Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power Technology

Nanotech Solar Cell Minimizes Cost, Toxic Impact 95

bonch writes "Researches at Northwestern University have developed an inexpensive solar cell intended to solve the problems of current solar cell designs, such as high cost, low efficiency, and toxic production materials (abstract). Based on the Grätzel cell, the new cell uses millions of light-absorbing nanoparticles and delivers the highest conversion efficiency reported for a dye-sensitized solar cell."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nanotech Solar Cell Minimizes Cost, Toxic Impact

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Oh neat! (Score:4, Informative)

    by balzi ( 244602 ) <{moc.ua.amwa} {ta} {wehttam}> on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @06:56PM (#40094695)

    Actually, with the rise of the electric car, renewable electricity is directly lined up against oil in a HUGE way!

    Sometimes thinking clearly needs a minute or two to kick in

  • Not bad, actually (Score:5, Informative)

    by tocsy ( 2489832 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @07:33PM (#40094997)

    Before we get a lot of comments saying "what's so good about this?" it's actually pretty interesting. I did some undergraduate research with dye-sensitized solar cells (and am currently a graduate student researching inorganic semiconductors) and the basic thing you hear is that if you can get an organic solar cell to 10% efficient, they will be viable because they're so much cheaper than inorganics. While this may be true, the problem with dye-sensitized cells is, like they say in the paper, that they degrade in a rather short period of time. I saw this first-hand doing research on them - we had to make sure our batches were kept in darkness while making them otherwise the solution would degrade in a matter of hours, and after they were made I believe they only lasted a few months. If you can make 10% efficient organic solar cells that will last as long as inorganic ones (typically 20-30 years), you have a very attractive alternative to brittle, expensive and often toxic inorganics. I didn't see in the paper how long their new cells are supposed to last but anything you can do to make it more stable is going to help.

  • by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @09:55PM (#40095953)

    The first part wasn't directly comparing the new cells to Gratzel cells. They said that solar cells *in general* suffer from problems like low efficiency, high cost, short lifetime, and toxic and/or rare ingredients. Most designs suffer major drawbacks in at least one of these areas.

    This new cell seems to address all of the above, while giving reasonable 10% efficiency. In particular, it avoids costly and energy-intensive crystalline silicon, and the most obscure element they mention is cesium, which isn't all that rare.

    If they really are able to cheaply stamp long-lived cells out by spreading an electrolyte solution between a couple of plates, it could indeed become a big deal.

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz

Working...