Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Solar Paint on Steel Could Generate Renewable Energy Soon

By Jane Burgermeister
October 1, 2008   |   38 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
These new solar cells also have the advantage of being able to absorb across the visible spectrum. That makes them more efficient at capturing low radiation light than conventional solar cells, and so well suited to the British climate with its many cloudy days.
38 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 38
9,000 GW? WOW!!! That's more electricity than the entire world produces. The U.S. only generates about 700 GW. It's amazing that a single company can, every year, out produce what it took the whole world generations to put into place - and this with just paint. OR could this be ANOTHER instance where an author that writes energy articles doesn't know anything about energy. Maybe Jane Bergermeister should study up and learn the difference between a GW and a GW/hour.

Another item in the article concerned me. I've been driving less to decrease my CO2 footprint. Now I find out from this article that the steel in my car emits CO2. Thankfully it is 50% less than 40 years ago. Our cars are pumping out CO2 even while parked in the parking lot? Sometimes I feel we can't win. I thought the CO2 only came from the "production" of steel. Live and learn.
Comment
2 of 38
October 1, 2008
I have one question: Is it possible to apply something like this (layers of paint or any) to all crystal windows in huge buildings? It can generate power and also serve as shading.
Comment
3 of 38
October 1, 2008
The last time I checked the United states generated app. 3.3 terawatts of electric every year. That is considerably more than 9000 gigawatts. check my facts wikipedia.
Comment
4 of 38
October 1, 2008
Did you know that our sun is powered entirely by solar energy !

Learn something new every day it seems...

boB
Comment
5 of 38
October 1, 2008
Here is a good potential idea. SOLAR steel roof for homes. So this begs the questions.

If steel roofs can last on average 50 years, How long will the paint on PAINTED SOLAR steel roof will last?

If solar paint does not last for life span of 50 years, can it be repainted on home site?
Comment
6 of 38
October 1, 2008
Hey Bob Z, last time I checked 9,000 gigawatts IS 9 terawatts might want to count your zeros again.
Comment
7 of 38
October 1, 2008
GW/h (power/time) would be a useless unit for this sort of thing. This unit could be used for quantifying the rate of change of electrical production, e.g. if production or capacity increased by 365 GW over a year, the hourly change would be 1/24 GW/h.

GWh, on the other hand (power x time), is a measure of energy. If something consumes 1 watt over one hour, it has consumed a watt-hour. Your electric bill is in kWh. 1 GWh is 1000 of those.

Similarly, saying that somebody produced an amount of power in a year is nonsensical. (e.g. Bob Z's comment about 3.3 TW every year). The only way this would make sense is 3.3 TW were installed every year, which is clearly not the case. It does however make sense to say that the US produces 3.3 TW, but that is not true either. Power is an instantaneous thing. Think of it in terms of another unit of power--horsepower. Would it make any sense to say that your car used 150 horsepower per hour? Or to say that you produced 150 hp over a year? No.

Bob Z is trying to talk about energy consumption, which would be measured in Joules (probably exajoules) or more likely TWh or GWh or kWh. The figure i found on wikipedia for annual US energy production was 3.9 TWh in 2005.
Comment
8 of 38
October 1, 2008
gigawatt = 1 billion watts

terawatt = 1 trillion watts

Andrew my apologies, your correct. too many zeros for me to deal with. but 9000 gigawatts is still less than total world wide production.
Comment
9 of 38
October 1, 2008
Yeah, according to wiki, in 2005, the global energy use was 138,900 TWh. Don't get T and G mixed up. Also, you do realize that "GW/H" has to be multiplied by H squared to get energy, right?

Anyways, John Goweg, the article you are talking about was one of those MIT articles just before the whole electolizer thing.
Comment
10 of 38
October 1, 2008
All griping aside folks, this is a potentially disruptive technology. However, the article is poorly researched a lacks critical information that would determine the real potential of the technology. What I would like to know is how cheap is cheap? The costs will never be as cheap as siding or roofing alone due to the electrical equipment cost and additional installation cost. Another blatently missing tidbit is the question of durability. I was under the impression that dye sensitized solar had problems with lifetime. I don't see repaintinting as a viable option but if the installtion of the steel panels themselves were made simple enough then a system could be put in place to periodically remove the panels and swap them for new ones. The old panels could be bought back by the manufacturer for factory refurbishment. Anyway, the tech is amazing and elegant but not a lot can be said for it without more info.
Comment
11 of 38
October 1, 2008
In all the confusion in these comments, a few practical issues have not been raised. When you measure wHr output of a photovoltaic device it is going to be contingent on conditions. If it is laid perpendicular to the sun's rays then it will give the greatest output. These low efficiency type devices will need to have many times the area of a crystalline cell to put out the same amount. If it is meant for materials that are affixed to the walls of buildings then there will be a relatively small output per square meter, because vertical can only be perpendicular to the sun's rays in the early morning and late afternoon when there is the least energy in the sunlight. Unfortunately a lot of crazy ideas are being promoted by people who leave out the fundamental underpinnings of the way these technologies actually work. Then there is the problem of daily condensation cycles that leave a film of moisture to which dust, pollen and air pollution adhere. Without frequent cleaning of these surfaces, they rapidly are reduced in their capability to make electricity. That is why highly efficient photovoltaics, installed with maintenance in mind, are the only practical solution.
Comment
12 of 38
October 1, 2008
Yes. And how about cost? Sounds incredibly expensive for a questionable return. It's gotta make sense for the builder or the owner to justify the cost.
Comment
13 of 38
October 2, 2008
The author did point out that:
"These new solar cells also have the advantage of being able to absorb across the visible spectrum. That makes them more efficient at capturing low radiation light than conventional solar cells, and so well suited to the British climate with its many cloudy days."

Meaning that the whole building can be uniform material and looks because even the reflected light can be absorbed better than panels. However, if the builder is limited on fundes, then the south and west (in North America) are still the optimal sides.
Comment
14 of 38
I stand by my numbers. Some people are confusing capacity with output. Though our capacity has gone up more than 30% since I last checked, the 700GW was in the ball park. Here are some up to date numbers. We're just over 1TW (1,000GW). Since we generate about 25% of the world's electricity, that would put the world at about 4-5TW (4,000-5,000GW). I hope this helps.

http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/industry_overview_and_statistics/industry_statistics/index.htm#capacity
The U.S. electric power industry's total installed generating capacity was 1,089,807 megawatts (MW) as of December 31, 2007—a 1.3-percent increase from 2006.
Comment
15 of 38
Mr. Cole, you were concerned about the panels becoming dirty and therefore producing less electricity. A good property of this paint is the surface is covered with Titanium Oxide which is self cleaning. When ultraviolet light hits it, it cleans itself. You are right though, it still needs some rain to rinse off residuals.
Comment
16 of 38
October 2, 2008
Nuthin' disruptive about it! Too many technical "shortcomings" (I'm being polite)

Steel as a substrate??? You gotta be kidding! "Look I bought these cool new solar roof tiles, but they rusted!" Sorry! Thank you for playing!

And to the commenters, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get your units straight!
Comment
17 of 38
October 2, 2008
I thought it sounded overly optimistic that they'd think it could be in production in 3 years, but then I read the second paragraph and found they won't even start on developing the technology to create such a paint in the laboratory until the end of this month. I'm disappointed that it's all hype. It would seem that they don't even have a lab sample to measure efficiency on. But I wish them luck.
Comment
18 of 38
October 3, 2008
The net solar radiation that falls into the surface of the earth during cloudless days is about 1,000 watts per square meter of perpendicular surface. Assuming that at 100% efficiency and perpendicular sunlight falling on the solar coated metal sheets, the 100 million square meters will have a maximum power of 100 gigawatts, not 9,000 gigawatts. Most likely, at 11% efficiency, the 100 million square meters will have a peak capacity of 11 gigawatts, which is far below the quoted 9,000 gigawatts. Take note that all of these are in units of power, watts.

Now the 11 gigawatts is the peak power rating, and it happens around mid-day. You have to multiply this by the equivalent perpendicular sunshine hours for the entire year (subtracting all the cloudy hours period, and averaging on a daily basis) to get the gigawatt hour energy unit. You can look this up in various insolation maps. For example, if we get 4.2 equivalent (of perpendicular sunlight) hours per day, then for the whole year, we would expect to generate 11 GW x 4.2 hrs/day x 365 days/year = 16,863 gigawatt hours / year.
Comment
19 of 38
October 3, 2008
What is not said in this article, is that the dye is an invention of Dyesol, a small public company in Australia and listed in Australia at the ASX in Australia and in Frankfurt (Germany). Dyesol took the initiative, as far as I know, to work together with Corus. Dyesol has also the patent of this invention. See: www.dyesol.com. The company has several initiatives all over the world.
Comment
20 of 38
October 3, 2008
Well, I think this should be put in some perspective:
1) for sure GWh is the unit, not GW and not GW per hour GW/h
2) first assumption is a conversion rate of 11%, but where does it come from? Is this really measured with the described product? So, please tell us what they have already measured and at which scale. It is not correct to use lab-scale numbers for 10x10 cm and then apply them to 100 Mio sqm.
3) still the second assumption is that you put up 100 Mio sqm of steel sheets somewhere in the sunny places - which sounds a bit much, but possible
4) I wonder why they still produce steel at Corus, in their place I would convert to an energy company, if the story it true.
5) and we forget about cost. What about that ?

All together, I am afraid that such articles raise a lot of hopes that do not materialize soon. This is a bad service for any promising technology, because people become frustrated.
Comment
21 of 38
October 3, 2008
This sounds like one of those things that will be a game changer if it works, but will we even hear about it again?
Comment
22 of 38
October 3, 2008
The "article" (actually more of uncritical press release) ignores one of the biggest fundamental issues that plagues all reports about some new PV technology that can be painted on a wall or roof. Namely, how will the cells be interconnected? A surface coated with 10 square meters of a single solar cell is useless. It would produce a half of a volt and thousands amps. Instead, for useful and safe output, it must be divided into smaller cells and they must be connected in series to get the voltage to add and to reduce the current to managable levels. Thin film PV does this with a series of 3 laser scribe steps during manufacturing. At present this cannot be accomplished on conductors like stainless steel since the cells would all be shorted out through the steel substrate.

Also, what about shadowing? With series connected cells, shadowing of even one cell results in large decrease for the entire module or array. A vertical wall coated with solar cells could tolerate no shading from bushes, trees, adjacent buildings, etc. Not very realistic. Also, as others pointed out, the modules must be very well encapsulated.

Uncritically presented articles like this only serve to mislead the many well meaning enthusiastic folks who are looking for the next breakthrough but are technically naive.
Comment
23 of 38
October 3, 2008
I want to know how they are going to attach conductors and then separate the building skin from steel structural frame which is completely grounded. After recently installing an array of Unisolar 136 peal and stick modules, with clean conductive MC cables, to standing seam steel roofing and then grounding the steel roof itself, I would think having an entire commercial structure skin live, with an extraordinarily high shock hazard, would utterly freak out any inspector trying to enforce 690.

Fred Pittenger
Simplicity Solar
Comment
24 of 38
October 3, 2008
Let's be less critical about the journalism, guys. Yes, the author is a bit sloppy on the units, but remember this information is FREE and offered to you openly on the internet. Obviously REW.com doesn't have a huge paid staff to research the engineering details of every corporate press release that crosses their desk. The value of the article is to inform me that Corus is developing this promising technology. If I want the nitty gritty, and I have potential business involved, then I should contact Corus myself. Upon doing so, I would probably find that Corus is still trying to resolve some of the questions that have been brought up on this posting. As far as I can tell from the article, they are not actually offering this product for sale yet. They're building the lab to advance the technology. No competitive performance claims are actually being made.
Comment
25 of 38
There have been 24 comments. Many of them (including myself) criticizing the author of the article for her poor journalism and lack of knowledge of the field. It seems to me it would be common decency for her to post in the forum and apologize for posting such low quality journalism.

Dear Ms. Burgermeister,

If you are reading these posts, how-about an apology and a committment to do better in the future.

Thanks.
Comment
26 of 38
October 3, 2008
This does look promising. It is bluesky, as indicated. I have dreamed this also.
No mention of how the whole thing could be circuitized tho. As mentioned, metal sheets grounded (maybe) on a building, how to get a potential circuit. Would perhaps need a painted grid to pickup a polarity, looking like silicon cells have.
Comment
27 of 38
October 3, 2008
I see a potential here for applied film PV.
I imagine a manually applied coating series, with an insulating layer, then a hand painted grid, the potential layer(s), and another grid painted on for the other pole with bonded contactors. Seems highly probable to me.
Comment
28 of 38
October 3, 2008
Advocates for Renewable Energy are in a struggle for attention and dollars given to the Nuclear Industry. This article makes an excellent argument for Solar investment Instead of Nuclear. We need to push for increased levels of Production Tax Credits which generate investment:

A Solar Grand Plan
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

---
In DOE article: http://www.energy.gov/news/6620.htm

"The Nuclear Industry is asking the US Department of Energy (DOE) to provide loan guarantees in the amount of $122 billion, which significantly exceeds the $18.5 billion in loan guarantees available under the June 30, 2008 Nuclear Power Facilities solicitation. The aggregate estimated construction cost of 14 projects is $188 billion. If all projects are constructed, they would add 28,800 megawatts."

---

What would $100 Billion investment in Solar Energy do?

---

For Wind:

At 2007 Rates, in 10 years the US could install 10 x 5255 MW = 52,550 MW or 52 Gigawatt of Wind Power Capacity

-versus-

the Nuclear Industry's plan for 28,800 MW or 28.8 Gigawatt at a cost of $188 Billion which includes $122 Billion of Public Taxpayer Loan guarantees.

-----
In the Renewable Energy World article: "Record Growth for Wind: What Comes Next?"

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=53436

"The US installed 5244 MW (Wind) in 2007, more than double the 2006 figure and increasing total capacity by 45%. "

"Any forecast for the US market will depend significantly on whether the production tax credit (PTC) gets renewed. "

"overall value to the global wind turbine market at around $300 billion over the next five years."
Comment
29 of 38
October 3, 2008
Great article....I would venture to paint my entire car to make it electric, and paint my boots to keep my feet warm in the winter. I would paint my fan to keep me cool, and paint my bathtub to keep me warm. I would paint my bedroom to run my computer, and paint my helmet to run my bike...I would paint my fingernails so I don't need gloves, and if I smoked I would paint my cigarettes so I would never need a light....I would paint my candles to save on wax, and paint my glasses for emergency lighting... I would paint my kite, my boat, my plane......and my umbrella to charge my cell phone.....but then again I can paint my phone case and charge as well.... SInce this works so well on so many things....we could paint the Artic to power air conditioners up there to keep things cool..........Could we paint the road to melt the ice? Or paint a light bulb to power itself? Better yet they could paint missiles to power themselves as we go biserk in stopping nuclear development......the essence of it all....hope we don't paint ourselves into a corner....as he pulled out a plum and said what a good boy am I.
Comment
30 of 38
October 3, 2008
I've been watching this for quite a while and this technology is significantly progressed in the development stage.
Here is a page I've posted on this tech.
http://www.unenergy.org/index.php?p=1_71_Solar-Photosynthesis
Comment
31 of 38
October 4, 2008
In Comment #28 Derek writes:
"For Wind:

At 2007 Rates, in 10 years the US could install 10 x 5255 MW = 52,550 MW or 52 Gigawatt of Wind Power Capacity

-versus-

the Nuclear Industry's plan for 28,800 MW or 28.8 Gigawatt at a cost of $188 Billion which includes $122 Billion of Public Taxpayer Loan guarantees."

It should be noted that if the nuclear plants actually get built and used those loan guarantees will cost the taxpayer absolutely nothing. The only reason the industry needs loan guarantees from the government is that occasionally the government has unleashed a firestorm of regulation on them making new construction difficult and this makes the regular credit markets wary of backing such construction.

Wind construction at ~5 GWp (or about 1.5 GW of average capacity--a better measure to compare to new nuclear capacity) is nice, but hardly sufficient to ward off climate change problems. Most new US generation capacity still comes from fossil fuels. We need new nuclear capacity in addition to wind power (and solar if the cost ever drops). Additionally, the entire grid cannot be powered by intermittent sources such as wind and solar so the claims that nuclear is a direct competitor to wind power are overstated.
Comment
32 of 38
October 4, 2008
It might be interesting to get the units, etc., correct:
for 10^8 = 100000000 sq. meters of surface area
and using 10^3 W/sq meter as the standard insolation that solar cells are rated by (which is about a factor of 4 higher than the mean insolation you might get on your roof) and an efficiency of 0.11 you get a peak power rating of 1.1*10^10 W peak or 11 GWp or ~2.8 GW mean
At 8760 hours per year your energy production (if you always get peak insolation) is ~96000 GWh/year, or at the more reasonable mean insolation 24000 GWh/year or 24 TWh/year. World electricity consumption is about 17000 TWh/year so this would be about 0.14% of current energy needs.
This would be nice to have, but not really a "game changer"....
Comment
33 of 38
October 4, 2008
Putting the Units to Rest: the number is 10 GWp Not 9,000.

Clearly the author of the article is in error and using bad units, so let's simply calculate what this company can do; the math is simple. I do trust the 100 million sq meters per year number (why do I trust it is another matter; it just seems like something a sheet steel company would know off the top of their head... :) )

At 10% efficiency, PV runs about 100Wp / square meter. 100 million sq meters x 100 Wp / sq meter = 10 billion Wp. Or 10 GWp. Ten. Not nine-thousand.

The author just prior to my post came up with the same number; I only intend to help present it in yet a different way to help a few more people understand it.

Now, that is a game changer IF this company puts that kind of capacity into production in 2009 or 2010 or 2011. And does it for less than $1/watt incremental above plain painted steel. But if they hit this kind of capacity in 2015, it will be nice, but one of many. Or if they charge $4/watt incremental above their plain steel product, it won't be able to compete.
thanks,
Comment
34 of 38
October 4, 2008
OK, the article obviously erroneously gave 9,000 GW (power) which should have been 9,000 GW-hours/year (energy) or if you want it in power units it is equivalent to 9TW divided by "number of hours in a year", wich translates to approx. 1GW of average generating power. Just to put this into perspective, the stated annual production would take about 45years to match the current average generating capacity of the UK.

Personally I think working with peak wattage figures is not very useful as you need to know what the utilisation factor is to work out how much useful energy is produced. So instead, taking the example of the UK, the average annual insolation is of the order of 3KWh/sq-m/day on a horizontal surface so 100million sq-m of flat roof should generate
3e3 *100e6 * 365 * 11% = approx. 12TWh/year
So the 9TWh/y stated in the article (if the units are corrected) is about the right figure if the panels are predominantly used for roofing, north facing wall cladding (in the northern hemisphere) is obviously going to be a lot less but used in equatorial countries it could be a lot more.

Regarding world energy usage, the average total power (all energy sources) per head of the population is about 2.5KW, or of the order of 15TW for the whole world. In energy units this is about 1.3million TWh/y, so even at a generous production rate of 12TWh/y this only represents about 0.001%/y so it ain't going to save the planet.

Finally, I would like to support Jeff Kelly's comments regarding the excessive criticism about the journalism; this is after all a magazine article not a scientific paper. In fact I've seen similar, if not worse, in electronics magazines.
Comment
35 of 38
October 7, 2008
re Bryan Horner comment #6. " Here is a good potential idea. SOLAR steel roof for homes. "

Unisolar has integrated (BIPV) it's thin film Amorphous Silicon cells into various rooftops. They just announced a venture with Certainteed roofing company for the residential rooftop market available in 2010. In the commercial area their products have been 'peeled and stuck' onto metal roofs for a number of years. Lower installation costs but lower efficiences 8.5% than the crystalline panels from someone like Sunpower. Unisolar is aiming to produce 1gigawatt nameplate by 2012 with conversion efficiencies of 10%. Unlike the Corus product in the article which is speculative and relating to labratory world. Unisolar has real world installations that have been up and running for ten years. In the lab they have gotten thin film efficiencies of around 15%.
Comment
36 of 38
December 17, 2008
(Re comment 29/35)

Dominic,

Your thought process has surpassed speed of light. Only putting them in words would have taken time. Today's Einstein, I would say. Is your Jupiter in Aquarius? Einstein's was.
Your comments are amusing. I enjoyed and laughed and laughed. Thank you.

My best wishes (for more and more of such comments) and prayers for the coming years.

Happy Christmas!!!
Comment
37 of 38
May 24, 2009
According to Photovoltaics Inc, the makers of the paint in question:
This three part paint is capable of producing the photovoltaic effect when combined and exposed to light.

These are Insulator Material, Graphite/Graphene Compound and Crystal Dye solar cell paints. The bottom layer and the top layer are conductive. These paints are very inexpensive. The equipment to make these paints is also inexpensive.

These layers can be painted onto metals, plastics etc. Lights or Radio Frequency Waves are used to bind the layers and cure the paint. The products painted onto can be of different shapes. These layers can be scribed or masked to achieve the desired voltage. Conductive paint leads are then painted on to draw off current. A clear sealant is applied over our three part paint. The Photovoltaic Paint TM is repairable and renewable.

Unlike a solar panel that has a limited lifetime, the same area can be painted over again for as long as the substrate lasts.

The paint has to be applied under controlled conditions.

The Photovoltaic Paint TM has a coverage area of 130 square feet per gallon. You need three gallons of our Photovoltaic Paint TM.

We are getting between .5 to .6 volts and between .22 and .37 milliamps per square centimeter. The wide varieties of results is because we are hand painting these on with a brush. By doing that we "clump" these particles in places. Spray Painting this on is the only way the paint can be applied.

So, 100 million square meters x 10,000 centimeters per square meter x .22 to .37 milliamps (or .295 ma. average) = 2,950,000,000,000 amps
and 550,000,000,000 volts. I would have to say that would change the game if if was put in place. Pretty sure I have my zeros right but double check it if you want.

How many hours this power could be generated depends on the exposure of light it gets per day. Still, the results look promising
Comment
38 of 38
January 20, 2010
Hello restless commenters,

First and foremost, I would like to point out this technology is not only real, but is currently in distribution. Dyesol has several contracts and has setup an actual online store for the purchase of the materials and manufacturing equipment needed for potential buyers to prototype and then produce their own tech. Dyesol has even created a system to assist new companies in order to help them move towards finished product production faster.

The issues raised above, while valid, are mostly unimportant. Yes there were some fact checking errors, but hey, welcome to the media, get over it.

1. Steel as a substrate is only one of several options, and rust is most likely the last issue this tech would have, I mean steal manufacturing has been refined to near perfection, so lets not just throw out an idea because the bumper on our 92 ford pickup rusted off...

2. The cells have an average efficiency of ~10% in direct sun and a better average efficiency of ~12% in 1/3rd sun. The technology itself works with the whole visable spectrum, which eliminates the need for solar tracking or shadow management. These can work in the shadow from and adjacent building, or from reflected, ambient, or even artificial light.

3. They also manufacture the same tech with flexible and impact resistant designs, which is amazing and really opens the door to so many, never before imagined, possibilities.

4. Life span is specified at 25 years plus, meaning they last almost as long as most PV cells currently in use.

5. Steel Roof - They currently have a program in place that is working with a steal roof company and they are focusing on streamlining production to keep the cost competitive with non solar steel roof panels.

6. Cost - They are currently just around $1/Watt, and will be able to maintain these low costs as they are not silicon based.

7. The surface material used in DSC is self cleaning, it need only be occasionally rinsed, in order to remove residue.
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

Advertise With Us

Concepts NREC Texas Combined Heat & Power Initiative Schiller Total Energy USA ONTILITY Solar Training Solar Electric Power Association WindPole Ventures, LLC
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters