Massachusetts company develops inkjet-printed solar panels

Printed solar cell tech keeps getting closer and closer to reality, with a Massachusetts company called Konarka Technologies today announcing that it's now able to manufacture solar cells using inkjet printing. There's not a ton of information available about the process, but Konarka's already demonstrated it and published details in a trade journal called Advanced Materials -- which sounds like scintillating reading, if you ask us. Konarka says the process makes fabbing solar panels extremely easy, since it doesn't require a clean room, and the resulting cost reductions could lead to an increased number of applications for solar power. Of course, the economics of inkjet printing have lured more than one company to the dark side -- we wonder if Konarka is eventually going to start selling solar ink cartridges for more than the printers themselves?

[Via The Raw Feed]

[Veacross @ Mar 5th 2008 4:53AM]

One does not simply ink-jet print into mordoor.

[Namarrgon @ Mar 5th 2008 5:43AM]

Closer and closer? I thought it was already here.

[ReggieXuk @ Mar 5th 2008 5:45AM]

We all know this technology is going to be held back longer than it needs to be.
The energy problem has been solved, too bad a few people are too greedy to let the world have this kinda stuff`!!!

*if you know what i mean*

[tekdroid @ Mar 5th 2008 6:16AM]

I'm so tempted to throw in a Steorn joke.
http://www.steorn.com

Just as well I didn't :)

[jntaylor @ Mar 5th 2008 7:25AM]

Agree,

People say that all it takes for an energy replacement for oil as a cheaper alternative and the market will take care of itself. If you seriously think that multi-billion dollar Oil companies and Oil rich countries are going to sit and let this happen, think again. When better car batteries and/or a cheap way to make ethanol from bi-mass happens (and it will, science will find a way) there will be all sorts of government red tape, Special Interests road blocks or a buy out of patents and licensing that will keep the tech out of the market.

It will take rioting in the streets of the US to final get our leaders to make a true effort to get us off the oil.

[Mike_NYC @ Mar 5th 2008 9:30AM]

To JNTaylor...

um, government red tape? Didn't congress pass and Bush sign a mandate that we needed to produce and sell in this country like 8 billion gallons a year by 2012; and that in 2005?
link http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052502048.html
Didn't they recently update that to 35 billion gallons by 2022; in spite of the fact that many think INDUSTRY can't do it by then in that quantity?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN0449308620080305
While I enjoy your cynicism, honestly, I think it's misplaced. Companies will do whatever they can to make the most money with the least amount of effort. That's where your cynicism should be.

For the record, that's where mine is, and that's my concern

[James @ Mar 5th 2008 3:11PM]

Multi billion dollar organizations and the government can hardly make a dent in file sharing and a zillion other thorns in their side, and yet conspiracy nuts are always spinning tails of great new technologies being held back by evil corporate/government plans.

Most of these panaceas never appear for a few basic reasons. Either they were an outright scam in the first place, like the perpetual motion machines, an urban legend, such as the 100mpg carburetors, both of which defy well understood laws of physics, or there were hurdles in the development which were never overcome to the extent that the technology was marketable, fusion comes to mind.

Rest assured that if a technology was available which economically solved all of our energy needs, there would be no holding it back. News would spread like wildfire and whoever brought it to market would make billions almost overnight.

[nDee @ Mar 5th 2008 6:13AM]

Are we gonna print a solar panel on Green project tomorrow?

[Eric @ Mar 5th 2008 7:35AM]

Good joke, but I'll bet the "carts" really will cost more than the printer itself.

[Eric @ Mar 5th 2008 7:35AM]

Good joke, but I'll bet the "carts" really will cost more than the printer itself.

[Smoke_me_a_Kipper @ Mar 5th 2008 7:50AM]

I bet the ink runs when it rains.

Also if inkjet ink is $8000 per gallon, these are not very cost effective, unless that is inkjet ink really is not that much wholesale. ;)

[silverblackvoid @ Mar 5th 2008 8:38AM]

1. use the old hp inkjet day and night.
2. print tons and tons.
3. profit!

[Mjolnier @ Mar 5th 2008 9:36AM]

Dude, you spelt Massachusetts wrong in 2 places. It's "Massachusetts". Massachusetts rules.

[TVieira24 @ Mar 5th 2008 9:46AM]

You spelled "spelt" wrong.

This looks promising but I thought the tech was already available by Nano Solar or something of the sort.

[Chris McDowell @ Mar 5th 2008 10:30AM]

The Spirit of Massachusetts is the Spirit of America ... The Spirit of Massachusetts is the Spirit of America ...

It fit I though, but that episode kinda sucked.

[Chris McDowell @ Mar 5th 2008 10:30AM]

The Spirit of Massachusetts is the Spirit of America ... The Spirit of Massachusetts is the Spirit of America ...

It fit I though, but that episode kinda sucked.

[Satish @ Mar 5th 2008 10:31AM]

Lowell...Wooo Hooo

[OneLove @ Mar 5th 2008 10:20AM]

well sir, here is my resume and it will also charge your cellphone!

[Bill @ Mar 5th 2008 10:25AM]

No word on the efficiency - bet it's much less than the 15% of traditional solar cells.

40% efficient cells exist, but are so expensive they're only used in space or on Mars.

[Magallanes @ Mar 5th 2008 12:31PM]

Stupid product ever!.

There are three troubles with solar panels :
a ) cost.
b ) size x performance
c ) Need sun (obvious).

Currently this product will not resolve those problems but add a extra cost and (i bet) will not give a big performance.

[ug @ Mar 5th 2008 2:44PM]

How the hell do you know?

[Jon @ Mar 5th 2008 2:59PM]

Advanced Materials is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and if you actually read the paper it said that the efficiency of the devices was 3%.

[alex_guichard @ Mar 5th 2008 3:52PM]

The power conversion efficiency for this cell is 2.9%, 5x less than what is possible with poly-crystalline Si cells, and about 10x less than what it possible with single-crystalline Si solar cells.

While this technology does do away with more expensive parts of Si solar cell manufacturing, it is not clear that the energy cost (in $ per kW-hr) savings are there, because of the low efficiency and the cost of the organic materials in the cells. Also, lets not forget these organics are made from fossil fuels! I would love to know the carbon-neutrality timeline for these cells!

Every time a company or research group puts out a press release saying they have made a new organic-based solar cell, I laugh. Why? They never say ANYTHING new or ground-breaking. There are some very fundamental roadblocks to getting any of the organic solar cell technology off the ground. Record efficiencies of organic solar cells have been stuck in single digits for a LONG TIME now, and the path to improving those efficiencies is not clear. Also, no one has yet figured out how to keep these cells stable for long periods of time.

[tekdroid @ Mar 5th 2008 5:32PM]

Dear Konarka,
I think your technology shows promise and is pretty cool.

I am available to proof-read your press releases so that little errors like 'manufacturer' in the following don't make it out in public:

"The most popular printing tool for organic electronics, inkjet printing could become a smart tool to manufacturer solar cells with multiple colors and patterns for lower power requirement products, like indoor or sensor applications. "
----



Regards,
tekdroid

[Dull @ Mar 5th 2008 7:22PM]

So when I'm done printing skin cells I can print solar cells...

http://www.engadget.com/2004/08/19/printing-skin/

[devnate @ Mar 6th 2008 3:51AM]

Now they just need to figure out the OLED display printing. I could have a portable TV with no need for batteries.

Hell, combine all three and have a TV on your arm that provides its own power.