What is Digg?67 Comments
- fquednau, on 07/10/2008, -1/+21Excellent stuff. Solar is the way to go. Plants have done it for billions of years, we better take notice of what really works.
- theberlindoctor, on 07/11/2008, -3/+20"to increase the double the performance"
write much? - SolarPandaBot, on 07/11/2008, -1/+16... as opposed to the manufacture and disposal of... just about everything else we consume?
- thestrongrope, on 07/10/2008, -0/+12If this works, this will be great! If not it will just fall into the large pile of could've beens. Only time will tell. I hope they have something here.
- bloodguard, on 07/11/2008, -2/+13Let me guess. Three to five years out, right?
[reads article] Yep.
If 20% of the green tech they announced five years ago that would be available in two to three years actually panned out I'd have free energy flying out the wahzoo and a flying car. Wake me when they actually start manufacturing stuff. - AxmxZ, on 07/11/2008, -0/+10Articles like that always make me regret majoring in history.
- modeloxpto, on 07/11/2008, -1/+10Oh please let this not become vaporware. We NEED this! Make it commercial quickly too, sooner than 3 years would be great.
- evilregis, on 07/11/2008, -1/+10Governments should bite the bullet, take the initiative and start building solar rooftops on government buildings, schools, etc. Lead by example. Use the money it saves on all of these to offer rebates to homeowners who want to do the same. Net effect being more reusable energy and hopefully reduced price of solar panels with increased sales... eventually.
- Manhigh, on 07/11/2008, -1/+8Manufacturing everything results in pollution.
Relying on nuclear fission means dealing with the waste from the uranium mining process, the manufacturing of plant components, and radioactive waste from the reactor itself.
Rather than relying on one technology or the other, the best solution is probably a mix of various technologies. - laserdog, on 07/11/2008, -0/+6There is, *at minimum* one frontpage digg story per month claiming an increase in solar efficiency, cost, etc.
A great many of them just startups releasing press releases.
Although I have a bit more faith in MIT when they say it. Although, I suppose it's equally as likely that they're just trolling for grant money. - modeloxpto, on 07/11/2008, -0/+5No! That logic is just pure evil. Pollution is a problem much more extensive than just the production of solar panels. It's because of that logic that things take so long to happen.
- krische, on 07/11/2008, -0/+5Alright, now put the coffee down. There you go, that's good.
- Murdats, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4"Efficiency looks nice on paper, but it's your bang for the buck that's going to make or break solar."
Efficiency is bang for your buck.
the greater efficiency the less panels (thus less land) which is needed to produce the same.
and a lot of these breakthroughs are in reducing price, solar is being attacked on the efficiency and affordability front, especially as efficiency adds to affordability (land isnt cheap) - sponeil, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4Umm, explain to me how doubling the "bang for the buck" using cheap dyed glass is NOT going to make them more cost effective.
Yes, breakthroughs take years to make it to the market. New factories need to be built (or old ones upgraded), and expensive features often never make it because no one wants to commit millions or billions of dollars for something that may not sell well because it's too expensive (or because something better may come along in a few months). This is so cheap it's a no-brainer, and these guys from MIT have already started their own company to manufacture/sell them. - InetRoadkill, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4The problem is that all these 'breakthroughs' in solar technology keep getting announced and are 'only a few years away', but none of them actually get to market at a price level to make it a viable alternative. Solar power is not a viable alternative unless it becomes cost effective and that seems to be the one area that is being neglected: getting the cost down. Efficiency looks nice on paper, but it's your bang for the buck that's going to make or break solar.
- cubicledrone, on 07/11/2008, -1/+5The whole ***** planet could be on fire and the last human voice heard will be shouting "you're ruining the look on my roof!"
- whiledo, on 03/25/2009, -2/+6That's a very negative comment.
- Murdats, on 07/11/2008, -2/+6yes, actually.
- stonewall123, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4Behold the potato clock
http://www.unit5.org/christjs/Potato%20Battery.htm - kierucom, on 07/11/2008, -2/+5I know how concerned I am that my roof looks fashionable.... wait a minute... really? "Ruin the look on the roof" eh? Seriously?
- EtherGnat, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3Nuts on both sides will always find stupid stuff to complain about. You can't take the fringe wackos and pretend they're representative of an entire group.
- thedsack, on 07/10/2008, -5/+8Just think of how we could fight global warming if we had millions of these things in each city!
- MWeather, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3Solar cells are very frost tolerant.
- rezonq3, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3The idea is to produce enough panels that the energy used to produce them comes from the very panels they manufacture.
Plus, as the technology improves and manufacturing increases, price will drop drastically. Eventually it would be one of the greenest sources of energy at our disposal. Not only that, but the parts from the panel that are not 'used up' by the conversion of sunlight to energy, would be recyclable should they still be in good shape.
I am sick of listening to these arguments against obviously sound green energy sources just because currently we are using petroleum, coal, or some other not so green source of energy to build them. - AlmostEvil, on 07/11/2008, -2/+4Depends on the city, Australia: fantastic. UK: not a good idea, we'd have to have them _everywhere_ and we'd still get pretty much no real amounts of electricity. Plus take into account that in order to create these things it'll create pollution from all the chemicals it uses to create them.
Our only real solution to energy generation without loads of pollution is nuclear fission and hopefully if ITER bears fruit; nuclear fusion. - krische, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Now that would be cool if they could do this to all the windows of skyscrapers and such. Just imagine how much energy that could produce, probably close to almost powering the whole building, or at least stuff like HVAC equipment.
- kieranmaine, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2If you look at the historical price of solar - it is coming down. Over the last 3/4 years the price has been stagnant due to a silicon shortage. By 2010 there will be increased silicon and cell production coming on line, plus the non/low silicon alternative should start to contribute.
In the UK peak kWh prices need to get to about £0.20 (and stay there for the lifetime of the PV system) for a domestic PV installation to pay itself back. On top of inflation, UK energy prices will most definitely increase for the next few years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7469848.stm) - so even if solar installation prices stay the same, it's likely that PV will be economical in 2/3 years.
As I read more about solar I can't see the point of using wind power. With unpredictable output patterns it can't displace anywhere near as many power stations as solar could (I'm assuming that solar's predictable power output would solve this. Please correct me if I'm wrong). - omelette, on 07/11/2008, -1/+3Yes, seriously. A good percentage of Americans live in communities governed by Home Owners Associations. These groups, much like shareholders in a company, are out for a single purpose - the monetary value of the entire group's investment. You may think that the the visual element is negligible and certainly outweighed by the benefit of cheaper energy, but the rest of the community now appraises at a lower value. Expect a fine. I don't live in a community like this because I can't bring myself to let a committee decide what I can do with my own property but there are millions of people out there who do, and for good reason.
- Rosco, on 07/11/2008, -3/+5Yea, they thrive alright, and die off every winter.
- InetRoadkill, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2If the dyes work to double the efficiency of the cell, that would make it around 40% efficient based on current silicon cell technology. Boeing has a cell which is already producing 40% efficiencies using concentrators which was announced almost two years ago. It was hoped that the new cells would have an installed return of 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, making it competitive with current utility rates. But so far, that hasn't happened.
Until a solar system is actually available (not just promised) that produces power for under 10 cents per kilowatt hour installed, then adoption of solar is going to be slow going. - SilverBlade2k, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2I really hope *this* solar panel breakthrough pans out...
- trollick, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2If "the technology is simple and inexpensive" what's with all these "might" and "could" in the article??? Why they just try and see if it works first???
- koreth, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Sounds like you need to change jobs.
- DestroyFascism, on 07/11/2008, -2/+4Actually they do. Covalent bonding, Citric acid cycle for any dumb idiot who wasn't paying attention at school.
- interbeing, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1This is mainly to increase efficiency on lower cost cells. The very high efficiency cells that you are referring to are extremely expensive and as a result they are only really used by NASA for spacecraft and probes, etc.
- ChileanGoD, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Even if it was cost effective there is not enough energy falling upon all of earth in the form of light to power everything we use. But no one seems to care. Like no one seemed to care when told that one day there will be no more oil.
- Phearce, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1RTA. This tech could either 1) be deployed on top of existing solar tech 2) used as a "clear-coat" product on top of windows
- kieranmaine, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1Only 50% of a domestic solar installation is the cost of the cells (http://www.bettergeneration.co.uk/solar-photovolta ... Hopefully savings can be made in this area as well.
- bkripper, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1With thin cell technology it might be built right into your roofing material, windows, part of the paint you spray on your house, etc. New solar technology has a ton of potential. Want to see the price of a barrel of oil drop like a rock, support this technology. Just look at the 80s when solar had a surge, oil prices dropped removing the interest in alternative technologies.
- Cyberpoop, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1Don't go overload on Covalent Solar stock quite yet, kiddos. From the scientific paper these guys published: "We report single- and tandem-waveguide organic solar concentrators with quantum efficiencies exceeding 50% and projected power conversion efficiencies as high as 6.8%."
A 6.8% power conversion efficiency is very low. Solar cells could outperform this figure in the nineteen EIGHTIES. This might look pretty cool...and it may be useful...but it is not the magical miracle cure this article makes it sound like it is. - inactive, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1So there is roughly enough square footage to have about 200 watts of PV on a roof. That should power......a small fan nicely. Forget about charging the batteries. For that to happen you would need a thousand square feet of panels, pointed at the sun (the roof of a car never points towards the sun in the US on a level surface), and many hours even begin to recharge the batteries. Typical whole roof home systems are rated about 4-6 Mw for the average US home. A good electric vehicle would have a 20-30MwH battery pack.
Laws of physics are laws, they can't be broken. - bioprez, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2sounds promising....they need to get these to the point where you can put a few small blocks that don't ruin the look on the roof of your house and provide enough energy to power the majority of a household's needs.
- sk11, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1You're on the wrong ***** website if you don't like reading about new advances in technology. Go to youtube or myspace instead if words make you fall asleep.
- MWeather, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1They are. California is putting a couple megawatts worth of panels on rooftops, all subsidized.
- TheAdvent, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Another "Major Breakthrough" that we will never hear or see anymore past this article......
- inactive, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1there seems to be a new bit of news everyday moving us in the right direction.
- jschrab, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2Fight, fight, fight - why does everything have to be a "war" of some sort with everybody nowadays?
- hexydes, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure the engineer interviewed in the article SPECIFICALLY SAID how architects might like to use them in windows, but that they wouldn't be very efficient/effective when employed that way.
- TheMachine1, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1I'm curious of where they are getting the "double" from. I though there was some theoretical barrier at around 50% and we already have solar cells that are 40.7%. I guess they mean this will allow lower cost cells to get in the higher efficiency range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PVeff(rev110707 ...
Theoretically the shorter wavelengths of light can all be downshifted to longer wavelengths that a cheap solar cell uses. I assume thats what this invention does. - beauley, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1With Global Warming on many people's minds, do we have any ideas of the best way to lessen the impact on our future, or maybe a possible relief of its possible ravages or even a possible key to its eventual reversal. Many scientific experts have proposed
http://www.quazen.com/Science/Technology/Solar-Pow ...
Solar Power, Source of Endless Energy -
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is d.jpg){kind=link}