Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Inkjet Printing Solar Cells

Posted by samzenpus on from the power-to-the-printer dept.

cylonlover writes "Traditional solar cell production techniques are usually time consuming and require expensive vacuum systems or toxic chemicals. Depositing chemical compounds such as CIGS on a substrate using vapor phase deposition also wastes most of the expensive material in the process. For the first time, engineers at Oregon State University (OSU) have now developed a process to create 'CIGS' solar cells with inkjet printing technology that allows for precise patterning to reduce raw material waste by 90 percent and significantly lower the cost of producing solar cells with promising, yet expensive compounds."

72 comments

  1. How Long till HP puts out Solar Ink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    overpriced HP Solar Ink Technology is next!

  2. Uhh by sortius_nod · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not true that it's the "first time". There's already photovoltaic paint that can be printed or painted on:

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s3008638.htm

    1. Re:Uhh by sortius_nod · · Score: 2

      Sorry to reply to myself, but in addition, the "solar paint" mentioned in my link is nothing new, the invention was being able to make the paint water based.

    2. Re:Uhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those are also not the only ones working on this technology. Dutch companies are working on plasma printing as well.

      Like always with news reporting, those who can write a press release get the attention.

    3. Re:Uhh by c0lo · · Score: 1

      And not alone: Nanosolar is doing something similar.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    4. Re:Uhh by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      this is as new as the revolutionary conducting pen ink. Probably "first time" and "developed recently" are differently defined at gizmag...

    5. Re:Uhh by mcvos · · Score: 2

      Dutch companies are working on plasma printing as well.

      Sounds awesomer than inkjet printing. I say we go with plasma printing.

    6. Re:Uhh by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      FTFA, "with a power conversion efficiency of about five percent. While this isn't yet high enough to create a commercially viable solar cell, the researchers say they expect to be able to achieve an efficiency of about 12 percent"

      My electric bill says I used 850kwh last month. My finger math sucks, so I'm wondering how big would a solar panel would have to be at 5% efficiency? It may sound goofy now, but next month is coming up fast. These ARE hard times, and So.Cal.Edison has no problem pulling the plug on one of its clients.

  3. It's a pity about the law of thermaldynamics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it'd be really cool to be able to use solar power to print solar power cells!

    1. Re:It's a pity about the law of thermaldynamics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The system is not closed as the sun provides energy, since solar panels pay off their energy requirements within a few years a von neumann machine is perfectly possible.

    2. Re:It's a pity about the law of thermaldynamics... by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

      In your hurry to bash solar, you didnt bother to read the comment correctly. He is talking about the energy needed to make a solar cell. So for instance if a cell takes 10kwh of total power to manufacture, it will quickly produce more than 10kwh and "pay" for the energy it used. Anything after that is a surplus that can go toward making more cells.

  4. "expensive compounds" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I bet the expensive compounds are still cheaper than inkjet refill cartridges.

  5. Sounds familiar by dan_barrett · · Score: 1

    This has been done before..
    All we need now is one printer that can print solar cells, Batteries and TFT panels.

    self-powered, printable televisions, anyone?

  6. Wake Me Up by Normal+Dan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When they hit the market

    --
    A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
    1. Re:Wake Me Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too. Good thing I like to sleep a lot :)

    2. Re:Wake Me Up by pnot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... and then when they hit the market, the Slashdot discussion will consist of 50 comments along the lines of "This isn't news, this is old tech, I remember reading about this back in 2011"...

      Seriously, if you *only* want to hear about innovations once they've hit the market, why are you reading a tech news site? Just browse the Amazon electronics department instead and you'll be safe.

    3. Re:Wake Me Up by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Seriously, if you *only* want to hear about innovations once they've hit the market, why are you reading a tech news site?

      What I'd like to to *only* hear about innovations that are likely to pan out and hit the market, rather than "innovations" that NEVER hit the market and are just vaporware. Examples: Moller Skycar, and just about everything printed in Popular Mechanics. There's a LOT of companies out there who come up with "innovations", make a few nice pictures of their invention (but never a real working prototype), and make a lot of hype so they can get investor money, and then just disappear.

    4. Re:Wake Me Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well its a good thing that the enterprising editors at /insert blog here/ can read the future to know exactly what technologies are viable business ventures in the future. seriously, GTFO

    5. Re:Wake Me Up by pnot · · Score: 1

      What I'd like to to *only* hear about innovations that are likely to pan out and hit the market

      Yes. Also, when reading the racing news, I would like to *only* read about the horses that are going to come in first.

      There's a LOT of companies out there who come up with "innovations", make a few nice pictures of their invention (but never a real working prototype), and make a lot of hype so they can get investor money, and then just disappear.

      Doubtless. But in this case the development was by a university, not a company, and the story is precisely about the fact that they've built a working prototype.

    6. Re:Wake Me Up by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It's been my observation that a few certain blogs and magazines are generally full of such vaporware, while in others they're the exception rather than the norm. It shouldn't be hard to tell the vaporware BS from real stuff: real, working demos for instance instead of just a press release and a bunch of hype, whether it's coming from a respected institution or some fly-by-night outfit, etc. Of course, there will always be the occasional BS that'll slip through, like that cold fusion thing that came from a respected university in Utah a couple decades ago, but that's pretty rare.

    7. Re:Wake Me Up by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Doubtless. But in this case the development was by a university, not a company, and the story is precisely about the fact that they've built a working prototype.

      Yes, that's great. I'm not criticizing this, I'm criticizing all the other BS from companies that don't make working prototypes and make up a bunch of BS to fool investors.

  7. Economical Solar Panels by mkiwi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    FYI, most economical solar panels are produced with screen printing. A liquid (metalloid) paste is pushed through a screen onto a wafer of doped Si and baked in an oven to solidify the paste. A great article on screen printing for solar cells can be found here:

    http://www.appliedmaterials.com/sites/default/files/Screen_Printing_Backgrounder_0.pdf

    These researchers will have to come up with much better than 5% efficiency if they want to compete with mass market solar panels. In other words, this is a great PhD dissertation, but lots of work needs to be done to refine the procedure in order to be competitive in the marketplace.

    1. Re:Economical Solar Panels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and they state that in the article, currently working towards reaching a 12% efficiency level. Silicon based is reaching towards 25%. 1/2 the efficiency and cheaper to produce, sounds like something worth watching.

    2. Re:Economical Solar Panels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but 25% of the efficiency of state-of-the-art isn't so bad if it's at least 25% of the value. That is, until you run out of sun-facing surface area.

      I think that it's good to be pushing on both the high-end and low-end of this space.

  8. most expensive liquid by Jessified · · Score: 1

    "...and significantly lower the cost of producing solar cells with promising, yet expensive compounds." And yet somehow I imagine that traditional printer ink is still more expensive.

  9. The point of TFA by steveha · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are several upvoted posts that have nothing to do with the actual article. Since I read TFA I can summarize the important points for you.

    They have developed a way to use inkjet technology to "print" a solar cell that works. The chief advantage of this system is that there is much much less wastage compared to other means of producing a solar cell. Instead of using silicon, they are working with more exotic materials, with the potential to make better/cheaper solar cells than silicon ones.

    At the moment their first prototypes are 5% efficient. TFA discusses the point that this is nowhere near good enough to start selling these solar panels yet; luckily enough the people working on this already know this fact, no need to point it out here on Slashdot. They say that with additional research they hope to bring it to 12%, but TFA didn't say why they mentioned that 12% number. (Enough for commercial success? Easily achievable? The maximum they think they can get with current "ink" formula? Who knows?)

    My favorite quote:

    "Some of the materials we want to work with for the most advanced solar cells, such as indium, are relatively expensive," Chang said. "If that's what you're using you can't really afford to waste it, and the inkjet approach almost eliminates the waste."

    The engineers are also studying other compounds that could be used with the inkjet technology that could cost even less. If they are able to reduce costs enough, the researchers say it also offers the prospect of creating solar cells that could be built directly into roofing materials.

    I like the roofing materials idea, because in many places the peak electrical demand is to run air conditioning on hot sunny days. In those places, solar roofing tiles would be a win/win and should pay for themselves quickly.

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:The point of TFA by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      They have developed a way to use inkjet technology to "print" a particular kind of solar cell that works.

      TCTFY

      I did some work for a company that was injketting solar cells in 2005, but with a different material.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  10. Inkjet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it's cheaper than normal inkjet cartridges too!

  11. Wake me when... by irving47 · · Score: 0

    I honestly don't understand one thing about solar cells. When will they work?
    I swear, I've read between 2-3 stories per month for the last 5 years on how someone has revolutionized the process of producing solar cells, at a fraction of the cost it was last week...
    By this point, I should be able to pick up a 2 by 4 ft. panel from the side of the street by the peaches stands.

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
    1. Re:Wake me when... by phaggood · · Score: 1

      I know; I know, or at least unfold that empty Cheerios box with the solar panel printed on the inside and put it on your roof. Like PopSci, ./ is quite the repository of 'in just 5 yrs'-tech, but at least it has an active comments section where people can post add'l info that lets you read something besides the publicity fluff that the former prints w/o any additional scrutiny.

    2. Re:Wake me when... by pnot · · Score: 1

      I swear, I've read between 2-3 stories per month for the last 5 years on how someone has revolutionized the process of producing solar cells, at a fraction of the cost it was last week... By this point, I should be able to pick up a 2 by 4 ft. panel from the side of the street by the peaches stands.

      Take a look at this graph, from this article about solar price trends. From 1980 to 2009, the cost of photovoltaics decreased by about 85%, from $22/W to below $3/W. As of approximately now, solar is cheaper than nuclear per kWh, and the price decline shows no sign of stopping.

      Maybe you should quantify your expectations, then you can check them against future price decreases.

    3. Re:Wake me when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However according to your graph you can see from say 2001 to 2008 and notice no price change at all!!!

      With overall from 1998 to 2009 a very small change. (around $2).

    4. Re:Wake me when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As of approximately now, solar is cheaper than nuclear per kWh,

      That study compares the "cost" of solar after subsidy. See the foot of p17:
      "A 30% Federal tax credit and a 35% North Carolina tax credit were applied to the capital cost to reach a net cost per kWh."

      So solar is not cheaper than nuclear in real terms.

      (NCWarn, who produced the report, is an anti-nuclear campaigning organisation.)

    5. Re:Wake me when... by chronosan · · Score: 1

      Nice catch.

    6. Re:Wake me when... by dylan_- · · Score: 2

      Take a look at this graph, from this article about solar price trends.

      That graph is misleading, as it looks like the pace of improvement is actually slowing (which is what confused the AC who replied to you). It would be better plotted as Watts per Dollar, which shows the trend clearly. Here's that same data presented that way.

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
  12. Re:you fAIL it! by WidgetGuy · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    CmdrTaco,

    You might want to re-think your policy on AC postings. I certainly wouldn't be sad to see them gone. Soon. No serious slashdotter wants to have to even scroll though this type of garbage.

    Me

    --
    One "Aw, Shit!" is worth 100 "Ata boys!"
  13. HP by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Has HP sude them yet?

    1. Re:HP by theskipper · · Score: 1

      Suing in the nude?

      With super hot paralegals of course.

  14. This sucks by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Shit, the trolls have built a script to flood Slashdot while collecting the captchas back to a human who just solves them as fast as possible. Either that or they've broken the captcha. It's probably running through Tor to bypass the posting governor.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  15. Solar Cell Inkjet Printers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know about any of this "Inkjet Printing Solar Cells". That would be pretty cool for solar cells to have additional printing functions, 3D ones even!