Researchers Improve Solar Cell Performance 292
Vegematic writes "Researchers at MIT have improved solar collectors using dyes. They just increased their performance results by a factor of 4. These paint-on materials can increase the power obtained from existing solar cells by a factor of over 40 without needing to track the sun. 'By collecting light over their full surface and concentrating it at their edges, these devices reduce the required area of solar cells and consequently, the cost of solar power. Stacking multiple concentrators allows the optimization of solar cells at each wavelength, increasing the overall power output.' There is also a shorter FAQ available."
Oh, Is It That Time Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me when 1000 sq ft = 5kw (Score:2, Insightful)
Then I'll be real interested.
Re:You need to increase them by three times that (Score:4, Insightful)
uhh... you just need to make their life time long enough to do that.
Re:Oh, Is It That Time Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Factor (Score:3, Insightful)
At present, all the solar generating plants in the world use mirrors to concentrate the sunlight on the solar cells, thereby greatly increasing performance.
Only the ones in areas with few clouds. Of course those places are best for solar anyway, but for the rest there's this new technology.
Re:Oh, Is It That Time Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, if you were paying attention, there's another announcement from some company about their revolutionary increases in solar efficiency every couple of months. They're always 'hopeful' it will be in production 'in a few of years'. It never quite manages to materialize. That is what GP is bitching about (quite justifiably).
Re:Bullshit numbers, no facts to be found... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh, Is It That Time Again? (Score:4, Insightful)
You say that as though all of the previous breakthrough announcements have turned out to be dead ends or something. Turning basic research into a product takes years, if not decades, so it shouldn't be surprising that you're having to wait a little.
Next time read the article (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And When Is It Available Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is pretty likely there will be an inflection point. At the moment, my take is that the subsidized pay off period is still pushing 20 years, so solar is pretty much only any good if you are rich and don't like it when your power goes away, or if you want to live really far from the grid. When the unsubsidized payback hits 10 years, Joe-dumbass is going to be screwing up an installation on his garage, driving the payback time even lower.
Up until the inflection point, nothing will seem to make a difference. Afterwords, it will be like "what took so long and where did all those things come from".
Nice work but does not address the key issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Similar solar concentrator concepts have been looked for three decades (look up, for example, Prof. Reisfeld's work at Hebrew University) and have not yet made it out of the lab.
Re:Call me when 1000 sq ft = 5kw (Score:2, Insightful)
Where, and at what time of year? 50w/square meter (this is what you are quoting) is about 5% efficiency in a sunny spot during the summer, and something you could expect from current commercial cells.
Re:Oh, Is It That Time Again? (Score:2, Insightful)
I read the following:
They...hopeful...will be...years
Re:Oh, Is It That Time Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Government solutions give us things like minimum requirements of corn-based ethanol in your gasoline because: Nothing is quite as intelligent as using your food supply to haul Chinese made goods around the country.
Re:Oh, Is It That Time Again? (Score:2, Insightful)
It also gave us nuclear power, satellites and the internet... but no one uses that shit.
Re:Factor (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a glut of new and exciting ways to bounce light. We have lenses and fresnel mirrors in conical or linear; funnel mirrors, holograms, diffraction grates, and concentric funnel mirrors. (I am the very picture of a modern...)
I think we've safely reached the point where novel can no longer be consider a useful parameter.
What is the cost - and what is the efficiency? longevity etc ...
At some level, we find ourselves on a Titanic, and in need of a solution to a problem with significant time and resource constraints.
I submit that this proposal, like so many in the same camp, does more to run out the clock, than it does to advance the ball.
EPRI has reported that Heliostats with salt storage and steam power is the least expensive means to a post-oil world. Unless this technology can demonstrate some advantage relative to the gold standard; I think its noise.
To your point, there is no real market for neighborhood solar; and there is no social benefit for wasting tax dollars on roof-toys - or anything other than the best-of-breed solutions.
AIK
Re:Oh, Is It That Time Again? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. A breakthrough for who/what?
2. 4x improvement over what/when?
I'm 50yo and from my own experience the world has definitely changed, IMHO mainly in a good way. Breakthroughs do occur, and when you take science/technology as a whole they have occured at an astonishing rate over the last half century. However even with a science degree and a lifetime of practice reading these things, unless you know something about the subject it can be difficult to tell if a press release is a breakthrough, an advert, or a plea for funding.
"Whatever it is, they should quit it so I can buy a decent solar panel!"
As you suggest, sometimes the technology works well but is not taken up because vested interests have had years to rig the game. For example German roofs are now pumping ~1Gw back on to the grid using the excess generated by private solar panels. Germany is not known for it's sunshine any yet many other countries with much more space and sunshine (eg: here in Australia) won't even look at 'net metering' legislation. Of course it's just a coincidence that coal is a huge export earner for Australia and generates over 90% of it's electricity needs.
The system has always supported the status-quo so if/when you do buy a decent solar panel you may find it an expensive red tape exercise to install it. Ironically, if you go right back to when domestic electricity supply was the breakthrough, you will find the architect of that breakthrough (Edison) had enormous legal and public relations problems with the entrenched gaslight industry who were hell bent on stopping his electric light company.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying solar is THE answer, just that due to it's decentralization effects on an existing industry solar has more working against it than mere clouds.
Re:Oh, Is It That Time Again? (Score:1, Insightful)
How do you think the United States built its wonderful continent-spanning railroads in the late 1800s? It shipped in Chinese laborers to work for a few pennies per day. Taking advantage of cheap Chinese is a proud American tradition.
Re:Oh, Is It That Time Again? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ethanol is made from dent corn. While technically true that dent corn won't kill someone if they eat it, it isn't something that you would want to eat. The starches and other properties not desirable for human consumption have been encourages and enhanced over the years for a variety of reasons including use as agricultural foods or industrial processes. Sometimes, the corn isn't completely digestible in humans which makes it about as nutrient as eating sawdust.
Why it was put in is very important because it dictates what it's intended use would be. This is highly contrasting to your claims on it. Dent corn is generally one edible in a very short period of time (around 2 weeks late July in my area) before it get too starchy or undesirable. So if you insist on claiming it is food, it would be more appropriate to claim it is food gone bad and being used to other purposes. Either way, claiming the corn used for ethanol isn't human food is accurate.