I think everyone agrees that using solar energy is generally a good thing to do, but there are usually two problems: cost and effective conversion rates (sun light to solar energy). Now Tokyo-based Dai Nippon Printing (DNP) has developed an organic thin-film solar cell that does away with the need for using (expensive) silicon for the production of these cells. And it’s relatively efficient, too.
Besides being cheaper than silicon-based solar cells, DNP’s protoype can also be used for curved surfaces. The company used its print-industry expertise to install metal electrodes on transparent ones, thereby boosting the conversion rate of their cell to 4%, up from the 1% achieved before.
Sized at 5×5cm, the cells are supposed to power notebooks and cell phones by 2012 when DNP plans to commercialize its technology. The company says it needs to further improve the conversion rate by then, however.
Via Nikkei [registration required, paid subscription]
Solar power gooood!
Just think those company logos on building could be powering themselves.
It’s been a long haul for the organic solar cells, and they are still languishing in low conversion numbers.
They are still unfortunately in the “lots of potential” stage with little realised. They also don’t last as long (no more than 10 years vs 25+ for silicon), though for notebooks and phones that’s not really an issue.
Note to Roger: Perhaps you have not heard of the new printed solar cells being made in the U.S. and Germany. I think I would consider these to be organic. Rates are as high as silicon, and prices are reputed to be $1 per watt. Plus, they also have the long warranty periods. It seems these issues have been resolved. Unfortunately, the bulk of production is all going to Europe right now, with just one manufacturer providing bulk purchases within the U.S. It is merely a matter of time before more manufacturers get on board the new technology to fill the domestic demand, which is HUGE!
Keith, commendable answer to Rodger but not 100% accurate. Having some experience in solar production I can assure you that 100% of all solar cells are technically printed at some level (etch/resist masks, circuit traces, etc.). Most who produce them, without getting ugly technical, consider all of them printed.
What you are referring to is actually the same thing that Rodger was referring to….the new wave of thin film (generally meaning CIGS or Cadmium Telluride based) flexible cells printed via high speed roll to roll methods (micro-gravure, rotary screen, coupled with standard screen and vapor deposition and/or nano particle inks). For the record there are as many production facilities in the US as ther are in Europe (volume may not be there yet on this continent…but coming). The issue is this….and Roger alluded to this and is spot on: In thin film flexible printed solar, regardless of lifspan, the best common production conversion efficiencies are between 8% and 16% (average being 10-12% to 14% peak for most) while the very best silicon based cells are 16% to18% average to 23.5% best, conversion of light to power. The thin film cells on the other hand have better use of “real estate” (about 10% better coverage of a given space with no gaps), and are cheaper per watt to make…..but….at this point you still require a disproportionately larger # of these thin film cells to produce reasonable power volume. Great if you have an empty GM plant with 2 acres of roof. Not so great on a residence with limited roof space. The thin film revolution is not yet the answer. Dye based cells on plastic polymer may well be someday. Fund all of it…but don’t jump the gun until you know the differences.
The whole problem with solar anything is the cost, which is rather exorbitant, and the restructed lifespan of the devicces, and of coursem, its total inability to provide critical peak power. It is also unreliable, even when there exist storage facilities. It simply refuses to shine every day and doesn’t produce much during the winter
when most needed. Soalr is costing often 15 times more than nuclear and can’t match nuclear’s reliability. The selection of solar power is not based on economics, environemntla issues, or anything else. It is based on ignorance and fear mongering. The Chinese are currently opeining one new gigawatt nuclear plant every two months. California is boasting about its 1310MW solar plant that won’t produce 400 megawatts and wil tajke 6 years to build. The power admittedly will cost over 20 cents per kilowatthour. The Chines nuclear plants are bieing completed on time and within a budget of $2 billion per gigawatt. That means less than 2 cents per kilowatthour power. And our brainless country builds solar thermal plants for over $30 billion per gigawatt to last 60 years (three times their lifespan). Funny how all those bright people making decisions can’t do simple cost analyses. They are hiding the true costs of alternative energies thru misinformation and lies. They compare nuclear with their energy plants on the basis of “rated capacity” (a meaningless metric) and forget to take plant lifespan into account. A total fruad being perpetrated on the public, who are being screwed royally (San Diego is curently charging 32 cents per kilowatthour for peak demand rate). This is nothing but pure, unadulterated criminal behavior. Environmentalists are all liars, I’m afraid. They never tell the truth.
Kerry: I see you are a fan of nuclear power, evidently based purely on cost. Not the cost of the plant, not the cost to the environment, but purely the cost of electricity delivered to your door. Nothing selfish about you, is there?
Dare I point out that Chinese wages run in the vicinity of $8 to $20 per WEEK for most of their workers. Perhaps you would care to work for that yourself would you? No, I thought not.
And I doubt that any of the couple of billion environmentalists out there would care to be called liars. You need to do a little more research before you go running off at the mouth again, on a subject about which you are woefully ignorant.
The next time your nuclear power grid goes down – and it will – post another comment here and tell me how annoyed that made you. Oh, sorry, I forgot, you won’t be able to because your reliable power system will be down. Again!
On the other hand, my solar system, which has been running silently and effectively, has NEVER BEEN DOWN. And this is over the past 12 years.
So babble on all you want with your inaccurate figures, and then do some legitimate research into solar power. The results might surprise you. Who knows, you may become a staunch supporter.
On second thought, I doubt that. Guys like you have their head buried so deep in the sand that they can never see the other point of view. You are right and that’s all there is to that.
Maybe you missed your calling. Why don’t you go and apply for the job of Energy Commissioner for Barack Obama? You have heard of him, haven’t you? I think you call him the President of the U.S.A.
But then, what would he know, he only runs the most powerful nation on earth.