Avalanche Effect Demonstrated In Solar Cells 234
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."
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.
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?
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!
Let's be realistic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone said it before, I will now. (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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.
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:1, Insightful)
Higher output, lower unit cost - isn't that exactly how one gains a lower cost per watt?
Re:Someone said it before, I will now. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Someone said it before, I will now. (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 distributed communications and computing network, did not exist until the cellular phone network was established (and greatly improved).
Now that we know we have the tracking and control technology, you might start seeing flying cars. But it is really no surprise that it has not happened before.
Re:Someone said it before, I will now. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
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:Let's be realistic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Penny wise, pound foolish (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem isn't oil - it's the abuse of it. Like an adict we've allowed oil to change the entire structure of our nation and our society. When the oil is gone this structure will not be sustainable.
It won't be armageddon. People will simply move back into the cities. The suburbs will become ghettos just as the inner cities are now and then they will die out. By the end of the century New York, Chicago and the other large cities of the US will contract back into the boundaries they had in the year 1900 before the oil infection took hold. It will only occur when people have no other choice - but now that we are beyond Heubert's peak that day is fast approaching.
Another sign of this is that even as the housing market overall is in crisis real estate in the inner cities has actually increased in value. Part of this is the lessors of such properties are usually corporations or affluent individuals, the other part is that the price of oil's rise creates a condensation pressure on cities that is only beginning.
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.
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.
Re:Sunlight is better used for heating (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 significantly cut your usage of other forms of power for heating.
Re:Someone said it before, I will now. (Score:3, Insightful)
The subsidies are a temporary measure that serve to kick-start the build-out of the infrastructure to support a new market in the face of opposing forces, such as cheap coal or subsidized nuclear.
IMHO, "free" markets are not always the most efficient way to achieve change, especially when there is a large capital barrier to entry.
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.
Re:Penny wise, pound foolish (Score:3, Insightful)
The other piece of work that needs to be done behind all of this is to make the suburbs more foot-friendly. Once you don't need to drive to work, the next thing is to not have to drive, or at least not as far, to get the basics of living. I'd expect to see humongous grocery stores fade back into the neighborhood supermarkets.