What is Digg?43 Comments
- jasoninoakland, on 11/03/2008, -0/+10Would be good to find some sort of measure that relates efficiency to cost of manufacture, capacity, and life of the solar cell, so that an announcement like this would have the impact that it deserves.
- centerblack, on 11/03/2008, -2/+11Logic is characteristically absent from your post.
- grbradsk, on 11/03/2008, -2/+11Dugg because I already voted for the big-O, I'm sick of the election now ... and the world needs more and better sources of energy, beyond political blow hards..
- Trekhawk, on 11/02/2008, -1/+1010% isn't very impressive, but it's good to see the alternatives get a little cheaper if not more feasible.
- mmittimm, on 11/03/2008, -0/+8Does this happen three times a week or is it just the same story redugged?
- taiwanniggadu, on 11/02/2008, -0/+7great
- ophello, on 11/03/2008, -1/+8Wake me up when I can paint solar cells on the roof of my house and sell the power back to the grid.
- Turi, on 11/03/2008, -0/+7Seriously.. every month I see new articles about great advances in solar technology, ways to make them efficiently and cost-effectively. While this is great, never once do I see those benefits put into my hands - the solar panels available for purchase are still ridiculously over-priced and have poor performance. I know there's many obvious reasons why this is, but it sure makes the news seem less important. "Going green" is a huge trend lately and it'd be great to actually take advantage of some of it.
- Eisen4, on 11/03/2008, -0/+6I keep hearing all these break throughs in solar cell tech and performance but when can I start buying the damn things.
- cambob76, on 11/03/2008, -1/+7I don't like solar... it's like getting something for nothing. It's something the terrorists would use. No thank you.
- Bith8654, on 11/03/2008, -0/+4The super-high effiecieny solars cells currently available, like Malchus89 said, are really expensive. But, maybe more importantly, they are also extremely fragile, giving them almost no use outside of a lab.
- Malchus89, on 11/03/2008, -0/+4It is, the highest record EVER is 40%
but that cell type costs much much more than this type of cell...
Cheaper is better in this case... - MarkusX, on 11/03/2008, -1/+5Dugg, because everything solar is great.
...but wasn't there just recently some solar cell/method in the news, that achieved almost a 100% efficiency. But I don't remember, whether that was just in its baby shoes of development. Anybody remembers that - wasn't long ago? - lostngone, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3100% Agreed
Wake me up when I can actually buy it!
Until then, just file in with the 100 other Solar cell breakthrough articles we see every year. - bigbangbuddha, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3The cost per kwh is "roughly triple what most people pay their utility company" , from what I can gleam is that it will always cost more than what your utility company can do, this is because they have the power of volume behind them. Once solar becomes effectively cheaper the utility companies will be harvesting energy from massive solar fields that are optimized for light consumption and again the cost of utility will be less than that of individual cells on houses. This is not a bad thing, just don't expect to be self powered in this way, only a handful of pioneering individuals who are willing to front the money will be "off the grid", its typical with all forms of resource distribution, mass production always wins out over sparse methods for cost and efficiency.
- SheilaNoya, on 11/03/2008, -2/+5That fake coal story has already been debunked and McCain & Palin look like idiots for using it at their rallies without check the facts first.
Try to keep up with the news cycles - OK?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/b/a/2 ...
Here's more about McCain's sleazy robocalls trying to push this fake story to scare people in Pennsylvania:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/03/ca ... - Malchus89, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2The point is how cheap those kind of cells are to manufacture...
- Five9, on 11/03/2008, -0/+21,000 hours is only about 200 days assuming 5 peak sun hours/day...silicon arrays have lifetimes of 30 years.
- mmittimm, on 11/03/2008, -2/+4Yeah, because "clean" coal is actually clean, right?
- Gemfinder, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2I thought solar cell efficiency was up to 25%?
- CYCLEORDIE, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2Yeah, like nuclear power. Clean, safe, fun for the whole family when properly neglected; like Hanford.
- Gemfinder, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2Okay, but don't take the melatonin. You won't be sleeping long.
Solar paint isn't widely available yet, but it's extant, and there are people with solar shingled rooves that are doing exactly what you described, right now. The solar paint should be proliferate in about a year. - palehorse864, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2Maintaining 90% efficiency after 1000 hours is good, but that's only a little over 41.5 days. I am curious how long these things will go before they need replacement. It might not be bad if they are cheap enough, but solar cells can still be a significant financial investment for most homeowners.
- centerblack, on 11/03/2008, -1/+3They remove impurities and attempt to re-capture much of the carbon emissions before they're released into the atmosphere. It's not perfect obviously, but if we're going to burn coal it's better than nothing.
If you care then go to school and get a degree. Hugging trees isn't going to do much good without scientists and engineers to develop cleaner and more efficient ways of generating the energy we need. - Murdats, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2well if you want to spend a fortune on creating these cutting edge cells yourself you can, but it is not feasible to produce on a massive scale the latest step forward
- inactive, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2Here it is...
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1441/83/ - greenta, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1Why cant we just put more research into improving the yield of silicon based solar technology? If the infrastructure was developed and enough backing (political and financial), then I feel that the silicon photovoltaic industry could be severely improved, and we could start implementing panels on large scale. Thats the major problem right now with all solar technology: cost vs. value? Based on the cost of the panel, how long will it take before it becomes economically valuable to have? Make the panels much more affordable and this relationship changes, and then dont be suprised when the technology starts becoming implemented on a much larger scale?
- commentbot, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1I hope it doesn't use rare metals such as indium, or else it's got no future...
- inactive, on 11/03/2008, -1/+210%!?!? C'mon people. I know we're "desperate" for another energy solution, but it's "efficiency" like this that keeps it out of the mainstream. When ONE solar panel can power an entire house, then you'll have a viable solution, but when you have to cover your ENTIRE roof with these things, and at a ridiculous cost, you'll never get acceptance except by the tree hugging fringe. Drill now, dig now, AND research at the same time. Don't wait for an emergency to cause half assed crap like this to be shoved down your throat.
- ThunderPigs, on 11/03/2008, -5/+6Solar technology is supposed to only get better and exponentially. Soon, everything will be solar, as long as no other energy companies stop it. I can't wait for my solar car.
- shawnsonium, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1Those damn terrorist trees...I knew it!
- OverthrowTheNWO, on 11/03/2008, -1/+2What ever happened to reflected solar energy coverted into steam power electricity?
Silver Oxide is not exactly expensive in comparison to solar pannels. - HairyPoter, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1wow, how amazing is these new developments. We have solar cells setting new marks, we have 1000 mpg cars, we have all that nanocrap things doing amazing stuff, we have nano computers, quantum computers, hydrogen cars, so many amazing stuff, so, why are we still using those ***** crap gasoline cars, still using regular computers, still using electricity from the grid? I am really tired of all these miraculous science developments that never see the light. We are still using the same old phone system invented by Graham Bell, we are still using the radio invented by Tesla, we are still using car with technology invented in 1900, we are still flying in planes invented in 1900, etc. Resuming we are an "advanced civilization" using improved machines based on 100 years old technology and we are doomed to stay that way, until the last drop of oil and until the moguls had it last penny of profit.
- st00f72, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1If I had a nickel for every story I saw on Digg that claimed some monumental breakthroughin PV cells, I could afford to power my house entirely with a PV system.
Buried for showcasing a cell that won't even last a year. - kefkaantakrist, on 11/03/2008, -0/+0That depends on how you choose to define efficiency. I'd say power (or power per area) per cost/resources is more important than just power per area, and there is a lot of room for that to improve, possibly even at an exponential rate... at least for a while.
- frogman54, on 11/03/2008, -3/+3I agree. Clean, abundant sources of energy are stoopid.
- Farik, on 11/03/2008, -1/+1http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39807/113/
FTA: "This combination of materials also utilizes the entire visible spectrum of light energy, translating into a theoretical potential of almost 100% efficiency." - xrv1ck, on 11/03/2008, -1/+1I assume you say no to free samples and free money as well?
- BigCheezy, on 11/03/2008, -5/+4I don't know how in the world you can think solar technology is going to better exponentially. Oh yeah, I'm really looking forward to those 400% efficient solar cells!!! Oh wait, science.
- rawtribe, on 11/03/2008, -3/+1Here's the Digg link to the sfgate story:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/SanFran_Chron_Bu ... - inactive, on 11/03/2008, -4/+1I'm not going to read anything from sfgate. It's just liberal propaganda. The fact is that if Obama gets elected there will be race riots, coal mines shut down, and more muslim immigrants!
- inactive, on 11/03/2008, -13/+3We'll only need solar energy because Obama is going to destroy the coal industry. Open your eyes! Solar energy won't create any jobs! It'll just kill our energy industry.
McCain/Palin 08
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