Nominate Your Favorite Renewable Energy Project for The 2009 Excellence in Renewable Energy Awards
click here for more information
Close
 
Photo Credit: Donna Coveney, MIT
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (23) View image gallery Image Gallery (2) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
July 16, 2008

MIT Research May Bring Down Cost of Solar Energy

by Elizabeth Thomson, MIT News Office
Massachusetts, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

Imagine windows that not only provide a clear view and illuminate rooms, but also use sunlight to efficiently help power the building they are part of. MIT engineers report a new approach to harnessing the sun's energy that could allow just that.

"This accomplishment demonstrates the critical importance of innovative basic research in bringing about revolutionary advances in solar energy utilization in a cost-effective manner."

-- Dr. Aravinda Kini, Program Manager, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy

The work involves the creation of a novel "solar concentrator."

"Light is collected over a large area [like a window] and gathered, or concentrated, at the edges," explains Marc A. Baldo, leader of the work and the Esther and Harold E. Edgerton Career Development Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering.

As a result, rather than covering a roof with expensive solar cells, the cells only need to be around the edges of a flat glass panel. In addition, the focused light increases the electrical power obtained from each solar cell "by a factor of over 40," Baldo says.

Because the system is simple to manufacture, the team believes that it could be implemented within three years — even added onto existing solar-panel systems to increase their efficiency by 50 percent for minimal additional cost. That, in turn, would substantially reduce the cost of solar electricity.

In addition to Baldo, the researchers involved are Michael Currie, Jon Mapel, and Timothy Heidel, all graduate students in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and Shalom Goffri, a postdoctoral associate in MIT's Research Laboratory of Electronics.

"Professor Baldo's project utilizes innovative design to achieve superior solar conversion without optical tracking," says Dr. Aravinda Kini, program manager in the Office of Basic Energy Sciences in the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science, a sponsor of the work. "This accomplishment demonstrates the critical importance of innovative basic research in bringing about revolutionary advances in solar energy utilization in a cost-effective manner."

Solar concentrators in use today "track the sun to generate high optical intensities, often by using large mobile mirrors that are expensive to deploy and maintain," Baldo says. Further, "solar cells at the focal point of the mirrors must be cooled, and the entire assembly wastes space around the perimeter to avoid shadowing neighboring concentrators."

The MIT solar concentrator involves a mixture of two or more dyes that is essentially painted onto a pane of glass or plastic. The dyes work together to absorb light across a range of wavelengths, which is then re-emitted at a different wavelength and transported across the pane to waiting solar cells at the edges.

In the 1970s, similar solar concentrators were developed by impregnating dyes in plastic. But the idea was abandoned because, among other things, not enough of the collected light could reach the edges of the concentrator. Much of it was lost en route.

The MIT engineers, experts in optical techniques developed for lasers and organic light-emitting diodes, realized that perhaps those same advances could be applied to solar concentrators. The result? A mixture of dyes in specific ratios, applied only to the surface of the glass, that allows some level of control over light absorption and emission. "We made it so the light can travel a much longer distance," Mapel says. "We were able to substantially reduce light transport losses, resulting in a tenfold increase in the amount of power converted by the solar cells."

This work was also supported by the National Science Foundation. Baldo is also affiliated with MIT's Research Laboratory of Electronics, Microsystems Technology Laboratories, and Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies.

Mapel, Currie and Goffri are starting a company, Covalent Solar, to develop and commercialize the new technology. Earlier this year Covalent Solar won two prizes in the MIT $100K Entrepreneurship Competition. The company placed first in the Energy category ($20,000) and won the Audience Judging Award ($10,000), voted on by all who attended the awards.

Elizabeth Thomson is a writer in the MIT News Office.

Image Gallery (2)
 
Reader Comments (23)
 
No image available
July 16, 2008
I don't know what is to become of this, but I think this has the potential to be one of the most exciting technologies in a long time. Imagine being able to use concentrated solar energy in almost all places, not just deserts. Imagine photovoltaics brought down to the price of coal, no expensive tracking devices or arrays of mirrors. Imagine buildings and homes being energy producers instead of energy gluttons. I hope to see this revolution in my lifetime!

As Mr. Fitch eloquently pointed out the political hurdles may be harder to overcome than the technical hurdles. A renewable revolution will eventually come by reason or by force. By force I don't necessarily mean solely by military might but by pressures of the marketplace. If powers that be manage to squelch these types of technologies until it is no longer possible, it could produce tragic results, possibly a worldwide depression that dwarfs the 1930's, possibly followed by another world war. I certainly hope that is not the case. It reminds me of President John F. Kennedy's admonition that those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

It doesn't have to be this way and I think time may be still available to avoid it, but the time is quickly running out.
Comment 1 of 23
No image available
July 16, 2008
Well said, Mr. Fitch!

Regarding the article, it is worth noting that this technology will aesthetically bear a resemblance to frosted glass (see BBC article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7501476.stm). So, the statement that it will "provide a clear view" may not necessarily be accurate.

Still, a very promising and fascinating technology. :)
-ET
Comment 2 of 23
No image available
July 16, 2008
Ditto Mr. Fitch.
Comment 3 of 23
July 16, 2008
Hi:

This is wonderful. If it really works out and becomes a revolution in solar engineering, it will catch the conventional fuels and nuke corporations eyes, and be bought out and added to the controlled basket of technologies...
All good and great innovations in RE have a chance to succeed, but they will only expand at a rate that is allowed for, in a controlled energy market.....
NO REVOLUTIONS ALLOWED, merely slow evolution....
There is only one way that a true energy revolution will happen. If a sole inventor who is off the radar discovers a radical innovation, and lets the cat out of the bag for FREE to thousands of universities and corporations world wide so the info. and process can not be suppressed or patented, then there is a chance…..
Comment 4 of 23
No image available
July 18, 2008
I have one small comment for Richard of comment 7. You forgot Jimmy Carter, who was really on top the situation,deployed solar panels on the White House roof, only to haveR Ragen remove them. So, who was the smarter man in retrospect?
Comment 5 of 23
No image available
July 18, 2008
What a great innovation for sky light, and bathroom glass. There, a transmission into the house of diffuse light is highly desirable rather than a beam that gives you bright light and shadows.
In the end, the only important factor will be how much does it cost per unit of energy produced and how long will it last. You don't want to have to replace your sky lights every couple of years.
By the by, what percent of its full sun energy will these "windows" produce when they are "looking" at a clear blue sky rather than being bathed in full sun.
Comment 6 of 23
No image available
July 18, 2008
This is exciting. I hope it works out. We need it now.
We have to set a GOAL of energy independence by 2015.
GO SOLAR
Comment 7 of 23
No image available
July 18, 2008
Thinking the same thing Eugene.

Whats the surface area required for this glass to be effective? Is this an application for homes or large buildings?
Comment 8 of 23
No image available
July 18, 2008
If this technology allows for a significant reduction in the number of actual PV cells, then it might indeed reduce per-watt costs and make PV cost-effective. However, why windows? Why not glass sheets on the roof where they can be optimally positioned for reception of solar energy (and where I don't care about the residual light). I Hope this works, we need distributed power generation at a cost competitive with the grid.
Comment 9 of 23
No image available
July 18, 2008
Our most urgent item in this society is to lower the gasoline price to at least $2 level within several years.
Without such effort, the future of the US is beyond imagination.
So what we should do? We have to have a very quick fix for the current gasoline price hike. To do so, we should spend hundred billions dollars to install these renewable energy technologies, new and old, within 6 years or so. The resulted electric generation should be at least 1/3 of the total US electric power requirements. That should stabilize domestic energy price, i.e.
reducing oil import drastically.
Once domestic gasoline price is reduced to that level, we can start creating 250 mph high-speed-train based transportation networks used for travel up to 1000 miles or so throughout US by 2030 that further reduces oil consumption more than 70 %.
We should dig wells around US shore and Alaska later but not now.
They should be reserved for our future generations. Oil is the essential fuel for cheap food production and airplanes for long distant travel, 1000 miles over.
This reported technology should take a part of the quick fixing task.
Comment 10 of 23
No image available
July 18, 2008
This technology will not work with a frosted surface -- it needs (normal) smooth optical surfaces on both sides of the glass.

Whether the view will be clear will depend on the degree op "doping" the surface layers with dye. Even with different layers of glass, each with a different dye, it will be different to avoid a distict colour tinge to the view through the glass.
Comment 11 of 23
No image available
July 18, 2008
This is a substantially improved version of a concentrator developed & used in the 1970's & 1980's.

I bought a wall clock in 1987 whose faceplate contains fluorescent dyes which absorb incident photons of light, and re-emit photons of generally lower frequency & energy.

The re-emitted light (photons) is in all directions -- also in directions beyond the critical angle for the glass (or plexiglass . . ).

Photons in such directions undergo 100% efficient total internal reflection when striking the glass-air interface, and are thus channelled to the edge of the glass sheet, where compact high efficiency photovoltaic (PV) cells convert the energy of these photons into electricity.

By having different successive sheets doped (or rather surface treated) with different dyes, different frequencies (that is, different wavelengths) of light can be directed to different types of PV cells -- each frequency band to cells that are especially efficient for this particular frequency band.

In this way, a big part of the solar spectrum can be used efficiently. Also, (part of the) light from a big window area can be directed to compact cells situated at the edges of the window.

For al fuller (technical) description of this, see the article in Nature published by this group:- http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5886/226
Comment 12 of 13
Comment 12 of 23
July 18, 2008
Hi Tim V:
What it "takes" to heat or cool a home in Btu's is determined by the structures heating and cooling load values. Those vary based on the square footage being heated/cooled, insulation values, air infiltration levels and passive solar gains through windows and off course the climate. As far as PV VS thermal.... well, PV has a very long way to go to catch up to the overall 50%-80% range that most solar thermal operates in..... mother nature has the best conversion efficiency with photosynthesis which operates in the 80+% area. Be patient though, progress will come but at a nice slow controlled pace. Morgan Freeman said it best as Paul Shannon in, "Chain Reaction", near the end while standing in the office at C-Systems. "~The technology will be let out but at a pace the world can absorb".
Comment 13 of 23
No image available
July 18, 2008
Another great step in renewable energy, I would like to see the MIT teams spend more time on a new Battery, light weight and large capacity Amp/hrs. With new HVAC DC systems and Electric vehicles on the rise and in demand; the need is great and options few that are affordable. "Imagine", if you will, Heating your home with as little as two 200 Watt PV panels, and a storage battery bank that will allow 7 days, no sunshine....Sol Cool is one company that is working out the bugs and well on it's way to a true system for heat and AC from PV and not thermal solar energy. Keep up the Great work MIT!!!. PS would you E mail me updates on your research?..progress of course! tvesely@neaenergy.com or evergreensolarinstaller@yahoo.com
Comment 14 of 23
No image available
July 18, 2008
Wow, what can be cheaper and easier than just painting these dyes on our windows and having electricity for our homes. The fastest, easiest and obviously cheapest way to go. Now I might actually consider solar for my home. Until now it just hasn't been worth it.

Three years to commercialization is also very near. I wonder how much electricity it would produce per square foot of window space. Would it be enough to power my entire home or would I still need the grid. If excess electricity were produced would it be stored in a batter for later or be sold back to the utility through the grid. Lot's of questions that I suppose will have to be handled on a state by state basis.

I certainly hope this is the real thing. It does sound promising but as a previous post has mentioned, we've heard that before.

Wish us all luck on this one.
Comment 15 of 23
No image available
July 18, 2008
This is a really interesting area of current PV research (and MIT are by no means the only ones carrying it out). One note of caution I would add to this though is that while it has been reported that these modules could replace windows and have the appearance of frosted glass i seriously doubt it without a large add extra cost as these modules will allow through (and emit) light at the red end of the spectrum only. - White light would be impossible from a module with optimum efficiency.
Having said that I believe this is a very promissing technology - and one which will improve as high efficiency cells improve as well.
Comment 16 of 23
No image available
July 18, 2008
This and a tremendous number of advances in alternative fuels and power are very, very promising. Ironically, we owe these advances a complete lack of leadership on the part of every administration since Nixon and a special thanks to the hideous war in Iraq brought to us by the present administration. Two things spring to mind: "It's an ill wind that blows no good" and "even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then." Apologies to the pig.
Comment 17 of 23
No image available
July 18, 2008
I would rather see those R&D dollars go towards a price reduction in the existing poly crystaline cell PV module technology, than see them go into these "promising new technologies" for the future.
I have been reading about promises like this for 30 years.
Where are they?
It would be nice if I could say just one word and be able to "wake you up."
I have lost track of, how many times I have read about "promising new technologies" or process's that are suppose to lower the cost of harvesting energy from our Sun. Yet, all the while there has been only one prominate product, poly crystaline cell PV modules.
Oh sure! There are other products on the market but less efficient and, they have not reduced the cost to the end user ether.
What is the going price of a poly crystaline PV module now? U.S. $5.00 per watt not installed? How much was it 10, 20, or even 30 years ago?
Where are all of those "promising new technologies" that were suppose to reduce this cost?
All have seen is larger PV modules with more poly crystaline cells in them.
If you ask me, I think the renewable energies industry as a whole, but PV in particular, should be more closely audited before we take "the plunge."
Just to be sure there are no "rocks just below the surface."
Wouldnt be great if subterfuge had an aroma. If everyone could smell from a long way off like carrion?
There is something that smells awfully fishy about the PV industry to me.
Comment 18 of 23
No image available
July 19, 2008
Folks - there's a lot of excitement in these comments about the potential of this technology and that's great. But we should take a moment to put it in perspective.

Solar is an excellent energy resource, the potential of which is only beginning to be harnessed. In order to think about (and discuss) effectively the potential of any particular solar energy technology we must first have a clear understanding of how much solar energy is available for a given application. It all boils down to available surface area, and location in the country. An excellent reference to get background on this is chapter 2 in a text titled "Photovoltaic Systems", published by American Technical Publishers.

http://store.altenergystore.com/Books-Classes-Webinars/Solar-Electric-and-Passive-Solar/American-Technical-Publishers-Photovoltaic-Systems-American-Tech-Pub/p5836/?iorb=4764&source=yahoop

There's not enough space for me to post the entire analysis here. But, using solar radiation information from the text and the statement that the "MIT team believes it could improve existing panels by 50%" from the BBC article referenced in comment #3 above, my optimistic estimate is that you need between 30 and 80 square meters of this stuff (depending on where you live in the country) on a south facing vertical surface to get the 920 kWh/month which the EIA quotes as the average U.S. residential electricity consumption for 2006. So, most folks wouldn't be able to supply the electricity needs for their home by using this stuff on their windows.

However, it would make sense to apply this technology to office buildings that have a tremendous amount of window surface area, and that are also interested in reducing the amount of energy that comes into the building through the windows that results in excess solar heating, requiring a tremendous amount of energy consumption for air-conditioning.

I'd be glad to e-mail the assumptions used in the estimate to anyone who is interested.
Comment 19 of 23
No image available
July 19, 2008
Dear All,
This is the first time I am posting a comment on this site and cant claim to have the right modicum of nettiquettte! I am also an interested novice in the field So, please excuse if you find the comments foolish or naive..
One of our Professors used to start every new session with the "KISS" philosophy (Keep it simple! .....).
In that vein, and based on the observation:

"Solar concentrators in use today "track the sun to generate high optical intensities, often by using large mobile mirrors that are expensive to deploy and maintain," Baldo says... " Why cant we just use a mechanical clock based tracking system? After all, the sun is not like bird flitting in the sky. The periodic tilting to match the declination etc. could very well be manually carried out. as well based on a graduated scale. Secondly, If cooling the cells near the focal point is such an issue, could we not arrange to shift the cells a bit closer, spreading the energy over a larger cell area?Also, we could pain these cells with the MIT dyes which anyway transport the energy to the periphery? This shall perhaps use synergies and optimise the process.
I happen to have read some where on this site's articles itself that the current solar cells are capable of utilising only a v. small spectrum. In this context, the MIT dyes developed could be extremely useful.
Would appreciate honest, critical feedback, also personally to id nandpurhit@gmail.com.
Comment 20 of 23
No image available
July 20, 2008
Several types of Technologies are under development ranging from that by a co called Solarerji in California to that by IBM and also by Isrealis , also by scientists in Banglore India using nano technology.
Some technology developers are claiming the cost of electricity would be 5 cents per KWH which in fact competes well with the cost from all sources,.
But nothing has seen commercial scale except the solar concentrators of traditional design such as being built in Spain.
No utility scale projects or large scale induction without aid of subsidies would be possibile unless technology is rapidly commercialized. and proven economical on standard parameters of feasibility and economic return.
In countries like India there is huge poytential but it must be proven economical without subsidies of any type- CDM could continue for a while..
Comment 21 of 23
No image available
July 23, 2008
If this technology pans out, I will be one of the 1st to install this system in my current home. What a great bunch of minds at MIT ! Way to go fellas !
Comment 22 of 23
No image available
July 25, 2008
People we need to concentrate on the real revolution that these technologies bring, the one that will get the support of the politicians and the industries. These technologies create jobs in America and keep jobs in America. We spend so much time worried about what the powers to be will do when we should focus on benefitting our fellow man, the global enviornment and all of the citizens of the world. We can change the world for the better by focusing on lowering the cost of renewable energy. People want lower cost energy, they want jobs and they want a clean environment. Keep the focus on what people want and you will lead and win this revolution.
Comment 23 of 23
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
The Wall Street Green Trading Summit Sustainable Energy Fund Teledyne RD Instruments ABS Energy Research SMA America, LLC SolarTech Consortium
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo