"Organics are generating lots of excitement because of the possibility that they could be manufactured at very low cost from abundant materials," says Ginger, whose paper was co-authored by Washington researchers Liam Pingree and Obadiah Reid, and appeared online last month at the American Chemical Society journal Nano Letters.
Despite their projected low cost, the efficiency of solar cells made from organic thin films have a long way to go to catch with other technologies in use and under development. Some silicon-based solar cells have achieved greater than 40 percent efficiency in the lab.* Meanwhile, University of California, Los Angeles, researchers report having achieved 9.13 percent efficiency using solar cells made from copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS), and are optimistic that they will reach their goal of 15 percent or 20 percent.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology mechanical engineering professor Emanuel Sachs claims to have found incremental ways to boost the amount of electricity that common photovoltaics generate from sunlight without increasing the costs. A year ago, he said he raised the conversion efficiency of test cells made from multicrystalline silicon from the typical 15.5 percent to nearly 20 percent—on par with pricier single-crystal silicon cells.
Such improvements could bring the cost of PV power from the current $1.90 to $2.10 per watt down to $1.65. With additional tweaks, Sachs anticipated creating within four years solar cells that could produce electricity at a dollar per watt, a feat that would make electricity from the sun competitive with that from coal-burning power plants.
* Note (8/07/09): National Renewable Energy Laboratory researchers in Colorado were able to achieve 40.7 percent efficiency, but this required the use of light-concentrating devices, such as miniature plastic lenses and mirrors. More conventional silicon chips do not exceed 30 percent efficiency.
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