Harvard Grid Computing Project Discovers 20k Organic Photovoltaic Molecules

Lucas123 writes "In June, Harvard's Clean Energy Project plans to release to solar power developers a list of the top 20,000 organic compounds, any one of which could be used to make cheap, printable photovoltaic cells (PVCs). The CEP uses the computing resources of IBM's World Community Grid for the computational chemistry to find the best molecules for organic photovoltaics culled the list from about 7 million. About 6,000 computers are part of the project at any one time. If successful, the crowdsourcing-style project, which has been crunching data for the past two-plus years, could lead to PVCs that cost about as much as paint to cover a one-meter square wall." The big thing here is that they've discovered a lot of organic molecules that have the potential for 10% or better conversion; roughly equivalent to the current best PV material, and twice as efficient as other available organic PV materials.

Comments

Organic compounds

[girlintraining]

Yes, it could lead to an organic compound that could do that. It could also lead to an organic compound like the one recently installed into BMWs that, when exposed to fire, converts in an aerosol of the deadliest acid known to man. It was marketed as a "green" alternative to existing refridgerants... and it was approved by the EPA. Twenty thousand molecules sounds impressive -- but the odds of finding one that meets safety requirements and is still effective isn't good. Pharmaceutical companies test thousands of compounds every year... and very, very few of those find a medical application. It's the same story here.

So yes, good first step. Good exploratory research. Don't get your hopes up.

Re:Organic compounds

[kromozone]

Are you referring to 2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene? That HF production scenario involved Daimler spraying HFO-1234yf over a burning hot engine block. The conditions were tuned to disqualify it. There's a bit more to that story than the surface. German industry vs. US industry pushing different alternatives and each trying to warp the science their way. PVs aren't going to be aerosolized and sprayed over 500C engine blocks while mixed with compressor fluid. Considerably easier to predict the behavior of an organic molecule in this case.

Re:Organic compounds

[girlintraining]

That HF production scenario involved Daimler spraying HFO-1234yf over a burning hot engine block.

Okay, am I the only one that thinks that putting a chemical that, when exposed to high heat or fire, converts to one that can cause death if it comes in contact with a patch of skin smaller than the palm of your hand for a few seconds in a car's engine compartment is a really dumb idea? In the event of a front-end collision, you've got shit spraying and leaking everywhere, smoke, flames, people dead, dying, or injured... and you're suggesting that we should introduce into an already inherently dangerous situation for first responders to walk into... the risk of exposure to an airborn acid that can kill them if they come in contact with it and likely wouldn't know at the time they did?

I'm sorry, but I'm with Congress on this: The woman that approved this was a flaming retard that, on no account, should be put in a position of authority over approving other compounds that could potentially save a company a few bucks at the expense of people's lives and health.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA

[mspohr]

Nitpicking point taken.
However, the other part of the equation, cost, has the potential to make these very attractive compounds. If you could turn the side of your house into a solar panel for just the cost of paining it, this would be a very attractive value proposition. Even if the efficiency was only half that of a conventional PV panel, the cost per watt would be much lower.
Good to see this research.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA

[djh101010]

Nitpicking, my ass. The difference between 10% and 17% is huge. Wake me when someone finds a mass-producable solar cell that has better than that efficiency, and decades of life at that output. Current (heh...) silicon PV cells have reached the point of a 6 year payback on investment, and where the rails to mount them on cost more than the panels they hold. Until someone finds a hypothetical breakthrough, anything less than this efficiency is a waste of time and money other than for pure research.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA

[TheLink]

Maybe you can paint your wall cheaply with these compounds, but how would you get the electricity out?

I daresay doing it in a way where you actually get electricity would make the costs go up by a lot more. And depending on how its done it could make the efficiency go down too.

Merely painting your wall with crushed/blended solar panel material won't produce much usable power.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA

[bluefoxlucid]

"As cheap as paint" doesn't mean it is paint. Why are there so many flaming dumbasses here assuming this must be paintable solar cells because it compares the cost to the cost of paint? I can compare the cost of a loaf of bread to a blowjob from a $2 hooker, maybe the bread will give me a blowjob?