Slashdot Log In
Avalanche Effect Demonstrated In Solar Cells
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon May 26, 2008 11:35 PM
from the when-the-rain-washes-you-clean-you'll-know dept.
from the when-the-rain-washes-you-clean-you'll-know dept.
esocid writes "Researchers at TU Delft (Netherlands) and the FOM (Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter) have found irrefutable proof that the so-called avalanche effect by electrons occurs in specific semiconducting crystals of nanometer dimensions. This physical effect could pave the way for cheap, high-output solar cells. Solar cells currently have relatively low output, typically 15%, and high manufacturing costs. One possible improvement could derive from a new type of solar cell made of semiconducting nanocrystals and could theoretically lead to a maximum output of 44%, with the added benefit of reducing manufacturing costs. In conventional solar cells, one photon can release precisely one electron. However, in some semiconducting nanocrystals, one photon can release two or three electrons, hence the term 'avalanche effect.' This effect was first measured by researchers at the Los Alamos National Laboratories in 2004, and since then the scientific world had raised doubts about the value of these measurements. This current research does in fact demonstrate that the avalanche effect can occur."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Wait and see (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I'll bet the keys on my keyboard that solar is going to be a lucrative market in the near future. Heck, it already is for solar cell manufacturers.
Isn't price the key? (Score:3, Insightful)
To me, the big issue is not efficiency but cost per watt. Many regions of the world have plenty of the land, particularly energy guzzlers like the US. What we really need is a super-cheap way to use that land for solar generation.
Re:Isn't price the key? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Isn't price the key? (Score:5, Interesting)
Efficiency matters, for a few reasons, including:
1. Indirect costs (installation labor, racks, mounts, etc.) scale with the area of the array. The area of array required for a given power output goes with the inverse of efficiency. These costs are pretty significant, so efficiency has a direct impact on installed costs.
2. There's lots of area available for solar panels, but solar energy is pretty diffuse, so you need a lot of area anyway. If a 1% efficient system cost a dime per watt installed, great, but you'd have to cover huge areas to generate significant amounts of electricity. There are practical limits. Even at 10-20% efficiency, you're still looking at large areas to generate a meaningful amount of juice.
Parent
Re:Isn't price the key? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Isn't price the key? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tidal/geothermal power are much more constant and predictable sources than solar or wind. However, I think all of these renewable technologies are each a piece of the overall energy puzzle. Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal...they've all got strengths and individual industries working for them. The current model of a dominant source is fading away into a more diversified energy market. "Never put all your eggs in one basket", as they say.
Parent
Manufacturing Energy Costs? (Score:5, Insightful)
How many joules are consumed from raw materials to a deliverable PV cell of a given output wattage? Of the old "about 15%" (really about 20-25% these days), and of these new proposed "avalance" PV material ones?
I want to compare that energy cost to the cells' projected energy contribution over their lifetime, which is about 30+ years for today's PV cells. How long would the new ones last in typical service?
Re:Manufacturing Energy Costs? (Score:5, Informative)
The head of Applied Materials' solar division said in a 2007 talk at Stanford that their current production process costs about 2 years of output for a solar panel. He thinks they can get that down to 6 months of output; he said some things about improvements to the sputtering process. which is derived from IC manufacturing technology where the wafers are smaller.
They'll probably do it. What Applied Materials does is improve semiconductor process technology. They're the world's largest maker of semiconductor fab equipment. This led them into making LCD displays, and then solar panels.
Parent
Re:Manufacturing Energy Costs? (Score:4, Interesting)
The numbers [energybulletin.net] are all over the place and constantly coming down with new technologies, but you're looking at breakeven after 1-5 years or so.
This is pretty good (EROEI is >> 1), and will continue to get better.
Parent
APDs (Score:5, Informative)
Re:APDs (Score:4, Interesting)
A high energy electron hole pair is created by a photon, which then relaxes down to a lower energy state. But, instead of emitting a phonon (heat), it creates another electron hole pair, and you end up with two. I suppose this process could repeat itself, so that many different wavelengths would all produce energy with reasonable efficiency.
This is in all likelihood facilitated by the complex energy band structure of the (essentially) polycrystalline semiconductor.
I'm not so sure how directly applicable all of this is. I suspect that some theorist postulated that this could happen, but it was difficult to prove experimentally. It seems to me that the hard work of actually producing an workable device hasn't been done yet.
From what I can tell, this work is done in PbSe, which I don't think is a suitible for huge volume production.
But I could be wrong in all this.
Parent
Los Alamos (Score:5, Informative)
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/20/1436213 [slashdot.org]
Solar Cells Get Boost
Posted by michael on Thursday May 20 2004, @02:15PM
from the juiced-up dept.
Science Technology
An anonymous reader writes "Researchers from Los Alamos National Laboratory have tapped the efficiencies of nanotechnology [trnmag.com] to double solar cells' potential energy production. The key to the method is the use of lead selenium nanocrystals which can produce 2 electrons where 1 was produced before. Other optical applications can also benefit."
Someone said it before, I will now. (Score:4, Insightful)
SOMEBODY PLEASE BRING SOME ACTUAL "IMPROVEMENTS" TO MARKET!!!
If all the "improvements" to solar cell manufacturing I have read about in recent decades became actuality, we would all have homes and cars powered solely by a 1-meter-square panel on the roof and the panels would cost $1 apiece.
Please, either DO SOMETHING with this, or stop making predictions!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Someone said it before, I will now. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When JFK pledged to put a man on the moon in 10 years, we did it -- even though the Cold War arguments re: national security were a bit hysterical.
Why can't we have a leader pledge to reduce America's dependence on oil by 50% in 10 years? Sounds just as possible to me as Apollo XI would have in 1960. And it's obviously more practical.
Re:Someone said it before, I will now. (Score:4, Insightful)
If the Apollo program were at the scale required for reducing oil consumption, we'd have colonized most of the moon by now.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is far from insightful (Score:5, Insightful)
If you actually read up on solar cells instead of sounding off like an idiot, you would know that the cost per watt is dropping quite fast, durability has doubled in the last 5 years, that Sharp are making cells which are nearly twice as efficient as much of the competition and they are being sold as roof panels, that the recently opened German factory can sell everything it makes for many months ahead.
Nobody has ever pretended that a 1 sq M panel would power anything large. There is only so much sunlight, and nobody has ever pretended the second law of thermodynamics would be broken. No-one has ever pretended that 1 sq M panels would cost $1 apiece; you could not make a structure to withstand wind loading that cheaply. There is a huge difference between actual forecasts of an eventual $1 per peak watt, and $1 per sq M. $1 per watt works out at about $140 per sq M for a 14% efficient panel.
To the people who modded this insightful: if you can't tell an obvious troll from engineering reality, plase hand in your geek cards now and go play with Facebook.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The problem isn't research. This is exactly how research goes. You investigate 1000 things for 10-20 years, and ONE comes out the door to use in widespread industry.
So - 1000 slashdot stories, times 10 dupes and repeats over the 10 years, times 10 because it's re-reported on all the other bloggies/forumish
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is holding up your flying car is not the car itself, it is infrastructure. Letting everybody who could afford to fly go wherever they wanted to, uncontrolled, would be pure mayhem. Death, destruction, and injury on a massive scale. Until they get absolutely reliable tracking and automated control, there will be no commonly available "flying cars". And the technology to do that, i.e., a distribu
Flying Car? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anti-grav units? Powerful downward facing thrusters? Wings? Rotors?
Truth be told, there's nothing holding up your flying car except the name. It's not a flying car. It's a personal aircraft, and they come in many different sizes and shapes, from ultralights, LongEZs, and autogyros, to Beavers, Cesnas and Learjets.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
An example of a currently available solar panel [affordable-solar.com] intended for roofing application is 136 watts, and about 30 would fit on that sample roof, for a total possible 4,080 watts at any given point. Where I am, I can expect an average of 4.5 hours of full production per day, or 18 kwh/day, or 540 kwh/month. That's possible, but would require avoiding high load items like
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't forget _solar_ heating. That way, you can squeeze a bit more efficiency out of the space on your roof, plus it can be used to cool the solar cells, which improves their efficiency also.
Thermaldynamics? (Score:5, Interesting)
I just hope all these advances, especially ones that make solar cells cheaper to manufacture go into production. There are huge chunks of the world that are lifeless desert, and would be perfect for large solar and wind arrays, assuming one could find a way to transport the generated electricity to cities without too much current loss. Perhaps some chemical reaction that pulls carbon from the air directly to make ethane, then another reaction that converts the ethane to ethanol to be piped to places that can burn the ethanol for electricity. Yes, the chemical reactions to pull carbon from the air, and get it into ethanol are wasteful, but for very long distance transfer of energy (100-200+ miles), it would be less wasteful to do that, than to use standard power transmission lines. Even though the ethanol electricity generating plants would be adding carbon into the air, it would be carbon neutral due to the carbon being extracted at the solar/wind site.
Re:Thermaldynamics? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Thermaldynamics? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Developing nations (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's be realistic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's be realistic (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Let's be realistic (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Sunlight is better used for heating (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sunlight is better used for heating (Score:5, Insightful)
I get free heating all summer long, but in the winter it's too cloudy to make a difference. Yeah, skylights sound good and all, but give me a solar panel over that any day.
Parent
Re:Sunlight is better used for heating (Score:4, Interesting)
I look forward to a future with solar powered desalination plants.
It's a much brighter outlook than continent wide water wars forcefully giving everyone a skylight.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Erm. Some of my colleagues heat their (superinsulated) houses with solar, with a small electric auxiliary heater. This year, they didn't have to use the auxiliary heater from late January on.
So, sure, you may not be able to heat your house with solar all the time, and in all latitudes, but you can use it to significan
Penny wise, pound foolish (Score:5, Insightful)
We seem to cavil about a few million dollars, or even a few hundred million, being spent to jump start emerging energy technology, but we have no problem spending billions on oil industry subsidies.
We need to acknowledge that any new tech investment involves high risk. Success brings high rewards. We accept exactly this reasoning when oil executives tell us that oil exploration is expensive and risky, and therefore requires continuing subsidies even when record profits are rolling in. A few million spent on alt energy research that tanks, however, is usually reported as a "this is what happens when you listen to the tree huggers" story.
An attitude adjustment as 'way overdue, and a rediscovery of our spirit of adventure and innovation. Perhaps putting some money into finding out whether this kind of solar cell works and can be mass produced would be a place to start.
Re:Penny wise, pound foolish (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe because most alternative energy sources are big money losers? Take a look at page 16 of this report [doe.gov] for the actual numbers about subsidies...
I predict once you can start to get alternative energy sources like solar and wind down an order of magnitude or so in terms of cost you'll see things turn around. However, for now they're getting somewhere around 100X the subsidy per Megawatt-hour that "Big Oil" gets.
An improvement from 15% to 40% simply isn't enough - natural gas and oil get around $0.25 per MWhr, while solar and wind get 100 times that amount per MWhr. And remember, those nasty "Big Oil" companies also pay over $3 in direct federal taxes for every $1 in profit. Over $200 billion flows into the Federal government every year in terms of direct taxes and fees (that's not including the taxes you're paying on consumption of their products).
Right now, and for the last 20 years, wind and solar have been huge money-losers, and only exists BECAUSE of the massive subsidies. If we subsidized wind or solar at a level to get useful output levels, we'd spend literally trillions more per year.
And then there's that whole baseload thing...
Parent
Wind Energy works, just ask Denmark (Score:3, Interesting)
Right now, and for the last 20 years, wind and solar have been huge money-losers, and only exists BECAUSE of the massive subsidies. If we subsidized wind or solar at a level to get useful output levels, we'd spend literally trillions more per year.
Nice try, troll. Countries like Denmark have had tremendous success [foxnews.com] with alternative energy sources such as wind power. Currently about 20% of the energy used in Denmark comes from wind power, and there is about a $5 billion market in exporting turbines. Currently over a third of the wind turbines used worldwide [wikipedia.org] are built by Danish manufacturers such as Vestas.
On windy days, Denmark actually generates "too much" power from wind (about 40%) so they are working on an electric car system [theregister.co.uk] to act as
Re:Penny wise, pound foolish (Score:4, Informative)
Your overlook many of the less obvious subsidies. For example, the Army Corps of Engineers routinely dredges canals used by the oil industry at taxpayer expense. The explanation is that they're staying in training. Canals that don't serve oil tankers, regardless of need, do not receive such treatment.
There are many, many examples of such hidden subsidies, none of which are accounted for in your numbers. I invite you to seek them out for yourself rather than take my word for them.
An article in Nature 445, 147 (11 January 2007) published online 10 January 2007, and "Money Down the Pipeline: Uncovering the Hidden Subsidies to the Oil Industry" by the Union of Concerned Scientists are good places to start your investigation.
Parent
Oh, ho ho ho... (Score:5, Funny)
Irrefutable? Then it's NOT science! (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, I rather doubt that the scientists themselves claimed irrefutability here. The journalists are probably to blame.
Decentralize - Decentralize - Decentralize. (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine for a moment if we geeks hadn't come up with DNS but instead tried to use a small handful of machines to handle domain name resolution. The Internet would collapse rather quickly no?
Funny then that to date our power grid is based on a centralized model. Sadly, as much as 20-30% of all power generated is lost during transmission over the grid.
Now effective solar panels and batteries to go with them would allow us to move to a more decentralized model. Imagine whole neighborhoods creating most - though not all - of their power needs. If the panels can get to around 80% of the needs of the house then the current power plants we have can be the only ones we need for awhile.
Or even better, instead of having massive plants with a huge footprint make use of smaller pup nuclear reactors - about the size used in a naval ship. One of those could be placed where the power substations are now and pick up the slack that the solar panels can't fulfill. They wouldn't present any real contamination danger as once their fuel was spent after 30 years or so you truck out the entire unit and refurbish (i.e. refuel) it under controlled conditions in a remote area - while in service the internals of the thing aren't opened up.
These things also wouldn't have to make as much power as the current power stations because, by virtue of being closer to the customers they serve, they wouldn't lose as much power in the lines.
Re:Or great! (Score:5, Funny)
You'd have to use a thick black raincoat, a wide brimmed hat and sunglasses to protect yourself from the ultraviolent radiation though. And cover up any exposed spots with SPF 10000 suncream.
Even then I'd scuttle back into the basement once the batteries had recharged.
Parent
why come out? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Or great! (Score:4, Funny)
You know it also comes in a new convenient spray can [rustoleum.com]!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh yeah. There will be a hydrogen economy if/when we manage to get useful energy out of nuclear fusion. Until then, hydrogen is just a fuel with one advantage on paper and a long list of disadvantages in practice.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am surprised nobody asked that before, but the answer is surprisingly simple. The photons obviously have enough energy do move several electrons, but the photovoltaic cell (junction) is a tiny laywer over some opaque substrate (normaly silicon). So you only have one chance of absorbing those photons.
There are some manufacturing processes that could create one junction over another, but those processes are very expensive and the material isn't completely transparent. Probably because of this (I don't know