[js1138]

Cutting edge cells convert something like 20 percent of solar energy to electricity. Nine times this seems unlikely.

[babble-on]

well, the article is so vague on the science its very hard to tell what its trying to describe

[bioqubit]

The problem is this. Sunlight has many different frequencies in it. Solar cells are only able to extract energy from those frequencies that can resonate with the compounds in the photovoltaic material. Many years ago, the idea of making a photovoltaic cell with many different layers, each responding to a different frequency was tried out. Apparently, it only got so far.

The kid’s 3D cell might be another way of addressing the problem of multiple frequencies. Again, the notion of a 500 fold increase seems unlikely even with a 3D design. But will be patient and wait...

[Blueflag]

especially since 9 times 20 percent is 180 percent. ;-)

[Blood of Tyrants]

Solar cells convert only a tiny portion of solar rays to electricity because they only operate on a very narrow band of light. The 20% figure probably represents 20% conversion within the narrow band that the solar cells operate in. Now if you can widen the bandwidth then you can easily get 9 times as much energy.

[mc6809e]

Cutting edge cells convert something like 20 percent of solar energy to electricity. Nine times this seems unlikely.

I'm going to guess here and say that maybe the cells are capturing light that has been scattered, especially by sky and clouds.

[thefactor]

the article states that ABSORBTION could increase by a factor of 9. that is different from how much it could convert into electricity.

but then again, i have zero idea about this stuff.

[wbill]

I'd like to know how a 3-D cell can convert 500 times (50,000%) more sunlight to energy than a conventional 2-D cell.

Unless it cranks up the power of the sun.... :-)

So, either current 2-D technology is only .002% effcient, *and* the new 3-D tech is perfectly efficient (not likely), or the journalist doesn't understand much more than reading the back of cereal boxes.

I'd believe a 500% increase in efficiency. Current solar power is pretty darn inefficient. Not 500 times, though....

And for interest's sake....The power delivered by the sun to the earth is roughly a constant. If all of the sun's energy could be completely captured and converted, (roughly) 1 ft^2 of area would power a 100W light bulb.

[Lazarus Starr]

Not really... His also converts UV light so it would have to be taken into account. I don’t know if the other does but the article seems to make a point of this. Also it multi-processes the light.