Solar cell breaks efficiency record

[kpete]

Source: C-NET


December 6, 2006 1:18 PM PST
Solar cell breaks efficiency record

By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News

Boeing-Spectrolab has developed a solar cell that can convert almost 41 percent of the sunlight that strikes it into electricity, the latest step in trying to drop the cost of solar power.

Potentially, the solar cell could bring the cost of solar power down to around $3 a watt, after installation costs and other expenses are factored in, over the life of the panel. The new cost information comes from Boeing, whose Spectrolab unit supplies searchlights and solar simulators, and the Department of Energy, which sponsored the project. Current silicon solar cells provide electricity at about $8 a watt, before government rebates. The goal is to bring it to $1 a watt without rebates or incentives.

The cell achieves 40.7 percent efficiency. The Department of Energy has been sponsoring research to find ways to get solar cells past the so-called 40 percent barrier.

Earlier this year, researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories reported that cells made of a new type of semiconductor, zinc-manganese-tellurium, combined with a few atoms of oxygen, could convert around 45 percent of sunlight into electricity. That technology, also partly sponsored by the Department of Energy, has been licensed to RoseStreet Labs in Arizona. It remains to be seen whether this material can be made into solar cells economically.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/Solar-cell-breaks-efficiency-record/2100-11395_3-6141527.html

[JonQ]

1. Cool

I'd be very interested in seeing how this compares with expense and lifespan to previous solar cells.

But definitely a step in the right direction. I wish we'd put more of that stimulus money in to research. It may take longer to pay off but it will be a net winner for the country.

[kristopher]

20. Solar is ready for market - new companies are sold out years in advance.

This article is poorly researched. It talks about a milestone in conversion efficiency, but it misrepresents the significance of this aspect of producing affordable solar PV

Thin film solar technology has a much lower efficiency, but it is also much, much cheaper to produce AND install than higher efficiency methods of production.

For examples of what is leading the real market look at the technologies behind Nanosolar http://www.nanosolar.com/

and Solyndra http://www.solyndra.com/Products/Optimized-PV

[JonQ]

24. Thanks for the links

I'll check those out.

[existentialist]

2. A few months ago I read of an improvement in technology

that would allow conversion of more than 40% of the energy of sunlight to be converted to electricity through photo voltaic chips.

One major problem: the chips cost about $10,000 per square centimeter. Has there been significant improvement with regard to cost.

I have also read about one other significant problem with photolytic, namely the nitrogen triflouride that is used in their production. It seems that the nitrogen trifluoride is a very significant greenhouse gas that breaks down very slowly in the atmosphere. What I read about it however hinted at a solution, because the nitrogen trifluoride, as I understood it, was escaping in the process rather than being necessarily released. This being so a solution is implied by simply tightening up the seals and improving the recovery systems?

What do you know about these issues?

[liberal N proud]

3. All new technology is expensive at first

Production and refinement will bring the cost down as it has with most emerging technologies.

[d3m0l1sh3r]

4. PRICE SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE

Just because it's expensive doesn't mean we shouldn't go out and start implementing these everywhere we can in place of the current systems.
There needs to be change, some currency that isn't worth anything anyway, shouldn't stop it. EVER

[tomm2thumbs]

7. my guess is if we spent as much on the war as solar, we'd need few wars

seems like money well spent

[fascisthunter]

5. good news

[Syntheto]

6. Christ!

Please don't let this be some sort of bullshit employing labyrinthine statistics and methods for determining energy output that are unrealistically optimistic, just like the current debate over the effect manmade activity has changed the climate. On that note, why aren't we bitching about the POLLUTION and the degradation of world AIR QUALITY that's definitely-no doubt about it- caused by human activity? Jesus, it sickens me that such an opportunity has been lost (and that's saying a lot, as I'm an uberathesist) and if I was the conspiratorially-minded person (meaning, I could be) then I might wonder if the current climate debate is more a method of diverting the topic away from the real threat, namely AIR POLLUTION. Supposedly, there's a dark cloud of smog that hangs over Asia. Remember the Olympics in Bejing, and how they had to shut shit down for awhile to clear the air; how some athletes were afraid to compete because of air quality. This is the real issue and should be addressed, but no one will. Sure, I'm right of most people here, but I will grant that because of our native ecological movement, our industries have scrubbed themselves pretty clean overall, ie, smokestack protection, ect. There are plenty of violations every year, but with the EPA, at least we have a structure in place. I've read that there are places in Czechoslovakia that are still environmentally dead from processes and industry conducted during the Soviet era. The Koreas and China are in this phase now, but who can really blame them? Look at the ease of life most Americans really have, even at the 'working poor' level, as compared to some of the regions of the world. Our real, truly underlying problem is the entertainment/advertisement/propaganda industry that we're all subjected to. Who needs a freaking car that can park itself? Who the hell are you talking to on that cell phone? Why do you need that pair of jeans? Why do we have kids humping the hills of Afghanistan, wearing sunglasses and carrying M-16s? In my heart, I curse Edward Bernays. Let the Antisemitism accusations begin.

[TrollBuster9090]

17. Pollution and negative externalities

In fact, the only reason coal and other fossil fuel burning energy sources can claim such a "low" cost per Watt is because they DO NOT take into account the actual NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES associated with their products. Coal costs a certain amount per ton to mine and burn, ditto for pumping oil out of the ground, and that's all they ever use to calculate the costs of those energy sources. They do NOT factor in the costs (which are difficult to calculate) of cleaning up the mess those energy sources create, the health problems associated with them, etc. That particularly irks me in the case of oil. The price of a barrel of oil is actually much higher than it appears if you factor in all the money the United States spends on military force in the Persian Gulf to maintain the foreign oil supply. But it's usually the big, bad old gubmint that gets blamed for 'wasteful spending' when it comes to that, rather than the oil industry where the blame should really go.

Even loonie libertarian economists like Milton Freidman believe that PIGOVIAN TAXES should be levied against fossil fuel companies, since many of the TRUE costs of their product (called Negative Externalities) are dumped onto the commons, while they only see the profits.

Definition of a Pigovian Tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

[NYC_SKP]

25. Huh? Do you not believe in or understand climate change, or both?? n/t

[baldguy]

8. So, will they sell the whole kit & cabootle to China?

Or will they allow Saudi Arabia to submit bids, too?

[Stumbler]

9. Anyone else notice this 'news' is from 3 years ago?

One would think we should have achieved even more efficiency in that span of time. And to echo a previous poster, price should really not be a problem in the first place. Billions to banksters and war contractors seem to be a-okay, but heaven-forbid we have to pay a little more for clean air and reduced mercury in our fish.

[d3m0l1sh3r]

10. Don't forget insurance people

Don't forget about the heads of the private insurance industry, too ;)

[grahampuba]

11. had to wipe a little dust of that one eh?

3 years ago is right,

from last year,
http://www.tgdaily.com/trendwatch-features/39807-new-solar-cell-material-achieves-almost-100-efficiency-could-solve-world-wide-energy-problems

granted this one is probably more cost prohibitive considering its components, cost shouldnt be an option agreed, but exotic materials are inherently expensive.

its great that these companies like BP, GE and others are making solar cells for a consumer market, but i cant help think about what happened when Firestone, GM, Standard Oil and others bought up the trolley systems in a handful of cites and pulled them all up.

[Stumbler]

28. Right? Solar power's been commercially available since the 70's or 80's...

But it's only now that's it's finally becoming "efficient"?? And in this case, "now" = 3 years ago... Anyone who values an actual free market can't expect oil-dependent companies like BP or GE to switch to renewable, decentralized power sources over the veritable monopoly they already control. If anyone need an example from history's past, the destruction of trolley systems across the US should be key.

How the f*** is it that we can hear debates about using 'carbon capturing systems,' a technology that won't be commercially viable for 20 years at many best estimates, while decrying solar and wind energies as lacking technological viability? Bulls*** hypocrisy is all I hear....

[More_liberal_than_mo]

12. It's still way too expensive

for the average income family. You have to install enough solar cells to give enough power for the peak demand at any one time during the day. A typical home in the Southeast or Southwest of the USA needs about 3,000 watts during peak hours just to run the air conditioning and about 2,000 more to run all the rest of the high power demand devices in the home that might be on at any given moment (refrigerator, dishwasher, microwave, oven, computer, lights). Since you can't depend on it being sunny when you need the power, you have to have a way to store the power generated until you need it. Storing electrical energy at your home is very expensive as you must have large rechargeable batteries and converters to change dc power in the batteries to ac power used in the home. At $3 a watt the solar cells will set you back $15,000 for 5,000 watts of peak power. The batteries and converters will set you back another $15,000 and unfortunately the batteries wear out after a few years and need to be replaced. Installation is extra. This puts the costs of solar out of reach for most homeowners right now. Hopefully the price per watt will continue to fall and battery technology will improve as well to give us longer lasting cheaper batteries.
Remember it was only 20 years ago that personal computers were too expensive for the average family but now nearly every family has at least 1 computer in the home.

[Hulk]

13. Aw hell, we can burn tires and warm our houses....

In our culture, it doesn't matter what the pollution factor might be. It's always the same story...cost and profit.

If solar cells can't make a bigger profit than coal burning plants, we'll just keep burning that old coal. Hell....there's no climate warming, remember? They said so on vannity and limpballs.

Land of morons....led by the biggest morons.

[bamacrat]

14. How fast will one of the Big oil companies buy this and kill it?

Ah Ev1 how we miss you.

[begin_within]

16. You would think that oil and energy companies would actually invest in this technology

because in the long run, it's probably much more profitable than fossil fuels.

[GreenTea]

15. Good news, but, let me know when it cost less than a buck a watt.

Then we won't need anything but the sun or wind or water for power....

I wouldn't even be surprised at sabotage over the years from the polluting and colluding oil and coal industries.

[wial]

18. What about LED solar?

I heard from a good authority LED is 80% efficient converting electrons to photons, but ALSO 70% efficient the other way, converting photons to electrons. In other words, LED solar is already vastly better than this breakthrough. Cheap too with new materials technologies. No idea why it isn't being marketed more aggressively.

[NYC_SKP]

26. LEDs and Photovoltaic cells are both semiconductors with p/n layers, same basic things.

In fact, if you face a so-called grain of wheat led toward light you'll get a little current.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, if there's an LED (light emitting diode) dedicated to converting light into electricity?

[kristopher]

19. .

This article is poorly researched. It talks about a milestone in conversion efficiency, but it misrepresents the significance of this aspect of producing affordable solar PV

Thin film solar technology has a much lower efficiency, but it is also much, much cheaper to produce AND install than higher efficiency methods of production.

For examples of what is leading the real market look at the technologies behind Nanosolar http://www.nanosolar.com/

and Solyndra http://www.solyndra.com/Products/Optimized-PV

[DemoTex]

21. My DU posts from the Oregon wilderness (5 months) were 95% solar powered.

I had a 30-watt solar panel and an AGM (absorbent-gas-mat) battery system (six 12v-12a batteries in parallel = 12v-72a for the consumer .. me!). Additionally, I had the US Forest Service solar collection and battery storage systems that powered the fire lookout tower's essential systems (USFS radio/repeater and cell phone, and low-voltage lights).

I seldom used the 2KW gasoline-powered gen-set that I brought to the lookout. But when I needed it, it was indispensable.

So, sometimes efficiency is not the only criteria. Need, in the wilderness, trumps!



Iced-over solar panels during the October 3-4 (2009) blizzard.

[pleah]

22. Very cool!

K&R

[unkachuck]

23. call me....

....when they achieve 80% conversion, at a penny a watt with a minimum of 20 years life expectancy....if corporate America won't do it, the Chinese will....

[D23MIURG23]

27. Unrec - this is old news - - December 6, 2006 1:18 PM PST

I'm the last person who would ever unrec a post about solar cells on substance, being a chemistry student with interests in related venues - but you've got to check the date on your news - this is expired.