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."
Oh neat! (Score:5, Insightful)
More ground-breaking world-changing solar technology that will neither break ground or change the world because it will never make it to the consumer.
Re:Doesn't help (Score:4, Insightful)
The sun shines all day - when my car is in the underground car park - at work.
So home Solar and electric cars don't work together in any useful way.
Electric cars have a long way to go before they can replace combustion engines but your post doesn't really mean anything. The solar cells don't have to be on the car.
Re:Doesn't help (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would this be up to the company? There's still a grid out there. Maybe we just need more options for feeding it.
Re:Oh neat! (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course the expense in solar power is installation but we've proven that for middle and lower economic class citizens cost of entry is usually the barrier for most advances. Picture the advance of the automobile. At the turn of the 20th century most people used mass transit (both public and private) by the turn of the 21st century that was relegated to the poorest of our society only, yes, I know exceptions exist but fundamentally I am speaking about the vast majority of Americans that live outside of the Big-5 cities. The cost of covering most dwellings in the US is negligible compared to the power savings they would generate if the government subsidized the initial installation. As panels would wear out unevenly cost of replacement would become manageable for the average middle-class household. Single high quality panels are sub-$1000 and in my area are hovering around $5-600. That's a manageable cost compared to the 25K+ it can run to install. Thus it is simply a question of how do we get the entry barrier low enough to make the argument feasible. New construction would be an obvious choice as tacking 25K onto the asking price of a home already north of 150K is minimal considering the immediate savings gained. But currently built homes would need the most government initiative to make it function. I picture essentially the TVA done over. Incur the debt today to increase productivity tomorrow.
Then again replying to Geekoid is pretty much feeding a troll if his past comments are anything. He's a walking encyclopedia of stupid thoughts and insults laced together to appear pseudo-intellectual.