Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology Science

New Photovoltaics Made with Titanium Foil 346

Memorize writes "A company called Daystartech has released a new type of photovoltaic cell which, unlike almost all the cells currently in use, does not silicon. This is based on a thin titanium film. Given the current shortage of solar-grade silicon, and all-time high oil prices, maybe titanium solar panels are here at the right time. The questions are, will they release it as a consumer solar product, and what will be the price per kilowatt hour?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Photovoltaics Made with Titanium Foil

Comments Filter:
  • price? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by soupdevil ( 587476 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:05PM (#12071685)
    ...cost effective for specialized military, homeland security and commercial applications.

    In other words, ridiculously overpriced, and unavailable to the average consumer for the next decade.
  • by MisterLawyer ( 770687 ) <mikelawyer&gmail,com> on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:05PM (#12071694)
    The way this question is posed demonstrates a common misunderstanding of the costs and benefits of investing in alternative energy sources.

    Obviously, the marginal price per kilowatt hour is $0. The difference between obtaining 100 kilowatt hours and 101 kilowatt hours is nothing. You would simply have to wait for enough sunlight to hit the solar panel to generate that extra 1 kilowatt hour.

    The true cost of investing in solar energy is in the intial cost of manufacturing and setting up the panel.

    Thus, the actual cost per kilowatt hour depends on how long you use the solar panel. The longer you use the panel, the cheaper each kilowatt hour becomes.

  • by soupdevil ( 587476 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:07PM (#12071711)
    That's assuming zero maintenance costs, and that waiting costs you nothing.
  • Priority (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sugarmotor ( 621907 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:08PM (#12071722) Homepage
    At http://www.daystartech.com/govrelease.htm:

    "DayStar Technologies Unveils LightFoil Photovoltaic Product for Military and Homeland Security Applications"

    Ok, photo voltaics for "Homeland Security". What kind of priority is this? Easier to get "funding" this way?

    Stephan
  • Re:Slicon Shortage (Score:5, Insightful)

    by darkmeridian ( 119044 ) <william.chuangNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:16PM (#12071791) Homepage
    It's not meant to replace largescale silicon photovoltaic cells. Instead, it's meant for use on UAVs and balloons and stuff. Price doesn't matter here, right?
  • by suitepotato ( 863945 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:22PM (#12071849)
    ...but people keep missing the point. Photoelectric won't work, won't solve even a small fraction of our power needs, not remotely. The amount of solar energy in watts per square meter at our orbital distance is well known and easily looked up. Also well known and easily looked up are losses due to atmosphere from clear sky to overcast day. And on top of this, the cells are far less than 100% effective.

    You can't magically make this change. You can take up the square meters with cells or with mirrors and send the light to fewer cells. It doesn't matter.

    We could have been using nuclear fission reactors that even an AOL user could not make malfunction more than thirty years ago, but the public's fascination with hypothetical disasters and poor understanding of physics, biology, and every area of engineering not related to lifting a Coke to their lips is the opening every anti-nuke nutcase has exploited.

    To keep linking nuclear power to nuclear weapons is like linking wood burning stoves to witches being burned at the stake. Their lack of basic knowledge on modern nuclear reactor design when the texts are availible at public university and college libraries across the USA combined with so many having (liberal arts) degrees is its own area of the concept of "irony".

    Meanwhile, the animal environmentalists can only argue with the alternate energy environmentalists over endangered birds being chopped up in California windmills and we keep burning extremely valuable petrochemicals which would be much more useful in other endeavors while we wait for the unobtanium reactor that only puts out clean energy and bunny farts is developed.

    If things keep going the way they have we will eventually reach the point where we don't have the resources to escape Earth and colonize the system where the resources for more energy than we'll ever need short of fantastic sci-fi megaengineering are waiting.

    Nice technological advance, but in the end useful mostly for Casio calculators and whatnot.
  • by soupdevil ( 587476 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:32PM (#12071918)
    Not if you need that kilowatt to do the things you want to do while you wait.
  • by frizzbit ( 611803 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:37PM (#12071957)
    Good news for putting solar cells on air and spacecraft but not terribly important for ground based solar power. For example, this could be a good time to redesign the solar powered flier, Helios [nasa.gov]
  • Re:Priority (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:38PM (#12071966)
    Ok, photo voltaics for "Homeland Security". What kind of priority is this? Easier to get "funding" this way?
    No checks and balances either. This snake oil is for the children, you have to buy it!

    I was hoping the article would actually say something about what it is and how it works, but I was dissappointed. Are the using the metal, the oxide, the nitride or something else? With chemical vapour deposition doing strange stuff with titanium metal or compounds in thin films is relatively cheap and low-tech - vacuum pumps and high voltage get the job done. The tricky bit is working out what to plate onto the substrate.

  • Re:Slicon Shortage (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Chrispy1000000 the 2 ( 624021 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:45PM (#12072020)
    Well, electrolysis isn't cheap. Why do you think we recycle alumnium? There is probably some other mechanism that they use that is just a few dollars cheaper. Any chem majors who are further along want to back me up or squash me like the petty bug I am?
  • by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:56PM (#12072096) Homepage Journal
    Thank you for so clearly elucidating this point. There is no such thing, under current proven technology, as an energy mechanism that has no drawbacks. Examples:
    • Fission: Radioactive waste
    • Hydrocarbons: greenhouse emissions, NOx/SOx, landscape destruction
    • Wind: Dead birds, intermittency in many areas, large surface areas, noise
    • Solar: Sigificant chemical wastes, large surface areas
    • Tidal: Beach erosion, corrosion of power units
    • Hydroelectric: Large loss of land, high greenhouse gas releases

    You have to choose your evils. If you want to avoid radiation, fine, but don't complain when you have to deal with other forms of pollution to compensate for the energy-thirsty needs of modern society.
  • by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @09:01PM (#12072125) Homepage Journal
    Thus, the actual cost per kilowatt hour depends on how long you use the solar panel. The longer you use the panel, the cheaper each kilowatt hour becomes.

    So you're telling me that I really didn't lose my investment in this piece of shit solar panel I got stuck with? You're telling me that all I need to do is to wait an extra fifty years for my return on investment? I take it you're a bridge salesman in your other job...
  • by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @09:38PM (#12072373) Homepage Journal
    The problem is that the industry doesn't produce anything near a sizable fraction of the power requirements. In 2003, the total worldwide production was 732MW equivalents. Shipments from 1971 total 3,145MW.

    World power consumption is 13.94 trillion kWh.

    Even if all of those cells were in production today, it would still fall short by a factor of about 500, if my calculations are correct. It would take more than a century to replace everything, and that's assuming an annual 25% growth in shipped capacity with only 10% being replaced each year and zero growth in annual energy usage. As countries like China and India come into the modern ages as a rule, worldwide energy demand is going to grow even faster than its current (IIRC) 5% rate.
  • Re:Slicon Shortage (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Jeffrey Baker ( 6191 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:17PM (#12072928)
    Brilliant comment! Practically every activity on this planet is solar powered, but not in the way that tunnel-vision technologists think.
  • by nadaou ( 535365 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @03:06AM (#12073845) Homepage
    To clear up some common misconceptions you listed:

    * Wind: Dead birds, intermittency in many areas, large surface areas, noise

    Dead bird thing is mostly a myth. You will kill a thousand times more birds of prey by putting in a highway & getting them hit while munching on roadkill. Radio towers and bridges are just as dangerous as wind tubines to birds.

    see http://www.homepower.com/files/birds.pdf
    "Wind Generators and Birds: Power Politics?"

    Large surface area: most wind farms are dual use, cows still munch the grass, only a small percent of land is lost to use, and that is mostly from access roads.

    Noise: true for 1970's turbines. All new turbines are geared and rotate quite slowly. I've stood under one of the new 200' tall versions in 40mph winds.. you just hear a gentle swoosh. From a 1/4 mile away you don't hear it at all.

    * Solar: Sigificant chemical wastes, large surface areas

    just to note the really nasty galium arsenide solar cells are a tiny fraction (ie only NASA & similar use them). Most solar cells are made from recycled Si from the chipmaking process. That waste is already being made by computer chip makers; the solar cell manufacture process actually reduces existing industrial waste!

    * Tidal: Beach erosion, corrosion of power units

    Beach erosion? Please explain how dampening waves causes beach erosion? I just don't see it. Even if you unmix "tides" with "wind waves". Tide power is fairly hard to harness unless you live in an area of freak tidal range.

    * Hydroelectric: Large loss of land, high greenhouse gas releases

    The "high greenhouse gas releases" is a misleading arguement at best. Long and the short of it is that methane from anoxic lake sediment is not a net change to the carbon budget. Burning fossil fuels is.
    see this comment for a fuller justification: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=144076 &cid=12073778 [slashdot.org]

  • by mr.mighty ( 162506 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @04:30AM (#12074162)
    BECAUSE SOLAR PANELS are EASILY Damaged, just use maddox's 1000000 penny bomb, and spread them over the solar fields...


    The USA and other military countries will not tolerate an easily attackable energy infrastructure. Look at nuke plants. I have seen test video of jets travelling in excess of mach 3 barely denting the outer concrete shell.

    You're neglecting the fact that, unlike nuclear, photovoltaic power generation doesn't have to be central. In fact, you largely eliminate transmission losses if you distribute the panels all over town. That eliminates the one point of failure. You probably don't want to do that with nuclear.

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson

Working...