Slashdot Mirror
Inkjet Printing Solar Cells
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."
overpriced HP Solar Ink Technology is next!
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
I bet the expensive compounds are still cheaper than inkjet refill cartridges.
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?
When they hit the market
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
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.
"...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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
Has HP sude them yet?
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.)
Nice catch.
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
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