Breakthrough Efficient, Paintable Solar Cells 445
An anonymous reader writes "A new solar cell material has been discovered that converts 30% of the sun's energy to electricity." Here's another solar news story. These new cells can harness infrared light which is why they are so much more efficient.
How much $$$? (Score:5, Insightful)
It must be expensive.
Re:How much $$$? (Score:4, Insightful)
If it was actually true that they had this paint there would be no need for power plants anymore. Just paint all the houses and buildings and you're all set.
Only at the poles, for half the year (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that discussions of cost weren't mentioned, and that the big advantage is in its five-fold efficiency gains. If it is less than 5 times as expensive per watt capability, it'll be a tremendous boon for massive solar power generation.
Solar can only be a part of the green-e solution, due to the pesky Earth rotating in between the sun and the solar cells and mankind's desire to use electricity when the sun is down or behind a cloud
Re:Only at the poles, for half the year (Score:4, Insightful)
The battery drives your house power needs over night.
Re:Only at the poles, for half the year (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only at the poles, for half the year (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/7_12/electrolysis
Take a look at the section headed:
"Specific things you can point out:"
"....electrolysis can be (and is) performed at very high efficiencies close to 100%."
It's probably one of the most efficient energy transformation methods we know of. It's not exactly quick in most people's experience, because the usual public school science projects use electrodes that are way too small.
The biggest I've currently used was about 6-7 square inches of stainless steel, and used a total of 12 milliamps at 14 volt.
Re:Only at the poles, for half the year (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Only at the poles, for half the year (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Only at the poles, for half the year (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Only at the poles, for half the year (Score:3, Informative)
I have hopes that in a few years the supercapacitors will come down in price and up in power. They aren't a "mature" technology the way batteries are, so they are advancing much more quickly. Right now they're thinking (well, dreaming) about trying to replace batteries on hybrid cars, but if the
Re:Only at the poles, for half the year (Score:5, Interesting)
There are lots of neat solar tech innovations on the horizon, mind you - however, each one tends to address a single issue, and there are many involved in solar. This one addresses capture of infrared on an organic cell. Some other ones that have good potential are things like using a thin layer of luminescent material over/in the cell to downconvert the light (many luminescent materials absorb UV and release the energy in the visible spectrum).
I think that, in 5-10 years if tech keeps advancing this way, we should be able to get organic cells that'll approach the efficiency of today's polycrystaline cells. Which is good, because the silicon cells are expensive
Paintable solar cells. Not the first ones... (Score:4, Informative)
The advance in here is that these new cells also use infrared. Also, solar cells are only ONE of the possible applications of this new technology (Nanoapex news article [nanoapex.com]).
Solar everywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
The twin problems are initial expense (which with traditional solar panels is horrible, typically you can expect economic breakeven (at today's wholesale electric prices) in around fifteen to twenty years), and the fact that we can never base our entire power production on (ground based) solar. Solar can be used a lot more than it is, but we can't do everything solar because we don't have a good way to store electricity.
Re:Solar everywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
If they can get cheap power out of solar cells, the varying production levels won't be the issue. Of course, these aren't actually low-cost efficient cells; read the article more carefully. The 30% number, unlike the 6% number, is for this tech *combined* with the best solar cells out there (which are not lightweight, spray-applicable, or cheap).
P.S. - the parking lot uses solar cells? Geez, they better be coated with a pretty thick layer of a high traction, low wear, transparent material, or they'll get torn to shreds and you'll have cars sliding all over the place... Still, if they can manage, organic solar cells would be a good application for that space.
Re:How much $$$? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that if the stuff is within a reasonable range, I'll definately have my house in So Cal painted with it!
-WS
Re:How much $$$? (Score:5, Informative)
Who knows if it will be expensive, cheap, emit toxic byproducts, or even be producable in consumer quantites yet? It's just research, not a factory.
Re:How much $$$? (Score:3, Funny)
Usually articles such as this, regardless of their source, contain some form of economic feasability statement etc.
Re:How much $$$? (Score:2)
The article talks about a use. The grandparent was questioning that this may not be the best use.
If the author is able to theorize about a use in clothing why not theorize about a truly useful use?
Re:How much $$$? (Score:2, Funny)
side painted with this stuff"
Some of us live in the Southern hemisphere you insensitive clod!
It's funnier to note... (Score:2)
Re:It's funnier to note... (Score:2)
Re:It's funnier to note... (Score:2)
Re:It's funnier to note... (Score:2)
Re:How much $$$? (Score:2)
Re:How much $$$? (Score:2)
Excellent... (Score:5, Funny)
Woo (Score:5, Funny)
So if I spray that on my tinfoil hat and run a couple of leads to my laptop I could have unlimited power!
Re:Woo (Score:5, Funny)
But is it worth the risks? If I undrstood the article correctly you'd have to go outside...
Re:Woo (Score:3, Funny)
Nope. The spray is a quantum tracking dye that allows them to focus their mind control rays more closely on people like you comrade!
Please stay calm while a Homeland Security team comes to your aid to show you the greatness of Amerika!
Re:Woo (Score:3, Funny)
wow! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:wow! (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, though, Big Oil will try to squash this like a bug, and the U.S. government will follow suit.
We are the Borg (Score:2, Informative)
Carnak: Resistance is Futile? (Score:2, Funny)
How much energy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How much energy? (Score:4, Informative)
Note that this material doesn't "produce" energy at all - it just converts it from the sun (which is the thing sending all the energy our way in the first place). This is different than, say, hydrogen, which is an energy storage medium; you have to put energy into hydrogen to store it, then you get a little less out. With these, you simply build the device, then use (solar) radiation to create a current.
Re:How much energy? (Score:5, Informative)
"A common myth is that the production of photovoltaic cells requires more energy than these cells produce in their lifespan. Modern cells typically require two to six years to pay back the energy investment made in them, and their lifespan is around 30 years."
Re:How much energy? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How much energy? (Score:3, Insightful)
We're gonna need all that electricity... (Score:5, Funny)
We are gonna need all that electricity because if the sun is 30% smaller than it was before this thing our heating bills are gonna go way up!
Re:We're gonna need all that electricity... (Score:3, Interesting)
Looks like new work (Score:3, Interesting)
I always am skeptical when I see articles about new exciting energy sources in the popular press, but this looks exciting. I wonder what the material's physical properties are -- how it stands up to wear, radiation, etc., and especially, how much it costs to make and apply.
Question from the wife of the future (Score:5, Funny)
Working indoors under fluourescent lighting? (Score:3, Insightful)
While I can see that it could be wonderful for some things, I think I'm better off plugging my phone into the wall to charge.
Re:Working indoors under fluourescent lighting? (Score:2, Informative)
All those keystrokes... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:All those keystrokes... (Score:2)
I'm sitting here using an RF mouse (yes, from Microsoft!), and though it nurses a pair of AA batteries for a long time (I usually get more than two months), I can't help but wonder if some inertia-trapping mechanism could use inductance to power up some capicitors and at least contribute to the trickle of juice the mouse uses while idle.
Of course, this is only useful to preserve batteries and avoid the hassle of digging through a drawer as often for new ones...
How do we paint it on the Sun? (Score:3, Insightful)
Converts 30% of the Sun's Energy to Electricity
Perhaps what they mean is
Converts 30% of the incident light energy to electricity
After all, the Sun is realeasing a lot of energy, most of which will never hit the Earth.
Re:How do we paint it on the Sun? (Score:2)
Converts 30% of the incident solar light energy to electricity
I'd imagine that the sun's spectrum is reasonably unique among other spectra on Earth, and that the new material reacts differently to different wavelengths, so that while it converts 30% of the solar spectrum that hits it, the incident energy from, say, an incandescent bulb might be converted at a different efficiency, as its spectrum would differ from that of the sun.
Re:OK, so it doesn't work at Alpha Centauri? (Score:2)
In an earlier post, someone noted that, for instance, fluorescent lights emit less light in the IR wavele
Re:How do we paint it on the Sun? (Score:2)
ObSheesh: Sheesh.
Re:How do we paint it on the Sun? (Score:2)
Of course, this is
Why would you read the article?
Re:From the Article (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:From the Article (Score:2)
That always struck me as amusingly ominous. I think I also saw a local-ish paving company whose vehicles were painted with the phrase, "Pave the Earth"
A quick Googling later, and voila! [sherwin-williams.com] The logo is prominently and proudly displayed on their front page with updated art.
No way... (Score:2, Funny)
Okay, I RTFA... (Score:2)
Converting 30% of the sun's energy? That's a LOT of frikken engery!!! I think they mean to say 30% of the energy received from the sun rather than 30% of the sun's energy. The Earth itself doesn't get 30% of the sun's energy.
That said, BRAVO! We need more efficient solar energy stuff. Painted on or solid doesn't matter to me. If they can make it super dense or layer it in some way, I'll bet they can make some really efficient collector devices. Well anyway...
Potential != Realized (Score:5, Informative)
Believe it when you see it (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll believe it when I can buy it for a reasonable cost at a store in town.
For years we have every couple of months there a new revolutionary way to convert solar rays to electricity. Unfortunately none has managed to work in the real world except the good old silicon solar cells.
Markus
30% of what? W = V A (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:30% of what? W = V A (Score:2, Informative)
This sounds just like every other moon-man technology of the future. Hydrogen will revolutionize our economy! (Just as soon as we figure out how to collect and store it) A space elevator will mean cheap orbital trips, space tourism, extraplanetary mining, a trip to mars- all we need to do is invent the material we need to build it out of.
Bah.
They put me
Next thing you know, an oil company buys it, (Score:2, Interesting)
Watch for PR campaigns explaining to the layman just how dangerous this plastic is, why it shouldn't be used and researched and just how much better the good ol' oil is.
Painted shirts? (Score:5, Interesting)
With a nearly 5x increase in power efficency, and the ability to simply paint it on this material strikes me as being ideal for partially powering houses. You paint your roof every summer (Or if the paint is particularly durable every 5 years) and get a grid tie in possibly paying nothing during particiarly sunny monthes.
Of course I supose it ultimately comes down to how expensive this stuff is. When I last looked into solar grid tie ins, it would have cost about 30,000 (cdn.) to get only a few kilowatts of output- the panels were insured for 25 years; and it would have taken 20 for them to pay for themselves, and that dosen't count the concept of any of them breaking in heavy hail, or snow buildup. Not a great investment.
If this paint is durable enough to be put on clothes, and cheap enough to have that done as well, I think that painting the roofs of houses should be the primary applicatino, not keeping all your portable gadgets charged...
Re:Painted shirts? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure it's about conventional photovoltaics in California, but it seems economic to me.
30% and sprayable but how much $$$ (Score:2)
I would love to be able to b
POTENTIAL 30%, not actual (Score:5, Insightful)
I did some research into Cu(In,Ga)(S,Se) thin film solar cells, which have long been a promising material for this type of application. I don't claim to know all about the various options out there (there are a lot of them) but I feel I can safely say there just aren't any magic bullets to this problem. Let me give you some idea of what has to happen.
a) You need a cell with a high enough efficiency to make the power it can produce worth the hassle of installing it. This is hard and the focus of most solar cell research.
b) Even if you GET that cell, you have to be able to make a LOT of them. Cheaply. Very cheaplly if you want to compete with grid power.
c) These materials have to stand up to long term punishment, intense thermal cycling over the course of day and night temperature shifts for twenty years, etc.
d) You have to install the supporting systems - either connect it to grid, get a large energy storage array (i.e. batteries) or both. If you want a battery based local storage system that gets expensive, all by itself.
e) You need to build the industrial support required to make large scale deployment both possible and cost effective. Si, the current dominant material, has a lot going for it because a lot got learned over the course of decades of semiconductor technology. Those tools are somewhat applicable to Si. If you want to use something totally different (i.e. a thin film) you have to make all the gear more or less from the ground up. That's a big initial capital investment for a dubious return.
f) If you want flexible solar cells, you have a whole new set of problems to handle/test, like how the cell performs while being folded repeatedly in different temperature conditions, creased, beat up generally, etc. And flexible cells are a bit of a specialty market - the military likes the idea, sports folks like it, but for large scale fixed installation use (i.e. where bulk production would happen) flexible isn't all that critical. (Although it is nice when it comes to things like roofs withstanding hail storms, but apparently regular ones don't do so hot there anyway.)
g) THEN, after you solved the problems of cost effective production, storage, retrofitting of housing, etc. etc. etc. you have to convince people it's worth the trouble to install it. And I remind you this is the land of the SUV, so I wish you luck with any marketing effort that can't say "We're cheaper than grid power!". Grid power is CHEAP. VERY cheap. It's a really really hard target to hit, and the solar cell technology available today just isn't there yet. There are lots of "potential" 30% configurations - all you need to do, in theory, is have a multijunction device with the right bandgaps. But let me tell you, it ain't easy.
Now, somebody might make a sudden miracle discovery of a cheap 30% cell material. Such things do happen. But I'll want to see a lot of (reproducable) proof, and peer review, before I'll buy it. It's good advertising to claim high performance, but I'll be impressed when someone goes through the nitty gritty and comes out with a viable product.
Re:POTENTIAL 30%, not actual (Score:2, Funny)
Re:POTENTIAL 30%, not actual (Score:5, Informative)
But first, my background...
I actually read the journal paper.
I work on related projects in graduate school, including polymer solar cells, and prior to that worked for a company developing quantum dots for other applications.
1.) The 30% is the theoretical power conversion maximum for a solar energy conversion with a single layer device; they only got a small fraction of this. You could only get this maximum if you had a material that absorbed every photon in the theoretically correct range, every one of these photons created an electron, and every electron came out of the device -- not an easy task, and 30% is the best you could do. The reason there is a 30% maximum is simple -- the device only puts out a single voltage, corresponding to the point of longest wavelength (lowest energy) that the material absorbs. This voltage is the same for all electrons that are generated from each photon. This means all those blue photons become just like the IR photons -- they give up a bunch of energy.
2.) The materials would be cheap. Quantum dots are not exotic. They're just little chunks of semiconductor. They are called quantum dots because their size is such that they have what are called quantum size effects. They are made from soap and metal salts. Massive production would be cheap. The polymer would be cheap to mass produce, as well. The problem is sandwiching it between electrodes -- you couldn't just paint it on without this.
So, basically, this isn't a huge advance... It's the normal stepwise improvement. They took existing technologies that are available, combined them and hyped them up a lot.
Re:POTENTIAL 30%, not actual (Score:3, Funny)
But did you see Underworld? They had bullets that trapped UV radiation. I think if we could develop those, we could kill off all the vampires and solve the world's energy problems. The bullets wouldn't even have to be magic.
concerning your Point D above. (Score:3, Interesting)
I would point out, that -mostly yer right- some elements can find non-standard solutions, near montery there is a lake that is used for hydroelectric generation on a 24 hour clock.. during the day this lake pours downhill generating electricity, and at night it gets pumped back up to the lake above.. in effect, a giant battery- profitable because the utility company pays via a time o
Re:concerning your Point D above. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:POTENTIAL 30%, not actual (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting quote (Score:4, Funny)
I hope he means "shock us all" figurativley.
Other factors? (Score:2)
What is the longevity of this material? Can you spray once and leave it for years, or does it degrade over time?
How much does this stuff cost? They mention quantum dots, so are we talking about exotic materials which are going to be expensive?
How do environmental factors affect this stuff? Will it hold up to rain, wind, sun?
How nasty are the chemicals in making it? The process to make most solar cells involve some nasty chemicals, granted, compared to coal ash a
Meeting with Venture Capatalist (Score:2, Funny)
VC: looks sceptical
Sargent: "ummm, with the laser beams, umm, clayven"
VC: inks the contract
Good stuff! (Score:2)
Finally!! (Score:2)
Not the same, but .. (Score:3, Interesting)
I did some research work when I was a physics student, and I took data for a bunch of researchers at the National Renewable Energy Labs [nrel.gov] back in the mid-nineties. My specific project was working with a new CdTe based thin-film material to be used in solar cells. It was so easy to deposit on glass substrates that we referred to it as "painting the glass." This made it very easy to mass produce.
However, the new material mentioned in TFA is very different from that. The material I worked with only derived energy from visible light - this material works in the IR bands, and I find that even more interesting as it's vastly under-explored. I'm not so sure about his "weaving it into fabrics" idea, but for sure it will help boost traditional solar cell (PV) gain.
For comparison (Score:2)
Some figures:
Highest experimental eficiency: 24.7% monocrystalline Si, 19.8% multicrystalline Si
Typical industrial products: 17-18% mono, 13-15% multi
Other experimental crystalline materials vary between 10% and 20%
The maximum theoretical efficiency of a Si cell is in the 29-33% range.
BTW, these are numbers from 3 or 4 years ago.
Jw
Sounds familiar... (Score:2)
Semantic Error (Score:2, Funny)
That is so obviously wrong. I have not RTA but I can't help but point out that it should read "converts 30% of the perceived sunlight into electricity".
Cuz if you need a sure-fire way to fry Earth that'd be to convert 30% of the sun's energy to electricity down here.
Warning sign (Score:2)
Any article that starts with that phrase, or something like it, will eventually make the point "And you will! Sometime in the amazing year 400 billion!"
Eh, but who am I to harsh their buzz? At least someone's thinking about it.
You don't need 30% to be cost-effective! (Score:2)
Nice. AFAIR, the break-even point for silicon cells was only about 10% - it was not attainable at the time. If it's cheaper to make and install than the standard cells, getting just a 10-12% conversion would put it into the realm of practical as a sourc
OK, Weisen-Heinleiner (Score:2)
It doesn't exist yet... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Professor Peter Peumans of Stanford University, who has reviewed the U of T team's research, also acknowledges the groundbreaking nature of the work. "Our calculations show that, with further improvements in efficiency, combining infrared and visible photovoltaics could allow up to 30 per cent of the sun's radiant energy to be harnessed, compared to six per cent in today's best plastic solar cells."
The two key points being "calculations" and "plastic solar cells". In other words the 30% figure is a theoretical one and unlikely realistic. Also, six percent is accurate for plastic solar cells, but more modern multi-material cells are up around 35% or better. In short, this is just PR.
They exist, but they're really expensive (Score:3, Informative)
30% has been demonstrated in prototypes.
Gallium is rare and expensive. Huge areas of gallium arsenide cells aren't going to happen.
The annotated version... (Score:3, Insightful)
Although we are doing better with efficiency than we were doing in the 80s and early 90s.
Yes! Ummm... As long as you are willing to completely cover the Earth's surface with solar cell, this is true. If you take the sunlight for electricity generation, you lose it for other purposes: plant growth, heat, vitamin-D production, natural light, etc. I hate statements like these. They imply that the only reason we can't move to a completely solar economy is lack of investment, when there are larger issues at work.
The points about clothing and paint were very cool though.
I'd like to see the source of stats like this. Is this because the newer ones can capture such a wide band as infrared so that the percentages are being adjusted?
Not truly wireless; you'll still need a cable from your photovoltaic clothing to your cell phone/PDA.
These things don't have sufficient surface area to be recharged by having their outer skins be photovoltaic. In addition, many people carry them in their pockets or purses rather than on an external belt clip. Therefore you need an external power source (such as your clothing). This means the phone needs to be plugged into your clothing somehow. Not THAT big a deal, but one worth mentioning.
How well does it handle being washed in standard washing machines? Dry cleaning everything would be a major pain in the ass. (Assuming that the chemicals used in dry cleaning don't degrade the photovoltaics since the cleaning agents were not made with "quantum dots" in mind.)
I don't mean to be a naysayer, but the article is extremely vague and doesn't give a link to more information (if it's even available). I'd rather be skeptical now and see how it can be used rather than proudly (and prematurely) announce that this solves all our problems and cooks dinner to boot.
Conspiracy! (Score:3, Funny)
Dan East
Re:Okay since heat is IR... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Okay since heat is IR... (Score:2)
This would be different from a thermocouple because from what I can tell it's not based on junctions between two different m
Re:Okay since heat is IR... (Score:2)
The development of reverse sharks cannot be far behind...
No, heat is not IR... (Score:3, Informative)
You see heat in infrared images because things of the temperatures that are common on the Earth (people, plants, cars, etc. ) have blackbody radiation curves [electro-optical.com] that peak in infrared band.
Don't get me started on people that confuse light amplification with infrared cameras.
Re:Okay since heat is IR... (Score:4, Informative)
These devices don't suck the radiation out of stuff, just like a (digital) camera doesn't suck light from the object you photograph. You can therefore not use them to cool anything, afaik. CPU coolers suck heat out of your cpu because they offer it a lower temperature, and heat flows from low to high temperature.
These things are different from a thermalcouple in the sense that they are in a completely different ballpark. A thermocouply supplies you with electricity as long as you can maintain a temperature difference over it, or it will drain heat from its cold side and add it to its hot side (increasing the difference) if you supply electricity to it. The things in the article supply you with electricity when you shine a light on them and are probably destroyed when you supply electricity to them.
Z
Re:Hate to be a Pessimist, BUT..... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hate to be a Pessimist, BUT..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hate to be a Pessimist, BUT..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Invest in a technological breakthrough.
In a Free Enterprise system you are free to do that.
You don't have to wait around for anyone else, do it yourself.
There is nothing wrong with big profit as long as you don't enslave people in the process. Also, if you make a lot, then you can share a lot.
Wealthy and powerful people are not categorically and necessarily greedy and selfish as you seem to imply with your post. But being wealthy and powerful makes one (I believe) more sus
Hate to be a Realist but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, so you're saying that they're in business to make money, but since this will presumably make lots of money and solve many power supply problems, they won't do it?
Explain how that makes sense.
Oil companies are businesses, not evil entities like you suggest. They are governed by boards of directors, who are (generally) LEGALLY REQUIRED to do what is in the shareholder's best interests (usually meaning make money). Yet you
Hate to be the optimist, BUT ... (Score:2)
Re:Hate to be the optimist, BUT ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cana-DUH strikes again! (Score:2)
Re:How do I post a comment to the main article? (Score:2)
Click that "Reply" button and you'll post a top-level comment in reply to the thread.