Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Slicon Shortage (Score:5, Interesting)

    by klausner ( 92204 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:02PM (#12071651)
    Like, you think that titanium, and the equipment required to work titanium comes cheap? Cheaper than sand?
  • by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:02PM (#12071657)
    How does this compare to what is used as solar cells in spacecraft now? Sounds interesting. Imagine, not a beowulf cluster, but a solar-sail type of spaceship in which the sun pushes against a huge sail made of this stuff, and also sends electricity to the ship.
  • Re:I gotta say... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:07PM (#12071707) Homepage Journal
    I confess I've always had a problem with power sources that do silicon. Snooty bastards, what with their made up verbs and their rock music...

    How about consumer devices that rely so much on silicon? I've wondered why germanium or something else with a lower switching voltage isn't used more often.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:09PM (#12071729)
    These aren't the only people working on this type of cell. They look harder to build than silicon. Definitely a niche market for the time being.

    www.appliedfilms.com/Precision2/11_photovoltaic/ ph otovoltaic_02.htm
  • by Bifurcati ( 699683 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:11PM (#12071747) Homepage
    At University of Queensland [uq.edu.au] (in Australia) where I study, we're developing solar cells out of "solid solids" - flexible polymers/plastics. The hope is that as well as being even more efficient, they'll be easy to use - they're flexible, and can be bent, twisted, shaped, etc.

    One possibility is to use melanin - the skin pigment that gives our skins colour. Being in Australia, of course, researching melanin is of significant interest to us! It's yet another example of biology helping to make really cool physics - more details are available on UQ's physics blog [illuminatingscience.org].

  • sweet deal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:17PM (#12071806)
    DayStar Technologies (NASDAQ:DSTI) today received confirmation that the State of New York has awarded the University at Albany College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE) at the Albany NanoTech research complex a $750,000 Technology Transfer Incentive Program Grant to work with DayStar in the development of optimized substrate templates for CIGS solar cell applications.

    [...]

    Over a two year period, both DayStar and Albany NanoTech will each contribute $375,000 and NYSTAR will contribute $750,000.

    Nice. So, basically, The state of NY puts in three quarters of a million dollars because DayStar promises not to go elsewhere and to graciously donate $350,000 to research that...will directly benefit them and pretty much nobody else.

    I'm sorry, but I'm getting really sore for public funds being used to bankroll essentially private R&D done by public, for profit companies. Of course, it's not nearly as bad as the biotech industry, which whores itself out like nobody's business. Did you know we give the biotech industry about $30 billion (yes, billion) a year? Just GIVE it away? No strings attached? That exceeds -estimated- TOTAL tax (local, state, and federal) collected by around $6BN. Virtually 100% of all biotech related R&D is paid for by you and me, while the industry rakes in well over $200BN a year.

    And to think they have the gall to whine about how expensive drug research is, or how risky it is! They're NOT PAYING FOR IT!

  • Re:Slicon Shortage (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:30PM (#12071903) Homepage Journal
    What I don't understand is what the heck they are doing to convert SiO2 into Si and O2 that would result in toxic byproducts. Don't they just electrolyze it? Chlorine from CaCl2 and other contaminants notwithstanding, I don't see how producing silicon from sand would be worse than any other silicon production mechanism....

    I was under the impression that most of the toxic byproducts inherent in working with silicon were the result of the doping process wherein elements like germanium and arsenic are added to the surface silicon to create transistors, diodes, gates, etc. I would expect using a titanium substrate to require something similar. Would it not?

  • Plants user solar energy. They don't move. Things that move, need to eat plants, or eat animals that eat plants.

    Why? There isn't enough energy in the sunlight to sustain the metabolic rate required for movement. In billions of years, nature hasn't figured out how to covert enough sunlight into energy to sustain an animal's movement other than by concentrating it first into vegetable matter which can be eaten.

    For humans to make use of energy, we pretty much have to burn something. We have to release solar energy stored as food, then in most cases concentrated in the form of hydrocarbons.

    Fission energy, fancy as it may be, is still about just making water hot. For that matter, if they get there, so will fusion energy be.

    We humans are stunningly good at burning things and making excuses for the things we do that are essentially asocial. Aside from that, we're not exactly all that and a bag of chips.

    There's no such thing as free energy. The trick we need to find is how to tap bigger forces. Tidal forces with tethered floating generators which rise and fall with the tides and capture that motion as energy would be good. Finding that so called vacume energy between particals would be a fairly useful trick as well.

    Making giant solar panels which turn sunlight into energy at less efficiency than plants, then waste most of it in transmission and storage overhead is ultimately not going to win.

    More near term, we need to find or engineer a crop which is ideally suited to concentrating sunlight into a hydrocarbon or sugar that can be stored, transported without sigificant loss, then burned.

    Unless one of you /. people has found a really efficient ENDOTHERMIC reaction. That would be very cool. :-)

  • by TFoo ( 678732 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @09:02PM (#12072136)
    Umm, I could be missing something, but your initial statement that "Photoelectric won't work, won't solve even a small fraction of our power needs, not remotely" seems to be completely wrong.

    A quick Google search shows that on earth every square meter receives about 4.2kwh of energy per day over a 24 hour period. [ucsusa.org]

    A quick look at my electric bill says I use about 20kwh/day as a rough average -- another Google search suggests that the average US household uses approximately 25kwh/day [hypertextbook.com]

    ...So, finishing the math: using 15% efficiency solar cells, the Average US Household needs only 40 square meters (430 square feet) of solar cells to cover all its energy needs. Heck, I could use 5% solar cells on my roof in downtown San Francisco, and STILL have 2x extra capacity to sell back to the grid!

    Don't get me wrong: Solar won't solve everything, particularly in applications like transportation where energy storage is an issue --- and cheap Fission IS something we should have figured out a long time ago --- but please don't resort to misinformation to make your points, it only weakens what you are saying.

  • by Cadallin ( 863437 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @09:26PM (#12072310)
    Stagnant water causes methane producing bacteria to grow at the bottom of the lake, thus producing large amounts of methane.
  • Re:Slicon Shortage (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28, 2005 @09:31PM (#12072333)
    Most readers here have probaly eaten titanium dioxide taken from sand, it is frequently used as a white food colouring and paint pigment.

    For example, Oreos. The creme is lard + sugar + titanium dioxide.

  • by jafac ( 1449 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @09:37PM (#12072367) Homepage
    I RTFA (for once).

    This device is designed for aeropsace applications; that is, it's a lightweight solar cell. At the bottom, there's a blurb about being able to supply electricity at commercially viable prices - but electricity is currently generated by oil, which is a volotile commodity, so it depends on how much oil-generated electricity "costs" on a given day.

    Not too many years from now, oil demand will permanently outstrip supply - so when that happens, solar will probably become permanently economically viable. At which time, mass-production will drive down initial costs.

    The issue of how long a given solar cell produces usefull power is also part of it - because if, over the life of the cell, it produces electricity of a given market value, above what it cost to make, then it's "economically viable" - therefore, of the three factors involved in determining "economic viability"

    1. Initial cost to produce.
    2. Longevity of the cell.
    3. Market value of electricity over the life of the cell.

    #1 is not the crucial variable. #2 also, really isn't a crucial variable. #3 IS. So if electricity is cheap, or if the cell doesn't last long (both of which are the current barriers to solar power being "economically viable") then it's not worth it.

    When electricity becomes expensive (compared to today) - then solar power becomes more attractive.

    Or, if some new type of solar cell becomes available that will have a useful lifespan of say, 50 years, instead of 20, that will make a difference. But the main factor is the cheapness of electricity. (some folks of the green persuasion might even say that electricity does not currently cost what it should, that there are many "hidden costs" - like funding wars to secure petroleum, ecological costs of the waste products, etc. - Kinda makes all this "free market" talk sound kinda silly.)
  • by eluusive ( 642298 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @09:38PM (#12072369)
    Why? There isn't enough energy in the sunlight to sustain the metabolic rate required for movement. In billions of years, nature hasn't figured out how to covert enough sunlight into energy to sustain an animal's movement other than by concentrating it first into vegetable matter which can be eaten.
    This is absolute bullcrap. There is more than plenty of energy in solar rays to power an animal. It is more convient, however, from the perspective of a moving entity to eat other things. If they do, they don't have to stay in the sun for significant amounts of time every day! They also do not need to eat significant amounts of dirt to get their necessary minerals. Instead, they can rely on plants to do both of those things for them. To quote wikipedia: The generally accepted standard is 1020 watts per square meter at sea level. That said: The the basal metabolic rate (at rest) is appr 1.2 W per kg of body weight I weigh 57 kg. Which means I need 70.8 W resting. If I was laying on the ground at sea level I would be receiving 950 more watts that I need to stay alive. (If I could actually use all of that.) Solar sells can use approx 20-50% of that 1020 watts.
  • by TerranFury ( 726743 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @09:51PM (#12072462)

    You said: "Fission energy, fancy as it may be, is still about just making water hot. For that matter, if they get there, so will fusion energy be."

    That's true about fission. And although that's one obvious way to generate electricity from a fusion reactor, a lot of fusion research has also gone into magnetohydrodynamic generators. I won't try to explain them (because I can't; I don't really understand them myself) but google might be able to get you started if you're interested.

    It was also mentioned in a thermodynamics class I took that research has gone into using magnetohydrodynamic generators in conventional fuel-burning plants, because they can operate at much higher temperatures (and so, higher efficiencies) than conventional machinery like turbines and generators. But apparently the energy producers have pretty much given up on the technology, choosing to go with incremental improvements like higher pressures for the working fluid, more topping cycles, and ceramics for things like turbine blades. I guess plasma physics is difficult. Who'd have guessed?

    Anyway, that's all. I thought it was cool.

  • I agree with much of what you say. There's just a couple of things I want to comment on.

    The trick we need to find is how to tap bigger forces. Tidal forces with tethered floating generators which rise and fall with the tides and capture that motion as energy would be good.

    This suggestion isn't really viable. The problem is that electric power needs to be continuous, and electric energy can't really be stored in the quantities needed for widespread use. Because of this, the large surges of power and subsequent falloffs that we would get with tidal generation make it kind of undesirable as a power source. A much more promising idea that's been talked about for some time is to put turbines in the path of a major ocean current such as the Gulf Stream. After all, the oceans are the world's biggest solar collector, and a significant portion of that energy goes into generating these currents. It's a huge untapped source of energy.

    More near term, we need to find or engineer a crop which is ideally suited to concentrating sunlight into a hydrocarbon or sugar that can be stored, transported without sigificant loss, then burned.

    They have this. It's biodiesel made with canola. read about it here. [biodiesel.org]

    Ultimately, we just need to get off burning fossil fuels. After all, when you consider that energy on earth comes from two places, the planet's core, and, moreso, the sun, fossil fuels are solar energy stored by plants and animals millions of years ago. It's a finite supply, and frankly, we shouldn't be nearly as reliant on it as we are.

  • Re:Slicon Shortage (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Arthur Dent ( 76567 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @10:45PM (#12072766)
    Actually a new titanium refining process was discovered a short while ago [nih.gov]

    Here we report an electrochemical method for the direct reduction of solid TiO2, in which the oxygen is ionized, dissolved in a molten salt and discharged at the anode, leaving pure titanium at the cathode. The simplicity and rapidity of this process compared to conventional routes should result in reduced production costs and the approach should be applicable to a wide range of metal oxides.

  • by billstewart ( 78916 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:06PM (#12072881) Journal
    If you want to replace regular electricity sources, what matters isn't the efficiency per sq.cm, it's the cost of the equipment compared to alternative energy sources. If the efficiency is low, but the cost is cheap, you just use a bigger area; not a usually problem. Cost per kwh is really the right measurement for most of those applications, since you do need to amortize over the lifetime of the equipment, if you've got a good estimate of what that is.

    There are applications for which the efficiency matters more directly, because the alternatives are vastly more expensive, or there are other constraints. For instance, spacecraft have issues with launching weight and available surface area, and solar-powered unmanned surveillance spook planes also have those problems (probably surface area's more important for them than weight is.)

    For some residential applications, efficiency can matter, for instance if you're trying to power your house with solar cells only mounted on your roof, but that's still really about economics, because you're comparing the cost of solar with buying power from the power company. A more efficient solar cell might generate more power from your roof area, but if it costs too much, you won't use it, you'll buy power. (

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:11PM (#12072897)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:Slicon Shortage (Score:4, Interesting)

    by slide-rule ( 153968 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:36PM (#12073019)
    Also, titanium is *very* fatigue resistant, and aircraft with titanium structural components have sometimes even been found to be stronger after being flown a few times than when they were built.

    As an mildly interesting bullet to follow that of parent's, titanium can apparently "catch fire" under the right conditions (that being high temperature and pressure). I hadn't conceived of this until working at my current engineer job where commercial and military aircraft engines get made ... past a certain point in the compressor section, Ti can't be used any more for fear of wholly losing the rotor/stator part to "titanium fire". (Aside from chem-geeks, who knew?)
  • by Bifurcati ( 699683 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @11:39PM (#12073035) Homepage
    No, you're not really missing anything - it wasn't a particularly well phrased sentence. What I meant was that because (as you mentioned in optino (b)!) Australia is so sunny, we have a very high incidence of melanoma (the most deadly skin cancer, where melanin becomes malignant) and so studying and understanding melanin is of direct importance to us!

    Of course, because we're so sunny, solar power is an excellent option - particularly outback (i.e., the bush!) Everywhere (I think) has electricity, but it's a pain to string wires out over those distances - it would be a lot simpler (cheaper too?) to have solar cells on every property.

    And no, we don't think that you're all gun-toting maniacs. Not most of you, anyway. It's just the vocal minority that gives Americans a bad name!

  • Re:Slicon Shortage (Score:5, Interesting)

    by K8Fan ( 37875 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @12:51AM (#12073329) Journal
    Took some serious hitting with a sledge hammer and a vice to put any kind of a bend in the metal. Impressive stuff.

    Want to see something really cool? Check out "Liquidmetal" [liquidmetal.com]. It's an alloy of titanium and other metals and has some really amazing properties. For one, it can be cast and does not form crystals like titanium, has a low melting tempature compared to it's component metals - it can actually be injection-molded. It's twice as strong as titanium by weight and much more flexible. There's a bounce-test video on their web site that it a hoot.

    Right now it's being used for the hinges in that new Motorola Razor phone, various sporting goods and military applications. Cool stuff.

  • CIGS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Taco Cowboy ( 5327 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @01:42AM (#12073545) Journal
    The link that slashdot gave indicated that the titanium backed solarcell with CIGS is rated 15.6% while this link [isetinc.com] clearly stated that the CIGS has a 19.2% NREL rating.

    Why such a large drop in the efficiency ?
  • Re:Slicon Shortage (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @11:00AM (#12075856)
    What gives these metals such flexibility in how they're molded is that there is no shrinkage as they cool. Which means they can be molded into very exacting shapes and be depended upon to fit perfectly once they're in place on the final product.

    Also, the reason glassy metals could only be used in very small parts originally is that they had to be cooled very, very rapidly to prevent a crystalline structure from forming in the metal and ruining it. These newer generations of glassy metals are doped with various trace metals that help prevent those crystals from forming, giving them a much longer window to cool down in, which in turn means larger parts are possible.

    If you can track it down, there was a great article on this company in discover magazine a year or so ago.
  • by hawkfish ( 8978 ) on Tuesday March 29, 2005 @05:45PM (#12081947) Homepage
    Making giant solar panels which turn sunlight into energy at less efficiency than plants, then waste most of it in transmission and storage overhead is ultimately not going to win.
    I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Most plants are about 15% efficient on a good day. Commercial solar panels are available with twice this efficiency and lab crystals with over 60% efficiency have been grown.

    Even worse, current human energy usage is 400 times the carbon fixing ability of the biosphere. 400 times! At this scale, Biodiesel and all these other biosphere harvesting technologies are not simply small potatoes - they are lost in the noise.

    By contrast, solar radiation is currently at least two orders of magnitude over current consumption. Nuclear options (including geothermal if reactors give you the willies) are not constrained by the "efficiency" of plants either and can scale. But biosphere harvesting is not going to cut it.

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Working...