Solar's future's about to get a whole lot brighter thanks to the Moore's Law of PVs

[Ein~+ein]

How can a person call themselves an "expert" then design a system below 20% efficiency?, it would seem to be a contradiction in terms.

You won't understand why until you've read the links.

[Allcanadian]

@Ein~+ein

You won't understand why until you've read the links.

About 15 years ago I studied everything I could find on the subject and even considered a micro system to grow doped crystaline silicon structures. Then it occurred to me how foolish this was as the future was not growing boules then cutting wafers, that is absurd. The future is conductive binders holding and separating the doped substances not limited to silicon. As such the future came and I was right as I usually am concerning the future. Flexible spray on coatings are the future and solar films will be printed on surfaces or at some point sprayed on as simply as a coat of paint. It is here, it has been done and now it is simply a matter of doing in economically.

As well I don't have to read the links,although I did, because I have heard it all before. It is simply another variation of the same old thing which they call novel despite the fact there is nothing truly new about it.

You see any fool can paint there dog red and call it something novel or new and they could even add some chrome trim and flashing LED's but that does not change the facts.... it's still a dog. The real expertise is recognizing this fact and not simply repeating what everyone else has done but to create something truly new and unique. Expertise is not repetition, it is not mimicking others it is thinking for ourselves despite what others tell us.

As well when we speak of "solar energy" we should not confine our thoughts solely to those of others. Solar... The Sun, as such there is no right way there is only the most economical way to convert solar energy into another form of energy we can utilize.

I like the fact that there is a possibility that a "heat trap" or "heat sink" system could be built by almost anyone. No factories, no specialized equipment or bureaucracy.

AC

[Allcanadian]

The problem with large centralized corporate systems is that they have too much to lose. They spend 5-10 years studying and engineering then another 5 years building facilities. In this day and age a technology is obsolete within one year so they rely on the fact that the competition must also have this huge lag time.

Now if we used a decentralized system and utilized cheap and simple technologies almost anyone could build then the lag time amounts to weeks not 5-10 years. Throw in rapid prototyping and 3D printing and it is obvious the corporate bureaucracy in itself is obsolete and could never compete.

The day we can print flexible solar cells on a desktop machine is the day that the whole industry as we know it becomes irrelevant. Billions upon billions of capital become worthless and you can be sure many are working on this as we speak. I knew this over ten years ago and we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg in small intelligent automated machines, small is big.

AC

[Ein~+ein]

If the powers that be wanted to cap commercial solar efficiency at 20% according to the conspiracy theory, why are they permitting, even funding so much of the research into it... IN AMERICA...the place destined to become fracking oil self-sufficient by 2020... and especially if, Alvin Marks already achieved 90% efficiency back in the '80s? Yes, it's arguable they're doing this just to sit on every conceivable, patentable method to producing >20% efficient cells. And I'm sure they've sufficiently threatened and brainwashed any self-righteous researcher who might otherwise call them on their tryannical plot by going public.



Call me a counter-conspiracist but my money's on solar. Don't believe me then count the news hits you get for solar research that you won't find on PESN or any other FE site that suspects academia of collaborating with the devil. Not long ago a box of floppies cost $19 but 14 mbs is what, $0.19 now? Mark my words, the race for low-cost, hi-efficiency has just begun as yet another article suggests:

Multijunction solar cell could exceed 50% efficiency goal
Feb 20, 2013 by Lisa Zyga | phys.org/news

Any one of these approaches has the potential to disrupt the entire industry if production costs, durability and other considerations provide a significant edge. You can see why so many solar companies are merging or pulling out early despite phenomenal growth.

[Allcanadian]

Any one of these approaches has the potential to disrupt the entire industry if production costs, durability and other considerations provide a significant edge. You can see why so many solar companies are merging or pulling out early despite phenomenal growth.

I would agree there is no shortage of hype or grandiose claims in all energy related sectors. However not unlike FE none of it matters until we can buy it off the shelf at Walmart. It's funny that people will condemn anyone who claims their circuit or device may be more efficient than expected but believe all the corporate hype hook, line and sinker.

In any case I know many very smart people who have proof that many if not most corporations are manipulating their own stock prices using marketing hype or misleading information. If it smells like BS then it probably is.

AC

[jibbguy]

There are some things to always consider when looking at these articles in science magazines about new solar PV .

First, most of the ones reported are still in the theoretical stage, they are "allowed" to make claims about them, based on computer models. These may or may not work out in the Real World; and will take years to do so. The oil corps love the idea of "Years" and love "Decades" even better. Check into these universities: Their science departments are often heavily funded by energy corporations. This gives them power to control what is studied and pursued, and what is not.

Second, when discussing "efficiencies" of solar pv, it is not very germane to the total usefulness and utility of the system. A "17% efficient" silicon based system for "80 cents a watt" (used as an example, because that is what can be purchased right now), is quite good. If you have the space for an extra panel or two verses a smaller total area "25% efficient at $2.00 a watt" system, does it really matter so much in the end?

When the energy is coming free from the sun, efficiency is less important than total cost. And that has dropped considerably over the last 3 years. Here is an example of a popular seller's prices:

Solar Panels, PV Systems and Inverters Distributor

And waiting for some pie-in-the-sky theoretical discovery for more efficient panels means you lose the money on energy savings during the interim (if the major improvement will indeed ever get to market), and the energy corps smile... knowing they invested wisely in those universities and media outlets

Here's a nice chart showing the kicking-in of EoS from world-wide sales

Solar Power's Massive Price Drop (Graph) | CleanTechnica

[Ein~+ein]

These may or may not work out in the Real World; and will take years to do so.

Yes, that's often the case with research--take cancer research for example-- but I for one am quite confident it won't be the case with solar for a variety of reasons. For one, as you know, nanotechnology is far beyond the theory stage and the amount of money and resources allocated to renewable energy is steadily increasing.

As for efficiencies and costs, it's worth comparing solar's EROI with other energy sources:


Despite the controversy behind determining what and how to measure it, what's clear is that civilizations collapse when their EROI drops. Thomas Homer-Dixon who's written and lectured about this considers geo-thermal a much better solution than solar and I'd have to agree, given the current EROI of solar. You'll notice from the chart that while PV is ahead of shale oil and tar sands, it's still quite low. In fact Hall, the author of the chart above in Spain's Photovoltaic Revolution: The Energy Return on Investment published earlier this year states:

The results (from Spain's solar project) imply that the EROI of current, large-scale PV systems may be too low to seamlessly support an energy and economic transition away from fossil fuels.

Until those discoveries I've reported on come to market, (if they ever do) solar's EROI could be improved, cell costs slashed, and the industry considerably greener by the use of a Solar Breeder:

A solar breeder is a photovoltaic panel manufacturing plant which can be made energy-independent by using energy derived from its own roof using its own panels. Such a plant becomes not only energy self-sufficient but a major supplier of new energy, hence the name solar breeder. Research on the concept was conducted by Centre for Photovoltaic Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia.[9][10] The reported investigation establishes certain mathematical relationships for the solar breeder which clearly indicate that a vast amount of net energy is available from such a plant for the indefinite future.[11] The solar module processing plant at Frederick, Maryland[12] was originally planned as such a solar breeder. In 2009 the Sahara Solar Breeder Project was proposed by the Science Council of Japan as a cooperation between Japan and Algeria with the highly ambitious goal of creating hundreds of GW of capacity within 30 years.[13] Theoretically breeders of any kind can be developed.

It's a tragedy that India and China have got to be some of the least enviro-friendly places on the earth--the last place I'd expect to see a solar-breeder. I'm sure the energy used to produce their solar cells comes from coal and oil, making the energy corp heads smile. I'm the first to admit we're all totally dependent upon Big Oil. As I wrote my sister's MP (Member of Parliament) in Alberta, Canada in 2010, the oil industry could, and should be tasked with developing geo-thermal as a means for them to stay viable and to keep us at what Thomas Homer-Dixon considers the minimal requirement of complex civilizations--an EROI of >20. After all, they're the experts in deep drilling. Who knows, it might even be able to monitor, exploit and help alleviate built-up subterranean pressures over time that lead to volcanic eruptions in places like Yellowstone Park--I'll have to ask my sister's geologist friend.

[Ein~+ein]

Heard about Ford winning all kinds of awards and industry praise with its new fuel-efficient EcoBoost, a 1.0 lit, 3 cyl ultra small engine but with an impressive 123 hp?

I know some of you might argue they'd been ordered to pull it out of storage, dust it off and present it as 'state-of-the-art' by what could only be an increasingly nervous oil cartel.

Why nervous? As impressive as this engine is in the automotive world, it's no match for what solar has already achieved which is why, like EVs and hybrids, it only buys time for the auto sector already committed to hydrogen recognizing there's no Moore's Law for EV battery tech like there is for PVs.

[Farmhand]

Solar Panel efficiency is done wrong.

I think solar panels get a bum deal in the efficiency calculation method stakes.

A wind turbine's efficiency is rated by how efficient it is at harvesting energy
from the amount of available usable energy that presented to it.

But a solar panel "I think" is rated on the amount of energy it can harvest
from the total amount of energy in the light that hit's it, kinda thing, even
though much of the energy is not usable by the panel and the panel is not
designed to use it.

The rating should be calculated from the amount of usable energy in the light
that hit's it.

In other words a solar panel's efficiency should be rated on the amount of
light energy it harvests from the amount of energy that can be harvested.
Meaning all wave lengths of light that the panel is not designed to utilize should be disregarded.

Only the intended wavelengths of light for harvesting should be considered in
the calculation.

Weather that is already done properly I'm not sure.

Would be interesting to see the actual formula for calculating the efficiency
solar panels that they use.

As far as I am concerned they are 100% efficient, except for the energy dissipated as heat due to current.

The energy they produce is free, the setup costs the money. the panels cost
nothing to run.

A regular generator costs money to setup, and it needs fuel to run it so the
efficiency is based on the fuel input.

Solar panels are as OU as anything will ever be.

Cheers

[Ein~+ein]

Solar panels are as OU as anything will ever be.

Not so. If that were true, solar cells lining the interior of a lampshade could keep the lamp lit with power to spare. No doubt, you'll find some some YouDude claiming he's done it and willing to sell you his (top) secret (trick) for just $19.99.

Would be interesting to see the actual formula for calculating the efficiency solar panels that they use.

Solar Efficiency - Wikikpedia:

Solar cell efficiency is the ratio of the electrical output of a solar cell to the incident energy in the form of sunlight. The energy conversion efficiency (η) of a solar cell is the percentage of the solar energy to which the cell is exposed that is converted into electrical energy.[1] This is calculated by dividing a cell's power output (in watts) at its maximum power point (Pm) by the input light (E, in W/m2) and the surface area of the solar cell (Ac in m2).

By convention, solar cell efficiencies are measured under standard test conditions (STC) unless stated otherwise. STC specifies a temperature of 25 °C and an irradiance of 1000 W/m2 with an air mass 1.5 (AM1.5) spectrum. These conditions correspond to a clear day with sunlight incident upon a sun-facing 37°-tilted surface with the sun at an angle of 41.81° above the horizon.[2][3] This represents solar noon near the spring and autumn equinoxes in the continental United States with surface of the cell aimed directly at the sun. Under these test conditions a solar cell of 20% efficiency with a 100 cm2 (0.01 m2) surface area would produce 2.0 watts of power.
The efficiency of the solar cells used in a photovoltaic system, in combination with latitude and climate, determines the annual energy output of the system. For example, a solar panel with 20% efficiency and an area of 1 m² will produce 200 watts of power at STC, but it can produce more when the sun is high in the sky and will produce less in cloudy conditions and when the sun is low in the sky.

The energy they produce is free, the setup costs the money.

If you scroll up to the article I posted on Multi-junction, you'll start to realize that if we can go from 15% to >30% efficient even at the same costs which is not likely thanks to nanotech, it'll have a huge economic impact.

[Ein~+ein]

[Farmhand]

Not so. If that were true, solar cells lining the interior of a lampshade could keep the lamp lit with power to spare. No doubt, you'll find some some YouDude claiming he's done it and willing to sell you his (top) secret (trick) for just $19.99.



Solar Efficiency - Wikikpedia:

Solar cell efficiency is the ratio of the electrical output of a solar cell to the incident energy in the form of sunlight. The energy conversion efficiency (η) of a solar cell is the percentage of the solar energy to which the cell is exposed that is converted into electrical energy.[1] This is calculated by dividing a cell's power output (in watts) at its maximum power point (Pm) by the input light (E, in W/m2) and the surface area of the solar cell (Ac in m2).

By convention, solar cell efficiencies are measured under standard test conditions (STC) unless stated otherwise. STC specifies a temperature of 25 °C and an irradiance of 1000 W/m2 with an air mass 1.5 (AM1.5) spectrum. These conditions correspond to a clear day with sunlight incident upon a sun-facing 37°-tilted surface with the sun at an angle of 41.81° above the horizon.[2][3] This represents solar noon near the spring and autumn equinoxes in the continental United States with surface of the cell aimed directly at the sun. Under these test conditions a solar cell of 20% efficiency with a 100 cm2 (0.01 m2) surface area would produce 2.0 watts of power.
The efficiency of the solar cells used in a photovoltaic system, in combination with latitude and climate, determines the annual energy output of the system. For example, a solar panel with 20% efficiency and an area of 1 m² will produce 200 watts of power at STC, but it can produce more when the sun is high in the sky and will produce less in cloudy conditions and when the sun is low in the sky.

If you scroll up to the article I posted on Multi-junction, you'll start to realize that if we can go from 15% to >30% efficient even at the same costs which is not likely thanks to nanotech, it'll have a huge economic impact.

I think you misunderstood me Einstein. I don't believe in OU as such. The solar
panel produces energy that costs nothing to use. True the panel costs money
but so does a generator, the fuel for the generator to produce an output
costs money but the sunshine is free. Setup costs are a moot point.

But to get to the efficiency thing if I were to build a sieve for ball bearings
with 5 mm holes that is designed to catch all ball bearings over 5 mm then it's
efficiency for catching ball bearings less than 5 mm would be zero and that
would draw down it's overall efficiency at catching ball bearings of all sizes,
but it is still 100% efficient at catching balls over 5 mm.

A similar thing is done with solar panels if a solar panel is not designed to use
all wave lengths of light, then it's not fair to calculate efficiency using all light
energy that hits the panel, only the light waves the panel can utilize should
be considered in the calculation.

The fact remains that the setup costs are not considered in generator
efficiency, and neither is the cost of producing the fuel from oil.
It goes on input compared to output, and if the fuel has other stuff added to
it to increase it's volume that the engine cannot use the efficiency will go
down. Simple. The fuel is refined to make it be as the engine is designed to
use it. The solar panel must endure light wavelengths it cannot use.

Disregarding the energy to build the generator. The cost of gathering and
refining the oil into fuel means the output is not free.

However disregarding the cost of building the solar panel means all the energy
it outputs is 100% free. How can that be disputed.

Solar energy is made to look worse than it actually is. The worst part of solar
energy is the fact that the sun doesn't shine every day. That's why wind is a
good companion for solar.

The very best way to cut costs is to use less energy.

Cheers

P.S. To put it another way, if one was to build a solar panel to utilize only IR energy
then determining it's efficiency for utilizing all light energy is not right and it's
inaccurate. Only the efficiency at converting IR to electricity should be
considered in that case.

..

..

[Farmhand]

People talk about recouping the cost of a solar system but do we recoup the
cost of the grid being first connected or the power bill ?

We just got a 5 Kw grid tie system that produced 19 Kwh on the first day and
it was cloudy and almost winter.

We are not concerned about the feed in tariff which is good anyway, but our
biggest concern is a Zero bill if possible. Most costings are done on current
power pricing which doesn't make any sense to me either.

The cost is going up in 25 % increments. Soon some people will not be able to afford it.

What if the cost goes up to $ 5.00 a Kw, what about $50.00 a Kw. Solar will
look good then and if anyone thinks the price of panels won't increase or at
least stop falling due to them being able to produce energy that is worth more
and more I'll eat my hat.

Cheers

[Ein~+ein]

I think you misunderstood me Einstein. I don't believe in OU as such.

Your OU statement did confuse me because solar's currently the least efficient free renewable and with the worst EROI among them--even geo-thermal is better. So you're right--people overlook solar's bright side which is why I started this thread. I'm sure without even looking at the graph I posted you can guess what's #1 on both counts, and by a very wide margin. However, I read recently about foolish Winnipeg homeowners installing wind turbines without doing their homework---with wind, it's all about location---and faring worse financially than their solar-installing neighbours.

[jibbguy]

Yes Solar PV does get a bum deal when they try to claim it is "inefficient".

Compared to what lol?

Natural photosynthesis is about 2% efficient, yet it works for all the food we eat rather nicely and has since the dawn of humanity. Sunshine is not part of the "Scarcity Paradigm"

You pay top dollar for the gasoline for your car; yet your engine is only about 25-28% efficient in burning it. Hell, they even had to add a catalytic converter to burn it AFTER the engine, in the exhaust to keep from completely choking everybody out with all the pollution it causes

Not to mention all the pollution and problems it causes to drill and refine it. Or the wars it causes, and the corruption and power/influence the energy corps have over governments. The millions who die every year from cancers caused by benzine (present in coal ash too).

So 17-19% "efficient" solar pv panels are a pretty good deal, when you don't have to pay for the sunshine to begin with. Maybe 10 years "in the future" there will be ones in the "50%" range on the market: But how much will they cost compared to the very reasonable prices we see right now (as low as "69 cents a watt")?

Is the area they will deployed in, a crucial factor (where "smaller square meters are better")? Usually not so important; most folks have enough roof or yard space to get their wattage in there just fine.

Businesses with large flat roofs nearly always do: There are dozens of corps in the US now doing it on a large scale because they get incentives most U.S. homeowners DON'T get yet, such as Nokia, Wallgreens, Nissan, even Walmart. The US Navy is installing over a gigawatt of solar pv in their bases around the world (and will do more in he future), i've seen quite a lot already at Boca Chica Naval Air Station, myself... they are not filling up the roofs so the energy density is not a critical factor.

So having a larger square meter area of total panels to get the same wattage, yet probably still doing it cheaper than a more exotic "higher efficiency" tech would cost (and doing it NOW verses waiting years), would be better anyway in most cases.

We need decentralized energy! Solar PV may not be as "sexy" as most of the stuff described on this forum.. but think of it this way: It helps break the energy monopolies, and gets people thinking about energy independence.. so when we do have an exotic tech come along, those barriers are already breached.