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

I'd do it tomorrow

[rueger]

I never seriously looked at solar and other "off the grid" options until investigating a house on an island off Vancouver.

It was new, purpose built, so had some obvious advantages, but what I took away from it was:

• All electricity was from solar panels on the roof, with a small generator for backup when running things like power tools.
• All water was from captured and filter/UVed rainwater.
• Cooking and refrigeration was propane powered.
• Woodstove for heating.

Obviously location and climate matter, but at the end of the day it was a viable and practical option, and one that made economic sense as well.

Sooner or later some bright government will figure out that by heavily subsidizing the installation of solar in homes they'll a) Develop a very viable industry b) drop solar costs due to volume c) get relected because everyone's electric bills will drop d) boost the economy because the money that was going to the electric company can be spent elsewhere. Now, I'm still a fan of hydroelectricity - if you need to generate electrical without generating CO2 and pollution, and without the no-nukes crowd at your door, there isn't a better way to go.

Re:I'd do it tomorrow

[AK Marc]

Anyhow, if there were any real market for alternative energy (especially Solar, as I live in the middle of Texas), my electric co-operative power company would already be using it.

What if electric was a net gain (returns 5% on investment) but doesn't meet the minimum 10% ROI for the coop to implement it? What if the issue is that, if land and backhaul were free, it would be marketable, but a power company building a solar plant doesn't get free land and free infrastructure? You do. You've already bought the land your house is on, and paid for the infrastructure to that house, so the land and infrastructure are free. Just because someone can't make a profit on selling it doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. If every home in the US had panels on the roof, that would eliminate the peak summer loads, and would supply a surplus so that storage, rather than peak generation, would be the next problem to tackle. And the industrial sites would always use more than they can generate, so we'd end up where industrial sites would pay the power company, and the power company would pay millions of home owners.

Re:**YAWN**

[AmiMoJo]

For almost any new building it is worth covering the roof with solar PV. It might take 10-15 years to recover the cost, but then it is all profit. The savings are even bigger if you combine PV with solar heating. Installation is cheaper at the time of construction and the cost is a small fraction of the roof budget, let alone the cost of the whole building. If you are taking a mortgage then the cash from feed-in tariffs will more than cover the extra cost of the panels on your monthly payment.

Note: Based in building in the UK, further south it makes even more sense.

Re:**YAWN**

[tsotha]

Concentrated cells tend to wear out much more quickly. They get much hotter, and junction heat is what determines the life of any semiconductor.