Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Solar Panel Developed That Can Generate Electricity From Rain (sciencenewsjournal.com)

Posted by msmash on from the affinity-for-solar-power dept.

Reader Socguy writes: Scientists in China have developed a prototype solar panel with a single atom-thick layer of graphene on the surface. This layer allows the panel to generate electricity, not just from the sun but also from any rain that falls on it. This development promises to further boost the output of solar panels during times of less than optimal conditions.Also from the report, "All it takes is a mere one-atom thick graphene layer for an excessive amount of electrons to move as they wish across the surface. In situations where water is present, graphene binds its electrons with positively charged ions. Some of you may know this process to be called as the Lewis acid-base interaction."

78 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Off to the bar I go by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

    ... to recharge my batteries at the solar urinal.

    1. Re:Off to the bar I go by davester666 · · Score: 1

      the more you drink, the more power you can generate.

      you, literally, are increasing your potential by drinking more.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:Off to the bar I go by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      I wonder how this compares to the current potential. Hopefully it is insulated from any negative effects, but we rarely see well-grounded arguments on certain charged topics. Its hard to resist dismissing these stories entirely.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Off to the bar I go by martinfb · · Score: 1

      CAREFUL! You don't want to get zapped! The electricity generated by the solar-urinal may send a charge up your conductive stream! (Some viagra will allow you to eject that stream at a force faster and greater than light, preventing the charge from reaching the - ahem - 'nozzel' ;-)

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  2. Real world by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the real world a one atom thick layer graphene layer is going to be destroyed incredibly quickly by UV, water, random pollutants in the atmosphere, etc. This seems to be another case of scientists going "I can do this in the lab" and engineers just shaking their heads.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:Real world by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This seems to be another case of scientists going "I can do this in the lab" and engineers just shaking their heads.

      All technological advances start that way. Remember the Manhattan Project? The space program? Einstein?

      Nothing makes a certain type of Slashdotter anti-technology faster than a development in renewable energy. The same people who are talking about a manned mission to Mars will go, "...but renewable energy isn't practical!"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Real world by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

      Not what is going on here. I'm extremely in favor of renewable energy, and have spent a fair bit of time on Slashdot harping about what people can do to encourage the use of renewable energy, and I had the same reaction. Yes, there are people who immediately condemn any sort of new renewable technology in a knee jerk fashion, but that doesn't change that some ideas really aren't good ones for practical applications.

    3. Re: Real world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Engineers at companies I've worked for that just shook theirbhead at new buy impractical ideas were the ones that had to find new jobs after restructuring, or were sent to positions to do grunt work without bonuses and raises. The good engineers responses were to have a discussion about options and directions for further research to make the impractical into practical. It doesn't always work out, but in general it s good for people to get excited about new ideas because sometimes it does work with further development.

    4. Re:Real world by slazzy · · Score: 1

      You're probably right, but you never know. Maybe the idea could be developed further into something more robust.

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    5. Re:Real world by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      This seems to be another case of scientists going "I can do this in the lab" and engineers just shaking their heads.

      One of my professors years ago said that scientists show what's possible, engineers show what's practical.

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    6. Re:Real world by martial007 · · Score: 1

      Graphene is a two-dimensional form of carbon in which the atoms are bonded into a honeycomb arrangement. It can readily be prepared by the oxidation, exfoliation, and subsequent reduction of graphite. Graphene is characterized by its unusual electronic properties: It conducts electricity and is rich in electrons that can move freely across the entire layer (delocalized). In aqueous solution, graphene can bind positively charged ions with its electrons (Lewis acid-base interaction). This property is used in graphene-based processes to remove lead ions and organic dyes from solutions. This phenomenon inspired researchers working with Qunwei Tang to use graphene electrodes to obtain power from the impact of raindrops. Raindrops are not pure water. They contain salts that dissociate into positive and negative ions. The positively charged ions, including sodium, calcium, and ammonium ions, can bind to the graphene surface. At the point of contact between the raindrop and the graphene, the water becomes enriched in positive ions and the graphene becomes enriched in delocalized electrons. This results in a double-layer made of electrons and positively charged ions, a feature known as a pseudocapacitor. The difference in potential associated with this phenomenon is sufficient to produce a voltage and current. read more https://goo.gl/H1du35

    7. Re:Real world by supremebob · · Score: 1

      Well, it doesn't help that we've been reading Slashdot articles about "breakthrough" advances in solar and battery technology that never went anywhere about three times a month for the past five years. It makes you jaded after a while.

    8. Re:Real world by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

      I get that you wouldn't want to take a piece of sandpaper to graphene, but what makes you think that it can't stand up to any of those things?

      It looks like graphene is at least UV resistant?
      http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/1...

      I can't find any clear information on its reactivity, other than depending on thickness and substrate material.

    9. Re:Real world by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      All technological advances start that way.

      All technological advances start the same way as technological dead ends do? Obviously. It's just that this is overwhelmingly likely to be the latter.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re: Real world by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      But it's one of the duties of a good engineer to quickly reject stupid ideas with a back-of-the-envelope argument. Otherwise time gets wasted with perpetual motion machines. A "discussion about options and directions for further research to make the impractical into practical" simply won't work for perpetual motion machines, or other similar ideas.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:Real world by Gussington · · Score: 1

      In the real world a one atom thick layer graphene layer is going to be destroyed incredibly quickly by UV, water, random pollutants in the atmosphere, etc. This seems to be another case of scientists going "I can do this in the lab" and engineers just shaking their heads.

      The whole idea of the lab to is demonstrate the new technology in principle. Once proven, it is trivial to scale up to whatever level is required to make it commercially viable.
      Any Engineer that doesn't understand this should probably look for another job.

    12. Re:Real world by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean other scientists aren't going to then develop a practical protection for a 1 atom thick layer of graphene that still allows the process to work.

      What isn't practical today has *very* frequently become practical in the future.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    13. Re: Real world by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps 'kludgy' - awkwardly or inelegantly made or done.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    14. Re:Real world by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      private space industry just landed a reusable rocket on a heaving platform in the ocean. That's nothing to sneeze at.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    15. Re: Real world by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      back of the envelope arguments said that 1. a moon shot was ridiculous 2. that Apollo 13 was doomed.

      Posters point is still valid.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    16. Re: Real world by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      But it's one of the duties of a good engineer to quickly reject stupid ideas with a back-of-the-envelope argument.

      True, as long the argument is valid.

    17. Re:Real world by Phillip2 · · Score: 1

      Or the engineers could read the article. It says "one atom thick is all you need", not "one atom thick is all we are planning".

      Then the engineer would say "oh, good, it can be as thin as we like, because graphene is expensive".

    18. Re: Real world by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      it would also be useful when someone thinks its dodgy or hokey, they post their level of expertise in the particular field that qualifies them to make the judgement...........

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    19. Re:Real world by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 2

      I find the idea of generating electricity from water (as opposed to hydrogen and oxygen) as pretty dodgy.

      Hydroelectric, yo.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    20. Re:Real world by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      "Once proven, it is trivial to scale up to whatever level is required to make it commercially viable."

      Yes, just look at all the commercial applications of graphene and carbon nanotubes out there thanks to how trivial they are to mass produce.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    21. Re:Real world by Gussington · · Score: 2

      We may as well give up then. If there's one sure fire way to make new things happen it's by complaining about it and giving up....

    22. Re:Real world by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Huh? It's not trivial so we may as well give up? That's a weird dichotomy you've set up there.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    23. Re:Real world by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Sarcasm detector broken?
      The GP, seems to have jumped from research concept to lack of real world viability so is belittling the research.
      This may or may not end up with a real world application, but that doesn't automatically discredit the effort, or the fact that it may lead to some thing slightly different but related. The GP's comment about the Engineers just shaking their head is ignorant, yet still manages +5. Seriously, what fucking dumb arse mods are polluting this place?

    24. Re:Real world by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You are very right.

      Your only mistake was using the word 'trivial'.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    25. Re:Real world by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Maybe "relatively trivial"?
      The point was, the R&D is the harder part of the equation, so engineers shouldn't be scoffing at the results

  3. Huh? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Slashdot is still doing this. Ugh. It's not much better than the typical science-fair story.

    How much energy? I can make a free-power radio receiver with not much more than a long wire and a rectifier. It will feed your earbuds but it won't charge your Tesla.

    There is also the prospect of dirt getting in the way when things depend on one-molecule-thick layers.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
    1. Re:Huh? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      I'd suggest you read the article.

      Hang on. Probably best to wait until there actually *is* one.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re: Huh? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse autonomous driving with lane assist. Real autonomous driving has much more input data than visibility of white lines.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    3. Re: Huh? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Right. Where's the link?

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    4. Re:Huh? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      TFA is unclear but seems to be saying 1uA and a few hundred mV, so maybe 0.5uW for some unknown area under simulated conditions. Basically useless.

      A little turbine in the drain pipe would be far more effective and practical.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re: Huh? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Next to the headline, in green-on-slightly-different-green.

      It's the hip new way to link to stories.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:Huh? by whipslash · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You guys could always redirect the effort these negative comments take to sourcing and submitting stories to us, and voting in the firehose. Probably not as fun as complaining though

    7. Re:Huh? by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm one of the guys that did vote this article in the firehose... *shrug* I just let it roll off and don't take any of /. personal

      --
      C|N>K
    8. Re: Huh? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Did your finger get tired after reading one line? Or is Probably best to wait until there actually *is* one too difficult to understand?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:Huh? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm down on self-driving cars. I would love to have one myself, but the technology won't be here in the next five years, probably much longer.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re: Huh? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      No sympathy for us color blind folks...

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    11. Re: Huh? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      It is there, just color-encrypted so that 8% of US males can't see it.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    12. Re: Huh? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Just check the source next time, please. If you can't read it or it makes claims that are far from practicality, pass it by. I bet the energy is miniscule.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    13. Re:Huh? by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      Actually, something from ~1uW upwards would be just fine for some IoT/sensor applications. Our current (OpenTRV V0p2) base board takes ~3uA (~1.5uA, ~1.8V+) to run the basics including software RTC, and then some for sensors and radio, but you can choose who often you sense and send to fit an energy budget. And there are newer MCUs then ours.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    14. Re: Huh? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Real autonomous driving has much more input data than visibility of white lines.

      And no true scotsman pays attention to the white lines on the highway.

      Here's a little bit of recent self-driving car news for you, from Reuters:

      http://www.reuters.com/article...

      Volvo's North American CEO, Lex Kerssemakers, lost his cool as the automaker's semi-autonomous prototype sporadically refused to drive itself during a press event at the Los Angeles Auto Show.

      "It can't find the lane markings!" Kerssemakers griped to Mayor Eric Garcetti, who was at the wheel. "You need to paint the bloody roads here!"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    15. Re:Huh? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I'm down on self-driving cars. I would love to have one myself, but the technology won't be here in the next five years, probably much longer.

      I would love to see self-driving cars. Unfortunately, they won't be ubiquitous in the lifetime of anyone reading Slashdot today. We may get jet-packs before self-driving cars.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re: Huh? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Probably. But I would not hold out for 10 years.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    17. Re: Huh? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What technology advance do you see making it possible within ten years?

      I should have said more clearly, "with the current autonomous technology, that depends heavily on a pre-made 3-D representation of the world, consumer autonomous cars are not practical."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:Huh? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I engineered some really low powered sensors for work too, similar sort of low single digit uA range. We looked at powering with RF energy harvesting which can provide more than this can. And don't forget that it will be part of a solar panel generating many Watts. A cheap supercap would easily store more than this technique will generate during the night.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re: Huh? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Yes, I think pre-made 3D databases will be an input but far from the only one. Vision and radar have to dominate because there is never proof that the model matches reality, just a caution flag when it does not.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    20. Re:Huh? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      You guys could always redirect the effort these negative comments take to sourcing and submitting stories to us, and voting in the firehose. Probably not as fun as complaining though

      I heard the same suggestions from editors on SoylentNews, but no amount of submitting more sci/tech stories changed their editorial direction in the slightest. If /. isn't getting sufficient interesting submissions, you're free to NOT post 20 stories per day... Problem solved.

      And you're doing it wrong if you're depending on the Firehose for anything important... That was basically a joke project for people who wanted to waste a lot of time here, similar to Digg. Editorial direction should certainly not be dictated by lowest-common-denominator up-votes, or else this place will be a tabloid in short order.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    21. Re:Huh? by retrosurf · · Score: 1

      Not much energy, on inspection:
      the math is about high-school physics level, so here goes:

      For one square meter of square module, inclined at your latitude angle L, at 2.54 cm of precipitation per hour, the power from the water sliding across the module is good for about

      cos L * 1 sin L * 1 * 25400 / 2 * 0.000098 watts.

      For 45 degrees latitude, that's about .622 watts, at 100% efficiency (which it is not). That's the sweet spot.

      That's about 1/350 the energy available falling on a 22% efficient module on June 21 in the northern hemisphere at that latitude.

      (that's for a square meter of square module, whose effective area for rain capture is proportional to the cosine of its inclination; with the average potential energy of a parcel of water on the module equal to the average of the highest elevation of the parcel and the lowest elevation on the parcel, and whose elevation is proportional to the sine of its inclination, in Earth's gravity).

    22. Re:Huh? by mhotchin · · Score: 1

      Even if correct, your calculations are not relevant. The energy extracted is chemical, not mechanical.

    23. Re: Huh? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I would go farther than that and say, "if the car cannot drive without a pre-made 3D model, it can't drive."
      Along with that, might as well add, "if the car cannot drive without internet/GPS connectivity, it cannot drive"

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    24. Re:Huh? by whipslash · · Score: 2

      If we posted just a few stories on a slow news day we'd hear from complainers too. I personally liked this story

    25. Re:Huh? by retrosurf · · Score: 1

      If you read the article, figure S7 of the supplementary material graphs a linear relationship between the velocity of the droplets and the induced voltage, so there is definitely a mechanical component to the power generation.

    26. Re: Huh? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would be perfectly happy to have an autonomous vehicle that required human take-over 10% of the time. Just not very suddenly.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    27. Re: Huh? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ok, consider this scenario, where you have a self-driving car that recognizes it can't handle a situation ahead, giving itself enough time to pull over to the side of the road and wake you up, so you can start driving. Not a big deal when there's only one car, but......

      Now imagine there are thousands of self-driving cars, all on the road, and they all try to pull over at the same point. Suddenly you have a giant traffic jam on the freeway. The kind of traffic jam that is so bad, it might not be cleared up until after midnight, and you'll be stuck there.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    28. Re: Huh? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Sure, it can happen. We also have 50-car pile-ups in the fog where human drivers have the same problem and fail to stop.

      People are really bad drivers, because they're not monomaniacal about it. Computers are, and are ultimately going to be better drivers than us.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    29. Re: Huh? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      and are ultimately going to be better drivers than us.

      But not with current technology.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    30. Re:Huh? by Gussington · · Score: 2

      This needs to be reposted in here everyday, or it should be mandatory first post for all new submissions
      It's getting rather tiring scrolling through all the "this is shit" comments as if it's some profound wisdom.

    31. Re: Huh? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      But not with current technology

      Tomorrow we'll have something better.

    32. Re:Huh? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Actually, something from ~1uW upwards would be just fine for some IoT/sensor applications

      We're talking about solar panels here. There's already plenty of energy coming from the sun, so there's no need to add fancy extras to capture a miniscule amount of energy from the rain. And even on a rainy day, you'll get a lot more than 1uW from a solar panel.

    33. Re:Huh? by anyGould · · Score: 1

      How much energy?

      No clue. But the threshold is a lot lower, because presumably it's sharing a lot of infrastructure with the existing solar panel. So as long as the incremental gain outweighs the incremental cost, this is a good thing.

      It's a prototype, which means we're still at "hey, neat trick", not at "this will allow us to make our third-quarter projections".

    34. Re: Huh? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Of course, that gets back to the earlier question, "What technology advance do you see making it possible?"

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  4. Hurray! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Now those living in Seattle can finally be part of the green revolution!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Hurray! by PPH · · Score: 1

      My roof has been green for years.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  5. This could turn into a big deal by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    I live in the maritime US Pacific Northwest. It really does rain/drizzle for much of the fall, winter, and spring (although the last few days have been glorious!), which is really when our area has higher electricity needs - our summers tend to be fairly cool, so there's not a huge load due to air conditioning.

    This could turn out to be a big deal in areas with our sort of weather.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:This could turn into a big deal by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      It really does rain/drizzle for much of the fall, winter, and spring [...]

      and summer.

      Yeah, I know, cheap Seattle joke. Like the summers in Minnesota being so beautiful--both weeks!

    2. Re:This could turn into a big deal by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Too bad all that rain, drizzle etc just sits there in puddles or soaks into the ground instead of, say, flowing down to rivers which could be dammed for hydroelectric power.

      Oh, wait.... ;)

      --
      -- Alastair
    3. Re:This could turn into a big deal by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Very cheap, considering there's an entire country the other side of the pond where conversation about the weather (rain) is a national pastime. The UK could lead the world in exporting electricity. This has an added bonus of pissing off the French who own the power stations.

      This is off topic, but - over the past couple decades, a lot of vegetable gardeners up in our corner of the US have figured out that our weather is - to use one local author's phrase - "more like England than Ohio". So people are adapting gardening knowledge from across the pond, doing winter vegetable gardening and the like.

      Also, thank you for all the slugs.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:This could turn into a big deal by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      Also, thank you for all the slugs.

      We have more: would you like a barge-full from our tiny London garden? Please?

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    5. Re:This could turn into a big deal by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      flowing down to rivers which could be dammed for hydroelectric power.

      You need other conditions for hydro. A sufficient gradient, for example.

  6. Seattle Washington by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    That'll be super popular here in Seattle Washington where the rainy season is from February to January (with a week or so of dry weather in June or July).

    Now if they could just get it to generate electricity from "gloomy days" we'd be the world's #1 producer of electrical power.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  7. monoatomic layer? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Exposed to the elements? It would not last even a day. Covered with dust, react with air and in no time it will stop working as both solar cell and as rain cell.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  8. So, where is the link? by twms2h · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but this is just terrible reporting. Not much information to go on, no link to external sources, just some technobabble.

  9. Wrong application. by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

    This sounds more like the potential for an interesting moisture sensor rather than as a new source for bulk electricity. A thin layer of grapheme, cheap to print onto throw away limited use sensors has plenty of valuable applications.

  10. What a great idea ! by macheadpics · · Score: 1

    This would be ideal for a country like Scotland . Just think , we could become world leaders in wind and rain power

    --
    http://www.photogold.co.uk