Solar Panel Breaks "Third of a Sun" Efficiency Barrier

Zothecula writes "Embattled photovoltaic solar power manufacturer Amonix announced on Tuesday that it has broken the solar module efficiency record, becoming the first manufacturer to convert more than a third of incoming light energy into electricity – a goal once branded 'one third of a sun' in a Department of Energy initiative. The Amonix module clocked an efficiency rating of 33.5 percent."

Comments

Re:**YAWN**

[PopeRatzo]

Call me when they get the price per KWh down to below non-renewable sources.

If you include external costs, it's a lot closer than you think.

Go ahead, build and sell it without subsidy

[tp1024]

That's just about where the miracles stop reliably. You may or may not find some special cases in which those actually make sense (given that we're talking about concentrated solar and 2-axis drives are mandatory, those cases become even more special), but at large scale it's just not worth it - even without considering the need to store the energy, so you have it when you need it.

yet another solar tech not available to the public

[SuperBanana]

Every 6 months on Slashdot we read about higher efficiency solar panels. Virtually none of them are available on the market, and if they are, they're only available to large-scale commercial installations. Right now, the best you can do retail is about 20%; some panels are barely 10%.

A condition for any prize should be "available in half-dozen quantities to individual purchasers."

The best return on investment remains solar hot water - we're talking an order of magnitude in efficiency per area between common solar panels and evacuated-tube hot water collectors. We waste enormous amounts of energy heating hot water and heating homes...

We'd also save billions of dollars if we stopped selling clothes dryers that are hideously inefficiency; elsewhere in the world condensing dryers are the norm and in some cases dry clothes faster.

Re:I'd do it tomorrow

[sribe]

Sooner or later some bright government will figure out that by heavily subsidizing the installation of solar in homes...

That's already being done all over the US--has been for years. Yet solar PV is still barely viable economically, even when the government pays 30-60% of the cost.

Re:Concentrated solar is less efficient

[BlackPignouf]

However, this is only a proportion of energy generated from PV modules, hence the "efficacy" and therefore, total energy production, of concentrated solar solutions is less good than unconcentrated modules.

No. A 2-axis tracked CPV system with multi-junction cells will produce more with beam radiation than a 2-axis tracked monocrystalline PV system with global radiation, at least in the regions where CPV is installed (Spain, Israel, Arizona, ...).
Sure, it won't work well in Norway.

The reason comes from diffuse sunlight - light that has been diffused by the atmosphere or by clouds. This typically accounts for 10% of module illumination in direct sunlight, and much higher in the presence of atmospheric haze/cloud;

Diffuse fraction never falls below 16%. Even a clear, deep blue sky still emits diffuse radiation.

Diffuse light cannot be concentrated by optics, thus concentrated solar PV modules cannot utilise the diffuse light (more precisely, they can utilise it, but not concentrate it - thus if the system uses a 10:1 concentration, then the energy yield from diffuse illumination falls from 10-15% to 1-1.5%).

True, but we're probably talking 500:1 concentration, here.

A boost from 30 to 33% efficiency by switching to concentrating modules could be completely wiped out by the loss of diffuse yield, even in direct sunlight. In non-direct sunlight, hazy or cloudy conditions, the yield can be reduced much more severely; resulting in a net reduction in productivity, despite the higher nameplate efficiency.

33% has been measured under 850W/m2 direct radiation (nominal operating conditions). Compared to 1000W/m2 global radiation (STC), you get 15% less.
That's still about 28% of module efficiency. How many single-junction PV modules are there that deliver that much, even in laboratory? None.

This technology is most suited to areas with the most intense direct illumination; e.g. dry areas, at low latitudes (where the role of diffuse light is diminished in proportion).

You meant "high altitudes", right?

Re:I'd do it tomorrow

[M. Baranczak]

A carbon tax, if done correctly, would be much better than subsidies. The problem is: a subsidy means that the govt gives some people money. A tax means that the govt takes some people's money. Which do you think is easier to get through Congress?

Re:I'd do it tomorrow

[olden]

Germany leads in solar mostly because it's quick, easy, and therefore cheap, to get solar projects approved there. It's a nightmare in the US, at least the city where I live; I've been going through this for months: already dozens of pages of blueprints, specifications, calculations etc filed, thousands spent, and still no end in sight.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2012/07/05/cut-the-price-of-solar-in-half-by-cutting-red-tape/

Re:Solar cells

[babyrat]

Almost "why bother?", considering how inexpensive the commercial models have become.

Even with gov't subsidies, you are looking at a 15 year ROI - you think that is why bother?