Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Solar Cell Inventor Wins Millennium Prize

Posted by samzenpus on from the fun-in-the-sun dept.

adeelarshad82 writes "The inventor of a new type of solar cell won the Finnish state and industry-funded, €800,000 ($1.07 million), Millennium Technology Prize. According to the foundation, Michael Graetzel's dye-sensitized solar cells, known as Graetzel cells, could be a significant contributor to the future energy technologies due to their excellent price-performance ratio."

35 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. Decrease, not increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I still think we should decrease our use of energy, instead of inventing new ways to increase its production.

    Dr. Pekka Paisti

    1. Re:Decrease, not increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are right. And naive.

    2. Re:Decrease, not increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dear Paisti, Increasing the performance of energy production and decreasing use of energy can both be goals at the same time.

    3. Re:Decrease, not increase by PhongUK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In order to decrease our use of energy, or atleast to have any chance of doing it at all, we need to stop making babies.

    4. Re:Decrease, not increase by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I still think we should decrease our use of energy, instead of inventing new ways to increase its production. Dr. Pekka Paisti

      You are right. And naive.

      Hmmm, what a funny two first posts. Both are totally correct, yet at polar opposites.

      Yes, we should decrease the amount of power we use. I totally agree, yet, the chances of getting the average consumer to actually do so, keep dreaming. As long as people keep coming up with power hungry devices that people want (read: air conditioners, plasma TVs, faster PCs and just about every other imaginable device), people will in fact keep buying them. Will they pay vastly larger sums for them if they are power efficient? Unlikely, some might, most won't. Will they put up with lower/smaller/decreased functionality? Again, some might, most won't.

      I totally support using less power (my own electricity bill for example comes from 100% wind energy, which costs a good deal more than normal coal fired here in Australia) but I welcome any steps that are taken to make the overall impact of the "sheep consumers" less on the environment.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    5. Re:Decrease, not increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually...I may have a.. modest proposal along these lines.

      - J. Swift.

    6. Re:Decrease, not increase by kcelery · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everyone seems to have the same idea as yours, but they don't seem to agree upon whose babies.

    7. Re:Decrease, not increase by ZiakII · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well I am happy to announce that the Slashdot crowd is leading in that front!

    8. Re:Decrease, not increase by M8e · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How can you stop doing something that you already are not doing?

      For example you have to start smoking to able to stop smoking.

    9. Re:Decrease, not increase by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're actually wrong. The sort of people who are upgrading computers and plasma screens (North Americans, Europeans and similar) are actually not increasing their per-capita energy use each year. They're the same people who are upgrading their insulation, light bulbs, etc.

      All the increases in energy use is from the global poor, the people who are just now acquiring computers, light bulbs and cars. And I know that orthodox environmentalists disagree with me on this, because they're assholes and want the destitute to stay destitute, but I say that it is a good thing that the world's poor are using more energy. A life with any reasonable standard of living is necessarily going to involve some significant energy use, and if we want people to escape from poverty (and the non-assholes among us do), we have to welcome this.

      Those of us who waste energy should cut down, but not to the point of making ourselves poor. And since that won't save nearly enough energy to allow to poor to escape poverty, what we need is a lot more energy. I would guess at least 10 terrawatts more. It's that simple. Solar will help.

    10. Re:Decrease, not increase by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do we need to stop using our computers to tell others to do as we say, not as we do? Apparently not.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    11. Re:Decrease, not increase by polar+red · · Score: 3, Informative

      I live in a cold climate - it is use energy or freeze

      actually, Investing in insulation is ten times cheaper than buying energy. a passive house has been build in very cold climates.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    12. Re:Decrease, not increase by Candyban · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, we should decrease the amount of power we use. I totally agree, yet, the chances of getting the average consumer to actually do so, keep dreaming. As long as people keep coming up with power hungry devices that people want (read: air conditioners, plasma TVs, faster PCs and just about every other imaginable device), people will in fact keep buying them. Will they pay vastly larger sums for them if they are power efficient? Unlikely, some might, most won't. Will they put up with lower/smaller/decreased functionality? Again, some might, most won't.

      I disagree. If you look fuel consumption in cars, you will notice that in the last 20 years, they consume LESS fuel, have MORE power, safety and luxury. Are they so much more expensive than they were 20 years ago? I don't think so.
      LCD screens consume less power, are more space efficient and have less negative health effects than their CRT equivalents. (though some purist may say there is loss of quality as well). CRT TVs the size of the average TV sold nowadays would be vastly more expensive not to say the electricity bill which would make you think twice
      When people start to better insulate their houses, they will consume less power for heating/cooling while getting more comfort. This investment is payed back within 1-2 years.

      With regards to faster PCs, I beg to differ. If you didn't notice already, current generation CPUs are consuming LESS energy than their predecessors while still getting more work done and this is where we need to evolve to.
      People need to start understanding that power efficiency is SAVING money without a need to compromise on features or comfort.

      Getting back on topic. Even though power consumption for each device needs to go down, we will need more power as there will be more devices and more people using them. The biggest challenge in this century will be to get India and China up to Western standards. Both countries combined have about 3 billion people. Just providing them with the same amount of meat would require massive amounts of power, and then I'm not even talking about gadgets. So whatever we do, there will be a massive need for power no matter how much more power efficient we will become. Efficiency is key to preserve our way of life but clean and cheap new energy sources will be our only salvation.

    13. Re:Decrease, not increase by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only that, I love how people say that we can simply reduce usage over building new power plants, then turn around and rave how electric cars are going to solve all of our problems.

      The 'average' household uses something around 700-1400 kwh a month.
      The 'average' electronic vehicle gets about 5 miles to the kwh, and the average vehicle is driven around 10-15k miles a year.
      Don't forget that the average household is 2 cars today.

      So, you're looking at probably around a 22% increase in electricity usage if people go to EVs. You just can't reduce energy usage that much via other means, especially when you also have 5% growth in population/households on top of it.

      Still, I salute the inventer in the op, because he's, well, actually addressing the problem. The moment I can make solar panels make sense in a cost-benefit analysis is when I recommend all my relatives in Florida get them.

      I'm moving to Alaska(work), so they'd probably still have to come down in price another 50% before they'd make sense for me.

      Until I was informed of my exciting new opportunity, I was looking at a wind turbine for the small town I live in - because a turbine big enough to power a town costs a lot less per watt of capacity, and by reaching higher has steadier wind, resulting in lower costs when you factor the cost of the turbine into the cost per kwh it produces. Small $10k turbine = 5k kwh per year, expensive. $1M turbine = 1M kwh per year, much better. These figures are example only. Actual production is so location dependent it's hard to put proper figures on.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    14. Re:Decrease, not increase by captainpanic · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're over-simplifying things.

      There is an optimum in every climate. Here's how it works:

      You choose a certain period. Say, 30 years.

      You check the price of the energy. You check the price of different kinds of insulation.

      Insulation is a one-time investment, energy costs money all the time. You check which is the cheapest after 30 years.

      In many houses an investment in insulation is worth the money and will pay itself back. But in some cases, the quality of the insulation is already such that it's just too expensive to add even more insulation to save those few euros/dollars/whatevers in energy.

    15. Re:Decrease, not increase by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Investing in insulation is ten times cheaper than buying energy. a passive house has been build in very cold climates.

      Investing in insulation is only 10X cheaper than buying energy if you don't already have a significant amount of insulation.

      Let's take a house, generic. Let's disregard doors, windows, or perhaps we assume that we upgrade them as well.

      The house, with NO insulation, costs Y energy to keep warm.
      With X insulation, it costs Y. If X is 1000 and Y is 1000/year,
      With 2X insulation, cost is Y/2, That next 1000 makes Y 500, and your payoff of the extra insulation is 2 years.
      With 4X insulation, cost is Y/4, the marginal return on the second 2X amount of insulation(costing 2000) is 250, payoff is 8 years.
      With 8X the insulation, cost is y/8, or 125 saved. For 4k cost. With a 32 year payoff without cost of capital, you're better off investing in the energy company; a decent return will pay your remaining bill perpetually.

      Now, yes, the formula is more complicated - 8X the money spent on insulation won't actually get you 8X the insulating values, especially in a refit scenario - you have to make the walls thicker at that point, and maybe even raise the roof. There are practical limits on windows and doors, especially when you open them. There's also a certain amount of 'free' heat that is generally available. Every person is like 100 watts just sitting there. You need a certain amount of fresh air flow.

      And I say this as a libertarian survivalist type who likes the idea of not being dependent upon the grid. I just acknowledge that there are costs that don't make financial sense. Call it being warped by my upbringing - both my parents are accountants. I was doing cost of capital analysis before I knew what it was called. ;)

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    16. Re:Decrease, not increase by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then increase the price. That's the only way.

      The problem is that the practical effect of this falls disproportionately on the poor (as do the negative effects of current energy production). The wealthy have to adjust the distribution of their investments -- an inconvenience. The poor have to endure cold, give up that job that's too far to walk to, cut back on food which has become more expensive.

      Let's say the price of energy doubled overnight. A lot of us would lose our jobs as investments were shuffled around. But for those of us who didn't lose our jobs, we wouldn't go without. We'd have food, heat, transportation. We wouldn't stay home during vacation. We'd alter our use of energy by changing the kind of car we bought next time around, or keeping our thermostats set differently. We might go to one place instead of taking a driving vacation. In the short term the low inflation caused by lost employment would blunt the impact of the price increases, and in a few years we wouldn't even notice the difference.

      I'm all for conservation through tax credits, incentives, even carbon taxes with provisions for blunting the impact on people who will feel it the most. But we've had all our energy eggs in one basket for the last century: cheap oil. Moving some or even most of those eggs to the conservation basket is a good idea, but we can't do it overnight and we certainly can't move all of them.

      What's the "right" amount of energy to consume? That's a meaningless question when asked in isolation. You need to ask "for what" and "from what sources" and "with what impact?" Clearly the answer for fossil fuels, given their externalized impacts (pollution) and future availability (dwindling) is that we should be using less of them. But conservation is no more a panacea for our energy problems than nuclear power is.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    17. Re:Decrease, not increase by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      WHOA, Nelly! Check power consumption - unless you're talking about small LCDs (less than 28 inches), a CRT will use less electricity.

      It all depends on the size. A lot of people went from like 27 inch or 32 inch CRTs to 60" monsters. The truth is somewhere in-between.

      An equivalent-sized LCD will use less power than a CRT. Going from a 32 inch CRT to a 31.5 inch LCD flat panel will save you around 50% or so in electricity usage. Going from a 32 inch TV to a very efficient 46 inch LCD will save you a little bit of electricity; an average 46 inch LCD will cost about the same.

      Going to a 60 inch monster will cost about double.

      If you're talking about computer monitors, then in almost all cases, moving to an LCD from a CRT will save you money. A typical 17 inch CRT uses about 100W with a max around 105W, while, say, my 20 inch widescreen flat panel uses around 55W, with a maximum usage 75W.

      --
      My blog
    18. Re:Decrease, not increase by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems to me that you've eliminated the tiny ongoing costs of modern conveniences without doing anything about the infrastructure costs.

      When I lived too far, I took the subway.
      Huge infrastructure already in place, all the pollution to create and install the cars and track are already sunk. All you're avoiding is the tiny amount of energy your additional weight incurs.

      I don't print anything unless someone else requires me to...
      The printer and toner are already manufactured and the printer is plugged in consuming energy. The only thing you're preventing is the tiny amount of energy and paper (a renewable resource) used to print your pages.

      I have the cheapest cellphone I could buy (and I use it once every 2 weeks maybe) ...
      Again, huge infrastructure in place, etc.

      I don't play games on my computer...
      What does that matter, aside from perhaps having it on a little longer? You admit to 'play time', so what does it matter that your 'play time' does not involve games?

      My point is not to rag on your lifestyle - if that makes you feel good about your global impact, then more power to you. I just don't think that the things you mention have any real impact other than the tiny incremental costs of using existing infrastructures. You could argue that if _everyone_ lived like you those infrastructures would either be smaller or non-existent, but I don't think that argument would hold water.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    19. Re:Decrease, not increase by Bemopolis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, you're looking at probably around a 22% increase in electricity usage if people go to EVs.

      And around a 100% reduction in the use of gasoline. You see, that's why it's called a cost-BENEFIT analysis.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    20. Re:Decrease, not increase by 2obvious4u · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another thing to take into account is cash flows. It may take you a long time to pay back the capital investment of improving your insulation, however if you finance those improvements at a good rate you can improve your cash flow, maybe not your debt to asset ratio, but you may have more cash on hand each month from having a power bill 4x lower.

      Thats what I did on my house, I bought a cheap house and doubled down on improvements, insulation, windows, tankless water heater (best thing I've ever bought in my life), appliances, etc. My mortgage on the house went from about $600 a month to $800 a month; however my electric bill went from $400 a month to under $100. This greatly improved my cash flow. I also plan on being in this house long enough that the improvements will be paid off then there will be a nearly $1200 change in monthly cash flow.

      Lowering your monthly expenses in the form of Capital investments is a good long term strategy. If you plan on moving in 2-3 years you may not be able to recoup the saving in the sale price, however if you are the one paying the bills the change in cash flows can be dramatic.

    21. Re:Decrease, not increase by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obnoxious ending aside, parent is right, and not a troll. The assertion that the rich world is not increasing its energy consumption pretty much flies in the face of the fact that it keeps building energy generators - be it dams, wind turbines or coal-fired plants. I'd like to find a citation that shows that the people who upgrade their plasma screens also improve their insulation. I doubt there is one, because most Americans have not heard squat about insulation. Even something as basic as a double-pane window is rare anywhere but the extremely cold areas.

      That said, grand-parent is correct in his second statement, if we ignore the hyperbole. The biggest danger to the lifestyle of the rich world is the rest of the world trying to imitate it. The world simply cannot support an India, China and Africa that consumes as much energy per-capita as the US or even Europe. Not unless we dramatically change how energy is created. In the meantime, India and China are trying as hard as they can to first consume as much as we do, and won't worry about their energy consumption until more people in their countries are suffering from it.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    22. Re:Decrease, not increase by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Simple solution to the downside of expensive gas: create a public transportation system that works. You can even fund it from a nice gas tax. Kinda like Europe does it. It's pathetic that the only places with a public transportation system that is worth taking is NYC and Boston.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  2. where can I buy them? by LingNoi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Have this guy's solar cells left the lab yet?

    I searched around and the achievement of creating a low cost solar cell is great, but I couldn't find anywhere you can get them from. Since he's been doing this since 1991 (?) I'm guessing they'd have come to market by now.

    One site I saw listed it as being 100W m2 but having a price to go along with it would be good for comparison with other solar cells.

    1. Re:where can I buy them? by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not yet, some reports have shown promise in stabilizing the dyes for long term exposure but I don't think there are any commercial cells available yet. Also I'm not sure how much of a panacea they are, according to the articles I can find most of the lab cells use ruthenium and platinum, any solution using trace elements is unlikely to bring a mass scale replacement to our current fuels. That's why I think we need to concentrate on stored energy wind farms and collecting solar/thermal plants, neither require exotic trace materials (some "rare" earths for more efficient magnets, but nothing on a gram/kW scale compared to any of the photovoltaic solutions).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:where can I buy them? by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 3, Informative

      > Have this guy's solar cells left the lab yet?

      In some small applications, yes, but nothing serious. There are several reason:

      1) the electrolyte is a liquid. It loses efficiency in cold weather, and eventually stops working.

      2) well before that limit, expansion and contraction is a serious issue and large-scale structures have problems with sealing and leakage.

      3) the electrolyte dissolves silver. It can be used for small-scale systems where the cost of platinum is not a major factor compared to construction costs, but for large low-cost solutions silver is the only practical solution.

      4) the solvents used to mix the dye with the TiO degrade plastics.

      None of these is unsolvable. It just needs another decade of work. I install mSi panels now, I suspect I will be installing DSSCs in 15 years.

      Maury

  3. The Berry Cell by kcelery · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://nnin.unm.edu/lesson13.pdf

    The interesting part of the Graetzel is that one can use the dye in berry to make
    the cell. Interesting and tasty.

    1. Re:The Berry Cell by kcelery · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://teachers.usd497.org/agleue/Gratzel_solar_cell%20assets/instructions%20for%20making%20the%20gratzel%20cell.htm

  4. Why are they rewarding failure? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

    There's a market crying out for efficient photovoltaic cells. If Graetzel's cells did what he claimed, then he'd already be swimming in the gold moat surrounding his platinum castle. Enough with rewarding promising looking theory: it's time to amp up or GTFO.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  5. Finland pays again by ultranova · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a Finnish taxpayer, I'm happy that my government is once again giving my tax money to foreigners, rather than keeping Finnish hospitals going. No, really, I'm sure that photovoltaic cells will do a lot of good to us here in the Arctic Circle where the Sun shines a few hours a day most of the year. Really, it's better to spend money on useless shit like this than to treat rheumatic children.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    1. Re:Finland pays again by captainpanic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a Finnish taxpayer, I'm happy that my government is once again giving my tax money to foreigners, rather than keeping Finnish hospitals going. No, really, I'm sure that photovoltaic cells will do a lot of good to us here in the Arctic Circle where the Sun shines a few hours a day most of the year. Really, it's better to spend money on useless shit like this than to treat rheumatic children.

      Your government has spent loads to subsidize innovation. The Espoo campus (near Helsinki) is brand new, and produces a lot of knowledge which in turn keeps the Finnish knowledge-economy running. Finland is doing quite well because of these investments (it attracts companies).

      However, science is an international effort, and it's only fair to award a prize to whoever is the best... And why wouldn't you have some research on solar cells in Finland? It's not like you are actually investing in the production and implementation. It's just research. You can do solar cell research in the basement or any other place where the sun never shines, as long as you have the right equipment.

      Of course, healthcare is important. Finnish healthcare is among the best in the world... and already heavily subsidized. Perhaps you found that 1 single example where something went wrong, but the tone of your reply is in contrast with the Finnish reality.

    2. Re:Finland pays again by marsu_k · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh FFS, I'm a Finn and I really don't have any problem with this. In the summary you'll find the price is "Finnish state and industry-funded". And the price is biannual, 400k€ annually is not really that much for the state, even if it were completely "my tax money".

    3. Re:Finland pays again by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > Sun shines a few hours a day most of the year

      And 24 hours a day for others. Sure, it's not California, but if we can get a 1/2 reduction in price (totally doable) then it's perfectly economical even in Finland. In the meantime, you need to build infrastructure.

      Maury

  6. Apparently, right here by ishmalius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://www.dyesol.com/ . It's not often that you see a tech announcement that is realized so soon, but this seems to be real.

  7. More Education, More Energy by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In order to decrease our use of energy, or atleast to have any chance of doing it at all, we need to stop making babies.

    The only proven way to do this reliably is with education. To get people educated, they require an above-subsistence level of prosperity first. To get there, they must harness energy.

    We have plenty of energy. From solar to wind to hydro to nuclear (plus efficiency gains), there's no reason to not increase our total energy usage. Just responsibly getting rid of our nuclear waste would provide enough energy for the entire world's population for a century.

    Get every person on the planet out of poverty by expending tremendous amounts of energy, and the population will start to decrease. Look at Europe - Italy has towns paying people to move there, the whole country is reproducing below the replacement rate.

    Do the right thing and the system will properly equalize. Continue to treat poor people as livestock and things will turn out badly.

    And save the CO2 sources for the next ice age.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)