Researchers Use Standing Nanowires To Develop Super-efficient Solar Cells

[Fuckallyall]

Apr 08, 2013 02:34 PM EDT

Inspired By Trees, Researchers Use Standing Nanowires To Develop Super-efficient Solar Cells

By James A. Foley


A new design in solar cell technology is 12 times as efficient as traditional solar cells while also using significantly less material

A new concept in solar technology is poised to make a huge impact on the affordability of solar energy by blending cutting-edge techniques in nanoengineering with a design as old as the trees.

To come up with a working solar panel that uses 10,000 times less material than traditional models without sacrificing efficiency professor Anna Fontcuberta, of the Swiss technology institute école polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, looked up, to the trees themselves.

"Trees know exactly how to increase their exposition to the sun by elevating themselves and spreading branches all around to maximize their surface," she said in a video highlighting her design.

Fontcuberta and her team turned the standard solar cell design on its head by developing a nanowire solar cell that mimics the light absorption properties of trees standing in a forest, making it possible for the solar cells to capture much more energy from the sun than previously thought possible. The enhanced light absorption is shown to be due to a light-concentrating property harnessed by standing nanowires like trees.

Though only in prototype state, Fontcuberta's nanowire cell can capture light more efficiently than traditional solar panels. The efficiency is due to the nanowire's unexpected ability to act as a sort of solar funnel. The system was shown to have 33 percent efficiency, while a traditional solar panel has a 20 percent efficiency.

Remarkably, Fontcuberta's design uses 1,000 times less material than current designs.

Fontcuberta says a family that needs 40 kilograms of material, specifically gallium arsenide, to meet their solar energy needs, would require only 40 grams with the new design. Less material equals lower production cost, which could potentially mean that previously unaffordable solar energy projects may have a way to come into reality.

A full report of the research is available at Nature Photonics.

link: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1267/20130408/inspired-trees-researchers-use-standing-nanowires-develop-super-efficient-solar.htm

 

[thoughtone]

Apr 08, 2013 02:34 PM EDT

Inspired By Trees, Researchers Use Standing Nanowires To Develop Super-efficient Solar Cells

By James A. Foley


A new design in solar cell technology is 12 times as efficient as traditional solar cells while also using significantly less material

A new concept in solar technology is poised to make a huge impact on the affordability of solar energy by blending cutting-edge techniques in nanoengineering with a design as old as the trees.

To come up with a working solar panel that uses 10,000 times less material than traditional models without sacrificing efficiency professor Anna Fontcuberta, of the Swiss technology institute école polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, looked up, to the trees themselves.

"Trees know exactly how to increase their exposition to the sun by elevating themselves and spreading branches all around to maximize their surface," she said in a video highlighting her design.

Fontcuberta and her team turned the standard solar cell design on its head by developing a nanowire solar cell that mimics the light absorption properties of trees standing in a forest, making it possible for the solar cells to capture much more energy from the sun than previously thought possible. The enhanced light absorption is shown to be due to a light-concentrating property harnessed by standing nanowires like trees.

Though only in prototype state, Fontcuberta's nanowire cell can capture light more efficiently than traditional solar panels. The efficiency is due to the nanowire's unexpected ability to act as a sort of solar funnel. The system was shown to have 33 percent efficiency, while a traditional solar panel has a 20 percent efficiency.

Remarkably, Fontcuberta's design uses 1,000 times less material than current designs.

Fontcuberta says a family that needs 40 kilograms of material, specifically gallium arsenide, to meet their solar energy needs, would require only 40 grams with the new design. Less material equals lower production cost, which could potentially mean that previously unaffordable solar energy projects may have a way to come into reality.

A full report of the research is available at Nature Photonics.

link: http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...g-nanowires-develop-super-efficient-solar.htm

Is this a government funded research lab? Looks like the government is creating wealth again!

 

[Fuckallyall]

Is this a government funded research lab? Looks like the government is creating wealth again!

Amazing ! The thought pattern you often exhibit here reminds me of a critique of politicians - "They use numbers the same way a drunk uses a lamp post - for support, but not illumination".

And government gets money from taxes, so there you have it.

 

[QueEx]

Amazing ! The thought pattern you often exhibit here reminds me of a critique of politicians - "They use numbers the same way a drunk uses a lamp post - for support, but not illumination".

And government gets money from taxes, so there you have it.

So, is he right ?

 

[thoughtone]

So, is he right ?

Strange, is GREED and Fuckallyall the same person?

 

[Greed]

Strange, is GREED and Fuckallyall the same person?

Why, because we both noticed your fucked up mindset?

Is this a government funded research lab? Looks like the government is creating wealth again!

This conclusion must be a result from your exhaustive cost/benefit analysis of measuring the long-term gains associated with this new technology and then contrasting that with the long-term cost associated with taking this money out of the private sector for a government project, then you carefully determined that the gains outweighed the cost.

 

[thoughtone]

Why, because we both noticed your fucked up mindset?


This conclusion must be a result from your exhaustive cost/benefit analysis of measuring the long-term gains associated with this new technology and then contrasting that with the long-term cost associated with taking this money out of the private sector for a government project, then you carefully determined that the gains outweighed the cost.

So, is he right ?

Well?

 

[Fuckallyall]

So, is he right ?

I don't know, and it was not the point of the article. It was the incredible leap in technology that this might represent, and the great things that people are doing.

 

[Greed]

Well?

I don't know.
Fuckallyall doesn't know.
QueEx doesn't know.
And most importantly, for this thread, you don't know either.

 

[QueEx]

I don't know, and it was not the point of the article. It was the incredible leap in technology that this might represent, and the great things that people are doing.

I agree it appears to be an incredible leap in technology and I am ecstatic over what it could mean -- but I think the poster raised the issue, "Is this a government funded research lab? . . . government . . . creating wealth . . ."


You have been a part of that discussion in the past, have you not ? ? ? Pardon me if I am mistaken.

 

[thoughtone]

I don't know, and it was not the point of the article. It was the incredible leap in technology that this might represent, and the great things that people are doing.

I recognize your contribution on keeping us informed of scientific advancements. And I appreciate it.

In reality, much of the pure research is undertaken by publicly financed institutions (national labs, universities).

Most corporations have abandoned or cut cut back on R & D. Bell Labs comes to mind.

 

[Fuckallyall]

I recognize your contribution on keeping us informed of scientific advancements. And I appreciate it.

In reality, much of the pure research is undertaken by publicly financed institutions (national labs, universities).

Most corporations have abandoned or cut cut back on R & D. Bell Labs comes to mind.

Sadly, you are correct. But one of the big reasons they did cut back is because it is very difficult to compete with a non-market actor, as they often have far larger amounts of money ( because they can get it from non-customers) and less overhead (they often don't pay for land, etc.).

I might have said it before, but I believe that the profit motive has been the greatest asset to discovery.

 

[thoughtone]

Sadly, you are correct. But one of the big reasons they did cut back is because it is very difficult to compete with a non-market actor, as they often have far larger amounts of money ( because they can get it from non-customers) and less overhead (they often don't pay for land, etc.).

I might have said it before, but I believe that the profit motive has been the greatest asset to discovery.

Actually no. Unfortunately the greatest asset to discovery is war. Throughout history you will find the greatest advancements in technology has been war. From cannons to firearms to gun powder to dynamite to food preservation etc.

And government entities have made private concerns profit from this.

I don't like it, that just seems to be the track record of history.