ORGANIC CHEMISTRY David Ginger, a University of Washington associate professor of chemistry, displays the tiny probe for a conductive atomic force microscope, used to record photocurrents on scales of millionths of an inch in carbon-based solar cells.
Image: © MARY LEVIN/UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Inexpensive thin-film photovoltaic cells made from organic plastics may be one of the fastest ways to ramp up production of solar power—if only they could do a better job converting the sun's energy into electricity.
One of the keys to unlocking organic thin-film's capabilities, according to a team of University of Washington in Seattle researchers headed up by chemist David Ginger, is to better understand how electrical charges move through solar cells by studying their structure at the nano level.
Ginger says his team has been able to do this, directly measuring how much current is carried by each tiny bubble and channel formed during the making of the plastic in a solar cell, giving a better understanding of exactly how a solar cell converts light into electricity. This information could help engineers leap the hurdle of coaxing these carbon-based materials to reliably form the cheapest and most efficient structure for generating electric current and moving that current to wires leading out of the cell.
Plastic solar cells generally are made by blending two materials together in a thin film, then baking them in a process that causes bubbles and channels to form much as they would in cake batter, Ginger said. The number of bubbles and channels (which are roughly 10,000 times smaller than a human hair) as well as their configuration can be altered by how much heat is applied and for how long.
The immediate goal of this knowledge is to create thin-film solar cells mass-produced from organic materials that can convert light into energy with 10 percent efficiency. Whereas early organic solar cells could muster only 2 or 3 percent efficiency, more recently they are achieving about 7 percent. Still, Ginger says, "you can make seven percent in your lab but end up with a mass-produced cell that's only three percent efficient."
The goal of 10 percent efficiency is seen as the point when an organic thin-film solar cell would be ready for commercialization, Ginger says. At this point, solar cell–makers (not to mention energy consumers) are concerned, generally, with how much a watt of energy will cost them, how long the solar cells will last, and what their peak performance will be. Because no one is currently mass-producing organic thin-film solar cells, he adds, it's difficult to know how this process will affect their quality or how much they'll cost the end consumer.
See what we're tweeting about
6 Comments
Add CommentNanosolar, a Silicon Valley firm claims that it already is mass producing silicon film using 'printing' method through inkjets and can match the cost of thermal power plants. You can visit their website.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is very useful. Pretty good
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy husband was in solar panel research as a chemist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually I heard that they just came out with a way to make carbon nano tubes without metal (they replaced it with cubic zarconia).
Leah Waddill
I've also seen the material on Nanosolar producing at around $1 per watt but I believe I also saw installation costs including inverters etc at about $2 per watt. I think we really need some research directed at reducing total system cost and not just the cost of the cells.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswreck -- I think we need to invest in our long term future with more research into all aspects of solar energy-- from the basic science that can lead to new breakthroughs to the engineering development that will help optimize existing technology. That said, you're correct that total cost per watt is the final important factor, but you could imagine that installation costs can depend on weight, form factor, and so on. I think one hope is that research into new materials will not only bring down the module costs, but maybe even impact some (though certainly not all) "balance of systems" costs such as installation (for some of the same reasons that carpeting costs less to install per area than a hardwood floor)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you say that at $1/Watt will be competitive with a coal-fired plant, this does not consider that fact that this will only be for about 6 hours a day when the Sun is high in the sky. Put simply, we need to address the fact that the Sun doesn't shine at night.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this