe I am just feeling cynical today though.

      --
      Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
    2. Re:A Noticeable Trend by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Omg a computer invented a pyramid?? This is super mega efficient, pyramids have never been done before

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    3. Re:A Noticeable Trend by WiglyWorm · · Score: 1

      LOL, have you ever seen the first computer generated designs for the f-117a? It was certainly mega efficient at scattering radar.

    4. Re:A Noticeable Trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So, MIT isn't making anything."

      It's been like that for a while now. Engineering is dead. It wasn't always this way. WWII was a crazy time for engineering.

  16. underwhelming over-thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you really wanted to catch everything just use a prism attached to some long tube of photocells (cheaper and more efficient).

    1. Re:underwhelming over-thinking? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Build one and show us the results!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  17. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    How does someone get +5 insightful calling plants "efficient"?

    I thought knowledgeable people read this.

  18. Two and a half times more efficient by CODiNE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but 10x harder to clean.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:Two and a half times more efficient by Mekkah · · Score: 1

      and 10x more possible mechanical problems.

      --
      ~Mekkah
    2. Re:Two and a half times more efficient by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Cover them in translucent plastic?

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    3. Re:Two and a half times more efficient by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A thin sheet of clear plastic transmits 96% of light and it goes downhill from there. Also, plastic scratches, so you basically need glass. Glass breaks, so it has to be thick. Thick means heavy... oh man, this is going nowhere good. It's a nifty thought experiment but the holographic collector overlay makes infinitely more sense in almost any context.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  19. Two word summary...fractal metamaterial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Increase the surface area infinitely, but at a larger cost of materials.

  20. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by scorp1us · · Score: 1

    Actually what your parent is talking about is the Sunflower, which follows the sun daily, not over the long term. If we could harness the same technique we could have tracking systems that are basically free.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  21. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    All that is old is new again; they used solar powered vehicles for millinea. They were called "horses".

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
  22. Waaay too complicated by Crash+McBang · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A simple cylinder, replicated many many times, would be easier and more reliable to produce:

    http://solyndra.com/

    Sometimes I think guys from MIT have a degree in over-engineering :-)

    --
    To put a witty saying into 120 characters, jst rmv ll th vwls.
    1. Re:Waaay too complicated by dominious · · Score: 1

      indeed, cleaning and maintenance would be difficult with such a complex shape. mod parent up.

  23. Better links please... by chinmay7 · · Score: 1

    Please editors... at least link to the original press release if not the research paper.

    What's the point of linking to other blogs that have crappy internal links all over the article?

  24. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    I don't think they were talking about sunflowers, they said origami, as in shape, not tracking, which is what these new panels are designed to obviate.

    Still it's an interesting idea... except we did already adopt the technique in the same sense we adopted the technique of turning sunlight into usable energy. I'm not sure why you think sunflower's tracking ability is free. Any man-made replica is almost certainly not going to be, at least not existing ones. What are we supposed to learn from the sunflower?

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  25. What's he measuring? by argent · · Score: 1

    Efficiency per unit area?

    Efficiency per "swept area"?

    Efficiency per surface area?

    His construct appears to require more than 2.5 times the material of a flat collector, and generates only about 30% more energy at peak. How does it compare to a flat collector with the same surface area, or to three flat collectors angled for morning, noon, and evening sun?

  26. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Depends on your concept of efficient. I believe plants are below ten percent in the efficiency of converting photons to energy.

    However, they are self replicating. I can create a solar "plant" (heh heh) for free with just a few seeds.

    Plant a forest, chop down a few trees for fuel. if I manage intelligently, it lasts forever.

  27. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by thepike · · Score: 1

    I don't think they're talking about sunflowers either. The fact that the flowers move doesn't help with gathering sunlight for energy. For that, it'd have to be the green leaf surfaces moving. But plants are not (generally) flat. Sure a given leaf is flat, but the whole tree (or bush or whatever) is this big complicated structure so that basically wherever the sun hits, it hits a part of the plant doing photosynthesis. Tracking can help too, but efficiency is greatly increased by having a more complex surface shape.

  28. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Lisandro · · Score: 1

    Touche!

  29. Re:But space is often limited, and tracking is a m by iamhassi · · Score: 1

    "But space is often limited, because we don't want to cover the landscape in solar panels."

    then form them in pyramids yourself, so now a panel is always facing the sun, but you're buying four panels instead of just one and a cheap light sensing (same sensor in dawn/dusk lights) tracking system

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  30. Bill Gross was working on this a long time ago. by lupine · · Score: 1

    Here is his 2003 talk on designing solar collectors.

    --
    We have the best government that money can buy.
  31. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Sleepy · · Score: 1

    >The Earth is already covered in efficient origami solar panels, its just that regular people call them plants.

    That's only half of it.. plants ALSO track the sun so they have both benefits...

  32. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

    The Earth is already covered in efficient origami solar panels, its just that regular people call them plants.

    It also bothers me how little science has gone into researching plants. We know they help convert Carbon Dioxide back into Oxygen, but we don't know how exactly. The only resources they require to do so naturally occur on Earth, sunlight and water being the big two. And we say there is a looming crisis ahead because we've pumped too much CO2 into the atmosphere.

    So, this process has been around since before mankind, that would essentially help to reverse the negative effects we've created, if only we could master it. Then we'd work on making it more efficient to make it practical.
    Where is the manhattan project for this?

  33. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by iamhassi · · Score: 1

    By your bad analogy we're also solar powered... Omg solar powered humans! (patent pending)

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  34. ...Burma Shave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Folded Solar Cells
    Capturing sunlight all day
    It's been done before
    Burma Shave

    Next Gas 284 miles

  35. Re:Hand made? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Why do white women tan?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  36. But It seems like it should have been obvious by uassholes · · Score: 1

    Make solar panels with the individual cells pointing in all directions (except down).
    And build in a bunch of mirrors into every little space to reflect the light onto the cells.
    HEY: crinkly solar panels instead of flat. With mirrored edges. What the fuck; it's obvious. Picks up light from all directions.
    Another good idea: solar cells on rotating disco balls. Finally some use for those pieces of shit.

  37. Tired of hearing about super efficient.. by tekrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Solar cells that are right around the corner!

    Didn't some 8-yr old kid at a science fair demonstrate cells that were 30% more efficient a few months back? And before that there was some researcher who figured out how to make 'em 30% cheaper, and another guy who figured out how to make 'em with paint.

    All these stories (heck, if I had the free time, I'd find the Slashdot stories that point to these new miracle products) keep saying that "real soon now", we'll have paint-on, dirt cheap, 110% efficient solar panels that will make so much electrcity, you won't need a $3000 bloom-box to turn natural gas into electricity for pennies a day.

    Why, electricity will be so cheap, we won't even have to meter it!

    Sure, real soon now. And yet, every time I try and get a quote on mounting a few panels on my roof, the cost is $25,000 and it will take me 30 years to break-even on the electricty. Where's the efficient, cheap PRODUCT that will directly enable ME to put panels on my roof?

    How many more YEARS do we have to wait? Or are all these researchers just making press releases and not actually making solar panels? And why aren't solar panels being made?

    If all this tech si so f'ing great, you'd think some company, even a Chinese company, would be rushing to make them, even under patent license because they would corner the market if the panels were cheap and more efficient!

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Tired of hearing about super efficient.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      as a solar panel researcher, i will outline the problem:

      every startup that i work for makes super efficient solar cells and panels. we generate so much energy in the R&D phase that we have to pay people to take it off of our hands. we eventually spend all of our VC paying people to take all that extra energy off our hands and we collapse financially.

      my most recent solar cell array is so efficient, it burns down most houses only minutes after installation.

    2. Re:Tired of hearing about super efficient.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 8 year old patented his 30% more efficient cell process. The researcher patented his 30% cheaper cell process. The other guy patented his paint cell process. Etc.

    3. Re:Tired of hearing about super efficient.. by raygundan · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Sure, real soon now. And yet, every time I try and get a quote on mounting a few panels on my roof, the cost is $25,000 and it will take me 30 years to break-even on the electricty."

      Out of curiosity, where are you located? We did an install last year, and our payback time at the current electric rates is about seven years. If you assume the rates rise at the average 8% per year that they've been doing, it's even quicker. But we're in Arizona, where solar is a no-brainer. The panels have a 25-year *warranty* and a 40-year life is not unreasonable. The inverter will need replacing about once every 12 years, but that's a trivial cost compared to the savings. Even if we're only in the house for another ten years, we'll likely double our investment, before the resale value of the system when we sell the house is even taken into account.

    4. Re:Tired of hearing about super efficient.. by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      A lot of states offer subsidies for installing solar panels. My understanding is that Arizona is one of them. So when you say it cost you $X to install, it didn't really.

      He has a point. As soon as solar panels are cheap enough, everyone will be doing them, no legislation needed. And by now they should be, based on the stories we've read.

      --
      Qxe4
    5. Re:Tired of hearing about super efficient.. by Surt · · Score: 1

      You know, if you have your own solar panels, and a battery, you CAN get off the metered net. Not that you'd want to, because in a lot of places you can get paid for what you're not using. Does 'unmetered' qualify as too cheap to meter?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:Tired of hearing about super efficient.. by rollingcalf · · Score: 1

      "If all this tech si so f'ing great, you'd think some company, even a Chinese company, would be rushing to make them, even under patent license because they would corner the market if the panels were cheap and more efficient!"

      It's unlikely for a super-efficient solar technology to ever make it to market while the oil companies are so big and powerful. They'll buy up promising solar and other alternative energy companies and patents and then bury the technology so it doesn't interfere with their existing business models. That's why you periodically keep reading of cheaper or more efficient solar panels without anything becoming of it.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    7. Re:Tired of hearing about super efficient.. by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      And yet, every time I try and get a quote on mounting a few panels on my roof, the cost is $25,000 and it will take me 30 years to break-even on the electricity.

      It's probably easier to fix this by making electricity more expensive, than by making solar panels cheaper. Just shave off some income tax, and put it on your electricity bill instead.

    8. Re:Tired of hearing about super efficient.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]
      There are plenty of well meaning researchers and venture captialists who are idealistic enough (not to mention financially smart enough) to not sell off a world changing tech such as solar. Sounds like you're making stuff up, or citing one or two instances of this occurring at best. Yeah, *if only* we could get out from under the big oil companies... cliche. Show me some real proof.

    9. Re:Tired of hearing about super efficient.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it... sugar cane plantation costs a few cents per square meter/year (compared to hundreds of dollars of panels), are way more efficient then any practical technology then we have to this day, generate something of easy storage - alcohol (compared to ultra expansive, low cap batteries), generates electricity on demand (burning the leafs) and is available right now. Gosh I love my tropical country.

    10. Re:Tired of hearing about super efficient.. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      You know 40 years ago people were saying that the "big oil companies" were buying up patents so the 100MPG carburetors wouldn't get to market and destroy their business plan, so you know what happened, the patents ran out and companies started make these wonder devices and they either worked less efficient than the modern computer controlled fuel injector systems we have now or they didn't work at all. If I had invented such a wondrous device, why would I or anyone sell out to one company when I could license to all of them? Hell I'd be as rich as Bill Gates and the oil companies would be delivering my royalty checks via hookers in limos that had cocaine in the sugar bowls, if I had invented one of these to-good-to-be-true disruptive devices!

      Sorry but the real world doesn't work that way; yes I know Microsoft does it to little MomAndPop software houses, but that's small potatoes compared to real disruptive technology.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    11. Re:Tired of hearing about super efficient.. by Mspangler · · Score: 1

      "How many more YEARS do we have to wait? "

      three to five. At least. Welcome to the world of hardware.

      It can easily take five years to decide you want a plant, find a site, design the plant, then get the permits, then buy the equipment, erect the building, install the equipment, install and program the control systems, train the operators, commission the plant, and work the kinks out to get to full production rates.

      Been there, done that more than once.

    12. Re:Tired of hearing about super efficient.. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Given that oil companies are major producers of the current solar panels it seems silly to blame them.

      Example: Arco did major R&D, productized, went to market, and at one point was the largest supplier of solar panels with a 45% market share. Eventually others were out-competing them, so they sold their solar panel operation to BP where it is still going strong.

      Oil companies realize that they are really ENERGY companies. They also know that most of the money they collect for oil products goes to the people and countries that supply them with feedstock and that oil isn't the only form of energy that can make a profit. And they know that oil will eventually run out and before that crude will get WAY expensive and people will switch to other stuff.

      So if you want oil products they'll sell you oil products and make a few percent. If you want solar electricity they'll sell you panels and make maybe more on their investment. And so on for a number of energy technologies.

      = = =

      IMHO the issue is that we have a burst of inventions that make incremental improvements but aren't many of them that has all the criteria for a switchover:
        - Big enough improvement to get people to switch.
        - Manufactureable at reasonable cost.
        - Makes sturdy, safe, reliable products.
        - Is enough ahead of the REST of the pack that it will grab enough market share to pay off the cost of going to market and not get bumped by another upstart.

      That said, there has been a continuous improvement in the price/performance ratio.

      A decade or so ago you'd have to pay $10/watt or more, making a solar-powered house financially practical only for new construction in rural areas where you'd have to pay more than the price of the PV setup to string the grid to the site.

      These days, if you are willing to accept "irregular" panels with slight cosmetic defects, you can get UL approved panels for under $2/watt, and unmarked panels (for sites where insurance and code compliance aren't an issue) for about $1/watt. That's cheap enough to beat grid power in many suburban areas if they have good solar input, even without governmental subsidies.

      Then add in construction subsidies and income from selling alternative-generation credits to power companies and you can do well in many other places.

      And there ARE a few still-more-improved photovoltaic technologies that ARE just coming into production. And others that look simple enough to quickly add to existing processes for a big gain (like the nanoparticle frequency-shifter coating.) So expect the prices to be driven down still further.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    13. Re:Tired of hearing about super efficient.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Minnesota, my rates aren't rising 8% / year. They're up 50% in 25 years. A far cry from 8% / year. After wind-source surcharges, taxes and all the various city fees are applied, I might be paying $0.12 / kWh. The payback calculations for solar vs. conventional with conventional priced at $0.12kWh is dismal.

      If conventional were required to pay for mercury emissions and CO2 and nuclear waste storage, the price would probably go up significantly. However retail solar electrical generation would still, in our neck of the woods, lose the cost efficiency competition to grid-based windmills. I can't speak to grid-based solar's price efficiency because I have no idea what it costs and it does not seem to be part of the power company's plans in our area.

    14. Re:Tired of hearing about super efficient.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much of Arizona is great for solar energy, but not so great for humans.

    15. Re:Tired of hearing about super efficient.. by raygundan · · Score: 1

      There are a LOT of different subsidies and credits involved. Arizona's state involvement is a small tax credit that caps out at $1000, if memory serves. The biggest one is actually the power company-- SRP and APS both will give you something like $3/watt up front for system installations. Not far behind is the massive 30% federal tax credit. I'm certainly not pretending otherwise.

    16. Re:Tired of hearing about super efficient.. by raygundan · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that varies-- 8%/year is just the average I found for our power company in Arizona. Our rate is also about $.12/kWh, but we have substantially more sun. Cloudy days are a rarity-- our average insolation is more than double that of Minnesota, if I remember correctly. Obviously, this changes the balance a bit. On top of that, our peak sun and our peak load track pretty well, since it's mostly air conditioning. If it's not sunny, we're also not using nearly as much power. Places where heating is the largest energy load don't correlate their usage quite as well with solar production.

      One thing that IS true anywhere: it's still far, far more cost effective to invest in load reduction than in generation. Insulation, better HVAC, washer/dryer upgrades, and so forth will all pay for themselves far more quickly-- and have the nice side effect of making any eventual generation capacity you install cheaper.

  38. Go get some culture by WiglyWorm · · Score: 1

    It's a haiku!

    You know... origami? Very clever if you ask me.

    1. Re:Go get some culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      kamigotoki
      so-ra-paneru
      orumonka

  39. Re:Hand made? by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Because it contrasts better against their blonde hair.
    Same reason they look better in a little black dress.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  40. Baloney! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is a certain amount of sunlight incident on the earth surface, app. 1.2KW/m^2 times the cosine of the suns angle from the normal, on a perfectly clear day.

    Just covering the earth surface with solar cells will catch all that power, minus a small amount of extra reflection at low angles.

    There is no way to improve total power beyond that.

    Only if solar panels are very expensive compared to their supporting structure does it pay to align them in a way that the Sunlight is hitting them normally (at an right angle).

    There are three ways to optimize then:

    a) fixing them in a position that faces the sun at an right angle during the time the sunlight is strongest, i.e. around noon. For that purpose, you can just mount them at an angle of app. 30 on a south-facing roof

    b) actively tracking the sun

    c) use mirrors to enlarge the effective respective cross-section of the panels

    Before sensationally claiming a 140% improvement over existing configurations, you need state your design objectives. If it is active panel area, then origani-like mirrors may help - but TFA does not mention mirrors

    If it is "comparative length and width" of the real estate used, as the article states, there is nothing to improve on flat panel.

    I suspect this is just a bad writeup of a theoretical paper showing off some genetic design algorithms - don't hold your breath waiting for these concoctions to appear at your local Home Depot anytime soon!

  41. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by HybridST · · Score: 1

    At the risk of potentially melting a server somewhere in Taiwan or somewhere, here's a link to part 1 of a seven-part documentary, "The Private Life of Plants." http://www.megavideo.com/?v=QM24N1FL They actually move quite a lot on longer timescales than our meatbag-brains can usually appreciate.

    --
    Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
  42. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by michael_cain · · Score: 1

    The Earth is already covered in efficient origami solar panels, its just that regular people call them plants.

    Origami, yes, but not efficient. Plants are typically 3-6% efficient in capturing sunlight and converting to biomass. When you consider that the biomass will have to be dried and then converted to electricity by some means (burned to power a steam generator? run through a direct carbon fuel cell?), the efficiency is much worse than even those figures. A 10% efficient PV panel converting 10% of the sunlight directly to electricity is enormously more efficient than plants.

  43. Great insight.... by tacokill · · Score: 1

    Great post.

    It's almost like there is some other force at work (economics) that has to be "just right" for success. Interesting...

    Yours is a nice, welcome, and fresh perspective here at /.

  44. Totally infeasible by gr8_phk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He may be getting more light onto the array, but there is a huge problem with this. There is a relationship between voltage and current for cells that provides peak power (max efficiency) at a particular operating point. In other words, by changing the "load" on a cell you change its efficiency. A controller is usually used for a string of cells to keep them operating at peak efficiency. Since a string is normally connected in series, they all have to operate with the same current, and since the peak efficiency point depends on the amount of light hitting the cell you really want the whole chain to have the same amount of light hitting it - hence the entire string should be a PLANAR array. The problem with this origami stuff is that there are many many surfaces getting different amounts of light at all different angles. You'd almost need a controller per cell - not practical any time soon.

    He may be gathering more sunlight, but I'd bet he can't actually design something like this that produces more real usable electric power.

    1. Re:Totally infeasible by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      If I understand correctly, they act like a constant current source, so couldn't this problem solved by wiring the array of cells in parallel and limiting your current draw to the total current that all the cells provide put together? Or am I missing something?

      Failing that, you're using a silicon substrate anyway; I'd think you could simply dope the back side of the silicon and put the controller on the same wafer... or are we talking about large capacitance requirements or something?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Totally infeasible by 517714 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Aside from the electronics issues - this objection could become less important with time thanks to economies of scale. Fabrication of the physical structures would be costly - One can easily put a thousand square feet of panels on a 2000 sq ft home, but when the structure sticks up 15 feet or more to get good efficiency? The wind loading would be higher than the same output panels arranged in a plane. It looks like these would be a bit of a problem to clean too.

      I really hate graphs with non zero baselines it makes it easy to miss that a 2 m high assembly is just 30% more efficient than a flat one. The fact that they do not indicate how much frontal area is assumed makes it a bit hard to assess the whole thing. Since this is a geometric exercise it will scale and one can get the same frontal area with multiple assemblies (four half height assemblies, nine third height, etc.) The obvious solution is to implement the structure on a micro scale on flat panels, and use those panels mounted simply.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
  45. efficient by zogger · · Score: 1

    If you want cost efficiency, though, in terms of human money and time needed for harvesting, etc, plants win. For example, our wood (firewood heat) taken directly off the woodlot. Basically just a perpetual harvest as long as you don't clear cut it. You can't touch it with any other technique short of building entirely underground way below frost or summer heat levels. Cheaper than electricity (any source including nukes), cheaper than propane or natgas, cheaper than fuel oil. And I have built solar thermal collectors as well, it is still cheaper to use firewood for the sheer amount of energy you can get from it, and forget trying to do the same thing with solar PV at anywhere near the cost. I've used and own solar PV a lot, it works..but I wouldn't say it is cheaper, and that's the bottom line on energy, which is the cheapest/easiest and cleanest source, and that combo is "the most efficient". It is way more efficient use of my dollars. Renewable biofuels (some anyway) are at the top there, proly followed by hydropower and geothermal.

    I love my solar panels, just spiffy, but they are no replacement for a few bucks a year liquid fuel and a chainsaw and my splitting ax. And the liquid fuels could be biofuel as well for the saw.

    Burning firewood is yet our only practical and affordable "fusion" power, and as such is still pretty efficient.

    Coal is really energy dense biofuel, but to make it takes so long you might as well not consider it, and it burns nastier than regular firewood. Oil is the same way.

    In other words, different techniques and apparatus for different energy needs. You need to look at cost per watt/therm/btu, etc rather than just overall technical efficiencies of conversion.

    1. Re:efficient by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      It is only cheaper if you time is worthless.
      I have used wood heat and the time investment in cutting, splitting, lighting and fueling is enormous.

  46. Better title for Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "MIT Researchers create computer models of Solar cells that look like Origami"

    What is it with all the Slashdot posters lately? Does no one even read or try to comprehend an article before spewing it on the page? Is there that much competition for getting "OMG, 1st Post!" that people can't take a minute to RTFA and see what it actually means? It seems like just about every name I see posting is guilty of this in some degree.

  47. You'd need MORE solar panel area, right? by ivi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I get this article's point, the cost of the system's solar paneling would rise, since more area would be needed.

    Now, the making of solar panels already use up more energy than they're able to produce in their lifetimes...
    wny make the energy (& $) cost any greater.

    Can the same effect be had, eg, from arranging mirrors to beam sunlight in from different angles, as the sun moves?

    Mirrors are far cheaper to make (in energy & $'s)

    1. Re:You'd need MORE solar panel area, right? by raygundan · · Score: 1

      "Now, the making of solar panels already use up more energy than they're able to produce in their lifetimes...
      wny make the energy (& $) cost any greater."

      No, no they don't. Manufacturing energy payback is around two years on average, with variations for manufacturing technique. The panels are typically warranted for 25 years, and will probably last 40 or more. I'd say it's a fairly good return on energy investment.

    2. Re:You'd need MORE solar panel area, right? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      "Now, the making of solar panels already use up more energy than they're able to produce in their lifetimes... wny make the energy (& $) cost any greater."

      No, no they don't. Manufacturing energy payback is around two years on average, with variations for manufacturing technique.

      Not to mention that, even if it wasn't outright false, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison

      For starters, much of the energy cost of making panels is in the form of raw heat, not electricity. Nobody in his right MIND would burn solar electricity back to heat through a resistor for that purpose - throwing away a carnot-cycle ratio. If you INSISTED on using solar power to make panels you'd use things like solar furnaces, not photovoltaic panels, for your heat at a 4-to-1 or better boost.

      Bit the target it to provide energy in the form of electricity to a particular site. What are the alternatives: If it doesn't have a water resource for microhydro generation or a wind regime suitable for a practical mill, the alternatives are a local fuel-driven generator or the far more efficient utility grid.

      Fuel-driven gird consumes MUCH more in BTUs than it delivers in watts - because it's FAR from 100% efficient at turning heat from combustion into electricity at your wall outlet. Since it's a heat engine you start with the carnot cycle efficiency, deduct resistive losses, steam leaks, corona discharge. Then there's the energy cost of constructing the infrastructure: For local generators: Building the engine and generator. For the grid: building the power plants, making the iron, copper, and glass for the generators, transformers, wires, insulators, towers, meters, switch boxes, and circuit breakers, cutting and chemically treating trees to make poles, clearing a path, erecting poles, stringing wires, bringing workers to and from the sites, ...

      But energy isn't the only cost. Power generation and delivery affects a lot of environmental and other human values: There's pollution. There's depletion of resources. There's despoiling of other aspects of quality of life.

      Money costs generally map the sum of ALL those costs pretty well. When solar R.E. at your site (absent subsidies) is past financial breakeven with grid power, it's probably a better all-around deal for all the affected values as well, including energy cost.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  48. How well do they work if there are 2 ? by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    Really looks to me as if one would throw a shadow on the other.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  49. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By your analogy the entire earth is solar powered. Oh wait, it is.

  50. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by networkBoy · · Score: 1

    tape solar cells to the sunflower?

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  51. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While we're waiting for the Manahattan Project focused on how to artificially reproduce the effects of plant respiration, how about we just focus on re-forestation?

    Failing that, maybe just stop the clear cutting of the existing forests in the rapidly dwindling undeveloped areas of the planet and/or the paving over of every available square inch of land in already urbanized areas.

    The issue with CO2 reduction isn't really one of lacking technology (although I'd be the last to advocate against continued R&D) but the will to make the economic sacrifices necessary.

  52. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Ibiwan · · Score: 1

    We know they help convert Carbon Dioxide back into Oxygen, but we don't know how exactly.

    I'm not sure what you're talking about -- the exact procedure plants use to take in carbon dioxide, and emit oxygen gas, is mapped out in as much detail as any part of science I know of; it includes the multi-stage fate of individual electrons!

    Wikipedia, as usual, provides a high-level overview:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis#C4_and_C3_photosynthesis_and_CAM

    --
    -- //no comment
  53. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

    Then why aren't we doing it ourselves? Why bother saving trees?

  54. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    Well, that's not entirely true. Some plants' leaves also track the sun (heliotropism) on a daily basis, too, not just flowers. And there's also phototropism that gets more of the plant out from under the shadow cast by other plants, though this is a much slower process.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  55. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

    It also bothers me how little science has gone into researching plants.

    Speak for yourself. We know *exactly* how plants produce O2 and hydrocarbons (more or less) from H2O, CO2, and sunlight. We know the structure of the proteins involved, etc.

    It's just ridiculously impractical for us to do it on a large scale -- it's very complex (read: expensive).

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  56. One Word Alternate To The M.I.T. Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China.

    Yours In Ulan Bator,
    Kilgore Trout

  57. enormous?? by zogger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...maybe I am just better at it....it's certainly not an enormous effort in terms of energy used or my time. I find it very cost effective, plus fun. It has actual value there as well to me. Especially splitting, quite relaxing in a physical fitness/exercise way, I actually look forward to it, same as some people look forward to a gaming session on the computer, or a round of golf.

        And wood, being very renewable and sustainable, is rather a nice way to go. It also has a very good benefit as it insulates you from sudden market shocks. Example, I have personal friends who were using oil heat back during the opec embargoes. All of a sudden, with no notice, their heating bill was *larger* than their mortgage note. With wood, taken off your own site, this isn't a worry. You can be completely unemployed and still not worry about at least heat for you and your family. You don't need to have to come up with the scratch for a very important and expensive utility.

    No one single source of energy can be all things to all people, but I certainly find wood heat to be at or near the top of the list as to being efficient in terms of my energy in to energy out, plus efficient in terms of cost. I have a 250 gallon propane tank, sitting full in the backyard, unused for the past three winters now. It is no longer my primary expensive fuel, it is my backup, only to be used in an emergency fuel. So ya, my time is as valuable to me as anyone else values their time, that's why I prefer to work directly for myself, and eliminate as much as that cash middleman as possible, Same way we grow the bulk of our food now, vegetables and meat. Cost effective, helps eliminate bills, helps insulate from market shocks, and I am not going to fire me or offshore me, etc for "enhanced shareholder value". I think of it as practical job insurance as well.

    1. Re:enormous?? by wings · · Score: 1

      I've considered wood heat.
      How much wood do you use annually for heating?
      What kind of acreage does it take to sustain that rate of usage?

  58. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by thepike · · Score: 1

    Agreed. But I still think the added complexity of having a strange shape adds more to the efficiency of trees than minor heliotropism of leaves. I mean, on big things (think oak tree) the leaves just get bandied about in the wind and don't do heliotropism, but the fact that they're not a plane makes them catch a lot more light. Phototropism is big too, but I feel we already have a parallel to that given that we put our solar panels on the roof and such in areas without shade.

    They should work with Erik Demaine. He's does origami, he already works at MIT, and he's a genius. It'd be perfect.

  59. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    er... sunflowers don't need electricity, Duh.

  60. Re:But space is often limited, and tracking is a m by karnal · · Score: 1

    Actually, wouldn't you only need 3? Aim the panels so that the "back" is always in the shadow. Of course, I'm biased - being in the northern hemisphere, the sun is either directly overhead in it's highest position or to the south.

    --
    Karnal
  61. Making cheap cells competitive by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
    This could make cheap lower efficiency solar cells economically viable. The technique uses more materials, but the overall cost/efficiency could be better then a flat array of higher price/ performance cells.

    Note that he is using artificial evolution for optimization. My guess is that it is simulated annealing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing The video shows the random configurations that are being evaluated.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  62. let me see you clean the bird poop of that one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh, folded origami solar panel isn't cleanable? Oh snap

  63. Mod parent interesting by turing_m · · Score: 1

    Of course, is is pretty darn funny. Turns out after all this genetic algorithm stuff. A very simple structure is close enough to optimal to make other more complex structures pointless.

    While I can't get to your actual link, I suspect that the picture marked (b) in the slashdot linked article is the simple but still very efficient configuration.

    In all, it is a cool approach. Even cooler if he can start putting some of the other assumptions (ease of cleaning, cost of manufacturing different shapes of panels, cost of panels, whatever else is relevant) in the fitness function, so that it is actually commercially practical. Ultimately, the best panel that wins for most applications is going to be the lowest in terms of $/Watt. I'm not sure if this has been done yet, I'm guessing not yet as it's harder. However, it's a fait accompli that if you can come up with an accurate fitness function for what you truly want, and use a computer to brute force the search space, the answer, no matter how strange, is the truth. It's a great approach because it throws out all our preconceived ideas about how the solution should look, to let us find the best, and probably counterintuitive, solution. I find that often people dismiss this approach because it seems hard, but once you sit down and actually try it, it can be done. And once done, the computer can examine different configurations far quicker than we can by trial and error.

    I would also not be surprised if we see something similar to the final thing in nature. If you've ever seen time lapse photography of plants, they turn their leaves to face the sun. I wouldn't be surprised to find the solution in plants too rigid to be able to track the sun, as they'd need to be pre-configured in the most efficient way. Something like a cactus perhaps.

    --
    If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
  64. Re:Hand made? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If white men overwhelmingly preferred the women of another race, you'd have a point. But you don't. Nice try.

    If black men "overwhelmingly" (or even "more often than not") preferred the women of another race, you'd have a point.

  65. 2.5x more efficient by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    2500x more expensive

  66. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this is why biofuels will always be better then solar panels (I mean, not corn, sugarcane only, and possibly grasses).

  67. sure by zogger · · Score: 1

    I use four cords a winter. It would be less but this cabin isn't insulated as well as it should be..yet..working on it, one of my numerous spring projects. I also know they make way more efficient wood burners than the one I use now. So..I could cut that amount in half. (I am in north Georgia for reference, obviously way more up north you would use more) In eastern decent rainfall deciduous/mixed forests, you can pull a cord an acre a year easy, probably more, and never run out, always have the same amount of trees and wood there. So say you are on a small plot of land, just three to say five acres, with a two acre woodlot. A well insulated home**, you could have space for a huge garden, a fish pond, some fruit trees, a chicken run, plenty of yard/grass/ even a small pasture, plus your hard wood trees for wood, and no stopping you having a lot of those trees being nut trees, walnuts/pecans whatever, so there's more food for you and the local wildlife.

    Also keep in mind a lot of places allow firewood harvesting out of the local national or state forest, for free or a reasonable small fee.

    **I am of the opinion that dollar for dollar, becoming more energy efficient in the first place-dropping demand-is the best dollar spent, talking about heating or cooling or lighting or any other regular energy use. I know I looked at the transportation scene and energy costs, and knowing I need a truck, looked for an efficient diesel over a faster gas engine truck. I don't care about speed, I just want to haul stuff from point A to B cheaply, and my 40 MPG diesel truck works for that, for most of my purposes. I don't really need a huge V8 all the time like a lot of guys have..and drive around mostly empty.

    1. Re:sure by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of being self-sufficient that way... But a "small plot of land, just three to say five acres" is HUUUUGE for us city dwellers. Obviously we can't be city dwellers and self-sufficient that way. So solar panels are a way to go (not that I have those yet either).

    2. Re:sure by wings · · Score: 1

      Thanks. The ~1 cord/acre-year is the kind of number I was looking for.
      The site I'm considering for wood heat is in SE Oklahoma in an area with lots of mixed forest.
      Similar in latitude to North Georgia.

  68. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sugar cane, would be the best alternative right now, by the way. And if you compare numbers, it actually is more efficient if you look at actual practical fuel energy return values.

  69. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by mattack2 · · Score: 1

    Because trees do it "for free" (effectively)? Anything we do, takes extra energy that _we_ transport to the mechanism doing it (and that energy transportation creates more carbon dioxide that has to be taken into account).

  70. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would only work if you use duct tape.......

  71. 'sup dawg by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

    So, we could use these folding panels to power computers folding@home, and the waste heat can warm our houses as a green solution to heating. Just be ready to spend more of that other green folding stuff ...

    I heard you like folding, so we put an oraigami solar panel on your computer, so you can fold while you fold.

    \I'm so sorry

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  72. Total energy cost of PV: myth-conceptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree that mirrors would be a more sensible solution, but 'd be interested to see your source for your assertion:

    ... the making of solar panels already use up more energy than they're able to produce in their lifetimes...

    According to the US DoE, the total energy cost of typical multicrystalline solar photovoltaics can be recouped in under 4 years: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37322.pdf

  73. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

    If you're going to call horses solar-powered, then so are we, and so are our current cars.

    --
    What a depressingly stupid machine.
  74. Home Depot by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Where's the efficient, cheap PRODUCT that will directly enable ME to put panels on my roof?

    Aisle five; in between the reels of room-temperature superconductor and the home fusion plants.

  75. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by Curien · · Score: 1

    In addition to the point others have already addressed that we do in fact know exactly how plants convert CO2 to O2, the process is no panacea. The carbon doesn't just disappear -- it needs to be stored somewhere (google "carbon sequestration"). In the case of plants, it is stored in the plant itself; when the plant dies, it's all released. Thus the net benefit of plants for reducing carbon is actually 0, so naively emulating plants gets us nothing. Even worse, reforestation is no solution -- it merely sequesters the amount of carbon released due to deforestation. In order to sequester the carbon released by the burning of fossil fuels, we'd have to reforest the planet to a level much higher than it was when humans came into existence. I'm no atmospheric chemist, but I would think this would result in increased oxygen levels, which could have disastrous consequences.

    The problem is that we have released a whole lot of carbon that *used to be* sequestered (as fossil fuels). Fossil fuels were created at a time when the climate was very different -- much hotter, etc -- and so cannot be reproduced naturally now.

    --
    It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
  76. wood heat in town and urban gardening by zogger · · Score: 1

    I had one of my friends who got nailed with those fast fuel oil price hikes way back then do an emergency wood heater install, then he needed wood somehow. As everyone and their cuzzin leroy was scarfing up the traditional sources of wood fuel, he had a brainstorm. As he had two teenage sons he gave them a daily after school chore. First, he goes to the pawnshop and gets a few used skilsaws. Next, on his way home from work every day, he stops in alleys and scrounges free old wood pallets, looking for the heavy ones, which are usually made from "swamp oak", named such from their rather pissy smell. His sons got the task of cutting up the pallets into reasonable chunks, which they burned.

    Like I said, a lot of places allow the cutting of firewood for personal use in the local national forest. Sometimes you can find a private party that would allow that as well, for cheap. So all you need then is a truck, or stout trailer.

    Another way to get cheaper wood is to buy it in log length, have it delivered, and do the final cutting and stacking in the yard.

    And yet another way is to contact tree trimmers and utility crews, tell them you'll let them dump hardwood trimmings. I've gotten a lot for free that way myself when I lived in town before.

    As to gardens, you don't need much to make a decent hit, a 20' x 20' garden will give you a LOT of food. In season you will get bags and bags everyday. Plus run a google search for "edible landscaping", another good way to have a lot of food from a smaller in town area. And I once had an even larger garden than that, when I had an apartment. There was this old lady at the outskirts right out of town, she allowed folks to garden in her backyard, which was a tiny farm she and her late husband used to run. Once he was gone and she didn't work the farm, it sat empty, so she allowed the little garden plots. Perhaps a craigslist ask might work there "wanted, garden space close to xyzburg", etc.

    There's a fairly well "growing" movement for urban gardening, even small scale urban poultry production. Heck, they are bulldozing down now half of Detroit, and a lot of gardens and little farms are going in all over that city.

    As to costs, all relative I guess, location is what counts. Some areas of the nation are way more expensive than others. A friend of mine is this week closing on three acres-mostly wooded except for the yard- with a four bed two bath house on it, 169 thou. That property is roughly an hour even drive-time outside of Atlanta, so it isn't all that far from big time urban scene.

    Anyway, if you are into self sufficiency/practical preparedness, check out my homepage, that is what it is all about. We have deep woods dwellers to urban apartment dwellers there, and every sort of location in between.

  77. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    By your bad analogy we're also solar powered

    Analogy? It isn't an analogy at all, horses are transportation, not analogous to automobiles but the same thing. And yes, like horses, we too are solar powered, as is all life.

    And if Monsanto and some other bioengineering companies get their way, someday there may actally be a patent on humans, or at least their genomes.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
  78. article link by zogger · · Score: 1

    Just found this news story about urban gardening around the world

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/08/urban.farming.city.growing.food/

  79. Re:RE : MIT Making Super Efficient Origami Solar P by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Everything on earth is solar powered, except nuclear powered things.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
  80. Re:But space is often limited, and tracking is a m by mpeskett · · Score: 1

    Even if the shape was found without being explicitly designed,we should still be able to see how it works once the algorithm's found it. It might not be intuitive; if it was we'd have designed it that way ourselves, but unintuitive doesn't mean incomprehensible

  81. design foiled by bird poop and rain water? by robi2106 · · Score: 1

    I wonder how these cells would be maintained? A surface with that many creases, folds, and even cups, would fill with water, bird poop and more in no time.