80% Improvement In Solar Cell Efficiency

An anonymous reader writes "Chemistry researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory say they've improved the efficiency of typical solar cells by a whopping 80% by creating a 3-D nanocone-based solar cell platform. The technology tackles the problem of poor transport of charges generated by solar photons. These charges — 'negative electrons and positive holes' — typically become trapped by defects in bulk materials and degrade performance. 'We designed the three-dimensional structure to provide an intrinsic electric field distribution that promotes efficient charge transport and high efficiency in converting energy from sunlight into electricity.' Bottom line, they say, is they've boosted the light-to-power conversion efficiency of photovoltaics by 80 percent."

Comments

Misleading title

[vsage3]

With this approach at the laboratory scale, Xu and colleagues were able to obtain a light-to-power conversion efficiency of 3.2 percent compared to 1.8 percent efficiency of conventional planar structure of the same materials.

So the efficiencies went from awful to slightly less awful.

Re:Misleading title

[nschubach]

This is the edition for the managers... they like big numbers when talking increases.

Boosted the efficiency of LOUSY solar cells

[Geoffrey.landis]

To be pedantic, they have boosted the efficiency of LOUSY solar cells.
They've taken a 1.8% efficient solar cell and turned it into a 3.2% cell.

I wish the world's press offices would declare a moratorium on announcing breakthroughs in solar technology.

Re:Boosted the efficiency of LOUSY solar cells

[c0d3g33k]

While I appreciate your snarky cynicism, Mr. Landis, not every advance in the world is measured in miraculous breakthroughs. Some things are hard and just improve incrementally through the hard work of people that give a shit. They work hard and figure out how to make things better a bit at a time. That's in contrast to the people that just sit back and do nothing while waiting for the miraculous breakthroughs. While asshats the world over snicker because these solar cells are "slightly less lousy", the people that give a shit will continue to bust their asses to make things better until the day when they cross the line that defines a "massively viable" solar cell. Then the critics will jump on board and ride the wave as if they had everything to do with it and were believers all along. Now THAT'S depressing and worthy of cynicism.

Re:Boosted the efficiency of LOUSY solar cells

[Animats]

Right. The current record for an experimental solar cell technology is around 42%. Mainstream commercial products run 12 to 20%. That's up from 6% in the original Bell Labs solar cells in the 1950s. Single-layer cells have a theoretical limit at 34%, but multi-layer cells can beat that somewhat.

Re:80% from what? No! Far worse than that!

[Thagg]

From the fine article: "With this approach at the laboratory scale, Xu and colleagues were able to obtain a light-to-power conversion efficiency of 3.2 percent compared to 1.8 percent efficiency..."

So, with a ridiculously bad solar cell, they could increase the efficiency to something that's still ridiculously bad.

The key to solar cells is watts/dollar.

Thad

Re:Yawn

[Surt]

Because like the rest of the world, slashdot can't care about pure research, but instead only what can be put on a shelf and advertised by google now now! now!!!!?

Re:Fantastic!

[Surt]

But innovations like this are exactly why solar efficiency has, in fact, slowly but steadily improved over the last couple of decades.

Re:80% from what? No! Far worse than that!

[icebike]

From the fine article: "With this approach at the laboratory scale, Xu and colleagues were able to obtain a light-to-power conversion efficiency of 3.2 percent compared to 1.8 percent efficiency..."

So, with a ridiculously bad solar cell, they could increase the efficiency to something that's still ridiculously bad.

Exactly. It was miserably inefficient previously, and now now its 180% of miserable.
If the same techniques could work on the top-end PRODUCTION solar cells, which hover around 20% you could perhaps approach 35%.
But the whole idea of % efficiency is fraught with peril. which is why people usually revert to dollars per watt per square meter or some such.

Re:Yawn

[Amouth]

its not that we are impatient..  BUT the fact the solar cells that are available today are basically the same as the ones 15 years ago and the new tech is always 5 years off every damn year..  its mainly that we all know that there are reasons we don't see these things and it has to do with making other people more money..

i have zero problem with pure research.. just when it's just wonderful and they try to play it off that it will save the world or help us in the next so many years..  then it never shows up...  yea nothing seems to change.. 

Re:80% from what?

[Surt]

Actually, it does matter, because if you start from a less efficient process and go up, you may not exceed the efficiency of a more efficient process. So the amount you can 'get from a solar panel' may not change at all.

Which is, if you read the article, actually the case here.

Re:80% from what? No! Far worse than that!

[aurispector]

Dollars per square meter (or perhaps kilowatt-hour) is the only really relevant measure. Once it's cheaper to make electricity this way it will take off.

Re:80% from what? No! Far worse than that!

[Rei]

Efficiency is not irrelevant. A given installer only has a finite amount of space to make use of, installing panels costs money, running wires costs money, etc. And especially if they're on a heliostat, but even if they're not, you have to build them hardy enough to withstand the weather for decades. The per-panel or per-square-meter overhead is not irrelevant, and thus efficiency is not irrelevant.

Re:Yawn

[Cytotoxic]

We are working on a fix for that.... it should be ready in about 5 years.

Re:Yawn

[Rei]

BUT the fact the solar cells that are available today are basically the same as the ones 15 years ago

BUT the fact is that you've clearly not paid one iota of attention to the price difference between today's cells versus those of 15 years ago (just so you know, they're about 1/3rd the cost now), nor the chemistry differences between today's cells and those of 15 years ago (go back to 1996 and find me a mass-market CdTe cell, won't you? The largest PV manufacturer in the world is now CdTe)

Re:Yawn

[Surt]

Solar cells are actually significantly ahead of where they were 15 years ago. There's no huge jump, but there really can't be, as we're nearing the theoretical limit of simple pv cells. More complicated cells can do better, but again the maximum amount better is less than 3x, and that is all the improvement we can ever get.

Have a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency

and you'll see the slow but steady march of progress. That march is reflected in the commercial cells you can buy as well.

Re:Yawn

[Surt]

1-4 years to pay off the energy required to manufacture them. After which they are a net benefit to our economies.

You can buy the cells anywhere. 15 years ago you could buy 14% efficient cells. Today you can buy 22% cells. Lab cells are approaching the theoretical limit of 29% for simple PV. That's a 50% improvement already, with another 30% on the table, whjch we will see gradually creep into commercialization over the next 15 years as we have over the last 15 years.

Re:Yawn

[Surt]

On the shelves. Commercial efficiencies 15 years ago were about 14-15%. Today, about 22%.