More

Solar Power Breakthrough Claimed By Stanford Researchers

Solar Power Research

First Posted: 03/10/11 09:39 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:35 PM ET

From EarthTechling's Pete Danko:

It’s the Holy Grail at clean energy research labs all over the world and something which could address long term energy issues domestically and beyond: more efficient photovoltaic solar. We’ve told you about scientists studying full-spectrum cells, using textured substrates, trying self-regenerating nanomaterials – we’ve even reported on an anti-reflective film inspired by a coating found in moth eyes. Now a Stanford team is claiming a breakthrough in making cheaper, more efficient panels by adding a single layer of organic molecules to solar cells.

The researchers studied this technique on a fairly new type of solar cell that uses tiny particles of semiconductors called quantum dots. Quantum dot solar cells are cheaper to produce than traditional silicon cells, but they haven’t caught on due to their relative inefficiency.

For Stacey Bent, a chemical engineering professor at Stanford, this represented something of a challenge. She knew that solar cells made of a single material have a maximum efficiency of about 31 percent, a limitation of the fixed energy level they can absorb, and that quantum dot solar cells didn’t share this limitation. “Quantum dots can be tuned to absorb a certain wavelength of light just by changing their size,” the Stanford report on her research says. “And they can be used to build more complex solar cells that have more than one size of quantum dot, allowing them to absorb multiple wavelengths of light.”

So Bent and her team coated a titanium dioxide semiconductor in their quantum dot solar cell with a very thin single layer of organic molecules. They found that just that single layer, less than a nanometer thick, was enough to triple the efficiency of the solar cells.

Even with this breakthrough, there’s still work to do: Bent said the cadmium sulfide quantum dots she’s been using aren’t ideal for solar cells, so her group plans to try other molecules for the organic layer, while also tinkering with the solar cell increase light absorption.

Her theory is, said Stanford, that once the sun’s energy creates an electron and a hole, the thin organic layer helps keep them apart, preventing them from recombining and being wasted. The group has yet to optimize the solar cells, and they have currently achieved an efficiency of, at most, 0.4 percent. But the group can tune several aspects of the cell, and once they do it is said, the threefold increase caused by the organic layer would be even more significant.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,539
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (23 total)
01:55 AM on 03/17/2011
Why can't people understand The law of accelerating returns"? I wish I knew... wake up people!
06:57 PM on 03/14/2011
uuhhh sorry about that ..... but this story is not that interesting and my post even got bored.....what ever happen to thermal...we have enough valcanos....
06:55 PM on 03/14/2011
too back we cant build a nucular solar plant that runs on solar panals......
04:09 PM on 03/14/2011
Don't let the repubtards know about this--they'll try to squash it immediately.
02:27 PM on 03/14/2011
Solar Panels are great but for Individuals whom wish to do their individual part to relieve us from Oil consumption. The One thing that kills more people in this world is air pollution I always here that cigarette smoke kills, as a smoker Im killing my self but the whole world in killing me with all the cars driven every day but no one ever talks about it. The real power source that will save this world from All the evil Oil powers of this world, remember all the wars that are going on is over Oil, is cold fusion. Cold fusion is the one thing that can stop these billion dollar companies from destroying our planet.
02:17 PM on 03/14/2011
You know... I'm getting tired of hearing about all of these "breakthroughs" that never amount to anything. In my mind it's not a breakthrough until it's actually functioning and in production.
07:41 AM on 03/14/2011
Ha, ha this must be one of those "aggregated" news stories that Bill Keller was talking about -- lifting the bulk of someone else's article and then getting the links from google. I feel bad for the Earth Techling site, to whom this content rightfully belongs.
12:03 AM on 03/14/2011
Solar panels have they're place but how are jet liners going to fly with solar panels unless youre talking about a one person plane? what about at night? what about during a snow storm? what happens during a big hail storm or rain? what about sand storms or dirt landing on them? they dont seem to be a fix all for everyone so why are you treehuggers forcing this crap down our throats!!
we will need oil for at least the next hundred years before a new fuel can found to replace it in all conditions - oil is what makes the world go round while other fuels are devised over the next hundred years - do you really want to go back to the stone age? i dont think so -
07:18 AM on 03/14/2011
haha. you are funny. almost a caricature of conservative ineptitude. I don't think the Stanford scientists are tree huggers. I think they are like any decent American. Trying to keep us ahead of the game in innovative technologies that can be utilized for good. They are also not talking about flying a jet liner with solar power. You could consider using alternative fuels for flying a jetliner however. Also the point is to get out of the stone age by getting us into the future. Oil represents the stone age.
02:14 PM on 03/14/2011
This sort of stance is mind boggling to me. It's like you're sitting in a building and an asteroid is headed toward you... and your response is "You want me to go outside?!? It might be cold out there!"

So my question for you is, do you really want to go forward into the next stone age? 'Cause like it or not, that's where we're headed!
05:07 PM on 03/13/2011
Here a breakthrough - to provide the equivalent power from solar panels that we get from Coal fired power plants, in the US, would require an area of 68,000 square miles given current technologies. That would be the size of Missouri - border to border uninterrupted. That is just uninterrupted power when the sun shines. Since there is approx 6 hours of sun to count on per day (given night and clouds).

To have enough solar panels to power a 24 hour day, we would need to increase our "panel" by 4 - that means we need to cover North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming with solar panels border to border and store the power from the three new States.

Oh, lets we not forget we must have batteries to store the power. There isn't enough lithium in the world for that purpose. There isn't enough anything for that purpose.

So while I still think solar panels are cool, we better keep what we've got. Having goals are fine. But there is a practical side that is NEVER discussed openly.

Full disclosure - making this calculation is quite easy. Look up the total power generated by coal plants in MW and then determine the power output from a unit area of solar panels. Quite trivial actually.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:39 AM on 03/14/2011
Boy sunsetter, your math is *way* off. Like off by several orders of magnitude.

Check out this wiki chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_land_area.png

If those black dots were solar cells with 8% efficiency, they would generate enough power to run the current global economy.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:41 AM on 03/14/2011
Wikipedia has some information for you sunsetter. You're math is way off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power
photo
LogicalMathMan
Math, Finance, English, Business Instructor
03:24 AM on 03/13/2011
I suggest portable nuclear powered cells where the nuclear waste can be dissolved to form non-toxic fertilizers.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ddanimal
12:54 AM on 03/13/2011
This is not a breakthrough. This is press-release hype from Stanford U, and a science journalist that doesnt know anything about science.

Please Huffpo, stop publishing this garbage.

A 0.4% efficiency solar cell is useless, and is 10-20x less efficient than dye-sensitized solar cells being made in laboratories 5-10 years ago.

This article IS BS.
09:24 PM on 03/12/2011
On Maui solar is inefficient. Our building, located in South Kihei, has usable sunlight an average of 5.2 hours per day. We have solar hot water which is efficient, costing $74,000 to install, after fed and state subsidies. Installation cut propane used for hot water from about 360 gallons a week to 125. Significant. Building improvement, upgraded and insulated plumbing cut this to 95 gallons. I consider this a success.

Solar and Wind: Not so much. Maui Electric Co burns oil in its plant. The County allowed installation of 30 Megawatts of wind. One would expect oil use to go down right? Nope. Due to variable wind energy input the oil fueled turbines must run at near operating speed in order to make up for power loss if the wind slackens. Result is obvious.

Solar has the same problem. Hawaii law allows reverse metering, at 21 cents per Kwh produced. Nice. But MECO must burn the same amount of oil as before to keep the grid stable. Result is a request for a rate increase to make up for this issue.

Wind proponents argue tooth and nail against a requirement to provide base load power only.

Simply, Wind and Solar are not viable due to grid issues, and inefficiencies. 0.4% is a breakthrough? Give me a break. It is best to upgrade building efficiency, green future construction, smart grid, upgrade roads (get rid of stop lights), convert many cars/commercial vehicles to LNG, (drilling for more) and nuke.
photo
GravitonX
10^300 bosons could care less.
02:55 PM on 03/13/2011
The reason your oil fueled turbines must run at operating speed is due to efficiency because engines are usually design for maximum effeciency at a 100% of speed. Also, these types of plants are notoriously expensive because they're installed to handle peak loads. And, they're still "dirty." The cost of running those plants are high and basically fixed since they run at one speed and you can't just turn those plants off and on; it's not the way they are designed. So, Maui bought the plant to handle peak "daytime" power comsumption and the solar/wind capacity is not enough to handle the load itself, so yes, they have to fire up the oil fueled turbine and run it at it's designed effecient speed at full cost. They didn't replace capacity; they added capacity, so it's more expensive and you are paying more. It was poor planning. Not the fault of solar/wind technology, as you are poorly trying to spin it.

In Spain, we have a far more mature and balanced "grid" design, incorporating both wind/solar with gas and nuclear, but be sure of it, we are moving moreso toward wind/solar because inthe long run it's cheaper once ALL the costs are considered.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Phil Waste
Angry Middle Class American Citizen
09:06 PM on 03/12/2011
Just like the ribbon machine made solar cell bought by the oil companies and kept off the market for over thirty years, this too will be bought up by oil companies and buried. Welcome to the corporate world of Republicans.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Phil Waste
Angry Middle Class American Citizen
09:16 PM on 03/12/2011
The world's largest solar manufacturer was Arco Solar (CA, USA), owned by oil company Atlantic Richfield. Is it any wonder the price of solar panels is sky high.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Phil Waste
Angry Middle Class American Citizen
09:25 PM on 03/12/2011
As long as big oil is mixed up with solar production you won't see cheap solar panels. When are Americans gonna figure out the oil companies aren't our friends.
07:18 PM on 03/14/2011
Wrong. The price of solar panels is not high because of one company. There are a handful of manufacturers, and prices are greatly effected by supply and demand. If an efficient panel came out like the one in this article, people could see far more value for their money, which would then drive up demand, which then drives production, which then creates supply, which concurrently inspires competition, and voila.. Your price goes down.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Josegoodtime
08:58 PM on 03/12/2011
Love it hurry up and put it my car so I can tell BP to shove it.
photo
LMPE
I connect the most dissimilar things
08:43 PM on 03/12/2011
How long before some reactionary ideologue calls this a plot to destroy our freedom?