Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Solar Cells Get Boost

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the juiced-up dept.

Science 108

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers from Los Alamos National Laboratory have tapped the efficiencies of nanotechnology to double solar cells' potential energy production. The key to the method is the use of lead selenium nanocrystals which can produce 2 electrons where 1 was produced before. Other optical applications can also benefit."

cancel ×

108 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Will this work with other materials? (3, Insightful)

sacremon (244448) | more than 10 years ago | (#9206866)

The article seems to imply that the technique would be applicable to existing materials, but also seems to imply that it has only been show to work for lead-selenium nanocrystals. So will the technique of using nanocrystals work with other materials? If not, will incorporating the lead-selenium nanocrystals in a matrix of conventional material, nanocrystal-sized or otherwise, generate two electrons/photon? And finally, does the cost of making the nanocrystals make the whole thing not cost effective, other perhaps in something like spacecraft, where every once saved is of tremendous worth?

Re:Will this work with other materials? (3, Interesting)

Intrigued (757997) | more than 10 years ago | (#9207557)

I simply don't know enough about the physics, but... can this be applied with the other developments like multi-band gap improvements? (New Material for More Efficient Solar Cells [slashdot.org] ) I know that these use different materials but can the same principles be applied?

If so, it should multiply efficiency. I would love to see multi-band gap using 2-3 times wider percentage of the light to move multiple electrons. You should be able to pull 80%+ efficiency if that is possible.

Someone contribute some understanding on the physics please.

Re:Will this work with other materials? (2, Funny)

Goyuix (698012) | more than 10 years ago | (#9207916)

Not to mention how far I could overclock my calculator on one of those babies...

Re:Will this work with other materials? (1)

revmoo (652952) | more than 10 years ago | (#9210845)

Ahh, calculator jokes. I love slashdot.

Re:Will this work with other materials? (1)

DjMd (541962) | more than 10 years ago | (#9217400)

2+2=... 5?

Apparently for very large values ^H^H^H^H^H^H overclocking....

Re:Will this work with other materials? (3, Informative)

Christopher Thomas (11717) | more than 10 years ago | (#9211407)

I simply don't know enough about the physics, but... can this be applied with the other developments like multi-band gap improvements?

I'm on shaky ground here, but I think the answer is likely "no". The idea behind this technique is that you can use surplus energy from a photon absorption event to release a second electron, while the point of split bandgap cells is that you can absorb light with less surplus energy (more deposited in a useful manner into the first electron).

Ask a semiconductor physicist to get the correct answer :).

If I had a nickel... (3, Insightful)

heldlikesound (132717) | more than 10 years ago | (#9206921)

for every time I heard about cheaper, more efficient solar cell, I could buy a solar powered calculator. Which is just about all I've seen solar power be good for at the consumer level.

Re:If I had a nickel... (4, Insightful)

daeley (126313) | more than 10 years ago | (#9207136)

Yeah I guess the outdoor lighting, pool heating, and housing industries (just to name a few), are pretty miniscule consumer applications. :P

Re:If I had a nickel... (2, Interesting)

taped2thedesk (614051) | more than 10 years ago | (#9207778)

don't forget air conditioning... solar cells are perfect for powering air conditioners because they're generally used the most in sunny weather...

Re:If I had a nickel... (2, Interesting)

zero_offset (200586) | more than 10 years ago | (#9213458)

While that makes sense (I'm assuming the cells would augment mains power given the huge power consumption of AC systems), I can't say I've actually heard of anything like this -- and I've been reading up on high-quality, high-efficiency HVAC systems since we're wrapping up the design of a fairly large new house.

Got any names or links?

Re:If I had a nickel... (2, Informative)

the real darkskye (723822) | more than 10 years ago | (#9213623)

Here [kompass.co.uk] 's a few in the uk, i'm sure if this permantly overcase and rainy island has them the rest of the world does!

It seems the parent site doesn't like linking to the actual search results only the heading, Que Sera Sera

Re:If I had a nickel... (1)

taped2thedesk (614051) | more than 10 years ago | (#9222129)

There were some really good stories on Google News a few months ago, but I haven't been able to dig them up again since GNews only keeps stories around for 30 days.

I managed to find a few links that talk about buildings that use/will use solar-powered AC, but they skim over the background: Duke [newbernsj.com] | Some House [theage.com.au]

Here are are a couple of commerical solar-powered AC units: Coolmax [mx.com.au] | Solacool [partsonsale.com]

You can find some more links if you google solar-powered air conditioning [google.com] .

Re:If I had a nickel... (1)

Mad Bad Rabbit (539142) | more than 10 years ago | (#9218546)

Although in the Southern U.S. it can be miserably hot
at night too. Too bad there's not a way to generate
electric power from high humidity.

Re:If I had a nickel... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9220275)

Too bad there's not a way to generate
electric power from high humidity.


Sure there is. Collect all the condensation on top of a skyscraper and use it to power a turbine down at the bottom of the building ;)

Re:If I had a nickel... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 10 years ago | (#9207622)

Yea but now you can power a TI-92 by solar power. The fact that the earth rotates makes solar power less usfull for everything because night is the time we wont get energy

Re:If I had a nickel... (2, Interesting)

Tree131 (643930) | more than 10 years ago | (#9208574)

because night is the time we wont get energy

That's what the batteries / capacitors are for... :)
And if you live in St. Petersburg, Russia, it's far enough north for them to have white nights.

Re:If I had a nickel... (2, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 10 years ago | (#9207632)

Well the consumer level is not the end all and be all.
There is little market for gas turbines at the comsumer level or hydroelectric systems but they are still important.

Solar panels are finding more wide spread uses all the time. They are very popular with Amature radion operators. Heck I can even buy them at my local Harbor Freight store.

Here. Have twenty nickels, buy a clue. (2, Interesting)

Spamalamadingdong (323207) | more than 10 years ago | (#9211568)

There's at least one user in California who got on a time-of-day net-metering rate program and installed a bunch of solar panels on his garage roof. His panels are cranking out watts during all of the high-rate hours (afternoon), and he gets credited at the retail rate. At night he charges his electric truck off the grid, and pays for those KWH at the off-peak rate. It's win/win; his panels pay for themselves, and the utility needs less peaking capacity.

Re:Here. Have twenty nickels, buy a clue. (1)

heldlikesound (132717) | more than 10 years ago | (#9212227)

One person in California hardly qualifies as a "general consumer", but I appreciate the thought.

Distinction (2, Insightful)

Spamalamadingdong (323207) | more than 10 years ago | (#9215256)

Just because he doesn't fit the profile of the average consumer does not mean that he is not a general consumer; he doesn't have any billing arrangements that are not available to everyone else.

evolution (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 10 years ago | (#9217213)

If fewer neanderthals would whine "if it's so good, why isn't everyone doing it", more people would do it. And we'd get further out of the doomed hole we've dug with our paleolithic energy economy.

Re:Net metering.. (2, Insightful)

fluffy666 (582573) | more than 10 years ago | (#9213336)

Although it sounds fine, it really is a problem for the power companies; retail rates not only include generation costs, but the huge effort that goes on in transmission and load balancing. To be realistic, this sort of metering should be generation costs only.

Net metering is good, but not perfect (1)

Spamalamadingdong (323207) | more than 10 years ago | (#9215515)

To be realistic, this sort of metering should be generation costs only.
Why? Power backfed at the customer site can be sold to another customer on the same distribution line. The utility isn't losing anything. Besides, if you demand that the utility be granted all the benefits of the customer's generation you guarantee underinvestment by the customer no matter how much sense it makes to the system as a whole.
Although it sounds fine, it really is a problem for the power companies; retail rates not only include generation costs, but the huge effort that goes on in transmission and load balancing.
The utility has to ship less power, so their line and transformer losses go down. For solar PV, the afternoon production is a good match to the A/C demand curve so the utility needs less investment in peaking generators and gets higher ROI overall.

Besides, solar PV is such a small factor that we don't need to worry about these things for a while. When it grows to be 10% of peak grid generation it will be, but that time is years away and we have plenty of time to plan.

padding (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 10 years ago | (#9217268)

In New York we already get billed separately for generation and transmission (energy and its delivery). That lets them mark up each one separately, increasing the sum of the parts, and charge fees on each service. All in one convenient bill!

Re:If I had a nickel... (2, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 10 years ago | (#9215232)

Here in colorado, a number of mountain homes(outside of vacation spots) have Solar. As these get higher efficiencies AND there costs drop, we will see more and more places swtiching to them.

Re:If I had a nickel... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9228074)

Within the month I will have a contractor install an array of solar panels on my roof. The array is capable of a nominal 3.3KW output; at present the best projections are that it will generate about 400KWh per month, or 4800KWh/year, which is about half of our current consumption.

Why would I, a staunch conservative, registered Republican, a hunter, and the nominal owner of two gas-guzzling SUVs, spend around $16,000.00 out of pocket to embrace something which makes the tree-huggers have orgasms?

Because I've done the math, and I've seen that Southern California Edison, my power provider, has raised their rates as much as 9.9% in just one year (for certain consumption levels). At this rate, those upper tiers will cost twice as much in seven years.

I have enough real estate on my roof to accommodate a 6.6KW installation, but the economics dictated by California law make it cost-ineffective for us to go bigger than 3.3KW.

According to our calculations, the 3.3KW installation will save us around $1,200.00/year at the current rates, and more as the rates go up. It adds nearly $25,000.00 to the value of my house, and is legally excluded from the assessment calculation for my property taxes. The lifetime of the array is projected to be even longer than the lifetime of my nearly-new roof.

http://www.realgoods.com/calsolar/index.html

Electrons are not "produced" by solar cells (4, Interesting)

I_Love_Pocky! (751171) | more than 10 years ago | (#9206992)

Solar cells harness engergy by absorbing photons, which cause electrons in an atom (which are already there) to move to a higher energy state. This technique moves two electrons per photon, rather than one. The point I am making is simply that electrons are being moved, and not created. That would have amazingly different implications, as that would be creating matter from the energy in a single photon, which would only work with very high energy photons.

Re:Electrons are not "produced" by solar cells (4, Informative)

SandSpider (60727) | more than 10 years ago | (#9207728)

I have to say, this is a little picky. First of all, the article description states that the new substance "...can produce 2 electrons where 1 was produced before", so it does not imply a change in the fundamental mechanism so much as the yield. Anyone who knew how solar cells worked before reading this description would be able to make the leap that no laws of physics were being violated to produce this electron.

Second, the description does not say that the electrons are being created at all. The dictionary definition [reference.com] of the word produce indicates, in the first entry, that produce means "To bring forth; yield", which is good enough, but skim the third entry and its example, "To bring forth; exhibit: reached into a pocket and produced a packet of matches". I think the first is more accurate, but the second indicates just how far the definition of produce does not imply creation.

=Brian

The holy grail of solar power (3, Interesting)

n1ywb (555767) | more than 10 years ago | (#9207100)

This is it folks, this is what we've been waiting for. As it is, solar panels are a pretty marginal energy source for most applications. We've all seen the specially built vehicles that are basicly a big solar panel on wheels (some of us (like me) have even built one). We've all seen the houses with the roof covered in solar panels and they still have to buy all whacky expensive 12v high efficiency appliances and forget about an electric drier. With solar cells like these, solar power just lept from impractical to practical. Make way for the days of solar powered PDAs and cell phones, cars, houses, buses, airplanes, you name it. This is the breakthrough that will lead the way. Unless it flops, of course.

Re:The holy grail of solar power (1)

iamcadaver (104579) | more than 10 years ago | (#9207503)

I'm with newbie, er, n1ywb. And I'm just as jaded. But "I want to believe" in this one.

No...it's not the "holy grail" (1)

Rhinobird (151521) | more than 10 years ago | (#9208877)

It's pretty good, but solar power will still be impractical. I can see solar powered cell phones and PDAs, but that's mostly due to advaces in making those devices low power and then converging with higher effeciency solar cells. Cars? no; houses? no, you STILL need those stupid batteries, and still won't have a dryer; buses? no; airplanes? no. All the vehicles require dense power like gasoline, deisel, or hydroden fuel cells, something, not the dilute stuff of solar cells.

However, the houses, you might be able to make a case. With the new cells, instead of an ultra high effiency house required, just a high effiency house required. So while you won't find the solar cells at home depot, you just might find all the high effiency appliances there.

Re:No...it's not the "holy grail" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9209563)

You can use the energy generated to split common water into hydrogen (which you store) and oxygen.
You can later, when it gets dark, use a hydrogen fuel cell. Indirect solar energy. Dense energy
storage.

You do realize that nearly 100% of the energy used on this planet is supplied by the sun, right?

Re:No...it's not the "holy grail" (1)

sreid (650203) | more than 10 years ago | (#9209901)

sounds likle a beautiful dream, fuel for the car and electricity for the home free forever... where do i sign up

Re:No...it's not the "holy grail" (2, Insightful)

n1ywb (555767) | more than 10 years ago | (#9210408)

You do realize that you don't see the point? This isn't an article about energy storage, it's an article about energy generation. Fuel cells are great, how do they relate to the article?

Re:No...it's not the "holy grail" (2, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 10 years ago | (#9214761)

But energy generation crosses into energy storage. His point was that you could use a hydrogen fuel cell as a way of collecting and storing solar energy while your car is not in use. Most people only drive a few hours per day. The rest of the day their car sits.

Now there simply isn't enough energy in sunlight to power a car with solar panels. (If there was, we'd all be crispy critters.) But if you can store that energy up over a period of time, you can make your car much more efficient, perhaps even independent of fueling stations.

It's a nice thought anyway. Until you realize that a large portion of the cars get stored in garages. :-/

Re:No...it's not the "holy grail" (1)

jx100 (453615) | more than 10 years ago | (#9221726)

So place the solar panels on the garage instead of the car. You can have more surface area, and you won't have the dent in the aerodynamic and weight efficiency with having all those solar panels on a car.

Re:No...it's not the "holy grail" (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 10 years ago | (#9223051)

So place the solar panels on the garage instead of the car

Actually, I was more concerned with parking garages than home garages. The majority of city cars spend a lot of time in the deep, dark bowels of these things.

You can have more surface area, and you won't have the dent in the aerodynamic and weight efficiency with having all those solar panels on a car.

If the panels are built into the frame, it's not a big deal. Having a black top instead of (insert car color here) might put a dent in its style, but it shouldn't bother its aerodynamics or weight any.

holy ostrich, Batman (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 10 years ago | (#9217428)

The Sun dumps 1.3KW:m^2 on the Earth; about 1KW makes it through the atmosphere to the surface at "solar noon" (directly overhead, insolation perpindicular to the surface). Efficient transmission, like local consumption, efficient storage and transduction (like hydrolysis + fuelcells), and wide deployment (like every NYC rooftop, repeated nationwide) make solar collectors much more practical than our petro economy. We're hardly pumping oil in our garages for burning in our driers. With solar, we'll eventually dump a lot of that inefficient old hardware.

Re:The holy grail of solar power (0, Flamebait)

n1ywb (555767) | more than 10 years ago | (#9210335)

Actually I was being totally serious. Fuck you whoever modded me down. Apperantly you missed the part where I mention that I've built my own solar car.

No it's not. (4, Interesting)

Spamalamadingdong (323207) | more than 10 years ago | (#9211627)

The real issue with solar energy isn't watts/m^2 of panel, but watts/$. We have more than enough square footage to power our houses and businesses even at current efficiencies, but the capacity is still so expensive that it is very marginal. If Pb/Se nanodots can be made more cheaply than the same wattage of silicon, we'll be ahead; otherwise we won't be.

If we get really lucky, this technology will work well at high light flux and high temperatures (~100 C). This would allow use of concentrating collectors and use of the waste heat for space heat and domestic hot water, multiplying the benefit of the collector and making the whole affair much more economical. Imagine a house that powers its own appliances, stores enough hot water for several days of hot showers and its own heating load, and on sunny days has plenty of juice left over to feed to electric cars. This house would be almost completely independent of fossil fuels and offset fuel use elsewhere, and I'll bet that we could build it now if cost was no object - if we can get 50% or even 40% efficient solar cells at $2/watt working at 100 C, we'll be there.

Why not just run a turbine? (1)

Moderation abuser (184013) | more than 10 years ago | (#9215945)

If you're aiming for 100C or above you could be generating steam. Pipe said steam through a turbine attached to a generator. You could build your own today for peanuts out of some mirrors and an old car or lorry turbocharger.

Couldn't comment on the efficiency of a home grown system, but utility solar thermal systems have been more efficient (30% or so) at producing electricity than photovoltaics for a long time now, must be decades.

Re:No it's not. (1)

hyc (241590) | more than 10 years ago | (#9223923)

Powering the house, OK. Surplus electricity for an electric car, doubtful. I've yet to see a PV array of compact size that is capable of powering a typical car.

I drive a 3000lb Sport Compact, with about a 170hp engine. There's 746 watts per hp, so that's 127KW of electricity needed for the equivalent performance. A good PV panel produces 4-6W of power per square foot in full sunlight. My car is about 15 feet long and 5.8 feet wide, giving a total horizontal surface area of about 87 square feet. If the entire surface of the car was covered in PV panels it would produce (at best) around 522W of electricity, about 0.7hp. 522W would certainly power a fair number of electrical accessories, but not a car.

The rooftop of a house is of course larger; I figure my garage roof is 3x the area of the car, and the house is probably 2x that again. So maybe a rooftop PV array can produce 3KW of electricity. Again, that's enough to run a number of domestic appliances, but forget about powering an electric car. Even if this miraculous technology doubles the efficiency of panels, that means 6KW, only 1/20th of what's needed to run a compact car.

I'm totally into solar power for homes, cell phones, and other small electric/electronic devices. But it's never going to be a practical power supply for transportation.

Re:No it's not. (1)

n1ywb (555767) | more than 10 years ago | (#9227816)

I drive a 3000lb Sport Compact, with about a 170hp engine. There's 746 watts per hp, so that's 127KW of electricity needed for the equivalent performance.
That's not true at all. The electric car we built, a VW Scirocco, could do burnouts and it only had a 25hp motor with a 1500 watt controller. The secret? The motor's torque rating was up around 200 ft-lbs. HP sells cars, torque wins races, and electric motors are torquy as all getout.

Re:No it's not. (1)

hyc (241590) | more than 10 years ago | (#9235578)

Well... unless you have some kind of direct-drive setup, you still need the high-RPM performance. Torque to get off the line is great, but if it trails off at higher motor speeds it's not much use. (It's great for a freight truck I suppose. Not for a car.)

Anyway, I'm not disputing your main point; I've seen writeups for several electric cars that have terrific 0-60mph specs/torque figures. And you can see some that plainly have a flat torque curve across their operating range, which means not just awesome torque off the line but also awesome power...

Re:No it's not. (2, Insightful)

calidoscope (312571) | more than 10 years ago | (#9227940)

The real issue with solar energy isn't watts/m^2 of panel, but watts/$.

Watts/m^2 is still important...

The economics of solar power get really interesting when the price gets down to $1/w. For a 10% efficiency, the installed cost of the array needs to come in at $100/m^2 (~$10/ft^2) - at 50% efficiency we're talking $500/m^2 (~$50/ft^2). I would hazard a guess that the support structure and glazing would come in around $10/ft^2 (or more). The last point makes low efficiency cells kind of a non-starter, unless made to replace roofing materials.

bad for the environment (1, Funny)

BigChigger (551094) | more than 10 years ago | (#9207200)

It contains lead! It contains selenium!!

(a preview of some enviro whacko's response)

BC

Earth is bad for the environment (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9207326)

Earth is bad for the environment. It contains lethal amounts of lead, selenium. Dangerous amounts of dihydrogen oxide (which kills many thousands a year) have accumulated on its surface.

Re:bad for the environment (3, Insightful)

n1ywb (555767) | more than 10 years ago | (#9207450)

I think you're trying to make a funny, but in case you aren't... They are nano crystals. That probably means that while they're made from lead, there still isn't much lead in each cell. Also, solar cells can easily last for 100 years, it's not like they're disposable. Not to mention the fossil fuels they displace.

Re:bad for the environment (1)

Tree131 (643930) | more than 10 years ago | (#9208684)

Not to mention the fossil fuels they displace.

Just wait until the big oil companies find out about this. The project is going to get lobbied to shut down so fast, it'll make their heads spin. What a shame...

Re:bad for the environment (2, Insightful)

cmpalmer (234347) | more than 10 years ago | (#9209215)

All true, but it in no way invalidates the grandparent post -- sillier things than that have drawn the ire of environmentalists.

On a more reasonable note, remember that the manufacturing processes for many "green" technologies are themselves polluting and producing dangerous and toxic byproducts.

bad for the integrity (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 10 years ago | (#9217525)

Extreme claims require extreme evidence: citations for these "sillier things" and toxic green manufacturing processes? Or just more FUD?

Re:bad for the integrity (1)

cmpalmer (234347) | more than 10 years ago | (#9218399)

The fact that alternative fuel sources, such as ethenol, require more energy to grow and refine than they produce?

Waste products produced in the production of solar cells and the fact that, even with moderate amounts of scaling up, they are not cost effective?

And, anecdotally, the propensity for many environmental activists to also be credulous believers in pseudo-science. I realize this is a sweeping generalization, but it's hard for me to shake the image of a high percentage of protestors and activists to be crystal waving believers in laughable amounts of New Age BS.

I myself have no problem in balancing contradictory points of view -- I would consider myself to be an environmentalist, but also a rationalist. TANSTAAFL.

Re:bad for the integrity (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 10 years ago | (#9218501)

Those aren't citations, they're conclusions. Just as anecdotal as your dismissal of alternative energy as beloved by new agers. Do you disbelieve chemistry, with its alchemical roots?

Re:bad for the integrity (1)

cmpalmer (234347) | more than 10 years ago | (#9218878)

First of all, I shouldn't have said or agreed with the term, "environmentalist wackos", as if all were. So no, I don't agree with Rush Limbaugh.

Here are some citations about toxic chemicals in solar cell production. Granted, there are toxic chemicals used in almost any manufacturing process.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/man_pro_implicati ons.html?print [energy.gov]

http://www.pv.bnl.gov/art_168.pdf [bnl.gov]


Here are a few articles about the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of ethanol production:

http://www.fcpp.org/publication_detail.php?PubID=1 80 [fcpp.org]

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html [straightdope.com]

From the sci.skeptic FAQ, here is a definition of "New Age" beliefs (so I am not the only one who associates the two):

http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_7.html [xnet.com]


Finally, I have no idea what the remark about chemistry is supposed to mean. Yes, I understand the tremendous amount of knowledge about chemistry that arose from the study of alchemy, but what does that have to do with your argument?

I'm sure that astrologers at one time provided much of the basis of astronomical observation, but I think astrology is ridiculous. Again, so what?

Re:bad for the integrity (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 10 years ago | (#9219201)

There are wackos of all kinds, including "environmentalists". At least you and I share a faith in science.

I've been researching the comparative pollution generated by solar manufacturing and petro (oil/coal/methane) production, on a per-joule basis. There are a lot of disconnected info resources to lash together, and the research is a part-time hobby, so it's largely inconclusive. But my low-rez info seems to favor the solar industry, especially considering thinfilm solar cells. Biomass is solar, and especially compelling (particularly when pollution budgets include carbon sequestration). It is important to note that a prominent report on the inefficiency of crop photosynthesis was borderline when first reported in the early 1990s, then debunked when rehashed in the late 1990s (using 1970s data for both costs and benefits, etc).

On that note, it is worth noting that the FCCP website you cited is an Alberta oil propaganda mill, directly competing for dollars in Canada's corporate/socialist energy economy with their impoverished (ethanol) farming communities. And even Straight-Dope Cecil seems uncharacteristically off the mark, as he cites 1986 data debunking ethanol efficiency.

I, too, associate solar with New Agers. But I keep the relationship straight: lots of New Age believers include solar energy in their faith, but that doesn't mean that that solar researchers are New Agers in ideology or "practice". Alchemy -> chemistry, astrology -> astronomy, New Age -> alternative energy: lots of examples of how valid science has been inspired by undisciplined imaginations, but offers real miracles on a daily basis.

BTW, I used to read the _Skeptical Inquirer_ magazine religiously, associating with CSICOP often when I first moved to California. But I found their sanctimonious attacks on any claims outside rigid scientific orthodoxy to be less than rigorous, and founded mainly on the personal feuds and egotisms of CSICOP's leaders.

It's important to note that the research comparing solar and petro energies is still inconclusive, and even contradictory. I'd expect no less, considering the huge stakes and advanced age of the incumbent petro vs. the new solar challengers. But solar's improvement seems rapid, while petro gets worse. I expect that even the differences between the two industries, now marginal (though apparently to me favoring solar), will disappear, and they will merge. Especially once the oil dries up, while the Sun continues to shine, and science continues to work.

Re:bad for the integrity (1)

cmpalmer (234347) | more than 10 years ago | (#9219736)

Oops on the oil company link -- I was in a hurry :-)

My point, if I actually had one back there, is that any issue worth discussion (that is, it is not just "cut and dried") will bring out extremist wackos from one side or the other who will distort facts and statistics and ignore information that doesn't fit their case. It is just basic human nature. Sometimes they get so far extreme that they wrap around, such as anti-abortionists commiting murder or left wingers so rabid about free speech that they want to censor opposing viewpoints.

Thanks for the discussion!

Re:bad for the environment (1)

RecycledElectrons (695206) | more than 10 years ago | (#9211234)

No, solar cells do not last for 100 years. They actually degrade in sunlight (very slowly) over 10-30 years, depending on their design.

Andy Out!

Solar cells last longer than that (1)

Spamalamadingdong (323207) | more than 10 years ago | (#9211700)

It's my understanding that amorphous cells degrade fastest, polycrystalline cells degrade more slowly, and single-crystal cells very slowly. The output curve levels off after a while; single-crystal panels will still be going at a large fraction of their rated output after 25 years unless you hit them with enough heat or moisture to damage them in some way, such as by degrading the interconnects.

atmospheric smog (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 10 years ago | (#9217481)

You're the wacko: this nonsense spouts from *your* head. While you meanwhile probably don't even notice a factory spitting actual poison into your air, much less those which have been fixed to pollute less. Stop attacking environmentalists, and realize that you are one, like everyone else who lives in an environment.

number of responses in /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9207612)

I usually see hundreds of responses for each topic posted. in the last 1/2 hr this topic has less than 15 responses. seems like people (incld /.ers) are least interested in solar power. no wonder abundant solar power is still not used in our cars.

Re:number of responses in /. (2, Insightful)

Palverone (166646) | more than 10 years ago | (#9207707)

See the problem is this article made no mention of Linux or how evil Microsoft is. This is /. after all. If you want to get more posts, make a comment about how Microsoft's new OS is going to natively support solar sell power management and that Linux needs to create another Sourceforge project to provide it for free.

I think the majority of the people not lurking and posting are people who actually feel passionate about free energy. I am just waiting for a Linux geek touting that he is running a Beowolf Cluster on 100% solar power.

Re:number of responses in /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9207854)

But not every story makes it onto the default front page. If you're signed in you can specify which sections you want to include in your customised front-page (overriding the individual story's front page setting). Alternatively you can use the real index [slashdot.org] to show absolutely everything.

Either way, you'll see a lot more stories that way than if you just anonymously visit the front page.

Re:number of responses in /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9207914)

Oops, that should have been this real index [slashdot.org] .

Re:number of responses in /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9208722)

Look on the bright side - no trolls so far...

Re:number of responses in /. (1)

hyc (241590) | more than 10 years ago | (#9223932)

Solar power is not powerful enough to power a car. Solar power efficiency needs to increase by a factor of about 200 before that will be practical. *That* is the main reason solar power is not used in cars today...

(Do the math yourself if you don't believe me. How much horsepower does your car's engine produce? Convert that to Watts (746 watts per hp) and figure out how many solar panels you need to produce that power...)

Hey Einstein.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9235086)

"Solar power is not powerful enough to power a car".

THAT is the BEST tRoLL I've seen on /. today!

Way to go!

And your world is oh so Black & White, eh?

Reread your inane quote again, and the DO the math....

Not enough power, Indeed!

Price? (4, Insightful)

phlack (613159) | more than 10 years ago | (#9207806)

Unfortunately, the article didn't mention price, at least not directly. It stated "would become practical in 2-3 years", which I can only assume means they'd be the same price as today's cells.

It is indeed a shame that more interest in this technology doesn't exist. The lack of responses to this article is pretty disappointing, especially since I would think /.ers would be one of the main supporters. Doubling the output of cells is a definite improvement.

I remember reading somewhere (IIRC one of the Real Goods [realgoods.com] Source Books) that had the phrase similar to "Solar Panels will never become widely accepted until they are available from your local Home Depot [homedepot.com] ." This definitely rings true. Aside from the solar powered walkway lights (total garbage), they have very little to offer there. Solar Cells need to be cheaper and more powerful if people are going to use them.

It's good to see that progress is being made, though, as this article describes. Perhaps one day it will indeed become practical to use solar panels. Until then, we're stuck with calculators.

Home Depot (1)

raygundan (16760) | more than 10 years ago | (#9208943)

Man, I have to stop there on the way home tonight to pick up more bits and pieces for the renovations we're making to our new house-- I *wish* I could just take a carload of solar shingles home with me, and plug them straight into some pre-existing standardized rooftop wiring grid.

It's currently a long-term win to buy panels, but it's too steep an up-front investment for most people. $20K with payback over decades is more than most people are willing to do. Perhaps the power companies could invest in people's rooftops, and charge the same rate for the power until they are paid off (plus a tidy profit).

Re:Home Depot (1)

RecycledElectrons (695206) | more than 10 years ago | (#9211218)

Nope, it's not a long-term win. 1. The cost of the solar cells divided by the KW*H of energy produced is about 3x the price of off-the-grid electricity. 2. Solar cells are made using NASTY chemicals. All those green freaks don't realize we generate 10x the pollution making solar cells as we do generating the same amount of electricity for grid-use. Andy Out!

Re:Home Depot (1)

Christopher Thomas (11717) | more than 10 years ago | (#9211442)

All those green freaks don't realize we generate 10x the pollution making solar cells as we do generating the same amount of electricity for grid-use.

This turns out to no longer be true. Look up thin-film cells, which are both cheap and low materials use.

Re:Home Depot (1)

raygundan (16760) | more than 10 years ago | (#9219407)

Your numbers are old. The point for energy break-even (when the amount of power produced is more than the power used to make them) is roughly 2-4 years, and their cost break-even is well within their 20-30 year lifetime. How long this takes depends on the electric rates in your area, of course.

A batteryless grid-tied system will break even on cost in roughly 6-12 years. Most people just can't stomach the large up-front cost for such a long payoff time. I can't, although I intend to as soon as I have an extra $10K sitting around.

Nasty chemicals are indeed used in their production, but your number there is so exaggerated it's ridiculous. Grid-power production produces a LOT of waste material each year per user. We generate roughly 1.5lbs. of CO2 per kWH-- roughly 2700lbs per person per year from the electricity used in their homes. This isn't to say that carbon is all we're dumping, it's just the only one I found a quick number for. Also in the mix of waste products from the power system are sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. And if we're talking nuclear power (which I support, so don't get too excited) there's the radioactive waste instead. To claim that solar panel production produces ten times the waste of grid-power production is disingenuous. Sure, the stuff used to make solar panels is nasty, but the amount involved compared to 30 years * 2700lbs. waste per person, I think there's a clear winner.

To quote our government [energy.gov] , PV production produces small amounts of waste materials, but it is minimal relative to emissions from conventional energy sources."

Re:Home Depot (1)

phlack (613159) | more than 10 years ago | (#9236975)

their cost break-even is well within their 20-30 year lifetime. How long this takes depends on the electric rates in your area, of course.
True. Some places where power costs $.30/KWh (such as some islands) would yield a quick return. Other places, such as here in Central Florida with Florida Flicker & Flash [fpl.com] charge ~$.08/KWh, and thus the return would take significantly longer. Less if the state gives a rebate or tax credit of some kind (Florida does neither, to my knowledge).

But I agree with a previous poster. Putting these cells into shingles would be a great boon. This would also help out the power company, since the power generation would be a little more distributed. I would assume the transmission loss would be a bit less as well.

Re:Price? (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 10 years ago | (#9210138)

Unfortunately, the article didn't mention price, at least not directly. It stated "would become practical in 2-3 years", which I can only assume means they'd be the same price as today's cells.

It could just as easily mean "2 to 3 years before we can produce entire solar cells with this tech".

Available at Canadian Tire (2, Informative)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 10 years ago | (#9217100)

Canadian Tire doesn't sell 2x4s but they do sell other building supplies and tools apart from car stuff.
Go here [canadiantire.ca] and enter SOLAR as the keyword. (enter postal code: K1J 1J8)

I found this:

45W Cottage Solar Panel Kit
Special Offer
Product# 11-1588-0
View larger image
Price $499.99
Availability
In Store Online

Qty.
*

Harness the sun's power to run small appliances (both AC and DC) such as TVs, lights, computers and to recharge your 12V DC batteries in your RV, boat or cottage. The 45-watt Cottage Solar Panel Kit is completely weather-resistant and works under all light conditions.

* Ideal for charging deep-cycle batteries and running small appliances
* ICP solar panels are completely weatherproof and can withstand 1/2" hailstones, up to 80C (176F) heat and can operate under 3" of snow (on sunny days)
* Works under all light conditions
* Kit includes three 15W solar panels
* Can run both AC and DC appliances
* Comes complete with 7A charge controller, ultra-bright fluorescent light and 140W DC to AC power inverter
* Includes 12V socket with 10' (3m) of wire, PVC frame, mounting hardware and battery clamps
* Manufacturer's limited 5-year warranty on power output
* Model No. 10058

Cost? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 10 years ago | (#9217629)

How much energy is consumed by the thin-film solar cell manufacturing process, per square meter of produced cells? What is their efficiency curve over incident light wattage? How many years do they last? Ergo, what is the net energy production from their use? Many thermodynamic processes merely distribute energy costs to where they're not noticed, but still affect. If we burn oil and coal to manufacture a net-loss solar cell, we're digging ourselves deeper.

Not quite there yet (5, Insightful)

Retric (704075) | more than 10 years ago | (#9208556)

From what I can tell there not manufacturing solar cells using "lead selenium nanocrystals" but rather they found a method of detecting "impact ionization" via the delay between the photon impact and electron emissions. They then tested several substances and discovered that lead selenium nanocrystals produced impact ionization on close to 100% of photon impacts.

So if you really want to know what's going on you need to discover how efferent lead selenium solar cell's are and what it takes to mass produce lead selenium nanocrystals in a cheep long lasting solar cell.

So it's a long way from producing 60+% efficient solar cells but it's still cool.

Re:Not quite there yet (3, Informative)

Christopher Thomas (11717) | more than 10 years ago | (#9210041)

So if you really want to know what's going on you need to discover how efferent lead selenium solar cell's are and what it takes to mass produce lead selenium nanocrystals in a cheep long lasting solar cell.

Nanocrystal films would typically be grown by chemical vapour deposition (chemical constituents react as a gas at low pressure, seed crystals grow in-flight, and grow further after being deposited).

The problem is that it's very hard to produce crystals that small (they tend to keep growing after being deposited, because the source materials are still present - this is how you normally do CVD, actually). You also have difficulty producing a narrow range of sizes, because that requires that the growing environment of each crystal be identical.

Still an interesting discovery, though. The fabrication problems will eventually be solved.

What's especially interesting is looking at what happens when you fabricate oher types of semiconductor microstructure or nanostructure by more conventional techniques. As the size of a feature shrinks, you can no longer pretend it's near-infinite in extent when figuring out what the energy levels are within the crystal. This has already been used to alter the properties of silicon (fabricating LEDs in silicon, which normally emits very poorly due to having an indirect bandgap). Quantum wells, wires, and dots are an extreme case of this (dimensions comparable to a few electron wavelengths). When lithographic feature sizes start approaching this range, lots of new devices will be possible in mass-market chips that are only possible now if you have an e-beam lithography setup handy.

So don't use CVD (1)

Spamalamadingdong (323207) | more than 10 years ago | (#9211754)

If you want to fix the size of the nanocrystals, precipitate them using wet chemistry; nucleate a whole bunch of them all at once, and they will stop growing when the materials are depleted from the solution. Taking the suspension of nanocrystals and assembling them into a working device is another matter.

Re: Your sig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9214858)

Simple ignorance is forgivable and curable. Willful ignorance is contemptible.

I don't know what that means, and I don't want to know.

How long (1)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 10 years ago | (#9208986)

until we can expect one of the big oil companies to obtain the patent to this and kill it like they have with the all the other dozens of promising recent solar and other clean energy technologies? I'm almost certain GW's boss Dick Cheney will find a way to make it happen, one way or another.

Wrong - Energy companies are major investors (1)

garyebickford (222422) | more than 10 years ago | (#9225864)

The big "oil" companies are major investors in new energy technologies, not to suppress but to turn them into profitable businesses. Thay are doing a lot of research on their own, and buying companies up as well. They all anticipate the growth of demand for alternative fuels, solar, and wind, and so forth. They are jockeying for position in that future marketplace.

I don't recall the number, but IIRC together these companies have invested multiple Billions of $ in advanced energy systems. This is not the sort of money one spends without expecting an equivalent return, eventually. They have been investing in these areas for a number of years, with the intent of making money, not suppression. They are also used to 'rolling the dice', taking multi-billion dollar risks for long term results.

These companies will without doubt be the ones that build the first big solar-thermal farms. Consider what size of company would be able to arrange investment for building, for example, a 100 square mile solar (or solar-thermal) grid in North Africa to feed electricy to that area and Europe. Big projects require big organizations, with experience in building big, complicated systems in the middle of nowhere.

Storage Storage Storage (5, Interesting)

tino_sup (460223) | more than 10 years ago | (#9210295)

Renewable energy has made phenomenal leaps, but the storage restriction is the crux. Efficiency is great, and is a move in the right direction. What remanins is the development of efficient and economical storage devices. Imagine your car operating for a week on a one hour solar charge stored in a device the size of 4 D sized batteries.

Re:Storage Storage Storage (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 10 years ago | (#9211205)

I think hydrogen may have potential in that application. It's a reasonably efficient way to move energy around. You have to use some kind of energy to produce the hydrogen, and it would be far better to do it with solar than with fossil fuels.

Or it might be a way to bridge the energy gap in ethanol (either for combustion or in fuel cells), where currently you have to burn an amount of fossil fuels to produce the ethanol, some say more than you get out.

At least, I hope one of these works out, or some other improvement in battery technology. At the moment I'm more worried about being in thrall to a rather unstable part of the world for oil than I am about the atmosphere's CO2 load, but it is also pretty scary.

Re:Storage Storage Storage (2, Informative)

Christopher Thomas (11717) | more than 10 years ago | (#9211588)

I think hydrogen may have potential in that application. It's a reasonably efficient way to move energy around. You have to use some kind of energy to produce the hydrogen, and it would be far better to do it with solar than with fossil fuels.

Solar cells are actually very good for this purpose, as electricity is produced directly, as opposed to having to be converted from another energy form (like heat, in the case of a coal or oil fired power plant).

You can produce hydrogen from fossil fuels fairly efficiently by "reforming", though. What this essentially does is strip hydrogen off of hydrogen-rich hydrocarbons, giving you carbon-rich hydrocarbons and hydrogen gas. The hydrocarbons can still be burned in a suitably tuned power plant, and the hydrogen gas can be used in fuel cells.

If you're using a fuel cell for storage, as opposed to generation, though, you'd just keep the water produced when you feed hydrogen and oxygen in it, and break that down to get your source gases back out (though you'd probably dump the oxygen instead of storing it, since you can pull more out of the atmosphere easily).

The real problem with hydrogen as a storage medium is difficulty storing it at any reasonable density (cheaply - we can't afford palladium storage cells, and they're horribly heavy anyways).

Or it might be a way to bridge the energy gap in ethanol (either for combustion or in fuel cells), where currently you have to burn an amount of fossil fuels to produce the ethanol, some say more than you get out.

You'll always use more feedstock than you get ethanol out, so I assume you're talking about power spent converting the feedstock to ethanol.

I actually think that alcohol makes a better storage medium than hydrogen, because it's easy to store, can be burned in internal combustion engines, and can be reformed (see above) and used fairly efficiently as a fuel for fuel cells. The only catch is that it's annoying to synthesize. Methane can be synthesized relatively efficiently, and you can partially burn it to produce methanol, but that's still not very efficient.

Probably efficient enough for many applications, though (you don't care much if your notebook takes twice as much power to charge as you get stored in the battery, even if you do care for things like your car, and even more so for a city's "week of bad weather" power reserve).

At the moment I'm more worried about being in thrall to a rather unstable part of the world for oil than I am about the atmosphere's CO2 load, but it is also pretty scary.

I'm somewhat puzzled by this situation, as it appears to be one of choice as opposed to necessity. Here in Canada, we could get all the oil we'd need for quite some time from Alberta, and there are enough offshore natural gas reserves to satisfy that demand as well. Last I heard, the gas reserves off the US's coasts were *huge*. We'd see a price increase switching to local supplies (maybe even a hefty one), but nothing that would bring western society crashing down.

After those ran out, a century or two down the road, Canada has enough uranium to last us indefinitely, and the political will to use it for power. The US would need a creative political gimmick to be able to use it now, but a century is more than enough time for public opinion to change. Even without a breakthrough in power production, I don't see any serious problems.

Re:Storage Storage Storage (2, Interesting)

Moderation abuser (184013) | more than 10 years ago | (#9214874)

Hydrogen would be great if it wasn't so inefficient to produce.

The battery problem has been solved for vehicles. It was solved when NiMH batteries became available. The issue is the cost of manufacture and actually getting someone to build the things.

Seriously. These guys have viable vehicles:

http://www.solectria.com/products/accomp.html

249 miles on a single charge for their *in production* Solectria Force car, my petrol car does about 240 miles before I have to fill up. They have a prototype called the Solectria Sunrise which can do 373 miles on a single charge. That's almost a week's worth of commuting for me.

It's all down to demand and the cost of production, which will fall with mass production.

Re:Storage Storage Storage (2, Informative)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 10 years ago | (#9211782)

Imagination is the only domain in which your comment can ever be real. Even at 100% efficiency, 1 hour of solar energy will run a small car at highway speeds for less than one hour. Even the most powerful chemical reactions cannot store enough energy in the size of 4 D cell batteries to run a car for a week.

Storage can be TOO good (3, Interesting)

Spamalamadingdong (323207) | more than 10 years ago | (#9211790)

Imagine your car operating for a week on a one hour solar charge stored in a device the size of 4 D sized batteries.
Let's see, if you drive 250 miles a week and get 25 MPG, that's 10 gallons of gasoline or about 60 pounds. Gasoline has about 9 times the energy of combustion as TNT (because TNT carries its own oxygen). So: Imagine the energy of several hundred pounds of high explosive in a device the size of 4 D-size batteries. Not so appealing any more, is it?

Re:Storage can be TOO good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9220108)

So: Imagine the energy of several hundred pounds of high explosive in a device the size of 4 D-size batteries. Not so appealing any more, is it?

It's actually very appealing. Ok it depends how the energy is stored. If it's stored in a way that it may easily explode, then no, it's not appealing. But if it's stored in a way that an accidental discharge won't cause an explosion (as opposed to local burns), then go for it. I mean, by your own account a full gas tank carries several hundred pounds of high explosive, so cars should be scary too.

Re:Storage can be TOO good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9221234)

Unlike a tank of gasoline, batteries are self-contained energy supplies. Unless you make the battery such that it is limited by a need for oxygen (such as a zinc-air battery), how do you prevent the reaction from proceeding exponentially to completion in the event of a mishap?

Store it in a spring. (2, Interesting)

Moderation abuser (184013) | more than 10 years ago | (#9214718)

One which never wears out. Compress air up to 300 or more atmospheres. It's much much cheaper to buy a pressure vessel than it is to buy batteries which hold an equivalent amount of energy and far far more efficient than electrolysis. Most useful for stationary purposes, generators etc due to the size and weight of the pressure vessel. (in fact you're using heat to store the energy)

P.S. Battery powered cars have been able to run for 250, 300 miles for a good 7 years or so with a battery life of around 100,000 miles. That's with NiMH batteries. With lithium ion or even better, lithium sulphur batteries they should be able to travel further than a petrol driven car. (Google for Solectria Sunrise and Solectria Force)

P.P.S. why do Americans call petroleum, gas? It's a liquid at ambient temperatures...

Re:Store it in a spring. (1)

glitchvern (468940) | more than 10 years ago | (#9215520)


P.P.S. why do Americans call petroleum, gas? It's a liquid at ambient temperatures...


Gas is short for gasoline. I am not sure of the word's origin.

gasoline (0, Offtopic)

boarder (41071) | more than 10 years ago | (#9220749)

Why do Americans call petroleum gas?
Why does the rest of the world call gasoline petroleum?

Gas is short for gasoline, which is what we put in our cars (well, it used to be... now it is a mix of gasoline, ethanol and other crap). It's boiling point is well below that of water and evaporates rather quickly (gas fumes are much more explosive than liquid gas).

Petroleum is "a thick, flammable, yellow-to-black mixture of gaseous, liquid, and solid hydrocarbons that occurs naturally beneath the earth's surface, can be separated into fractions including natural gas, gasoline, naphtha, kerosene, fuel and lubricating oils, paraffin wax, and asphalt and is used as raw material for a wide variety of derivative products." (dictionary.com) It is also called crude oil.

What do you put in your tank? Gasoline or Petroleum? Us Americans use gas(oline) and it costs $2.50/gallon. If you Euros use petroleum maybe that is why it costs you $5.00/litre.

Hopefully, you were just joking and already knew why we call it gas. My point is that gasoline is NOT petroleum, but gasoline is closer to a gas at ambient temps than water.

Why do Euros call a trunk a boot? A trunk is where you store stuff, a boot is what you put on your feet. I store stuff in my trunk, but rarely put my feet in it.

Re:Store it in a spring. (1)

xigxag (167441) | more than 10 years ago | (#9225575)

Others have already pointed out that "gas" is short for "gasoline." I just wanted to add that the word in Spanish is gasolina, in Japanese gasorin, in German gasolin, in Portuguese gasolina, so the Americans are hardly alone. In fact, the only major language that uses petrol besides British English is Afrikaans. Most European languages use the word "benzine" or a derivative thereof.

Point being that it appears "petrol" is the odd man out.

Ok, here's some numbers for that. (1)

mikeophile (647318) | more than 10 years ago | (#9227978)

Depending on the size of your vehicle, it takes between 15-25 kilowatt-hours of power per hour of use. If you used your car an average of 2 hours per week, you would need to store between 200-350 KWh of power in those batteries. To get that much power in an hour from 50% efficient solar cells would require around 600 square meters of solar panels. in other words, your solar panel would need to be a square 75' on a side.

If you allowed for a four hour charge, you would only need a panel of 150 square meters, or the roof of a large garage.

Real implications of cheap solar power (2, Interesting)

justanyone (308934) | more than 10 years ago | (#9211791)

Let's look at what the real implications of cheap solar power are:
  • Vast reduction in cost of electrical power
  • reduction in demand for coal products to approx. 5% of current usage due to solar plants supplying grid (excess produced by nuclear);
  • immense pressure to develop better batteries for use by cars;
  • demand for tech to turn electrical power plus (whatever) ingredients into natural gas (cars powered by methane emit only CO2, not other nasty stuff, plus infrastructure there - existing cars can run on natural gas for $300 conversion kit);
  • vast diminishment of political and economic wealth of many arab and persian) nations plus Russia, Venezuela, and some african countries;
  • vast reduction in demand for hydro power in Northwest, hydro dams that are not useful for irrigation & flood control are torn down;
  • home power kits still possible, but since 50% of cost of off-grid solar-cell electrical is electronics (not the cells), this isn't a major factor for most people;
Feel free to fill in your implications as replies, or refute these...
-- Kevin J. Rice

Re:Real implications of cheap solar power (2, Insightful)

jpop32 (596022) | more than 10 years ago | (#9213281)

Let's look at what the real implications of cheap solar power are:

But, the interesting fact is that there are industries, countries and individuals that stand to lose billions of dollars in income if/when such advances in solar energy take place. And billions of dollars they make now buy _a_lot_ of influence. So, don't expect the changes to happen overnight, or any time soon...

The battery technology exists already. (1)

Moderation abuser (184013) | more than 10 years ago | (#9215013)

"immense pressure to develop better batteries for use by cars;"

The battery technology exists. It is simply expensive due to lack of manufacturing capacity.

The 80, 90 mile ranges you hear about for electic cars? Lead acid batteries. That's what... 200 year old technology?

NiMH, LiON, and even better LiS batteries are here, now, but are manufactured in quantities too small to make them feasable in a car. It's *purely* down to the manufacturing costs.

Re:Real implications of cheap solar power (1)

mr3038 (121693) | more than 10 years ago | (#9223940)

Let's look at what the real implications of cheap solar power are:
  • demand for tech to turn electrical power plus (whatever) ingredients into natural gas (cars powered by methane emit only CO2, not other nasty stuff, plus infrastructure there - existing cars can run on natural gas for $300 conversion kit)

Even though burning a perfect mixture of pure methane and pure oxygen do produce only CO2, a car running on pure methane would also produce nitrogen dioxide (NO2) [epa.gov] , simply because we would use air instead of pure oxygen for costs and safety. And if, or when, the oxygen/methane mix isn't perfect, the car ends up putting out some carbon monoxide (CO) [epa.gov] . In addition, emitting just CO2 isn't without problems either - it's really far from pollution free. We'd really want to burn pure oxygen and hydrogen, which would emit only water, but that still isn't practical.

Re:Real implications of cheap solar power (2, Interesting)

calidoscope (312571) | more than 10 years ago | (#9227974)

Let's look at what the real implications of cheap solar power are:

One very valuable use for cheap electricity is desalinating seawater. Normally arid areas bordering on an ocean or large sea (think places like Baja California, North Africa, even Saudi Arabia) will have access to significant amounts of very fresh water - probably won't be cheap enough for rice farming, but certainly cheap enough for moderately high-value crops.

Reverse osmosis is not as energy intensive as you might think - current technology needs 800 psi to desalinate sea water (about a 2,000 foot pressure head) - and 2,000' is about what the Colorado River aqueduct traverses to get to coastal souther California.

For those curious on how a solar cell works.. (3, Informative)

jigyasubalak (308473) | more than 10 years ago | (#9213053)

Go here [howstuffworks.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>