Hey! New serious breakthrough in Solar Energy!

[24Hours]

Check it out and discuss, and vote in the poll

http://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm

40% is good... very good. Also the cost estimates seems very hopeful. At 8-10 cents per KWh it would mean solar would be closing in on the already competative windpower.

Instead of having 16-18% efficient cells on your roof you would have 40% efficient consentrator units on your roof. Giving you more than twice as much energy per area at a reduced price per energy produced.

Theese consentrators will reduce the amount of solar cell material required greatly (you dont cover 100% of the area.. you cover maybe 1-5% and let cheap mirrors or fresnel lenses focus the light on that area).

This is good both for homeowners in sunny areas and for countries with large deserts such as USA, China, Northern Africa, Middle East, Australia and Southern America.

I suspect this development will create a shift in the power production system in USA with a lot more energy being produced at place of consumption.(Desentralizing). I also see this as poetencially "empowering" Africa giving the continent a shorter way to become self sufficient in energy.

Yes, a few hundred miles in the american southwest would do it (anyone objecting to using Texas?), but only if the entire world lived in the american southwest. As it is, energy losses due to transportation are quite significant and hinder an all-out world power source plan.

Why is there a need to transport it? Why not just start making it mandatory for every high-rise and large-roof building structure to be covered with a certain percentage of solar cells that power part of the building during the day and feed the rest back into the grid? After all, the concrete and steel aren't doing anything with the sun.

It seems to me that if we had started doing this years ago it may have a) reversed some of our energy problems and b) potentially made solar panels more affordable so I could cover my home's roof with them.

[24Hours]

I know what you mean, Shutit.. I am annoyed that it is basically cost-prohibitive (or costs mor than just using the normal electricity) to put some solar panels on my roof... it feels ridiculous that in this day and age that is so by me.. the instincts tell you we have the technology and if Government had gotten behind solar even half ass a decade ago we would be smilin in the sun right now...

[Jim Franklin]

The figure they post do not add up..great for the efficiency race, but not on the economics front just yet.

Still, a breakthrough worth applauding and certainly pursueing further.

It would be interesting to find out how much this cell cost to manufacture and if the thing can be scaled up for producyion?

"With funding from the Department of Energy, Boeing-Spectrolab has managed to create a solar cell with 40.7% sunlight-to-energy conversion efficiency"

Interesting. I wouldn't have imagine those two paying for such research.

[debs]

Bush has been cutting funding in many high promise areas of alternative energy for a long time. Low promise boondoggles like Ethanol and hydrogen gets lots of attention though. They have even been cooking the books by redefining nuclear subsidies at "climate technology research" or whatever. The GAO even released a report about the confusing accounting.

40% effeciency is amazing! Regardless of the cost, this is an important breakthrough because it may show the way forward for much less expensive progress. Heck 50% effeciency would probably be enough to power the whole country off of solar panels covering vacant parts of Arizona, California and Nevada.

Originally Posted by evil_eye

40% effeciency is amazing! Regardless of the cost, this is an important breakthrough because it may show the way forward for much less expensive progress. Heck 50% effeciency would probably be enough to power the whole country off of solar panels covering vacant parts of Arizona, California and Nevada.

Remember that 40% is the efficiency at cell level, it's probably lower (20-30% at the array level)