Altered Organism Triples Solar Cell Efficiency 158
An anonymous reader writes "By harnessing the shells of living organisms in the sea, microscopic algae called diatoms, engineers have tripled the efficiency of experimental dye-sensitized solar cells. The diatoms were fed a diet of titanium dioxide, the main ingredient for thin film solar cells, instead of their usual meal which is silica (silicon dioxide). As a result, their shells became photovoltaic when coated with dyes. The result is a thin-film dye-sensitized solar cell that is three times more efficient than those without the diatoms."
When can I buy them? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:When can I buy them? (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't have to buy them. You can get titanium dioxide from donuts [hackaday.com] and use that to enhance your solar cells.
Our food really is filled with crap!
Re: (Score:2)
Just had to ask... (Score:5, Funny)
So does this mean we now have to call them dye-atoms?
Don't bother throwing things...I've already taken cover.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This sounds like a good passover joke. If they had dyed the atoms, it would have been good enough for us.
dye-atom!
Re:Just had to ask... (Score:5, Funny)
It's too bad they used Titanium instead of Lithium. We could have had DyeLithium Crystal solar power
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but since it's triple the output, you could call it Tritanium.
Re: (Score:2)
>So does this mean we now have to call them dye-atoms?
No, but PETA is already preparing to complain about people who string too many together, cooking them with their own over-voltage condition, while screaming, "Die, atom!" :)
hawk
120% efficiency! (Score:2, Interesting)
So, with the "breakthrough" a few months ago that three different dyes in a cell could capture 40% of light from the sun, does that make this more efficient than coal?
Could the ecomentalists finally have something to cheer about?!
Re:120% efficiency! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, with the "breakthrough" a few months ago that three different dyes in a cell could capture 40% of light from the sun, does that make this more efficient than coal?
Well, it doesn't take millions of years to make more when we run out.
Re:120% efficiency! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:120% efficiency! (Score:5, Funny)
I got er. I just keep them loose all over the place, help yourself.
free range Hydrogen
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How long does it take to make a new sun? I mean...it will run out eventually...
When the Sun runs out it won't matter how much coal we have, (or any other energy source) unless we've used it to ship out far, far away from this solar system. Nothing is truly indefinite so your argument is mostly pointless.
Re:120% efficiency! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nothing is truly indefinite
Heisenberg begs to differ.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not pointless. It's a genuine problem. It's just one that won't get here for a very long time. So other, more immediate, things are more significant...in the short term.
It's probably really too early to give it much attention, or to try to solve it...but it is a genuine problem.
Re: (Score:2)
When Christina Aguilera gives Jessica Alba an infection.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd frankly be shocked if we were still around as a species at that point. At least, if we were, I sort of doubt we'd really look like we do now. Probably not even think. That's so very, very far off. That's further off than the origin of life on earth. That's frankly an incomprehensible amount of change to life on earth that may occur between now and then, to the point where any speculation isn't worth the oxygen used to imagine it. Nothing we can possibly think will come close to the realities of th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How long does it take to make a new sun? I mean...it will run out eventually...
Let there be light. [multivax.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Modern coal-fired power plants are at about 30-35% efficiency on average.
In any case, comparing the efficiency of two totally different kinds of energy sources is not necessarily useful for determining which is the better choice. There are also economic (cost of production) and environmental (real cost of GHG emissions, regardless of any state carbon pricing plan) metrics that need to be applied.
The parent commenter should probably notice that it was the OP (pro-coal?) commenter who made the original (sarc
Re:120% efficiency! (Score:5, Insightful)
From an energy standpoint, direct solar has ALWAYS been more efficient than coal. How much sunlight do you think was needed to create the coal we burn? How much energy do we use to extract and refine it (when necessary)?
More cost-effective? That's a different matter, and impossible to calculate since we can't even properly measure the true costs of burning coal for electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
More cost-effective?
Tied to that is practicality: you don't get much solar energy at night or during snow or dust storms.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
..you don't get much solar energy at night...
Solution: Flip the panels over and dig a deep, deep hole..
Re: (Score:2)
fantastic :-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The accrued savings from a raging fusion inferno a million times the mass of the earth whose wispy out layer glowed incandescent for four billion years will be pretty much wiped out by about 200 years of human activity.
Is there where the multi-tasking generation leads us? This has
Re: !120% efficiency (Score:1)
Looks more like 30% efficiency to me.
I don't know why they can't just tell you the percentage up front!
Diatoms, what cnan't they do? (Score:5, Insightful)
From toothpaste to DE Filters to solar cells.
I love nature - if mankind paid more attention to it we'd be so much more advanced than we are currently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mankind is the reflective stuff on road signs? Is that why they are red, or what they mean by sacrificing one, to save a thousand?
Re: (Score:2)
Mankind is the reflective stuff on road signs?
Yes. Soylent Red steet signs are PEOPLE!
So are Soylent Yellow lane dividing stripes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I love nature - if mankind paid more attention to it
Mankind is of and surrounded by "nature". We can't we can't do anything *but* pay attention to nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm lets see here, a dam built by a beaver for a beavers purposes is nature, a dam built by man for man's purposes isn't?
Yes, according to environmentalist fools.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the Kariba dam seems like a pretty bad one.
Building the Hoover Dam out in the middle of a desert sure did eliminate the possibility of 'development refugees'.
Your comments raise three thoughts in my mind:
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. So many of the useful things we now enjoy were based on either observing the natural world, or using things from pretty much directly (many medecines). It's distressing that we are destroying so many natural habitats, and associated species, that could some day be really helpful.
As yeah, they're often interesting and pretty, too...
Re: (Score:2)
Pay more attention to nature?! You should try google fighting [googlefight.com] it before making those kinds of statements.
Re: more advanced than we are currently (Score:2)
Apparently we once were... ever heard of Atlantis?
Re: (Score:2)
if mankind paid more attention to it we'd be so much more advanced than we are currently.
citation needed [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
From toothpaste to DE Filters to solar cells.
They can also apperantly clean up red tides
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/118946.php [medicalnewstoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Only if it produces lobster or King crabs.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait till PETA hears about this! (Score:3, Funny)
Nasty humans exploiting those defenseless unicellular creatures!
Re:Wait till PETA hears about this! (Score:4, Funny)
Nasty humans exploiting those defenseless unicellular creatures!
We'll call them Sea Puppies! Because who would want to hurt a sea puppy?!
/In case you don't get the joke [peta.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh dear lord. I don't call that a joke, I call that horrendous. The fact that the website seems to be targeting children gives me chills. If my son or daughter was suddenly upset with my fishing and hunting habit because PETA told her its mean to kill "sea kittens", I'm gonna be marching down to headquarters in my camouflage to take care of the problem MY way.
Fucking PETA. I'm going to eat a creek kitten right now. A trout. And, by the way, PETA, I paid $30 to be licensed to actually catch that trout, and I
Re: (Score:2)
Oh dear lord. I don't call that a joke, I call that horrendous. The fact that the website seems to be targeting children gives me chills. If my son or daughter was suddenly upset with my fishing and hunting habit because PETA told her its mean to kill "sea kittens", I'm gonna be marching down to headquarters in my camouflage to take care of the problem MY way.
Fucking PETA. I'm going to eat a creek kitten right now. A trout. And, by the way, PETA, I paid $30 to be licensed to actually catch that trout, and I
Re: (Score:2)
Worse. They're making them eat titanium.
If that's not torture, I don't know what is. :D
OK... (Score:4, Funny)
an industrial waste angle. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What gets done with that sort of thing currently?
Re: (Score:2)
Waste sheetrock ('rock' as the home builders call it) goes to landfills currently. At least on the east coast of the US.....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Titanium is expensive because the oxygen needs to be stripped off of the ore; titanium dioxide is far cheaper.
That doesn't mean that recycling paint is a bad idea, but the cost of titanium isn't going to drive it.
Re: (Score:2)
Florida has a pot load of homes with Chinese drywall that is a curse from hell. Getting rid of this stuff involves a rework of the entire mansion.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lot easier if what you are competing with requires silicon dioxide to be melted before it can be used, which in turn requires a lot of energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Well Duh (Score:3, Funny)
Of course diatoms are going to make better solar cells. I mean just look at the name, diatom is greek for two atoms. There's twice as many atoms there, so you'd guess they would make at least twice as good solar cells.
Re: (Score:2)
Kim Ono: Yoko's illegitmate love child. Next question?
3 times what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Triple efficiency of what? I was only able to find this paragraph that put some numbers.
Dye-sensitized solar cells are favored as a thin-film material because they work in low-light conditions and are fabricated with environmentally benign materials compared to silicon solar cells. However, silicon cells have more than twice the efficiency, as much as 20 percent compared to less than 10 percent for dye-sensitized solar cells.
So Are we talking about 3x 20%? One could only wish. I think they mean 3x 10%, so 30% efficency, which is only 50% better than silicon solar cell. I guess that's still a big improvement.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There was a young boy who received high praise for making a solar cell that was "20 times as efficient as comparative cells"... Well, since the other cells were already getting 10% of the output from the sun, and since there was no way the boy could be getting 200% from the sun, it means he just expanded the wavelengths of light the cell was
harvesting method? (Score:5, Funny)
Do the diatoms die from shock?
this sounds like a harebrained scheme (Score:1, Flamebait)
someone cooked up while being stoned
"so we feed the bugs the solar cell stuff man, and they just like use it make better solar cells. whoa"
and yet it works. amazing
all hail marijuana science
next up from stoned science: "dude, did you ever look at your hand, no, i mean really look at it?: curing phantom limb symptoms by really looking at your hand"
Re: (Score:2)
next up from stoned science: "dude, did you ever look at your hand, no, i mean really look at it?: curing phantom limb symptoms by really looking at your hand"
Y'must be high. If your hand is completely there, you'd not have a problem with it being nonexistent and itchy, would ya?
Lousy Headline (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Lousy Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not convinced that nuclear is a good alternative. *Some* nuclear might be a good choice, but so many designs seem to have major hidden costs associated with them that aren't being counted.
When the builders of the plants don't demand a government subsidy to cover their insurance costs (or relieve them of the necessity for carrying insurance) then I'll consider them seriously. Until then I won't believe that the people building and running the plants believe that they are safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, there is no negative side to solar power: for example, harmful chemicals used in the production of solar cells. So we don't need to have any reasoned debate on the costs and benefits of one technology versus the other. We can just launch straight into hyperbole to flatten anyone who disagrees with us.
I wonder.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder what effect this will have on evolutionary processes in the diatoms.
How will they respond to the titanium dioxide in an evolutionary context?
Re: (Score:2)
How will they respond to the titanium dioxide in an evolutionary context?
Article says they only take up titanium dioxide if no silicon dioxide is available. But if they maintain a strain of diatoms perpetually deprived of titanium dioxide, we might see some natural selection in action. I guess diatoms don't currently make used of silicon dioxide in any capacity aside from shell production, though, since the diatoms fed only titanium dioxide seem to be able to live, so I doubt anything much would happen.
Humans Who Don't Eat (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe they can do the same with humans, and we no longer need to eat: just hang out in the sun. My wife keeps telling me that I'm as lazy as a plant anyhow. Might as well go all the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone else notice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like they are "fishing" for some more funding. Oh yes I can.
Re:Anyone else notice? (Score:4, Informative)
FTFA:
Dye-sensitized solar cells are favored as a thin-film material because they work in low-light conditions and are fabricated with environmentally benign materials compared to silicon solar cells. However, silicon cells have more than twice the efficiency, as much as 20 percent compared to less than 10 percent for dye-sensitized solar cells.
In the low-light environmentally safe field, these are the "normal" solar cells.
If you are looking for the replacement power plant cells (toxic, always aligned with the sun, typically out in the middle of a desert to avoid clouds) these aren't the cells you want.
But if these are intended to be mass marketed and put all over the place, this is the type you want.
Re:Anyone else notice? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with fishing for more funding.
The important thing isn't the efficiency, but the price/performance ratio.
1% efficient cells that are dirt cheap still aren't worth installing on your roof.
95% efficient cells at $50K per square meter are only of interest for satellite applications.
But, a 30% efficient cell that's reasonably cheap is a whole lot more interesting than a 40% one that costs 5 times as much. Taking a cheap 10% efficient tech and making it 3 times better without making it 3 times more expensive is a very useful thing.
Biology - Underutilized (Score:3, Interesting)
Dr. Alexander Shulgin [wikipedia.org] talks about something similar [cognitiveliberty.org], making a mushroom take care of his work.
However there is a very interesting study that took place in Leipzig about 15 years ago. Jochen Gartz, a mushroom explorer whom I know quite well, has done some fascinating studies with Psilocybe species by raising them on solid media containing strange tryptamines that are alien to the mushroom. Apparently the enzymes that are responsible for the 4-hydroxy group of psilocin are indifferent to what it is they choose to 4-hydroxylate. He has taken things like DPT or DIPT and put them in the growth media and the fruiting bodies that came out contain 4-hydroxy-DPT or 4-hydroxy-DIPT instead of psilocin.
More Bullshit (Score:2)
Between this, that kid who had some amazing breakthrough with no help from his parents and others, honest, and all the other breakthroughs we've had, solar efficiency has been boosted over 100 fold in the past decade.
Why has none of it come to fruition?
Could it be that bullshit headlines and shoddy research yields more research funds?
Re: (Score:2)
The bullshit headlines probably come mostly from j-school grads reading actual science papers.
As to why we haven't seen it in the real world? I'm not surprised. There's already an existing method to create solar cells, so for a new scheme to actually hit the market you have to solve problems with manufacturing and lifespan. If your vastly more efficient solar cell requires plutonium to function it probably won't amount to more than a lab curiosity.
6-10% (Score:5, Interesting)
30 seconds of googling reports that dye cells currently produce around 6-10%. If you can triple that, it makes a really good solar cell. If you can do that and keep costs low, it makes a great solar cell.
The artcile is tagged "PETA" (Score:3, Insightful)
... but diatoms are *Not* animals.
They are eukaryote, but not animals. Plus, PETA doesn't really care about microscopic animals --- they care about the animals you would learn about in a book for children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromalveolata [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
I get e-mails like that all day... this isn't news!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh noes, poor diatoms.
Gimme a break; even the PETA retards aren't that rabid.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:What will the Libs do? (Score:5, Insightful)
"even the PETA retards aren't that rabid"
Wanna bet? :-p
Do your hands every get itchy . . . (Score:2)
. . . from whacking at straw men?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably. And my eyes are getting sore from reading so many pointless strawmen on Slashdot. We'd all be alot more comfortable if the retards spewing these strawmen would just keep their inane thoughts to themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
hehe nothing says "correctness!" like a typo in the subject line...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is an organic production method, but the final product is not organic. Still valid questions perhaps, but not because it's organic.
Re: (Score:2)
First thing I thought was "Altered Beast".
RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE! And seriously, if you can be risen from the grave surely you make me better then a weasly wimp that takes 2 hits to knock a wobbly zombie head off before I get my POWER UP water bubbles.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'd be more likely to expect Monsanto to add that requirement....and an expensive way to get around it.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like you have a chip on your shoulder about "organic", which is a label intended to let interested consumers know that food is relatively naturally produced.
GM does not meet that definition for good reason. Your GM food has seen a few generations of testing... not thousands. It is not organic, whether or not we think it's harmless at this time. Organic does and should remain a very strict bar to reach.
If you want a new label for GM only, but OTHERWISE natural, lobby for it. "Pesticide Free" m
Re: (Score:2)
To anyone with even a college-level understanding of science, that is not a good reason... Thousands of generations may be required to determine long-term survivability of the species, but they are just as edible. Far more "dangerous" things can be done by simply mixing various organic foods into a meal (or a food product) after slaughter/harvesting, than can happen in a living organism.
Re: (Score:2)
CAN NOT be hamful? really? that's quite a dogmatic statement, for one who "doubts dogma". So plants engineered to KILL THINGS... that has no effect whatsoever on a person that eats it? it's exactly the same? That would be an amazing thing, if true. However, it's a ridiculous statement: you can't know that for all current and future GM technology. THAT is what organic means: we are not guessing. I'm a little stunned you could even pretend there could be no effects. You could GM a plant specificall