Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
That might not be the best analogy. I think coal is in the 70% efficiency range right now; so increasing that by 30% would make take it from 70% efficient to 91% efficient.
Solar is in the 5% efficiency range now, so a 30% increase would bring it from 5% to 6.5% efficient.
I first read the article as saying they had achieved 30% efficiency, which for solar would be a huge leap.
|
I believe there is some confusion here (not targetting your particular post ken). From this article, they attained 30% per cell, not per panal. Each cell will have a different efficiency, based on things like how they are connected to other cells (to form a panal), as IIRC some cells will generate energy while some will load them as impedences if they arn't properly connected.
Here, what they achieved is something cheap, not something better. Silicon typically sucks for making solar cells IIRC because of an indirect quantum bandgap (the valence band isn't directly below the conduction band, its a bit off to the side) - thats why silicon sucks for making lasers too. However, silicon is in large supply and the CMOS fabrication techniques are well understood, so thats why we make silicon.
I belive the highest efficiency on a cell was something like 60-70%, but when connected into a configuration to form a panal, the highest was 16-17% (IIRC).
This is nice for science, but I'm not sure if its going to be what causes the breakthrough of solar energy. The breakthrough IMO will be the political/economical impact of the USA and Obama, China and their ecocities and subsidized implamentation for solar panals, and demand will inevitably drive cheaper fabrication. Maybe we could also see them make use of the crashing memory industry, as memory companies/fabs like Micron/Quimonda et al close fabs, lay off staff and/or go out of business, and the resources will be there for solar panals to come in. After all, it was the high tech crash and the oversupply of silicon that really gave solar energy its push earlier this decade.
In Canada - I don't believe in solar energy, I don't think we have the amount of light per day to make it worthwhile, and the harsh climate of Canada will make solar panals even more inefficient. Someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but at low temperatures (i.e. freezing and below) the efficiency exponentially decreases as cold slows the movement of charges that are creating electrical energy. Wind is a better option for Canada.