Cheap Paint-able Solar Cells Developed 254
Invisible Pink Unicorn writes "Researchers at New Jersey Institute of Technology have developed an inexpensive solar cell that can be painted or printed on flexible plastic sheets. According to the lead researcher, "Someday homeowners will even be able to print sheets of these solar cells with inexpensive home-based inkjet printers. Consumers can then slap the finished product on a wall, roof or billboard to create their own power stations." The team combined carbon nanotubes with tiny carbon buckyballs (fullerenes) to form snake-like structures. Add sunlight to excite the polymers, and the buckyballs will grab the electrons. The article abstract is available through the Journal of Materials Chemistry, with an illustration of the technology."
Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I currently live in Texas and have had a summer electricity bill of over $400 for one month, last year. It won't take TXU's "increased prices due to demand" *cough* gouging *cough* much more, for me to splash out 8 grand for 2 large solar cells just to power a mid-size stand alone Cooling/heating unit....
The lower the cost of the panels just recoups my investment earlier, but its almost worth doing for the sheer smugness gained
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I know I know, damn hippies and their passive thermally-efficient spacecake-looking houses...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...It won't take TXU's "increased prices due to demand" *cough* gouging *cough* much more,...
It's easy to throw around accusations of gouging (and I can't say for sure it's NOT going on), but utilities do in fact buy power from the grid to meet demand peaks. There is actually a "market" for power, and like anything else, a lot of demand will raise the price. Many states have laws restricting how much the utilities can increase the rates charged to customers, but you're going to pay for it one way or the other - either you'll pay a lot more during the hottest months, or you'll pay a little more
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not a republican, I'm just joking.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Impeaching the messengers (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not a republican, I'm just joking.
When you see this type of logic and it is meant, it's very revealing that they aren't listening to what you say, only what you sound like when you say it. "If you want me to do X, and I do X, you'll just say I should be doing Y because you complain and complain and that's all you do- I have therefore categorized you as an idiot or [member of disliked group] and so anything you say about X must not be t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is more properly read as (Score:2)
(any argument that says (someone is stupid and shouldn't be listened to) is stupid and shouldn't be listened to)
That said, I do disagree with this statement, as it suggests that every time the "boy cries wolf", you should go check to see if there's actually a wolf. There are certain sites (e.g., junkscience.com) that I no longer bother trying to understand articles from because every time I have, it's turned out to be a waste of my time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about skipping the photovoltaic slick and just jump in the pool?
-Stor
Re: (Score:2)
You are right on the verge of realising we are ALL part of the monkeysphere [pointlesswasteoftime.com] and that there are as many "alternate realities" as there are people on the planet, many more if you consider other species.
I've discovered a new pet peeve of mine... (Score:2)
<soapbox>My relatively new pet peeve is when people use the word "monkey" to mean "ape". That link you provide keeps talking about monkeys while showing pictures of apes (e.g., chimpanzees and orangutans). They even call us monkeys. We're apes, not monkeys. Both apes and monkeys (as well as lemurs) are
How to make the price of Solar cheaper (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19044/ [technologyreview.com]
Unlike the theoretical method mentioned by slash dot.
Disclaimer: I am a graduate of UCSB so I am biased.
Hey sounds great (Score:4, Funny)
Efficiency is Missing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Efficiency is Missing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
An average house has about 2000 sq' (perhaps 1k sq' facing south).
So they would need to be at least about 50% as efficient as the current cells.
The big factor is cost. If we can get them down to 5k instead of 50k for enough cells for a typical house, it changes everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Efficiency is Missing (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
For the car?
"Cloud. Oh fuck!"
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier to predict than to make it happen.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in the absence of grant money the possibility for anyone making it from research idea to actual product that is anywhere close to the promises and predictions become zero, as opposed to merely remote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
VCs are usefully once you have a prototype and a proof of conce
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Phase III of SBIR (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A company comes up with a great idea, but lacks the funding to manufacture it on a large scale. Because of patents nobody else is allowed to.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose. It's so strange these days. You see people doing research, then posing for a photo and making a press release. Then.. nothing. The promises and predictions don't amount to actual products that people can buy. But I suppose they do get you more grant money.
Well this has been going on for years; it's nothing new. What's new today is the President's ambivalence if not downright hostility toward science, an attitude shared by a frighteningly large percentage of the population. There was a time when science was the religion in the U.S.; generations were taught that science was the key to better living, greater material wealth and national strength. Today there is a disconnect between Joe and Mary Sixpack and the scientific community, despite the manifold dazz
Re: (Score:2)
In the mean time, these guys should stop making false claims (it's cheap!) as it discredits the entire research community.
A useful technology (Score:5, Funny)
Brinks truck pulls up to Staples ... (Score:5, Funny)
"Someday homeowners will even be able to print sheets of these solar cells with inexpensive home-based inkjet printers."
"The team combined carbon nanotubes with tiny carbon buckyballs (fullerenes)
Whooboy! I wonder what that print cartridge is going to cost!
Re:Brinks truck pulls up to Staples ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
B.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it paints dupes too (Score:2, Informative)
Remember that time... (Score:2, Informative)
I'm going to hold out on commenting (Score:3, Funny)
Today's Snake Oil.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Does it seem to anyone else like carbon nanotubes are modern snake oil? Seriously, is there anything they CAN'T do?
Re:Today's Snake Oil.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Make their way into an actual product people can buy?
Good if you want to oil a snake (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nah... not yet. (Score:4, Interesting)
More blogodreck. See actual article. (Score:5, Informative)
First, the article is the NJIT press release [njit.edu], with essentially the same text and pictures.
Second, this is yet another of those overhyped "minor advance in materials science" articles. The abstract for the technical article says only "The results indicate that C60 decorated SWCNTs are promising additives for performance enhancement of polymer photovoltaic cells." There's no mention of "paintable solar cells".
"Paintable solar cells" have been talked up before (they were mentioned on Slashdot two years ago [slashdot.org]) but nobody has actually made that work. There's this fantasy that you somehow spray something on your roof and get power out. But it's not likely to work.
Some guy at the University of Toronto has been hping this for several years now. [businessweek.com] He got quite a bit of press in 2005. But his actual cells were, according to Business Week, 3 orders of magnitude worse than existing technology, were more expensive to make, and had a limited lifetime.
I was much more impressed when I went to a talk by Mark Pinto, the VP of Applied Materials' solar unit. He spoke for an hour and a half, and never mentioned "eco" or "green". He's a manufacturing exec, and he sees this as a manufacturing cost problem. They know what to do; they just need to do it bigger, faster, and cheaper. Which is what Applied Materials does, very successfully, for ICs and flat panel displays. He has charts showing that in high-sun areas like southern Spain, solar power can now be cheaper than existing electricity sources. So they're building a big solar panel plant there. As the materials improve, they'll convert to new materials and processes, just like they do for ICs. And as with ICs and flat panel displays, they expect to follow the cost curve down.
Their existing generation of solar panel fab is derived from their flat panel display fab equipment, but they expect that, over time, those technologies will diverge. They'd like a roll-to-roll solar cell process, and bought a company with one that sort of works, but if it doesn't, they think they can do OK with something that works like a huge wafer fab, with each wafer covering five square meters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Painting does not appeal. It suggests a short-lived, labor-intensive, installation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
CCDs are probably closer since they both use the pv effect, and how much did a 10Mp image sensor cost only 10 years ago? Sh1tloads, if they were ev
Enough energy? (Score:5, Interesting)
From wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
4.26×10^20 J, the yearly energy consumption of the world as of 2001
5.5×10^ 24 J, the total energy from the Sun that strikes the face of the Earth each year
We only use about 1/10000 of the total solar energy (as of 2001).
Re:Enough energy? (Score:5, Insightful)
We already subsist off of solar energy, for the most part - it's just our source happens to be stored a long time ago. Nuclear is about the only source (okay, geothermal, too) that isn't a form of solar energy. It's not so much the energy, it's the ability to store it in usable forms.
Re:Enough energy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Everything else you say is true, but to nitpick: isn't nuclear power another form of "stored" solar energy? Those heavy elements were originally formed in stars that blew up. Nuclear power is solar energy from dead suns!
Cool to think about, and a point to confound anti-nuclear power types....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Tidal power, too.
Actually, solar energy *is* nuclear since stars are big fusion reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
Err, no. As a matter of fact, only a fraction of that energy is absorbed across the earth. On average, less than 1/3rd in-fact.
Technology changes consumption patterns (Score:5, Interesting)
The reverse case, living on a battery bank and solar panel, follows a similar pattern. When living on battery, tracking your power levels becomes second nature. You become much more aware of what you are using and start to make trade-offs in your mind: do I really want to watch that movie and draw down the battery bank when I could just as easily read a book (or go to bed at dark and get up earlier, or actually talk to my wife, or...) It is not a matter of suffering or 'making do', but just finding you don't need as much as you thought you did. In the summer when the battery banks are overflowing, you splurge, like running the ice cream maker.
Having gone back and forth between these worlds a few times, I am very aware of the power I expend. Right now, my wife and I have one light bulb (a CFL) on in the entire house. There have been times and places that even burning a single light this long after dark would have been unusual.
So, yes, solar panels can provide enough power to run your life, particularly if you make the logical adjustments to living with a variable and finite source of power. We get so used to flipping a switch and not thinking about where the power comes from, that we expect the exact same out of renewable power sources. It also means that we are horrible at dealing with emergencies or changes of fortune. But we don't have to live that way.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When folks in third world countries use candles and oil lamps, they maximize their use of sunlight, only use light sources when necessary and often for task lighting, take advantage of full moons, and watch consumption closely. ... It is not a matter of suffering or 'making do', but just finding you don't need as much as you thought you did.
No, it IS a matter of "making do". Do you think people in developing countries really want to live this way? Really, this whole notion that we can significantly cut power consumption in the United States just by making a few "lifestyle changes" is fucking ridiculous.
It's a matter of being aware of a wider variety of options and being aware of where things come from. I don't eat a lot of meat, not because there's a shortage, but because I have had to handle the whole process end to end. I have a lot more respect for the animals it comes from and no desire to waste it. I don't have any shortage of electricity or water right now, but, because of where I have been, I am aware of where it comes from when I flip a switch or turn a tap. I also know I have better options for
What's more (Score:2)
--
Register your home for solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting... even with 100% efficient solar cells we might NOT be able to provide our energy needs with the amount of sunlight that falls on our planet. I wouldn't have thought.
Very promising. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Very promising. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than having a small, super-expensive, super-efficient panel, I'd rather have a panel with much less efficiency than current cells but much higher watts-per-dollar rating.
The constant increases in silicon cell efficiency are great for space stations, but for those of us on the surface of the planet, we need a breakthrough in watts-per-dollar that isn't vaporware. There's no shortage of space to put solar cells (building roofs, car roofs, etc.), but there's a shortage
QUIT FUCKING TEASING ME! (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Cheap? (Score:2)
This discovery builds on experiments using fullerenes and their derivatives as electron acceptors for organic semiconductors like polythiophene, and the use of a carbon nanotube a a molecular wire to cart away electro
Specs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Therefore, what is the total energy budget of this material?
If they have to be replaced frequently, produce low wattage, and cost a lot of energy to produce and deploy, then silicon PV cells that last 35+ years at 15-25% efficiency might still be better, even though the silicon cells cost a lot of energy to produce, deploy, maintain and recycle. Or maybe this tech is better.
I wish every journalist covering the accelerating solar power industry would always answer those basic questions. Otherwise, it's just science fiction dressed up as propaganda.
Here is the paper, with efficiency data (Score:3, Informative)
The paper answers some of the questions that others have posed in this thread, particularly about the efficiency of the process achieved so far (0.57%). These are their conclusions:
It's clearly at a very early stage of research/development, but polymer photovoltaic cells have such enormous potential that it's an extremely valuable direction to pursue.
Printers of the future can do everything! (Score:4, Funny)
hopefully they'll release the "nanotube buckyball solar panel" cartridge to fit in the same printer as the OLED display cartridge... etc.
Can't wait to read some word documents written using solar panel nanotube ink, too.
Go Highlanders! (Score:2, Interesting)
interconnect (Score:2)
Upconvert the voltage. Change to AC. Find some way to store it or pipe it back into the grid.
All non-trivial stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Alright Dammit! (Score:2)
Has anyone else noticed this?
From the Article... (Score:2)
My GOD!...it's to simple!...Why didn't I think of that!
Seriously, can somebody point me to someting a little more detailed? That article sounds a little "vapor-ish". On the other hand, if such a thing will be coming to market, I'd like to know where I could buy it.
What a terrible article! (Score:2)
"Expensive, large-scale infrastructures such as wind mills or dams are necessary to drive renewable energy sources, such as wind or hydroelectric power plants."
Gee, really? I always thought we made windmills for hydroelectric power. Or how about this:
"When sunlight falls on an organic solar cell, the energy generates positive and negative charges. If the charges can be separated and sent to different electrodes, then a current
With solar power... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. Not enough power.
But maybe if you paved a couple acres and painted THAT you could collect enough power to charge your car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Charging a car (Score:5, Informative)
--
Sprout silicon leaves: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re: (Score:2)
That's a fair amount of time to generate power to store.
The main issues might be
* theft
* hail & storm damage
We have pluggable hybrid conversions now. It seems like you could charge those with solar as well as you can charge them with solar.
A 100 watt (dc) panel takes about 2'x4'. I think it takes several of those to make 100 watts at 20amps tho.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is:
We have to pave the earth [geocities.com] in order to save it [rwor.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I find your concept disturbing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I just hope it isn't underpowered and generally cheap and crappy like the computers that wal-mart sold with linux installed.