3d solar cell successfully manufactured

[Darwin333]

This is looking like a HUGE breakthrough in solar electricity. I have read dozens of stories about MIT or researchers creating new techniques that increase the efficiency of solar cells but most are only in the lab or would cost a ton to implement. Otoh, this appears to quickly be making its way into mass production and on to the market.

3d solar manufactured their first cell using commercially available off the shelf devices that increase the solar cells efficiency by 50% over current solar cells. Hopefully their promise of low cost manufacturing pans out and we see these on the market competitively priced within the next few years.

On top of the efficiency boost it also appears to add the benefits of A-si solar cells to traditional cells by being able to produce electricity in lower light conditions. I am not sure if the increased power curve is included in their efficiency increase or not, I am trying to research that right now and will update if I learn anything new.

We spent the past several months completing our fabrication process methodology,” continued Dr. Son. “Now, we have put that process to the test and successfully fabricated a meaningful area of precise 3-dimensional photovoltaic nanostructures on the surface of a silicon wafer. We accomplished this task using commercially available equipment at the state-of-the-art Nanofabrication Facility at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB).”

Solar3D’s innovative single wafer silicon solar cell is based on a 3-dimensional design with two very powerful and unique patent-pending features: high conversion efficiency and wide-angle light collection. The simulated design efficiency is over 25%, or approximately 50% higher than commercially available silicon solar cells. The special wide-angle light collection feature on the cell surface can capture more light in the morning and evening hours, as well as in the winter months when the sun is not directly overhead.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...r3D-Successfully-Fabricates-Initial-Prototype

 

[bfdd]

I remember reading another article like a year or two ago about solar panels that will use both the electric and magnetic properties of light to convert to energy and that'd increase efficiency by like 80% or some shit as well. This is a pretty cool read though thanks for sharing. 3d printers are awesome, really need to get along on my project of building one.

 

[zephyrprime]

I remember reading another article like a year or two ago about solar panels that will use both the electric and magnetic properties of light to convert to energy and that'd increase efficiency by like 80% or some shit as well. This is a pretty cool read though thanks for sharing. 3d printers are awesome, really need to get along on my project of building one.

Something like this is NOT made with a 3d printer.

As always, what holds back advanced designs in solar is COST. This article says that this stuff is cheap to make but marketing folks often lie about that. I don't know of any way to make cheap 3D nanostructures in silicon despite what the article claims.

 

[mect]

Something like this is NOT made with a 3d printer.

As always, what holds back advanced designs in solar is COST. This article says that this stuff is cheap to make but marketing folks often lie about that. I don't know of any way to make cheap 3D nanostructures in silicon despite what the article claims.

If the cells are being made from single crystal Si, then the cost is still going to be pretty high, although really the main concern is energy/cost. So if the cost is the same, and the energy output is increased by 50% as they claim, then that is still a big improvement.

After reading the source link and following another link to an SEM image of the device, the photo-voltaic aspect of the device I believe is pretty standard. The problem with single crystal Si is the refractive index relative air causes a lot of light to reflect off the surface rather than be absorbed. The new feature here is essentially a 3-D structure that guides more light down to the photo-voltaic. Also, I didn't read anywhere that the 3-D structure is created by a 3-D printer. I'd say its much more likely that it is fabricated from traditional lithography/etch/deposition steps widely employed in the semiconductor industry.

 

[a777pilot]

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Darwin333]

If the cells are being made from single crystal Si, then the cost is still going to be pretty high, although really the main concern is energy/cost. So if the cost is the same, and the energy output is increased by 50% as they claim, then that is still a big improvement.

I know they will us SI but I am not sure if it will be Polycrystalline or Monocrystalline or if that even matters. On a good front the cost of glass (crystalline solar panels) has dropped like a rock over the last few years. With similar prices and a 50% jump in efficiency this would be a huge advance.

After reading the source link and following another link to an SEM image of the device, the photo-voltaic aspect of the device I believe is pretty standard. The problem with single crystal Si is the refractive index relative air causes a lot of light to reflect off the surface rather than be absorbed. The new feature here is essentially a 3-D structure that guides more light down to the photo-voltaic. Also, I didn't read anywhere that the 3-D structure is created by a 3-D printer. I'd say its much more likely that it is fabricated from traditional lithography/etch/deposition steps widely employed in the semiconductor industry.

That is my understanding of it as well, except for the last part at least. I have no idea how they are manufacturing them and couldn't posit even a guess. Thanks for giving me something else to look up though.

 

[Darwin333]

I'll believe it when I see it.

Why is that? The concept isn't all that difficult to grasp.

 

[Steeplerot]

The sooner we get off the dirty nonrenewable sources like nuke and coal plants the better.

Time to move beyond 19th century inefficient habits from the dark monopolistic eras of industrialization like centralized power.

Simple concepts really from nature about putting all your eggs in one basket.

A tree for example does not make one bigass leaf to provide energy.

 

[woolfe9999]

Why is that? The concept isn't all that difficult to grasp.

In his defense, this ONE time, I'll say that it is prudent to have a wait and see attitude when reading articles like this about "breakthrough" new technologies. They often do not come to fruition. And often the claims made about efficacy and/or cost turn out to not be accurate. Not that it wouldn't be very cool if it turns out to be exactly what they're saying, because it would. But skepticism is healthy with these kinds of things.

 

[werepossum]

In his defense, this ONE time, I'll say that it is prudent to have a wait and see attitude when reading articles like this about "breakthrough" new technologies. They often do not come to fruition. And often the claims made about efficacy and/or cost turn out to not be accurate. Not that it wouldn't be very cool if it turns out to be exactly what they're saying, because it would. But skepticism is healthy with these kinds of things.

Quite true. If memory serves, the theoretical efficiency of crystalline panels is around 22%, whereas the actual efficiency is 5% lower. Still, anything that promises to boost solar cell efficiency and cut fab cost is an exciting development. Right now most one to two story buildings have enough roof area to significantly cut if not abolish their net electricity usage, and point-of-use solar is ideal for filling those nasty peak demand periods. Sucks for linemen though, sun comes out and fries your ass while you're clearing downed lines.

I am curious as to why they are talking theoretical rather than measured efficiency though if these things are so cheap and easy to fab. Hopefully it's because they are just now conducting tests rather than because it's just another Solyndra.

 

[bfdd]

The sooner we get off the dirty nonrenewable sources like nuke and coal plants the better.

Time to move beyond 19th century inefficient habits from the dark monopolistic eras of industrialization like centralized power.

Simple concepts really from nature about putting all your eggs in one basket.

A tree for example does not make one bigass leaf to provide energy.

lol @ misinformation. dirty nonrenewables like nuke? you are an idiot. ps eggs in one basket? isn't that what the "green movement" has been pushing? for us to throw all of our eggs into the solar or wind basket? right now we're rather diversified, we could be better, probably need more modern nuke plants and cutting back on the coal, but we don't need to get rid of shit. In fact we should never even tear down a single coal plant or unhook them from the grid. they should stick around as back up.

 

[Franz316]

The sun provides pretty much unlimited energy and we are playing catchup in trying to capture it. I think it will be pretty exciting to see research groups all taking different approaches to making it as efficient as possible. I really like the decentralized nature of solar and if we can provide a baseline that is also fairly clean, we will be in business. Luckily solar peak and energy peak happen at the same time of day.

 

[Infohawk]

In his defense, this ONE time, I'll say that it is prudent to have a wait and see attitude when reading articles like this about "breakthrough" new technologies. They often do not come to fruition. And often the claims made about efficacy and/or cost turn out to not be accurate. Not that it wouldn't be very cool if it turns out to be exactly what they're saying, because it would. But skepticism is healthy with these kinds of things.

Yes.

Also, this is a corporate release. I'd like to hear other voices saying this is a game-changer before I get excited. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it happen and it probably will happen, but one can't get excited everytime someone issues a press release.

 

[Darwin333]

Quite true. If memory serves, the theoretical efficiency of crystalline panels is around 22%, whereas the actual efficiency is 5% lower. Still, anything that promises to boost solar cell efficiency and cut fab cost is an exciting development. Right now most one to two story buildings have enough roof area to significantly cut if not abolish their net electricity usage, and point-of-use solar is ideal for filling those nasty peak demand periods. Sucks for linemen though, sun comes out and fries your ass while you're clearing downed lines.

That is absolutely 100% false and I would encourage you to do just a bit of research into inverters used for solar power. If you would like some starting points I would be happy to provide them but that statement is completely wrong for ANY solar install done even sort of to code. If you are talking about willful and blatant code violations then we could say the same about building anything.

I am curious as to why they are talking theoretical rather than measured efficiency though if these things are so cheap and easy to fab. Hopefully it's because they are just now conducting tests rather than because it's just another Solyndra.

Did you read the article? They just fabbed their first one...... And Solyndra had an actual product and an actual manufacturing plant, the bottom fell out of the solar market and made them absurdly unattractive at the price point they needed to sell for in the niche market they were going after. A bad investment all the way around but it wasn't just a bullshit product, it actually worked as they said it would.

 

[Darwin333]

In his defense, this ONE time, I'll say that it is prudent to have a wait and see attitude when reading articles like this about "breakthrough" new technologies. They often do not come to fruition. And often the claims made about efficacy and/or cost turn out to not be accurate. Not that it wouldn't be very cool if it turns out to be exactly what they're saying, because it would. But skepticism is healthy with these kinds of things.

The concept is very proven, its the fab and cost of fab that so far hasn't been. Hell, even a 10-20% increase over current efficiencies at the same price point is exciting as hell to me. If they can truly keep the manufacturing costs down, which using off the shelf machines goes a long way towards, this will be huge. If they can't someone else will eventually.

 

[Darwin333]

The sun provides pretty much unlimited energy and we are playing catchup in trying to capture it. I think it will be pretty exciting to see research groups all taking different approaches to making it as efficient as possible. I really like the decentralized nature of solar and if we can provide a baseline that is also fairly clean, we will be in business. Luckily solar peak and energy peak happen at the same time of day.

Unfortunately we have a 60 year old grid that is both crumbling and unable to handle decentralized power generation. We are talking at least a trillion bucks to build a new modern grid, that we desperately need regardless of "green energy" or not. I argued quite loudly that the entirety of the stimulus should have been spent on that but we got a bunch of bullshit instead.

 

[Darwin333]

Yes.

Also, this is a corporate release. I'd like to hear other voices saying this is a game-changer before I get excited. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it happen and it probably will happen, but one can't get excited everytime someone issues a press release.

Is MIT good enough for you?

This isn't by any means a new discovery, its simply a way to put something we already knew into real world manufacturing. If they can successfully do that, as they claim, this is a game changer.

 

[woolfe9999]

The concept is very proven, its the fab and cost of fab that so far hasn't been. Hell, even a 10-20% increase over current efficiencies at the same price point is exciting as hell to me. If they can truly keep the manufacturing costs down, which using off the shelf machines goes a long way towards, this will be huge. If they can't someone else will eventually.

Yeah, in this particular case, my skepticism is less directed at the capability of the technology and more at its manufacturing cost. It is often the case with these new breakthroughs that they work approximately as well as they said it would, but it's too expensive. Power generation is all about $/watt. It seems to me that manufactured costs can be rather speculative when you're at the prototype stage.

 

[dmcowen674]

We will see this just like we see the 100 mpg carburetor.

 

[Darwin333]

Yeah, in this particular case, my skepticism is less directed at the capability of the technology and more at its manufacturing cost. It is often the case with these new breakthroughs that they work approximately as well as they said it would, but it's too expensive. Power generation is all about $/watt. It seems to me that manufactured costs can be rather speculative when you're at the prototype stage.

You are absolutely correct, it is completely and totally about $/watt. There have been tons of "breakthroughs" that would drastically increase the efficiency of solar panels but to date no one has figured out how to manufacture them and be cost competitive. The thing about this particular one that has me excited is that they are able to make them with off the shelf components instead of highly specialized custom equipment (like Solyndria). That SHOULD keep costs down.

I am definitely hoping that this pans out, I am in the solar industry and even if it costs the same per watt as current glass does the total price to have solar installed would still go down due to less labor, racking, b.o.s., etc... Since it appears that the rest of the manufacturing process is the same as traditional glass and assuming their 50% number is sort of close they will have a lot of room to keep it cost competitive.

 

[Darwin333]

We will see this just like we see the 100 mpg carburetor.

Why is that? I assume you are trying to say the big energy companies will keep this off the market?

They aren't all that worried about solar right now. We start seriously talking about replacing our grid and they might get worried but until then all the solar in the world won't take their plants offline.

 

[FerrelGeek]

The sooner we get off the dirty nonrenewable sources like nuke and coal plants the better.

Time to move beyond 19th century inefficient habits from the dark monopolistic eras of industrialization like centralized power.

Simple concepts really from nature about putting all your eggs in one basket.

A tree for example does not make one bigass leaf to provide energy.

Thank you for that steaming pile of ignorance. Let's see how many cliche lib phrases we can throw in a post, shall we?

 

[Doppel]

We will see this just like we see the 100 mpg carburetor.

The 100 carburetor was never a real thing. What's next, the forever lightbulb that conspiracy theorists go on about, too?

This tech is neat but really not worth much until it's mass produced and doesn't cost a crap ton.

 

[hal2kilo]

If the cells are being made from single crystal Si, then the cost is still going to be pretty high, although really the main concern is energy/cost. So if the cost is the same, and the energy output is increased by 50% as they claim, then that is still a big improvement.

After reading the source link and following another link to an SEM image of the device, the photo-voltaic aspect of the device I believe is pretty standard. The problem with single crystal Si is the refractive index relative air causes a lot of light to reflect off the surface rather than be absorbed. The new feature here is essentially a 3-D structure that guides more light down to the photo-voltaic. Also, I didn't read anywhere that the 3-D structure is created by a 3-D printer. I'd say its much more likely that it is fabricated from traditional lithography/etch/deposition steps widely employed in the semiconductor industry.

Yea, they have epitaxially grown multilayer solar cells that can take advantage of more of the light spectrum but they're spendy.

 

[Ryan711]

Unfortunately we have a 60 year old grid that is both crumbling and unable to handle decentralized power generation. We are talking at least a trillion bucks to build a new modern grid, that we desperately need regardless of "green energy" or not. I argued quite loudly that the entirety of the stimulus should have been spent on that but we got a bunch of bullshit instead.

Yep. I don't even know what the 800+ billion was spent on. I mean, it seems to me when you're spending so much money there should have been some noticeable benefits. They should have done as you said but also lit the entire country up with fiber. Anywhere that has power lines, congratulations, you now have fiber. That would have done more for the economy than whatever the hell we spent it on.