Record-Breaking Solar Cells Tailored To Location 133
Urchin writes "The quality of sunlight varies depending on where you live, but off-the-shelf solar cells are all identical. A new solar cell designed by UK firm Quantasol is easily tuned to adapt to the local light conditions, which boosts its long-term performance. Its short-term performance isn't bad though — the single junction solar cell has a peak efficiency greater than any previous device, beating a world record that's stood for 21 years."
It's vs its (Score:5, Informative)
I know I'm heading to the moderation cellar for this, but COME ON guys, don't be so damn lazy about your language. See my sig below.
That kind of mistake is a huge cognitive speed bump for many readers. You're blowing your chance to communicate with your audience when you make (and belittle complaints about) adolescent mistakes like this.
Greater than any previous *single junction* device (Score:4, Informative)
Multi-junction cells are over 40%.
Silicon efficiency (Score:4, Informative)
SunPower A300 silicon cells average about 20% per bin.
Re:Greater than any previous *single junction* dev (Score:4, Informative)
It's true. The Fraunhofer Institute itself has produced more efficient cells. And all use multiple junctions.
Examples:
Fraunhofer - triple junction [fraunhofer.de]
NREL - triple junction [nrel.gov]
University of Delaware - bream splitting [udel.edu]
All claim to be the record because there is no standardized way to measure power efficiency. However, the concept of quantum wells used in solar cells is a new concept.
Re:Environmentally sound... hehehe. (Score:3, Informative)
Furthermore, it's very disingenuous to compare a commercial large-scale energy source with a localized energy source. Retail costs of solar production are not an apt comparison.
Finally, you need to understand that your electricity is heavily subsidized if you live near a nuke plant. Nuke plant power costs would be around 18 cents per kWH for new plants in the US (and that's a conservative estimate; costs to build plants are skyrocketing, all current projects in Europe are WAY over budget and it gets worse every year). Solar farms in good locations consistently produce power at 22-25 cents per kWH. Note this include materials, construction, maintenance, etc.
Yes, there's a cost gap. But that gap is closing.
Also, in checking my numbers, I came across this article [cnn.com] from earlier today about the skyrocketing costs of nuclear power. It mentions estimated prices of 12 - 20 cents per kWh. My figure of 18 cents is the Keystone Center's midrange estimate.
Re:Greater than any previous *single junction* dev (Score:2, Informative)
multijunction cells can also perform worse then single junction cells in non-optimum light conditions. A cell's output is effectively throttled by the lowest producing junction (similar to why it's so bad to allow a shadow to fall on part of an array). So if its cloudy or something and most of your light is reflected, you can get more power out of a low-wavelength single junction cell then you can out of a triple junction one.
Re:What about average efficiency? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What about average efficiency? (Score:5, Informative)
It translates into an acre of cheap mirrors instead of an acre of expensive solar panels.
Not quite the same: concentrating mirrors suck in anything but a perfectly clear day (i.e. no clouds), but a simple non-concentrated PV panel still works quite well with some (not much) cloud coverage. In other words: unless you live in AZ or some other desert, stick with non-concentrated PV panels.
Re:Vs. vs. vs (Score:5, Informative)
Just so you know, in most non-US English-speaking countries, abbreviations that end with the last letter of the world don't get a period after them. Examples:
Mr
vs
Dr
versus:
Mich.
Univ.
Rev.
In the US, we just got lazy and started using periods everywhere.
Re:500x normal sunlight. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Environmentally sound... hehehe. (Score:2, Informative)
I'm getting power piped into my home at a few cents a kilowatt from a nuke plant ten minutes drive from here.
Without subsidies [cato.org], never mind the cost of cleaning up, that nuclear power plant isn't profitable.
And the power plant will last a lot longer than solar cells stapled to some roof will.
And leave a lot of hazardous waste. Meanwhile as technology improves those solar cells can be replaced.
Falcon
Re:Efficiency VS Cost (Score:4, Informative)
More efficient technology does not mean wider applications irrespective of cost. Technology is defined as being more efficient BY what it costs; if it costs less it is more efficient. The science is still interesting but from a practical standpoint whether or not these will be used widely is directly related to the average cost of the electricity it produces. There is a reason that we don't use people pedaling on bicycles to produce electricity; because of the cost. If labor were much cheaper than burning coal then we would use that instead. Unfortunately the cost of labor is influenced by the COST of living.
If the super-efficient solar panels are constructed of rare materials that cost millions of dollars, then the higher efficiency will not necessarily lead to lower cost-per-kWh. The OP does care, they're just being realistic and not jumping to conclusions, which is what you should do when analyzing any investment.
Re:Efficiency VS Cost (Score:3, Informative)
I hesitate to say because it feels too goddamn obvious but higher efficiency leads to lower cost-per-kWh, so you really should care.
That's partly true. However, there's an interplay between peak/average efficiency and environmental factors of the light. This means that two panels with the same peak efficiency might produce wildly different ammounts of energy. For example, a panel that maintains its efficieny in dim light would be better suited to the Pacific Northwest or other cloudy climates, while one with a high peak efficiency only in bright light is best for Southwestern sunny states.
But as you yourself said, the important part is the cost-per-kWh break even point. This is completely unrelated to efficiency. A panel with 50% efficiency compared to some standard panel that has 10% the cost per area is more cost effective per kWh. Same with a panel that costs 4x as much but only produces 50% more energy. The question is, which kind of efficiency do you care about? Typically quoted efficiency (ammount of energy converted) is essentially a measure of space efficiency: how much area it takes to meet your power requirements.
The more important question for most people, I believe, is 'how much does the energy cost?' and that's where the cost per kWh value comes from. Ideally this measure will be determined accross the panel's lifetime, meaning the value is directly comparable to your current power cost. Do the panels provide energy at 1 cent per kWh cheaper? If so, there is no (economic) reason not to use as many as is practical. You might not get as much energy as with 'high-efficiency' cells, but your total bill will go down.
Re:Environmentally sound... hehehe. (Score:3, Informative)
You could also say that solar technology is highly subsidized by the government, and otherwise isn't profitable.
Solar Financing, Subsidies, and Incentives [thesolarguide.com]
Some of them are financing, which if just a loan guarantee is what people are talking about for the nuclear industry in the future, but some are outright tax breaks (grants, or real subsidies).