Spray-On Solar-Power Cells Are True Breakthrough

National Geographic ^ | January 14, 2005 | Stefan Lovgren

[River_Wrangler]

What do they call thermocouples?

Newly weds.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

"If we could cover 0.1 percent of the Earth's surface with [very efficient] large-area solar cells," he said, "we could in principle replace all of our energy habits with a source of power which is clean and renewable."

That's still a hell of a lot of land.

[Reaganesque]

All of my sweaters generate electricity if I take them of quickly enough.

[Petronski]

And my Linux-based toaster.

Cool! Which distro?

You've got to try Bagelx...it burns little Penguins on the crunchy side.

It's almost a shame to schmear the little fellas with cream cheese, but them's the breaks.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

He said the plastic coating could be woven into a shirt or sweater and used to charge an item like a cell phone.

Just envisioning someone sticking their cellphone plug up Michael Moore's @ss. *shiver*

[Boot Hill]

8	“Sure, solar power is expensive, but isn't it just a one time expense, basically?...So solar power may cost a lot now, but it pays for itself in the future and you reap those savings year after year?”

Maybe you could point out those savings "you reap year after year"...

The Inefficiencies of Solar Power
(Based upon a horizontal PV array located at
the average continental U.S. latitude of 38º.)

ref.	source	loss (%)	power (per m2)
1.	Solar flux	-	1,368 W
2.	Atmospheric losses	45	752 W
3.	Night times losses	50	376 W
4.	Solar angle losses	50	188 W
5.	Cell conversion losses	88	22.6 W
6.	DC®AC inverter losses	10	20.3 W
7.	Net efficiency		1.5%
8.	Net energy             (per m2 per day)		0.5 kWh
9.	Value of energy     (per m2 per day)		4.3 ¢
10.	Solar panel cost               (per m2)		$530
11.	Payback period		33 years

Notes:

1.	Above the atmosphere. Compare to solar constant.
2.	Loss = atmos. absorp. + atmos. reflect. + cloud absorp. + cloud reflect. See additional references: 1,   2,   3,
3.	Necessary for calculating average daily value of energy production.
4.	Effect of solar angle on efficiency. Line 4 equals 4.5kWh per day. Compare to U.S. Average Daily Solar Radiation.
5.	Shell SQ175-PC, including specified de-rating for cell temperature and irradiance level.
6.	5kW modular, certified, grid-interactive, inverter.
7.	Line 6 divided by line 1.
8.	Line 6 times 86,400 and divided by 3.6E6.
9.	From 2004 DOE stats for average U.S. residential price.
10.	Shell SQ175-PC solar panel, $699, 1.32m2 area.
11.	Exclusive of installation, inverter, interest, etc.

---

--Boot Hill

[kevkrom]

QOLT ping. Not sure how practical this technoogy is, or how profitable it might be, but worth a look...

The "Quality of Life Technologies" low-volume ping list (Freepmail me to join) is interested in technologies that will help maintain and/or improve the standard of living while still being realistic and having the potential to be profitable. To qualify as a QOLT story, I am looking for innovative solutions where capitalism and technology are employed together to solve the issues of energy, pollution, transportation, and/or similar concerns for a increasingly mobile and urban society.

[Puddleglum]

my understanding is that the sun already loaded up the earth with a lot of energy that is currently waiting to be tapped - fossil fuel!

Still, a solar/body heat sweater would be cool. How about pants that capture methane? Or a space heater powered by dirty baby diapers?

[ikka]

Solar is getting there... traditional solar cell systems are benefitting from the process improvement in semiconductor manufacturing... if they can follow a similar price curve for power as current CPUs did, in about 3 years you will be able to buy the same system for about half the cost.

[NYCRebublican]

I'm starting an organization right now to put a stop to this. This is the most dangerous idea since the invention of the combustion engine. WE ARE ALL DOOMED I TELL YOU!!!!

If we use these solar panels we will be absorbing 1/10th of 1% of the sun's energy that is usually reflected back into the atmosphere. By absorbing this energy and using it for our greedy needs we will be responsible for GLOBAL COOLING!!!. We must stop this madness now I tell you. (SARCASM OFF)

[Jay777]

I'd say....THE FUTURE IS NOW!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1330511/posts

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I wanted solar power or something from the latest technology to heat/cool when we built two years ago. Solar was too expensive and the idea of a windmill/battery bank didn't seem like a good idea. We went for a geothermal heating and cooling unit with 4 200 foot wells under the driveway. Works great.

[ikka]

There are certain assumptions that are not accurate in all cases. For instance, in the part of PA where I live, power is about 10 cents per kWh, not 8.6 cents. And the pricing of the panel, listed at $699, can be much less if you are a careful shopper. But I do agree that in general the payback is not there yet.

[Edward Watson]

Actually, there's an even better plastic photovoltaic material called Lumeloid with a theoretical efficiency of 72-84%. It was invented and patented by Dr. Alvin Marks of Athol, MA, who holds around 130 US patents.

They had a working sample but have been stymied by insufficient funding.

[Boot Hill]

"if [solar cells] can follow a similar price curve for power as current CPUs did, in about 3 years you will be able to buy the same system for about half the cost.

Solar cell prices bottomed out almost 20 years ago...

--Boot Hill

[Samurai_Jack]

“Free Money”

Do You Want Matthew Lesko to help ask Government To Grant You?

[Squawk 8888]

Solar/wind installations are only cost-effective when you are far from the grid. A lot of cottages in northern Ontario have solar panels and wind turbines because the setup cost ($10/watt including batteries and chargers) is cheaper than getting a hydro line run to the nearest pole.

[NYCRebublican]

Only if I can get one of those suits. I can't be upstaged when taking a handout.

[Boot Hill]

"There are certain assumptions that are not accurate in all cases. For instance, in the part of PA where I live..."

That is correct, the data shown in post #26 don't hold true for PA, due to the much lower solar energy levels there, solar cell performance will be much lower than the national average and lower than show in my table.   (source)

"And the pricing of the panel, listed at $699, can be much less if you are a careful shopper."

Citation please...

--Boot Hill

[Squawk 8888]

To come up with that 5x number, they first pretended that the current crop of solar cells were 2.5x less efficient than they actually are.

That 5x comparison is against polymer solar cells, which as you mentioned are less efficient than silicon. Although less efficient, the polymer cells are (or will be) cheaper to produce and more flexible. Still, this stuff could be even more efficient than silicon so there is a lot of potential here, especially for portable electronics.