Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

New Nanocomposite Material Could Increase Solar Cell Efficiency

January 17, 2008   |   28 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"We initially thought that the best we might do is get results as good as the sum of the two, and maybe if we didn't make this right, we'd get something worse. But surprisingly, these materials were much better."

--Jin Zhang, Professor of Chemistry at the University of California, Santa Cruz
28 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 28
January 17, 2008
<p>Jim, </p><p>Exactly who promised&nbsp; you cheaper-than-coal PV in 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s ? Media, polititians, scientists, all of the above?</p><p>&nbsp;Now the industry/business/economists are predicting that the market based contributions to the price-formation of the PV will reduce their price by 40+% in 2010. After that the price will fall even more.</p><p>At the moment we are not talking about &quot;new inventions that will reduce the cost of PV in half during the next decade&quot;. Things now are different.</p><p>We are talking about polysilicon constrains issues, demant outstripping supply, economies of scale, ect, ect. Market based factors - not technological - marked based. PV is about profit nowadays.</p><p>&nbsp;And of course - on the topic - the research contiunes and the new inventions in the nanoscience are revealing even more opportunities for new technologies in PV. But now PV is already about profit - not dreams. </p>
Comment
2 of 28
January 17, 2008
<p>This is so cool. Just think of &quot;the new cost effective solar devices that are about to be produced! Finally we can get rid of coal with solar pv!&quot; </p><p>Was foregoing written for the first time in which decade 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s or 2010s? It was said in all of them but the first time would be in the 1970s. </p><p>Was the foregoing quote wrong in which of the following decades 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s or 2010s? Yep, it was wrong in each of those decades. A sceptic would claim that we cann't be sure about 2010s, but deep in our hearts we all know coal will be cheap than Solar pv in the next decade.</p><p>Solar pv has over promise these terrific advances for decades.&nbsp;</p>
Comment
3 of 28
January 17, 2008
<p>I would love to see what the percentage of gain is. There is already one source saying they can get 80% of available light and transfer it to power in a research project just no way to connect it to anything because it is an obscure voltage and frequency.</p><p>&nbsp;it will be fun to see what dreams may come from this.</p><p>&nbsp;D~W </p>
Comment
4 of 28
January 17, 2008
<p>I think that Dr. Zhang's DD (dot and dope) method is excellent. If materials can be manipulated at the nano level to give maximum energy results, then efficiences will go up. Each element has its own quantum electron jump characteristics so that a good combination would be best for this type of &quot;cake&quot;. Good baking&nbsp;for&nbsp;Professor Zhang!!!</p><p>&quot;Wafer Bake&quot;</p><p>Let's bake a little PV&nbsp;wafer today,</p><p>A bit of this and that&nbsp;and we're on our way,</p><p>Tasting the sunlight in every beam</p><p>It sends more electrons,&nbsp;so it seems.</p><p>Now to balance the voltage, what do we do,</p><p>Restructure the elements two by two,</p><p>If one give too much then we add some more</p><p>Of the other one, it will match for sure!!!</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>adrianakau2aol.com</p>
Comment
5 of 28
January 17, 2008
Horray, I cant wait to buy my own metal oxide doped, quantum dot sensitized thin film solar panels for my trip to the moon in 3 years.
Comment
6 of 28
January 18, 2008
Conceivably, with the vast diversities of Nano technology, if utilized carlessly and let out to colonize as a collective, evolution of a new species could occur. Possibly in time, a sentient speices. Maybe not probable, but possible.<br />When you play with fire, sometimes you get burnt.
Comment
7 of 28
January 18, 2008
<p>Dave.</p><p>I remember many years ago saying &quot;gosh that sounds cool&quot; when microsoft hit the market place. The blue suits at IBM thought it was disruptive technology or &quot;just a flash in the pan&quot;.</p><p>I predict there will be a few Bill Gates in the energy sector and&nbsp;I hope that men like Jin Zhang and all the others who are working to secure our future in an oil starved world will reap the rewards!</p><p>Mike H.</p>
Comment
8 of 28
January 18, 2008
<p>Nope Mike H.&nbsp; I just buy 2008 cars out at the car lots - not sit around looking at the concept cars at the &quot;Car Shows&quot; where you seldom see a reality car.</p><p>Don't mistake me for not being progressive - I am.&nbsp; I'm just a logical, thoughtful consumer with a lot more experiance and up-to-date knowledge than most of these &quot;gosh, that sounds cool...&quot; people that blog on this list.</p>
Comment
9 of 28
January 18, 2008
<p>It sounds as though Dave has invested in the old technology</p><p>Does anybody want to buy a steam radio? going cheap.</p><p>Mike H.</p>
Comment
10 of 28
January 18, 2008
<p>Dan - like I told Corby, hold onto your money.&nbsp; </p><p>Count me in with Jim as ones who have our feet securely on the ground and not easily swept off of our feet by every &quot;new breakthrough&quot;.</p><p>If you are so desperate to invest $, buy established solar manufacturers, who at least have a chance of&nbsp;making money.</p><p>A fool and his money is easily seperated...</p>
Comment
11 of 28
January 18, 2008
<p>We want to invest on production of these new solar cells. ANybody can help?</p><p><a href="mailto:danzhu@excelcompany.com" target="_blank">danzhu@excelcompany.com</a></p><p>thank you</p>
Comment
12 of 28
January 18, 2008
<p>Great news Jin Zhang. It's another step closer to tapping into that huge ball of energy that pops up over the horizon every morning without fail.</p><p>Don't be put off by Jim, he has been blinded by the sun. When it comes to new solar technology he can't see past the end of his nose!</p><p>Keep up the good work.</p><p>Mike H.</p><p>HYDROGENHEADS</p>
Comment
13 of 28
January 18, 2008
As for &quot;things are different this time&quot; Dimiter, capitalism works best for things that work best.&nbsp; Your claim that more volume will somehow change physics, biology (remember there's also the bacteria hype) or mathamatics is a little idealistic and niave.&nbsp; More demand /volume best helps the proven technologies to become mass marketed and more economical even more than R&amp;D laboratory work.&nbsp; This is the &quot;real&quot; hope in our industry.
Comment
14 of 28
January 18, 2008
<p>Hold onto your wallet just now Corby...I'm with Jim B. on this one.&nbsp; I'm a solar installer that's been involved / informed since the 80's on these hyped up marketing claims.&nbsp; These labratory break throughs have been happening for many years, but can't make it into the real world.&nbsp; This won't either, it's physically flawed in principal (for reasons I don't have room to explain here).</p><p>Look at the thin-film promise.&nbsp; We&nbsp;have spent million$ and million$ of dollars on this &quot;break through&quot; for the past 20 years or so.&nbsp; It still can't be manufactured (quality controlled), can't endure ultraviolet light for more than 5 - 7 years and STILL artificially costs the same as good ole' solid silicon cells.</p>
Comment
15 of 28
January 18, 2008
<p>Efficiency is not the problem. </p><p>The $/Wp&nbsp;is&nbsp;the&nbsp;bigger&nbsp;problem.&nbsp;Since&nbsp;now&nbsp;all&nbsp;talk&nbsp;about&nbsp;cost,&nbsp;cost,&nbsp;cheaper-than-coal,&nbsp;cheaper-than-nuclear,&nbsp;ect.&nbsp;I&nbsp;dont&nbsp;believe&nbsp;the&nbsp;land&nbsp;is&nbsp;so&nbsp;big&nbsp;problem&nbsp;too. </p>
Comment
16 of 28
January 18, 2008
<p>The operative word is in the title - &quot;Could&quot;.</p><p>However, efficiencies must&nbsp;be dramatically improved if solar is to make a dent in&nbsp;overall electricity generation.</p>
Comment
17 of 28
January 18, 2008
Where do I investin this?
Comment
18 of 28
January 18, 2008
<p>What actually was the conversion efficiency achieved- the article managed to avoid mentioning it. It matters whether it was 1+1=3% or 20+20=60%!</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Without numbers it just PR!&nbsp;</p>
Comment
19 of 28
January 18, 2008
<p>What chew campaigning about, Marred Ditto, George Bush did his part to get PV cheaper than fossil.&nbsp; He raised the price of utilities, gas, oil, and coal enough that wind/solar/landscaped hydro now all cost less than fossil.</p><p>The lowest cost energy is now biomass, good clean, renewable, local. You can generate off-grid at less than grid cost at these prices.&nbsp; Why should utilities be allowed to hog off all the wind.&nbsp; If wind is economical, let the locals harness wind and keep it off the wire.</p><p>Corn is the low cost energy since 1970. www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornstoves</p>
Comment
20 of 28
January 18, 2008
<p>Nothing is wrong with profit:D </p><p>Profit can be reinvested resulting in exponential growth while government research funds cant.&nbsp;</p><p>My point is that the market drives the PV now not the government research budgets and now we have profit predictions not media and polititians dreams wich was the case in the previous century.</p><p>&nbsp;And a little someting to at to Jim. Coal is cheap partialy because the cost of cleaning the polution it makes is not included in the price of electricity - the so called negative externalities.&nbsp; We HOPE that&nbsp; soon coal plants will have to spend more money into cleaning and limiting pollution. Resulting in cheaper-than-coal PVs much more earlier. </p>
Comment
21 of 28
January 18, 2008
What's wrong with profit? :)
Comment
22 of 28
January 19, 2008
&nbsp;&nbsp; You should read &quot;The grand plan for solar energy&quot; in Scientific American.&nbsp; We can use the solar tech now: it's been real world tested and it works. I can't understand why Congress is still subsidizing Big Oil.&nbsp; Let's spend our tax $ to free us from coal and oil.&nbsp; Greenchipstocks.com offers a lot of investing advice for those wise enouhget in on the ground floor.&nbsp; Get those stocks while they are down and ride the wave up.&nbsp; Imagine getting the IPO on Microsoft, Google, GM, GE, etc. I've only got $12,000 in green stocks, but that will grow.&nbsp; Come, join me.&nbsp; Read first, then invest.&nbsp; John S
Comment
23 of 28
January 19, 2008
&nbsp;YOu
Comment
24 of 28
January 19, 2008
<p>It is up to all of us to open our creative minds to contribute rather than sit back in the peanut gallery making derogatory comments.&nbsp; Otherwise our grey matter only works on the level of politicians, media pundits, and consumers. </p><p>Technically gifted people need to put their efforts into cracking this nut together to contribute to the technological advancement of mankind.&nbsp; GO FOR IT!!!</p>
Comment
25 of 28
January 19, 2008
<p>Remember that advanced research does not always produce the kill shot that will be tomorrow's production solution. We have to keep doing the research to come up with the new killer app or we never get it.&nbsp; Look at the details and pick it apart, that is the process.&nbsp;</p><p>As to the economic viability of new technology over the hammer and chisel, a computer is definitely expensive screaming new technology. Coal is so old school and destructive. Consider the total destruction caused by coal and the overall cost of it before you say it is cheapest. If we have to use dirty energy, use it to create cleaner energy.</p><p>Carbon taxes globally will create some channel of $$ back into feeding newer technology and make a new dimension to the game. Not just $$ in the decision process...too simple thinking.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
Comment
26 of 28
January 20, 2008
I think this is a great technology and has tremendous potential.&nbsp; The largest benefits society is going to see from the energy sector in the future is going to come from different implementations of energy efficiency and new technologies such as this. The potential uses for this product are going to surprise us all, I cant wait to see things like this being introduced to the masses through programs like TLC, Discovery and the BBC, they are proving themselves as the best media for mass education of the public.
Comment
27 of 28
January 22, 2008
<p>I love the double edged sword of announcements like this.&nbsp; Here in California, people will wait 10 years and keep paying their electric bill waiting for some next great technology.&nbsp; Meanwhile, in that 10 years, they would have paid off the PV system using today's technology.&nbsp; If you wait, you will pay.&nbsp; If you act, it does not matter what future technology exists... except 25 years from now when you plan to replace the system you bought today using today's available PV.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>
Comment
28 of 28
January 22, 2008
A percentage efficiency&nbsp;figure for this solar PV&nbsp;technology&nbsp;would be nice. ???
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

Ingeteam SolSolution Comment:Visions HelioSage SCHOTT Solar PV, Inc. Mannvit Trojan Battery Company
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
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 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