Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: MarineUS on April 15, 2011, 07:41:57 PM
-
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1lQdDU/www.greenwala.com/channels/green-technology/blog/13103-Scientists-Develop-Affordable-Solar-Panels-That-Work-In-The-Dark
Cool stuff! :)
-
I heard about they were trying this a few years ago, looking for materials that could produce almost 100% energy from the sun. Looks like its finally happening :aok
-
Solar panels that work in the dark? :headscratch: The whole point of a solar panel is to capture light energy coming from the sun. The way I see it it's either not going to work or it's not a solar panel.
-
stars are suns too ya know. Plus the moon most of the time reflects sunlight onto the earth (thats why you can see it silly!).
-
stars are suns too ya know. Plus the moon most of the time reflects sunlight onto the earth (thats why you can see it silly!).
ok.... :headscratch:
So if I shine a flashlight at a solar panel it will work good? The amount of light other starts give off and the moon is a bit less than the sun, that is why it's dark at night, right?
I'm not saying that they would not work at all, but the energy would be insignificant.
-
ok.... :headscratch:
So if I shine a flashlight at a solar panel it will work good? The amount of light other starts give off and the moon is a bit less than the sun, that is why it's dark at night, right?
I'm not saying that they would not work at all, but the energy would be insignificant.
were still getting energy arent we?
-
ok.... :headscratch:
So if I shine a flashlight at a solar panel it will work good? The amount of light other starts give off and the moon is a bit less than the sun, that is why it's dark at night, right?
I'm not saying that they would not work at all, but the energy would be insignificant.
Well if it didn't do something revolutionary like, say, make a pretty decent out of energy out of a pretty insignificant source, then it probably wouldn't warrant a news story.
-
were still getting energy arent we?
I think you'd get more energy from a running hamster.
Well if it didn't do something revolutionary like, say, make a pretty decent out of energy out of a pretty insignificant source, then it probably wouldn't warrant a news story.
Looking at what kind of stuff the news say, I would not be surprised. If this would be something really significant than it would be on the headlines of almost all news companies.
-
you actually have to look at what they are using. The ones for this absorb MUCH more due to the metals etc. used and this means you can get the same amount of power as a modern panel from the sun's light energy reflected from the sun.
-
ok.... :headscratch:
So if I shine a flashlight at a solar panel it will work good? The amount of light other starts give off and the moon is a bit less than the sun, that is why it's dark at night, right?
I'm not saying that they would not work at all, but the energy would be insignificant.
The efficiency is partly based on capturing wavelengths of light that are invisible to human eye. It may look dark to you but there's still lots of IR etc. energy flowing.
-
Well, hopefully solar will someday progress to being useful for something besides agrarian societies. A HUGE area of panels provide not nearly enough wattage to do anything like run industrial equipment....would be nice if the idjits who run our country and pontificate about 'green' jobs had a clue of that
-
The patent rights will most likely be bought out by a large corp. and we won't see it for another 20 years.
-
The patent rights will most likely be bought out by a large corp. and we won't see it for another 20 years.
DING! +1
-
ok.... :headscratch:
So if I shine a flashlight at a solar panel it will work good?
It will work but not 'good' since the light from a flashlight is weak.
The amount of light other starts give off and the moon is a bit less than the sun, that is why it's dark at night, right?
I'm not saying that they would not work at all, but the energy would be insignificant.
Its dark at night because you're on a location on earth opposite to the closest sun. The light from a star still carries a lot of energy in it, its just that starlight is, in layman's terms, only a few rays of light from each distant star (compared to billions and billions of rays of light that = direct sunlight from our sun).
Solar cells work by catching high energy photons and taking/converting it into electrons so a distant sun's ray of light will still allow it to generate some power. The current solar tech has a ratio of 1 photon to 1 electron or something like that.. the new tech can perhaps make 4 to 5 electrons per photon..which is why it would work almost like an 'old tech' solar cell at night.
-
I'm sorry, but no. I work for a company that has the cornerstone for the solar market. We've invented the dual & triple junction cell, sent them to Mars, even to an asteroid. You can NOT convert 100% of light to energy, simple matter of physics. Ours are are up to 40%, which is still a world wide record. Anyone who says that they've done the same have bought their wafers from us (especially the Germans). That whole article says 'It would be nice if...." and not much more. Gallium Arsenide has been our staple for over ten years, and believe me, even though there are many idiots at my company, there are a few who are developing better cells day by day.
Triple junctions work on the principle of multiple wavelengths, from UV down to IR. Originally, our gallium cells were called single junction, because they only converted one part of the spectrum into energy. They get better as time goes on, and our quads should be showing up soon.
-
I'm sorry, but no. I work for a company that has the cornerstone for the solar market. We've invented the dual & triple junction cell, sent them to Mars, even to an asteroid. You can NOT convert 100% of light to energy, simple matter of physics. Ours are are up to 40%, which is still a world wide record. Anyone who says that they've done the same have bought their wafers from us (especially the Germans). That whole article says 'It would be nice if...." and not much more. Gallium Arsenide has been our staple for over ten years, and believe me, even though there are many idiots at my company, there are a few who are developing better cells day by day.
Triple junctions work on the principle of multiple wavelengths, from UV down to IR. Originally, our gallium cells were called single junction, because they only converted one part of the spectrum into energy. They get better as time goes on, and our quads should be showing up soon.
Seraphim, how big of a solar array would it take to power a conventional home? I'd heard a football field sized array several years ago, has that changed much?
-
Seraphim, how big of a solar array would it take to power a conventional home? I'd heard a football field sized array several years ago, has that changed much?
I'm curious too because I've started to see many more homes with solar panels on them and I'm wondering when they'll see a return on the investment.
-
I'm curious too because I've started to see many more homes with solar panels on them and I'm wondering when they'll see a return on the investment.
It is something crazy like 20 years but they-raise the resell. I don't fully understand why people on their house's either.
-
I'm sorry, but no. I work for a company that has the cornerstone for the solar market. We've invented the dual & triple junction cell, sent them to Mars, even to an asteroid. You can NOT convert 100% of light to energy, simple matter of physics. Ours are are up to 40%, which is still a world wide record. Anyone who says that they've done the same have bought their wafers from us (especially the Germans). That whole article says 'It would be nice if...." and not much more. Gallium Arsenide has been our staple for over ten years, and believe me, even though there are many idiots at my company, there are a few who are developing better cells day by day.
Triple junctions work on the principle of multiple wavelengths, from UV down to IR. Originally, our gallium cells were called single junction, because they only converted one part of the spectrum into energy. They get better as time goes on, and our quads should be showing up soon.
Break even much?
-
My brother tf15pin is working on panels that are more efficient at PSU...basically their taking the way a fly eye works and captures light, making a dye out of many of them...with thin film coating and creating the panel.
Its ground breaking stuff and he was on CNN talking about it recently....
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2010/08/11/nr.fly.solar.power.cnn?
My brothers the white guy lol...hes doing most of the work and the Indian guy is his adviser...advisers somehow get the credit lol...
I got a feeling this is going to be huge soon.
-
Break even much?
They don't break even from the law of supply vs demand, they break even from government tax subsidies. Would ANY solar panel companies (residential installation side) even be in business were it not for tax subsidies?
-
Unfortunately, our cells are still pretty darn expensive; so they mostly bought by governments & such. For home size stuff, we are starting to make concentrators (terrestrial), which basically cuts a cell into a small 2x2cm square, with a round lens, and huge mirrors to concentrate the light.... still expensive, but a bit more lasting...
Ultimately, it's not economical to buy our stuff (yet), unless you have a huge piece of land, which is the case for any solar power system, but it does pay off in the long run.
Let me put it this way: any current solar cell manufacturer, which most likely is silicon based, will have a efficiency of up to 18%. Ours, are up to 40%. But our cost per cell is nearing the cost of the silicon. Most gallium manufacturers get their wafers from us.
And, no, grizz, we don't break even much, we have layoffs every other year. Australia bailed out on a huge contract last year, cost us millions.
-
any idea when they might become a financially viable source of power seraphim? If i do use solar it be to run the a/c in these long summer months down south
-
Unfortunately, our cells are still pretty darn expensive; so they mostly bought by governments & such. For home size stuff, we are starting to make concentrators (terrestrial), which basically cuts a cell into a small 2x2cm square, with a round lens, and huge mirrors to concentrate the light.... still expensive, but a bit more lasting...
Ultimately, it's not economical to buy our stuff (yet), unless you have a huge piece of land, which is the case for any solar power system, but it does pay off in the long run.
Let me put it this way: any current solar cell manufacturer, which most likely is silicon based, will have a efficiency of up to 18%. Ours, are up to 40%. But our cost per cell is nearing the cost of the silicon. Most gallium manufacturers get their wafers from us.
And, no, grizz, we don't break even much, we have layoffs every other year. Australia bailed out on a huge contract last year, cost us millions.
read my post above^ these cells should be even more efficient.
-
I think if Seraphim says it is impossible, someone should call those European idiots and tell them to not waste their time. I mean, the guy works for a company that makes solar panels. He knows!
Nothing funnier than people saying something is impossible :lol Especially when the reason given is "well, someone I know could not do it, so it can't be done" :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
All he said that was impossible was the 100% conversion of sun-light to electrical energy. The only people who disagree with that are physics trolls or crackpots.
-
All he said that was impossible was the 100% conversion of sun-light to electrical energy. The only people who say impossible are physics trolls or crackpots.
That 100% conversion of light to electrical energy does not make any sense. What is the definition of sun light? What frequencies? Would a cheap 99.99% be better than his expensive 40%?
-
What made me laugh was the "Since my company hasn't made anything like it - it can't exist." type phrase.
Granted I'm no specialist, nor do I claim to be. I just find the arrogance of that statement laughable. :)
-
I'm curious too because I've started to see many more homes with solar panels on them and I'm wondering when they'll see a return on the investment.
If I recall correctly those are used to heat the water in homes. Though I'm sure a majority do produce electricity. I'm just going off what I read in books.
-
The return on the investment is often longer than folks live on the home, and without taxpayer money pushing the industry, probably not even then
-
I've seen people get paid BY the electric company because the solar panels on their home produced more electricity than they used (therefore turning their meter backwards).
Low electric usage + Solar panels = return
-
Someone who works in a factory usually knows everything there is to know about how solar power works right...no lol
Most of this stuff goes past peoples heads at 200mph
-
What made me laugh was the "Since my company hasn't made anything like it - it can't exist." type phrase.
Granted I'm no specialist, nor do I claim to be. I just find the arrogance of that statement laughable. :)
I'm not saying it can't exist Marine. What I'm saying is that the assumption of their 'high efficiency' does not mean %100. In fact, no efficiency numbers are even stated. The fly's eye is a very good idea, but it does not increase the actual efficiency of the cell itself, it increases the efficiency of the fixture's ability to collect light.
What's 'high efficiency' to one company might be low compared to others, and vice versa. Our cells were invented specifically for the space industry, because of high efficiency, light weight, and being robust. We've just begun getting in to the terrestrial market, because our cost has been dropping rapidly, to where a concentrator assembly is cost efficient for some.
Sure the paint can exist. But what is the efficiency? I haven't seen it yet.
-
Read what the article says.
They do not claim to convert 100% of of the energy, they say that the can use nearly the entire spectrum. It most likely have an improved response to long wavelengths such as the infrared so it can produce some output at night (they skies are bright in infrared even at night, which is a <filter protected word> for infrared astronomers). Also during the day a large fraction of the solar radiation is in wavelengths longer than our visible range.
-
I've seen people get paid BY the electric company because the solar panels on their home produced more electricity than they used (therefore turning their meter backwards).
Low electric usage + Solar panels = return
Don't fight with the mail room experts Marine :lol We had solar powered water heaters in my parents house since the 80s. I don't remember ever being without hot water even when several teens were there, so you could say the return on investment was a couple of months? I don't understand why people are fighting this idea.
-
Are there any articles elsewhere? This link is not working for me.
-
Don't fight with the mail room experts Marine :lol We had solar powered water heaters in my parents house since the 80s. I don't remember ever being without hot water even when several teens were there, so you could say the return on investment was a couple of months? I don't understand why people are fighting this idea.
Solar panels can be a good investment and positive return if the governement pays for the panels with money it doesn't have to eat the loss.
What's the average life span of a solar panel?
-
Without subsidies it is not worth doing right now. I think the time will come where fossil fuel energy sources will become expensive enough that solar cells will make sense without the subsidies. With the natural gas boom in the US that may be a long ways out. Another interesting thing is that if we move away from gas powered automobiles where is the government going to make up for that lost tax revenue?
The lifespan will depend a lot on what material is used and the packaging. Stable materials like single crystal silicon should be operating at better than 80% of the original output after 20 years. Materials like hydrogen passivated amorphous silicon will probably only see half of that life, but because they are cheaper it might still be viable.
Something I have not heard about is if insurance companies will cover things like hail, lightning strikes, or the neighbor kids baseball.
Anyways, I am glad all this stuff is happening; it is paying to put me through grad school and giving me hope of finding a job after I get out.
-
Solar panels can be a good investment and positive return if the governement pays for the panels with money it doesn't have to eat the loss.
What's the average life span of a solar panel?
Don't know Grizz. Never had them. But I can tell you that my dads house is still using the same hot water heaters since 1983 or so. So, what is your point by quoting me? You may or may not be right about the cost. However, that does not make anything impossible for the future. If I remember correctly the claim is that a way to make them cheap was being developed?
What does the "my company could not do it therefore it is impossible" have to do with what you quoted and what you responded with?
-
Don't know Grizz. Never had them. But I can tell you that my dads house is still using the same hot water heaters since 1983 or so.
Hot water heaters are exactly not solar panels. They use suns heat to directly warm water, solar panels produce electricity.
-
Hot water heaters are exactly not solar panels. They use suns heat to directly warm water, solar panels produce electricity.
Yep. Just an example of how the sun can be used to save money and a quick return on investment. That is why I asked why he was quoting me.
-
Really strange but this site does not come up on any of the computers here. Only show facebook crap at the top. lol
-
Yep. Just an example of how the sun can be used to save money and a quick return on investment. That is why I asked why he was quoting me.
I was just quoting you to quote you. Don't mind the black helicopters, they are there for your protection!
-
Someone who works in a factory usually knows everything there is to know about how solar power works right...no lol
Most of this stuff goes past peoples heads at 200mph
I guess we can't all be as sharp as you are, huh?
-
Are there any articles elsewhere? This link is not working for me.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2011/01/24/practical-full-spectrum/
-
The patent rights will most likely be bought out by a large corp. and we won't see it for another 20 years.
I was watching a show the other day that had that asian physicist you often see on the discovery type channels.
He was saying that between the advances being made in the technology and the costs coming down. It should be a viable alternative energy source within the next 15 years.
Currently the single largest inhibitor of solar is its cost.
course accelerating oil prices may make this come to pass sooner
-
Currently the single largest inhibitor of solar is its cost.
Similarly, the single largest inhibitor preventing us from visiting other solar systems is not being able to travel the speed of light.
-
That is some impressive materials work. I think the challenge will be to tune the intermediate band to an energy that will satisfy the continuity requirements and not act as a giant recombination center for the electrons you have already managed to promote to the conduction band in the two step process. I would be interested to see a calculation of the density of states available in the intermediate band.
-
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2011/01/24/practical-full-spectrum/
This article is essentially what we've been doing for the past ten years, however the materials may be slightly different. They are just calling them 'multiband' instead of what we call 'multijunction'.
They also talk about vapor deposition, which is cheaper, but an older technology. We use Vapor Prime Epitaxy, which is much more expensive, but makes them much more robust.
Again, ours are used for space primarily, this upcoming stuff primarily for terrestrial, which does not the have the extremities of space.
I would still like to see some of their numbers on efficiency.
-
I was watching a show the other day that had that asian physicist you often see on the discovery type channels.
He was saying that between the advances being made in the technology and the costs coming down. It should be a viable alternative energy source within the next 15 years.
Currently the single largest inhibitor of solar is its cost.
course accelerating oil prices may make this come to pass sooner
QFT.
-
Similarly, the single largest inhibitor preventing us from visiting other solar systems is not being able to travel the speed of light.
http://www.sens.org/sens-research
-
Similarly, the single largest inhibitor preventing us from visiting other solar systems is not being able to travel the speed of light.
Yes but somehow I think we're alot closer to using solar as a primary source of energy then we are at traveling at light speed
Although
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3303699/We-have-broken-speed-of-light.html :P
-
This article is essentially what we've been doing for the past ten years, however the materials may be slightly different. They are just calling them 'multiband' instead of what we call 'multijunction'.
They also talk about vapor deposition, which is cheaper, but an older technology. We use Vapor Prime Epitaxy, which is much more expensive, but makes them much more robust.
Again, ours are used for space primarily, this upcoming stuff primarily for terrestrial, which does not the have the extremities of space.
I would still like to see some of their numbers on efficiency.
It is quite a bit different; they are using a single material with an intermediate band that acts as a step ladder for low energy photons (charge separation is only happening at highest energy level). Your tandem (and higher order) cells are basically separate cells stacked in series to pull out a certain band width in each cell (charge separation is happening in each cell). Tandem cells will be a lot easier to optimize because you can adjust the thickness of each layer to satisfy continuity requirements, where in theirs they have to find a way to move that intermediate band. This will affect the short circuit current and fill factor of the cell meaning low power output if it isn't done well.
The extremities of space are radiation, vacuum, and temperature, but the extremities of terrestrial environments are dust, debris, and weather. So the semiconductor materials might not have to be as robust, but the packaging will have to be more so.
I read the primary source and the external quantum efficiency of their test cell was less than 1%. But again it was a proof of concept so getting it to work at all was the goal of the work.
-
P.S.
Actually, our cells must withstand all of what space & terrestrial have to offer.
I had the privilege of testing the Mars rover solar panels, which had to survive launch, deployment, landing, and the martian dust storms, their mission was designed to last about 90 days.
Spirit lasted 6 years.
Opportunity, still rollin'
And just in case anyone was interested, a link (http://www.spectrolab.com/space.htm) to my company's site.
And, thanks tf15pin, for that clarification.
-
Solar panels can be a good investment and positive return if the governement pays for the panels with money it doesn't have to eat the loss.
Its a good idea for the goverment to subsidize and promote local energy production as much as possible. Energy = economy = our way of life. When the energy we need is held in the hands of cultures that want to see us destroyed, our civilization lives with a knife held to its throat.
Its all about perspective. I couldn't find the figure for solar panel subsidies but I think its a couple of hunderd million a year. We give the oil companies about 4$ billion a year in subsidies. We've spent around 1$ Trillion on Iraq and Afganistan since 2001.
We "subsidized" space travel in the early 60's, but reaped huge benefits in accelerating technologies such computers and material science. Think of the huge costs of sending all those veterns to college on the GI Bill after WWII. Wasteful spending? I don't think so. I bet the Government made that back 2 fold in increased tax revenues over their lifespan. Goverments subsides are not always a bad investment when chosen carefully, IMHO.
Regards,
Wab
-
We "subsidized" space travel in the early 60's, but reaped huge benefits in accelerating technologies such computers and material science. Think of the huge costs of sending all those veterns to college on the GI Bill after WWII. Wasteful spending? I don't think so. I bet the Government made that back 2 fold in increased tax revenues over their lifespan. Goverments subsides are not always a bad investment when chosen carefully, IMHO.
The problem is that treasury people find it hard to factor general science and technological research into their bogus economy formulas. Therefore they are reluctant to subsidize anything that does not have an immediate and clear application. This promotes capitalization on current knowledge, but very little advancement and breakthroughs which tend to come in unexpected ways.
Look at the US space program now: Man on Mars? no. Man on the moon? no. OK, how about just sending man in orbit? no. I guess the US goverment requires another Sputnik wakeup call because now, only the Russian and Chinese are capable of sending men into space - ironically American astronauts will now fly to the ISS on Russian rockets...
-
Not if e.g. SpaceX can help it. And ULA if they wake up to SpaceX's challenge.