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."
Zzzzzz (Score:1, Insightful)
Wake me up when I can plug an extension cord from a tree to my data center.
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.
Vs. vs. vs (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I like the extra bit about the signature.
I (and I hope most people) read slashdot with signatures turned off. I don't have one. The guy (presumably, since he referenced it) has one.
I left that bit in since most people would see the posts as being exactly the same, and would never see his signature or see that I didn't have one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
There's a difference between a decision of style (vs vs vs. - both are OK, it's a common stylistic choice not to use a period when an abbreviation ends with the last letter of a word, as in "Dr" or "Rd"), and an actual spelling mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a contraction, it should be "v's". If it's an abbreviation, it should be "vs." If it's an acronym, it should be "VS". But in no case is "vs" appropriate under the rules used here. Contractions get apostrophes, abbreviations get periods, and you pick what you want "vs" to be, but it has to have some punctuation to meet the rules used here.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Only an American would be called lazy for doing something that adds clarity, and takes more work.
Re: (Score:2)
Adding a period is being lazy? I think rather that lazy people would seek to reduce the number of markings needed on a page to convey the same idea (note "ur" versus "you are" or "your" or "you're"). The reasoning would be more like:
We got stupid and forgot which abbreviations need a period and which ones don't.
We got stupid and couldn't tell abbreviations apart from full.
We simplified the abbreviation rules to have a period at the end of all abbreviations.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just silly. These rules are a matter of convention, and some of these conventions were adopted as late as the 20th century. The British make distinctions between an abbreviation (where you leave off the end-part of a word) and a contraction (where you drop the middle part), whereas Americans and Canadians don't so much, and this is where some of the difference lies. The examples you gave with the trailing period are technically contr
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, COME ON You make it TOO easy.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Either is accepted, "Chris's" seems to be more common, and neither is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, the period goes inside the quotes
Maybe in your locally mutilated version of "English".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are ALL lazy. Not just Slashdot. Since everything went online the quality of spelling and grammar has hit Elementary school levels. AP, Reuters, The New York Frikkin' Times, etc. ALL have various errors these days.
My mind seems to auto-correct for these mistakes pretty quickly while I am reading, but it does make me wonder if we would not be better off hiring 3rd graders to write these things out instead of journalism majors.
Let's face it. If you don't get a red line underneath what you are typing
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
just assume that its okay to submit.
Does anyone else see the irony in this post? No? Well that's because all of us have the great advantage of the neocortex. You see, when you see a word in context, even if it's spelled wrong its meaning is properly interpreted. I know it's useless to yell at you grammar Nazis, but I have this small shimmer of hope that this message will make the following posters WRITE ABOUT FUCKING SOLAR ENERGY.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you're the one missing the (intentional) irony. You should get that neocortex checked out.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, spelling grammar and punctuation was always horrible. It's just that 15 years ago, the 90% of people who are the poorest language-users, didn't usually publicize a lot of text.
The Internet didn't make people worse -- it just made them a lot more visible.
Also, it reduced geographical boundaries, english is my third language, it's not reasonable to expect the same knowledge of ones third language as a mother-tongue. Yeah, I make more mistakes than many native english-speakers, but no, it's not becau
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wooooooooooooosssssssshhhhhhhhhhh!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course your little rules for using such a thing COMPLETELY forget about the possessive sense. 'It' is a noun and 'it's' can work not as 'it is' but as a possessive statement. Kind of like
"This is a cat's dinner bowl. Here is it's water bowl."
In English the apostrophe has two main functions: it marks omissions, and it assists in marking the possessives of nouns and some pronouns. In strictly limited cases, it is allowed to assist in marking plurals, but most authorities now disapprove of such usage. An ap
Re: (Score:2)
On the Internet we call it 'sperging.
Greater than any previous *single junction* device (Score:4, Informative)
Multi-junction cells are over 40%.
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: (Score:2)
Re:Greater than any previous *single junction* dev (Score:4, Insightful)
My guess is that it's a lot more expensive. Semiconductor devices have to be processed in vacuum conditions and often at high temperatures; and the more precessing you use (triple junction has minimum 4 layers), the higher the cost. This is why there's interest in alternative, non-semiconductor devices like dye-based and conjugated polymer cells. Easy to produce in solution and at low temperature, no vacuum. There's a plethora of other undesirables in semiconductor solar cells too, like weight, inflexibility, etc.
Re: (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.
Efficiency VS Cost (Score:4, Interesting)
Efficiency doesn't really matter. What we really want is the lowest cost per kWh. What's the price of these?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hesitate to say because it feels too goddamn obvious but higher efficiency leads to lower cost-per-kWh, so you really should care. What you (or the manufacturer) really should be looking for is the pay-off point - where the improved efficiency matches or beats the older tech in cost-per-kWh terms.
The other point to make however is that irrespective of cost, more efficient technology can mean wider applications - where previously it would be pointless to put a solar panel because of, say, space limitations
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: (Score:2)
In some cases it does, because some applications can only be enabled when power output per limited surface area is above certain critical treshhold. Solar planes, solar blimps, solar-charged portable electronic devices to lesser degree.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You really need to have a certain level of power output per surface area, because there are low bar limits on how little power you can use to fly reliably. These limits are set by other engineering hard limits like battery en
Re: (Score:2)
More efficient technology does not mean wider applications irrespective of cost.
True, but solar cells are costly because of the material it is made with currently. If they can take the same material and use less of it to produce the same amount of power, then the price overall goes down.
Now if they invent another material that is more efficient but more costly to produce than the price goes up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"if it costs less it is more efficient."
No.
efficiency is a mattter of how much energy the cell turns into electricity. .5 Kw per sqr meter.
About 1 Kw of energy in a Sqr. Meter falls from the sun.
so a 50% effecient cell would get
If that cost *put pink to mouth* One Million Dollars per meter, it's not practical, but there are efficient compared to today's cells.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
The point being, it it costs a million dollars to get a 90% efficient cell, the average person won't buy them.
Re: (Score:2)
Most importantly it matters for applications like solar flight [solar-flight.com]. Solar planes of course wouldnt use heavy GaAs silicon cells, but the best of the breed thin-film cells.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Assume I buy a 1 watt cell for $3 (No, you wouldn't buy a single watt cell). At $0.05/kwH, if half the cost was energy, it would take 30 kwH to make the cell. How much energy will I get out of it? Assume 6 hr/day, and the cell lasts for 20 years, then it would produce 44 kwH over its lifetime (1w x 6 hr/day x 365 day / year x 20 years).
Of course, I'm jus
No prices given... (Score:1)
"The commercial market doesn't just want high efficiency, they want the device to be optimised to the environment," he says. "In the past we measured performance in dollars per watt. Now it's cents per kilowatt-hour that's more important."
This actually sounds like they're on the right track, but until I see prices I'm not convinced the process is a cost-saver. Also it sounds like it's only useful in concentrating designs.
Environmentally sound... hehehe. (Score:1, Insightful)
They're quite environmentally sound. They're made of arsenic, and many caustic chemicals being used to refine and produce them. In short -- not suitable for mass alternative energy (like just about every other thing called "green").
Reality: Solar power's only economical use right now is for remote sensors and in locations where the power grid cannot reasonably be extended and delivering fuel is impractical.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Environmentally sound... hehehe. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But what if you injure yourself? How would you call for help if you have wrecked the phone?
Sit in your car and tap out S.O.S. using your brakes.
Anyone able to read it while cruising past at 65 mph will have a ham radio in their trunk and a whip antenna curved over the roof.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
But what if you injure yourself? How would you call for help if you have wrecked the phone?
Use the banana phone. But beware, it carries a terrible curse...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
. . . and if they see you doing it, they'll even give you free bracelets! :)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Umm, TONS of electronics use As, that doesn't make them dangerous. When its covalently bonded to things like Ga its pretty safe.
The bonds do eventually break down...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
What version of reality do you live in?
Solar power is economical for large-scale deployments. That's why Worldwide Energy and Manufacturing has a $52 million backlog.
Oh, damn it. It appears I've fed the troll.
But, you know, keep on fighting the good fight against environmental responsibility. Future generations will thank you
Re: (Score:2)
Solar power is economical for large-scale deployments. That's why Worldwide Energy and Manufacturing has a $52 million backlog.
For an industry that in 2007 had an operating revenue of $253 billion in this country? They're going to need a few more zeros in their backlog. It was only this year that the solar cell industry celebrated break the $1/watt barrier. Meanwhile, I'm getting power piped into my home at a few cents a kilowatt from a nuke plant ten minutes drive from here. And the power plant will last a lot longer than solar cells stapled to some roof will.
Re: (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
Wikipedia (yeah, I know) shows lower nuclear costs (Score:2)
Cut-n-paste:
Factoring in all these issues, various groups have attempted to calculate a true economic cost for electricity generated by the most modern designs proposed. Because if an actual cost per kW*h can be calculated, then it is possible to compare it to other power sources to determine if such an investment is economically sound.
In 2003, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) issued a report entitled, "The Future of Nuclear Power". They estimated that new nuclear power in the US would cost 6
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was only this year that the solar cell industry celebrated break the $1/watt barrier. Meanwhile, I'm getting power piped into my home at a few cents a kilowatt from a nuke plant ten minutes drive from here. And the power plant will last a lot longer than solar cells stapled to some roof will.
Don't spread FUD here if you can't get your physical units right! You get "power" for a few cents per kWh, not kW (they sell you energy, not power actually - the difference is important). The thin-film solar cells have broken 1$ per Watt installed - i.e. per measure of power which will produce energy year-in, year-out (viz. 1 kWh every 42 days) and thus might end up being as cheap as nuclear energy if you count in the nukes' externalities like reprocessing, security, radioactive waste that are mostly dealt
Re:Environmentally sound... hehehe. (Score:4, Insightful)
In the US at least, nuclear power plant operators are required to pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund [blogspot.com] for just this purpose. "As of March 31, 2005, the total revenue paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund amounted to $24.9 billion. Of that amount, only $8.9 billion has been spent on program costs, leaving a balance of $16.02 billion that has been collected, but not applied to the used nuclear fuel disposal program." So there is a big (and growing) pile of money for whatever long-term solution we eventually settle on.
I am not sure of the degree to which security costs are externalized. I think they pay their own dedicated protective forces, or pay the NRC a security fee. But after 911, the National Guard also got involved, which sounds like an externality, though I don't know whether that was permanent.
Re: (Score:2)
When you say $1/Watt, do you mean, at the installation time, or at end of life? The amount of degradation and its speed is particularly important. Also, is the $1/watt the peak power of the panel, or the average over a cloudless year at some reference lattitude?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (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
Re: (Score:2)
While technically correct, a subsidy is more commonly used to describe an outright grant of money, with no requirement to pay it back. Such as the government subsidizing PBS, or the Arts programs, or giving grants for medical research. A loan guarantee, which is what the article is talking about, is not what most people would call a subsidy.
Yes, the article does mention a loan guaranty but it also says tax subsidies are used. It also says that because of the large upfront capital costs, "10 to 15 times as
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, let's wait for a perfect, 100% pure solution before replacing the ugly, dirty, nasty coal energy plants we have right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, let's wait for a perfect, 100% pure solution before replacing the ugly, dirty, nasty coal energy plants we have right now.
Well, it's better than replacing the ugly, dirty, nasty coal energy plants we have right now with expensive, under-developed, and potentially dangerous alternatives.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wanted: cheap, not efficient (Score:3, Insightful)
30%? 40%? Efficiency only matters if you're constrained by space (airplanes) or by weight (satellites). 15%-efficient solar cells are good enough that you can power your house with them by covering your roof -- or would be, if they were produced cheaply and in quantity.
Re:Wanted: cheap, not efficient (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are going to do that, just us industrial solar thermal.
Re: (Score:2)
"15%-efficient solar cells are good enough that you can power your house with them by covering your roof "
I'd like to see how you came up with that number.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll base this on the house where I grew up: a 2000-square-foot single-story house on the outskirts of Seattle:
190 square meters of roof. Assume that only the south-facing side is usable: 85 square meters of sun-facing surface. That's 85kW of sunlight, which at 15% is about 13kW of electricity. Since this is Seattle, assume four usable hours of sunlight a day: 52kWH per day, or about 1560kWH per month. Unless you've got electric baseboard heating (you do find that in the Seattle area), that's more than
What about average efficiency? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to belittle this accomplishment, but I'd prefer to see an increase in average efficiency. According to the article the peak efficiency is found when panels are exposed to light 500 times that of normal light. How does that translate to efficiency under normal operating conditions (such as a semi-cloudy day in the midwest)? The article is rather short on details concerning how well the solar cells operate when they are "tailored to their locations."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It translates into an acre of cheap mirrors instead of an acre of expensive solar panels.
Re:What about average efficiency? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Solar -> Thermal -> Mechanical -> Electrical is "probably more efficient" than Solar -> Electrical?
I guess I'd like to see numbers to back that up.
I also doubt it will be cheaper, once you account for maintenance of the mechanical components.
Yes, I suppose you could use molten salt as a battery for thermal energy. On the other hand, you could use a battery as a battery for electrical energy, and you won't spend the entire day fighting against thermodynamics to keep your reserve from leaking awa
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: (Score:2)
No, mirrors work on cloudy days.
Re: (Score:2)
a simple non-concentrated PV panel still works quite well with some (not much) cloud coverage.
That depends on the panel. On some panels a leaf can cut power production.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no average efficiency, because unfortunately the bastard that designed this version of Earth didn't make solar radiation distribution gaussian. You could file a complaint with Him, but I understand there's quite a backlog. In the meantime, I'd suggest moving to a desert near the equator if you want to eek out those few extra watts. Whatever you do, don't move to Minnesota -- For some reason, snow and solar panels get along like a big house on fire.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps not, however the light that actually reaches the panels is in no way constant. Some days will be cloudier (or smoggier for that matter) than others, so it is great that we have really good peak efficiency with these new cells, but how often will that peak be reached and how well does it operate at less than optimal light conditions? I'm looking for
Whatever you do, don't move to Minnesota (Score:2)
For some reason, snow and solar panels get along like a big house on fire.
What I heard is that there are small scale, ie residential, solar installations here in MN. Heck even solar thermal water heating [directorym.com] is being used. MN is also good for wind. Though not much the state produces megawatts of energy from wind.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
The Quantasol device can cope with much brighter light without becoming overloaded, making it possible to use a very small solar cell to absorb light collected by a system of cheap lenses and mirrors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, thank you, you've successfully tested my ability to read and recall memories. What I'd really like to know is how many of these cheap lenses and mirrors will now be necessary vs how many I was using before, and how much more efficient will the operation of storing energy be on days when the sky is not absolutely cloudless? I realize that the solar cell is more efficient at absorbing light, but how can this be applied to a "normal" usage pattern (when we're not talking about 500x the normal amount of
Silicon efficiency (Score:4, Informative)
SunPower A300 silicon cells average about 20% per bin.
The Solar Panel in My Soul (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Grow a pair gothy faggot.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest installing one of these novelty light-up toys [liteupnovelty.com] instead.
500x normal sunlight. (Score:3, Interesting)
It sounds like the interesting part here isn't the efficiency but that it's efficient enough and can handle a lot of extra sunlight via mirrors. The article fails to give any info though on what kind of efficiency other solar cells can achieve with mirrors focused on them. Without any reference it's hard to get an idea for whether or not this is even useful though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Magic 5 Years (Score:2)
In stores or it did not happen (Score:2)
I am getting bored with all these technological breakthroughs that mysteriously never seem to actually lead to something I can pay money for and get in my hands. Plastic optical memory, I am looking at you, too.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't underestimate the hippies' addiction to smug. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you use a 4 sq. foot lens over a 1 sq. inch cell you have ~576x brightness, assuming a perfect lens and no atmospheric absorption. More realistically you'd get closer to 500x brightness.
So if you use cheap, non-imaging fresnel lenses as concentrators you can get by with far fewer cells. At 28.3% efficiency, that 1 sq.in. cell will put out up to 0.2Kw, depending on location.
You can argue that they are converters rather than generators but that's just being pedantic.