What is Digg?47 Comments
- maeon3, on 01/28/2009, -5/+203X fail:
1. The World Record claim is a lie, other solar panels using nano technology demonstrate higher efficiency.
2. They did not actually attain 41.1% efficiency in normal operating conditions.
3. They are solving the wrong problem, it's not about efficiency, it's making them cheap enough to mass produce. - ripple123, on 01/29/2009, -0/+13well thats what parabolic mirrors are for.
- laim, on 01/28/2009, -5/+16read the article. it says 41.4% efficiency with a light source 454 times the normal intensity of the sun. once it is 41.4% with 1x the concentration of sunlight, then it's news.
- chamnit, on 01/29/2009, -1/+10You would probably use a mirror for something like this. If the cell was the size of a postage stamp, all you would need is a 2ft wide parabolic mirror to get the 454x sun intensity.
Then again, you would also lose some efficiency reflecting light off the mirror. - Tollan, on 01/29/2009, -0/+8Great, the more research and progress on renewable energy, the better.
- MWeather, on 01/29/2009, -0/+8It costs $10,000 to launch a single pound into space. The cost of the panel itself is not a significant factor in NASA'a purchasing decisions. How much it costs to get a certain power generation capacity into orbit is what matters.
- ponchietto, on 01/29/2009, -0/+7Because the intended use of this thing is in a power plant where you concentrate light with mirrors on a central tower.
Mirrors are much cheaper then solar cells so, as long as this cell does not cost 400x a normal cell, the overall design is cheaper.
Moreover you can use the residual heat with a thermal generator, achieving even higher efficiency. - ponchietto, on 01/29/2009, -1/+83X not fail.
1) The world record is probably at 450x the solar intensity.
2) These are the normal operating conditions in a solar farm, where you concentrate the light using mirrors.
3) They are solving a different problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power
Look at the first picture on the right, the rationale is that mirrors cost much less then cells, so the overal design is much cheaper.
You can also use a sterling engine with the residual heat for even higher efficiency. - MorganMghee, on 01/28/2009, -0/+7"IBM Concentrator PhotoVoltaic (CPV) Solar Power Research Breakthrough" "Concentrating the equivalent of 2000 suns on such a small area generates..."http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/ibm-concen ...
Welcome to the party. - ripple123, on 01/29/2009, -0/+6um no. you lose very little of the energy when reflecting it off mirrors.
- Myztry, on 01/29/2009, -0/+5But then you have to track the sun rather than simply have a flat surface consisting of cells.
- draggy73, on 01/29/2009, -2/+6Can it play MP3s?
- buddyfarr, on 01/29/2009, -0/+4yeah because you know no one in the "real world" uses Linux....dumbass.
- Vektuz, on 01/29/2009, -0/+4Well the same people invented MP3s, so maybe they'll do this right too
- MWeather, on 01/29/2009, -1/+5You know what else is dangerously hot? A coal powered steam turbine.
- grumpyrain, on 01/29/2009, -1/+5Even cells on a flat surface is more efficient if perpendicular to the angle of the sun.
- Skab, on 01/29/2009, -0/+4nice claim, no news, nor record.
- Berkana, on 01/29/2009, -1/+4Indeed, the record is 42.8%:
http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/jul/solar072307 ... - Berkana, on 01/29/2009, -0/+3This is not technically correct. The tower devices are solar thermal generators, using the heat of the sun to power a steam turbine. Examples include Solucar's solar tower in Spain:
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/Seville-S ...
Towers tend to have much higher concentration rates. Basically, the goal is to concentrate as much as possible without threatening to melt the photovoltaic material. Concentrated sunlight on photovoltaics tend to be used this way, rather than in towers, since the concentration cannot safely be higher than 400x:
http://soliant-energy.com/products.php
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9956574-54.html - infamousjr, on 01/28/2009, -1/+4These type of cells aren't for mainstream use anyways. Only companies like NASA can afford them.
Also, if they want it to really matter they should reproduce the conditions under normal operating conditions.
In the real world ideal conditions don't exist 24/7. - NicMorgan, on 01/30/2009, -0/+3Full disclosure, I'm the VP of a company designing products using this sort of technology, although not specifically these cells. We're in the research phase, but will be deploying test systems a little this year. Thought I would add a little context to what is a very details poor article.
These will probably never go on the roof of your house. Here's why:
This technology was originally designed for space applications where efficiency and weight are more important considerations. The only cost effective way to deploy these cells in terrestrial applications is to use concentrating optics to funnel massive amounts of light onto tiny chips (called Concentrated Photovoltaics or CPV). In my opinion, the current technological leaders in CPV are Concentrix and SolFocus (but we're up and coming).
Current CPV technologies require precise tracking. Typically CPV modules are deployed on massive ground mounted sun trackers - so it'll be a while before home rooftop implementations are possible. Currently, the proposed market for these products (including ours) is in large scale solar farm systems. One sun tracker with CPV modules can produce anywhere from 20 kW to 75 kW, where a typical home requires 3 to 5 kW.
The improvement in efficiency over traditional Silicon solar cells stems from using a design where different micro-thin layers of PV material (called junction layers or junctions) are laid down together, where each layer is matched to a different part of the spectrum. This spectral matching allows for higher efficiency absorption, and in concert allows for current cell efficiencies in the 37 to 41%, and theoretical efficiencies in the 50+% and even 60+% range. Also, within limits and as long as heat is managed, efficiencies tend to improve somewhat (by a few %) as concentration increases.
More details on multi-junction cells here:
http://www.emcore.com/solar_photovoltaics/terrestr ...
http://www.spectrolab.com/prd/terres/cell-main.htm ...
CPV systems currently operate in the 20 to 30% system efficiency range when you account for optical and electrical inefficiencies, and account for the fact that concentrating optics can’t capture diffuse light (10 to 15% of the total solar resource in good conditions, more on hazy or humid days, and way more on cloudy days). Even with these limitations, CPV per unit area efficiencies are still beyond the reach of Silicon, CIGS and thin film solar cells, and current trends suggest that CPV systems will remain ahead of the curve in efficiency for quite some time.
The reason the CPV market has not really taken off yet is that current CPV designs are not priced competitively against conventional silicon PV on a cost per watt basis. As CPV manufacturers (like mine) introduce new, lower cost, high quality modules, larger CPV projects will start to come online.
For the curious, we haven't updated it in a while, but our company's website is here: http://www.morgansolar.com/ - diggydougie, on 01/29/2009, -1/+4The efficiency is a percentage. All that matters is energy out/sunlight in. It is still valid.
- st00f72, on 01/29/2009, -0/+3Then again, you still collect more energy with a 2ft solar panel.
and it's cheaper.
and it'll last longer.
and it won't get dangerously hot. - las3rjock, on 01/29/2009, -0/+3The University of Delaware press release is a bit misleading. I tracked down and skimmed the scientific paper ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pip.852 ) being described (badly) by this press release, and what the Very High Efficiency Solar Cell (VHESC) group did was to design and test a photovoltaic MODULE with net conversion (optical-to-electrical) efficiency of 42.7%. The reason that I say that the press release is misleading is because the module consists of collecting optics with 93% collection efficiency and TWO solar cells, one with 31.7% conversion efficiency designed to absorb higher-energy photons and the other with 11% conversion efficiency designed to absorb lower energy photons. The collecting optics reflect the higher-energy photons toward the 31.7% efficient cell and transmit the lower-energy photons to be absorbed by the 11% efficient cell. Those the total conversion efficiency of the MODULE is 31.7% + 11% = 42.7%, even though the conversion efficiency of the individual solar CELLS is lower.
The Fraunhofer cells mentioned in the TG Daily article could be used in place of the 31.7% efficient cells, boosting the total conversion efficiency of the module to 41.1% + 11% = 52.1%. - FordSVT1, on 01/29/2009, -0/+2I can't think of a single high technology that was invented and then ready for public consumption immediately.
The first computers were the size of a house, by your logic people across the land should have been asking for UNIVACs for household use. Today's innovation gets cheaper and cheaper until everyone can afford it, that's how innovation works. Get a clue! - trollick, on 01/29/2009, -0/+2If I kept track of solar cell efficiency breakthroughs correctly for the last year, the efficiency stands at 10000000000000000% right now.
- DigitalisAkujin, on 01/29/2009, -0/+2Even solar cells have a Moore's law equivalent.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PVeff(rev110707) ... - chamnit, on 01/29/2009, -1/+3you still collect the same energy for the same area and a regular solar panel is about 20% efficient.
- diggydougie, on 01/29/2009, -0/+2Of course it will power an MP3 player.
- RubineBoy, on 01/29/2009, -0/+2In times of global warming you can't leave out the mainstream public anymore. Every real breakthrough invention concerning energy should be made widely available and get government support. I can't see how the inventors can be happy with this "claim" if only a handful applications or people will benefit from it.
It's like finding a cure for AIDS but only give it to 1% of the (rich) population in need. - chamnit, on 01/29/2009, -1/+3um yes. most mirrors range from 80-97% reflectivity, depending on the spectrum of light and material. meaning that it either absorbs the light or bounces it somewhere you don't want it to go. really really expensive ones can get up to 99%. at that point, it makes this thing pretty moot.
- inactive, on 01/29/2009, -0/+2Way to go you.
- LexWalk, on 01/29/2009, -0/+2Hey! I made that claim months ago! No one dugg me! WTF?!
- alain4911, on 02/01/2009, -0/+2thx
- Nudar, on 01/30/2009, -0/+2You can't melt steal sheeple!
- motters, on 01/29/2009, -1/+2A largely irrelevant result. My electricity bills have tripled within the last year and I'm waiting for solar panels to become cheap enough so that I can stroll down to the DIY store and buy enough of them to cover an entire roof. Affordability and practicality should be the real goal - not trying to make already super-expensive panels 0.1% more efficient than another set of expensive panels under totally unrealistic test conditions.
- Spartandestin, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1Forget all the hoopla of making solar cells more efficient. Try making them more affordable for everyone. This is the change thats needed to this industry.
http://www.destintonight.com - FordSVT1, on 01/29/2009, -1/+2And yet another dufus who doesn't seem to understand that technology doesn't spring fully formed and dirt cheep from someone's *****. Buried.
- dimitrisokolov, on 01/29/2009, -0/+1There were the MIT Students who developed a solar panel hot enough to melt steel:
http://www.dailytech.com/MIT%20Students%20Develop% ...
There was the solar paint:
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/10/01/scientists-cre ...
Then there was the teen who created a 3d solar cell that is 500x more efficient than current ones:
http://www.katu.com/news/local/28432984.html - alain4911, on 01/29/2009, -1/+2Does anybody reading this know why they tell us about its efficiency when exposed to 454x times the intensity of the sun? I don't understand why they test it in this way, or how the results of such a test help.
- ShannonGB, on 01/28/2009, -2/+3Well that is actually the aim of most companies, the product firstly has to be profitable, the benefit the consumers derive from it is just a bonus. Once the product makes it to the market, the company will aggressively advertise it.
A lot of inventions have been scrapped just because they are not "commercially viable". That's the way life goes. - logan47, on 01/29/2009, -0/+1One has to be careful of company claims. For the homeowner, Solar Energy is the only way to go. Solar Hot Water Systems provide the best ROI. I am hoping to install a Solar Hot Water System soon. I also plan to install solar panels on my home in a few years when the installation cost drops and efficiency improves. Wind energy is generally not the best choice for the homeowner (http://windenergy.goingreentech.com/).
- adelodigg, on 01/28/2009, -2/+3nice
- StuartGibson, on 06/14/2009, -3/+2Next the open source community will complain about Fraunhofer's restrictive licensing terms and will create an open source version of these solar cells that can only power Linux boxes and crazy PMPs that no-one in the real world buys or cares about.
- spyd3rweb, on 01/29/2009, -3/+2Thank god for government bureaucracies that blow tax money on expensive pet projects.
- buddyfarr, on 01/29/2009, -2/+1Can it blend? oh, damn I said it....sorry.
- sturm4403, on 01/28/2009, -12/+2All previous comments are good replies! Nothing new to add at this time.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is d.png){kind=link}