Slashdot Mirror


MIT Study Outlines a 'Perfect' Solar Cell

Daniel_Stuckey writes A new MIT study offers a way out of one of solar power's most vexing problems: the matter of efficiency, and the bare fact that much of the available sunlight in solar power schemes is wasted. The researchers appear to have found the key to perfect solar energy conversion efficiency—or at least something approaching it. It's a new material that can accept light from an very large number of angles and can withstand the very high temperatures needed for a maximally efficient scheme. Conventional solar cells, the silicon-based sheets used in most consumer-level applications, are far from perfect. Light from the sun arrives here on Earth's surface in a wide variety of forms. These forms—wavelengths, properly—include the visible light that makes up our everyday reality, but also significant chunks of invisible (to us) ultraviolet and infrared light. The current standard for solar cells targets mostly just a set range of visible light.

24 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. Least helpful summary ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is this the least helpful summary ever on /.? It could be. I read it, and found it really didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, and gave very little clue as to how this study's results might even be helpful. I have a strong suspicion it's clickbait and so am moving along.

    1. Re:Least helpful summary ever? by suutar · · Score: 2

      I doubt it's the least helpful summary only because it does contain one informative sentence: "It's a new material that can accept light from an very large number of angles and can withstand the very high temperatures needed for a maximally efficient scheme."

    2. Re:Least helpful summary ever? by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Is this the least helpful summary ever on /.? It could be. I read it, and found it really didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, and gave very little clue as to how this study's results might even be helpful. I have a strong suspicion it's clickbait and so am moving along.

      Hmmm .. you know .. that could just as easily describe a Bennett Haselton story

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:Least helpful summary ever? by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, going to the abstract of the actual paper, What they have is silicon milled with dielectric cavities (waveguides) that are tuned to the frequency of your solar cell. Hot black bodies can emit any wavelength, but the tuned cavities can only efficiently emit one. Other wavelengths destructively interfere. In that respect they work just like antennas at radio wavelengths.

      The tuned light is efficiently absorbed by the solar cell. Natural sunlight isn't because some of the photons are too high in energy, and the excess gets wasted as heat, and some are too low and don't kick out an electron at all. Thus you get around 25% efficiency in a good cell these days.

  2. Might be viable by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    Hard to tell, would depend on how it ramps up in large scale industrial application.

    Interesting 85 percent absorption rate, though. Most of the PV growth in solar has been using cheaper materials, not efficiency of absorption.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  3. perfect? by polar+red · · Score: 2

    i think the most important feature for this technology would be cost/kwh. does it deliver that ?
    (surface area we have enough of)

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    1. Re:perfect? by Skidborg · · Score: 2

      Even a high cost/kw would be extremely useful for applications where space and weight are at a premium. Solar powered aircraft, spacecraft, and wearable devices spring to mind.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    2. Re:perfect? by tomhath · · Score: 3, Informative

      solar and wind already have won that race

      The US Dept of Energy does not agree with you. Look at the "Total Levelized System Cost", Solar is the highest cost by far, although Wind does pretty well in good locations.

    3. Re:perfect? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 4, Interesting

      With solar panel prices now at $500 per KW, most of the system cost is now the installation cost. So improving efficiency lowers installation cost (less panels). Current panels being sold are about 15-18% efficient, best lab panels are over 40% efficient and the theoretical peak is about 65% efficient. Improvements in installation systems and in panel efficiency could easily lead to solar generated electricity being sold for less than $0.04 per kWh from the current $0.08 per kWh (including subsidies).

      Panel technology improvements:
      http://bxhorn.com/wp-content/u...

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    4. Re:perfect? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 4, Informative

      Those figures are completely wrong and very out of date. Power Purchase Agreements have recently bought wind energy for $0.0365 per kwh - that is half the figure on the table linked. That cost includes subsidies, the actual agreement was $0.025 per kwh. For solar the PPA is for $0.05 per kWh (0.08 inc subsidy), with the price of solar falling rapidly I'd expect cheaper PPA's to be struck going forward.

      http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...
      http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    5. Re:perfect? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      PPAs are wholesale price, not cost. True cost is skewed by subsidies.

    6. Re:perfect? by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's a bunch of research going into reducing the costs. There are huge areas where the installation cost can be reduced. Integrated and standardized framing, cheaper roof mount systems or even integral mounting systems that become the roofing material, flush roof mount with tracking, integrated, cheaper and more efficient micro-inverters, etc. In fact solar city just dumped about 50 million bucks into some heavy research on just that and the beauty is that because they are an installer and directly involved in the research they can test each idea directly and have first hand knowledge on where the expensive parts of the process are and what works and what doesn't. The quickest way to drive down install costs is to get the inspectors, the engineers, the installers and the panel designers all in the same room which they can do. If they can drive down the install cost they'll be greatly simplifying the install process which will in turn drive down the inspection costs and a bunch of similar follow on costs. And of course they aren't the only one pouring money into installation cost reduction.

      There's a ton of waste in residential installs right now because they are using 100 year old methods. With real research going into this I expect they'll be able to at least halve the installation costs. If they succeed at that they'll drive solar power prices below the cost of coal almost immediately. This doesn't include the other things that are being researched like technology that will heat the panel just enough to dump snow in the winter, better heat tolerance and things like automatic tracking without having to move the panel (tilting the cell in the frame or focusing lens/prisims).

      There's so much money being poured into research it's pretty darn cool IMO. Solar PV is getting more research than almost any other industry out there because of it's potential. Companies like Solar City have been turning down investment money because so much is pouring in that they can't invest it all.

    7. Re:perfect? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

      AFAIK home battery storage solutions are just starting to come out, I read an article recently where one of the home solar PV installation companies will start to include batteries as part of the system as standard. Battery prices will likely go below $200 per kWh of storage in the next 2-3 years. The battery and solar markets are crazy with innovation right now, Tesla's battery 'Giga-factory' is rumored to want to produce more batteries than just for cars.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  4. Uses blackbody emission by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This system uses blackbody emission to re-radiate absorbed photons within a specific bandwidth, which can be selectively optimized for.

    However, since it uses blackbody emission, it does not explicitly NEED light as the energy source. Any kind of heating will suffice. This is really just a very fancy means of converting entropic energy into something useful. Could be very useful when coupled with radio-isotope decay systems, for instance. (This, coupled with existing RTG tech, could produce more efficient RTGs)

    Sadly, it requires that large numbers of useful photons be produced from the emitting blackbody source, which means it needs some pretty non-trivial temperatures. This isn't going to be something that is used in normal residential settings.

    1. Re:Uses blackbody emission by Amtrak · · Score: 2

      I wonder if it could use the waste heat from an internal combustion engine though? It would be interesting to see that put into a hybrid to try and gain back some efficiency from a gas burning engine used to charge a battery. Probably not small enough or efficient enough though.

    2. Re:Uses blackbody emission by Zorpheus · · Score: 2

      Interesting concept. I think it should also be compared to a conventional heat engine which is driving a generator. Though this device is surely better for small power plants.

    3. Re:Uses blackbody emission by lgw · · Score: 2

      Some larger trucks already do something like this (via the Peltier effect IIRC). 0.1 MPG is an important improvement for a big rig.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Uses blackbody emission by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      True, however the steepness of the peak is relevant.

      Compare the spectral footprint of sunlight at sea level:

      Clicky

      With the typical power curve of pure blackbody emissions:
      Clicky

      The latter one has a single peak. The former has a much "flatter", but also noisier distribution. One can optimize at the near infra-red band, where the blackbody emission peaks consistently, and harvest the vast majority of the emitted photons. Especially since this band is also very close to the innate emission/capture band of pure silicon.

      clicky

      This means that PV cells tailored for near-IR and IR capture will be WILDLY efficient with this setup.

  5. Optimal rather than perfect by tomhath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As I read the MIT statement the researchers claim is that their technique collects energy as heat from all available wavelengths. Then a conventional solar cell is used to generate electricity from the photons emitted from the heated collector. I didn't see anything about how much more efficient this is than generating electricity directly, but presumably it's better since the solar cell responds best to a specific wavelength which can be controlled by using the heated collector. Obviously to make it work need a concentrator.

    1. Re:Optimal rather than perfect by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 2

      Well at first it was better than perfect. He was actually getting 150% energy from the sun converted into electricity. He was actually creating energy, but he looked at the ramifications of having too much energy on Earth and figured heating the atmosphere wouldn't fly with environmentalists. And the people who read his scientific paper wouldn't take him serious if was claiming that his device created energy. So he cut back some features and now its only perfect so it pleases everyone.

  6. Carnot efficiency by bob.lansdorp · · Score: 2

    limits the thermodynamic performance of heat engines to n=1-T_ambient/T_solar ~=1-293K/1000K=70%. Now there are going to be losses converting hot liquid into useful work (electrical energy), so actually probably around 30% efficiency will be achievable. High performance photovoltaics can reach 40% efficiency, and therefore this article is highly misleading.

    1. Re:Carnot efficiency by Daetrin · · Score: 2

      Where are you getting the impression that the heat is going to be transferred to a liquid which will be used to perform work? Both the MIT page and the wikipedia page on thermophotovoltaics seem to indicate the conversion is pretty much straight from heat to electricity. The wikipedia page in particular uses the same heat engine equation as you but comes up with a result of 83%. I'm not sure what the difference is between their number and yours is, but even if your 70% is correct a 70% conversion into electricity is still a lot better than the 40% for regular photovoltaics that you cite.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  7. The "perfect" solar cell... by macraig · · Score: 2

    ... from whose perspective? At least one perspective holds that the perfect solar cell is one that doesn't even work, a thin strip of plastic made to look like a solar cell that costs a helluva lot less than the real thing:

    Today I was walking home from an errand to a store.I saw the remains of a “Dual Power Calculator” in the gutter; it had an intact solar cell in the top.“Cool!”, I thought; “I’m going to rescue that solar cell for some DIY thing.”I grabbed the top part and tossed it in my bag.

    When I got home, I dismantled it to remove the “solar cell”.I discovered that it was a fake, a thin strip of plastic separate from the body made to look like a solar cell.

    WTF....

  8. Re:The problem isn't energy effiencey but cost. by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 2

    Walmart already puts solar panels on many of their stores: http://cdn2.tekgoblinmedia.com...

    Besides generating electricity, the panels protect the underlying roof from sun exposure, thus extending their useful life. When they run out of rooftops, they can start on the parking lots. This not only generates more electricity, it provides covered parking. In sunny states this is very desirable. Once electric cars become more popular, charging stations powered by panels above the parking lot will be another desirable feature for customers - shop and recharge your battery at the same time.