SUNRGI, University of Tel Aviv boast of solar power advances

It looks like we've got a bit of intercontinental solar power action today, with Silicon Valley start-up SUNRGI and the University of Tel Aviv both recently boasting of some advances in the field, which they each unsurprisingly say could change things in a big way. For its part, SUNRGI claims that its "concentrated photovoltaic" system (pictured above) can produce as much electricity as much larger solar panels thanks to its use of lenses that magnify sunlight 2,000 times. That, they say, could allow the system to produce electricity for as little as 7 cents per kilowatt hour, or roughly the same price as coal -- and as soon as mid-2009, no less. Not to be outdone, some scientists at the University of Tel Aviv say they've managed to create some super-efficient photovoltaic cells of their own that cost "at least a hundred times less than conventional silicon based devices." The key to their system, it seems, is the use of some good old fashioned photosynthesis, which they were able to achieve not-so-old-fashionedly with the aid of some genetically engineered proteins and a little bit of nanotechnology. As with SUNRGI, they're also promising to get the system out the door as soon as possible, with them reportedly aiming to get a "cost effective" 10mm X 10mm device produced "within three years."

Read - USA Today, "Start-up: Affordable solar power possible in a year"
Read - EETimes, "Researchers claim photovoltaic cell advance"

[Via Next Big Future, thanks Jonathan]

[phanbouy @ May 1st 2008 3:53PM]

BAH! real men burn fossil fuels. i leave my lawnmower running in the shed all day long just to spite the Sierra Club. i also weigh 350 lbs. will someone be my friend?

[paul34 @ May 1st 2008 4:32PM]

Don't forget about your daily driver, a Ford Expedition with stickers of the names of your kids who are on the local soccer team.

[B.C. @ May 1st 2008 6:38PM]

Don't forget "Does that thing gotta HEMI?!" hosers that roar around everywhere in their full sized pickups.

[untitled @ May 1st 2008 7:08PM]

... with a vanity plate that reads "GLBLWMR"

[Matt @ May 1st 2008 3:55PM]

If I had a nickel for every time I read an article about someone creating a breakthrough solar panel in a lab that will be available "sometime in the near future" I would be a very rich man. Wake me up when they actually have something on the market. Otherwise, nothing to see here, move along.

[tekdroid @ May 1st 2008 4:00PM]

hear hear.
BUT THIS TIME THEY MEAN IT!
:p

[Casper42 @ May 1st 2008 6:08PM]

I wonder how much theirs is going to cost? Looks like alot of milling work and special lenses.

I was watching "Invention Nation" on Science channel many months ago and they met with a guy who made a Solar Concentrator out of the same reflective mylar that the inside of a bag of chips or other food stuffs come in.

http://www.aquaflector.com/ is the guy's site

Sure it takes up more room, but why do we need such specialized devices to concentrate solar power when this guy can do it on the cheap.

[Will @ May 1st 2008 3:59PM]

Well, boasting aside, I hope that both technologies are successful enough that in ten years the Engadget comments are filled with the polemic of fanboys (and Phanbouys) of each

[Jason @ May 1st 2008 4:02PM]

How do these compare to nanosolar's $2/watt thin-film panels that they started selling a few months ago?

[S @ May 1st 2008 5:38PM]

You mean that there is still no information about on their website or anywhere else? I sure hope they are being installed as planned, and plan a public release soon!

[IT-Accountant @ May 1st 2008 4:09PM]

I will be very pleasantly surprised when solar power becomes a viable alternative to fossil fuels (Read: when I can power my gaming rig with a solar array smaller than the state of Texas)

[robmora @ May 1st 2008 4:09PM]

How do they come up with the running cost for these kinds of things? I assume they're including the initial cost over some period of time right, but what exactly?

[hiroo @ May 3rd 2008 3:37AM]

Usually, you use about 20 years for panels, because they don't have any moving parts. If you're honest, you'd include maintenance costs --- some one coming around once a month or so to wipe these things, you know. And of course, there's the issue of where (you don't get much light in far north/southern areas). So:

Total kWh = sun intensity x no. of sunny days/yr x 8 hrs/day x efficiency of these units x 20 yrs

Cost = Initial cost (production) + set-up cost + maybe maintenance.

This is obviously the figure that they are using.

The catch, however, is that these things require a battery for night time use (although this depends on what you want to use it for). Batteries suitable for solar power use are called deep-charge batteries, much expensive than your car batteries, and they last only about 5 years. That usually makes solar power MUCH MUCH expensive than advertised, but they usually never include it in these catalog specs.

[polvadis @ May 1st 2008 4:11PM]

I agree with Matt, everyone and their mom is claiming solar power as low as 7-10 cents a Watt.

Build it, make it reliable, mass produce it, and prove it. On paper, all designs look nice.

[paul @ May 1st 2008 5:32PM]

I'm curious too... last I checked, the sun doesn't charge you money to accept its ray beams. Sunlight's free, where do these estimates of 7 cents per kw/hr come from???

[Unknown @ May 1st 2008 5:42PM]

the cost of making the solar panel over some time, maybe the useful life or something like that

[Ian @ May 1st 2008 4:11PM]

It all seems to indicate that cost effective solar generation of electricity is very very close. That's good news for the USA because around 75% of the country has abundant sunshine year round.

[IT-Accountant @ May 1st 2008 4:16PM]

BTW, am I the only person who wonders why no-one thought of using the old magnifying-glass-and-sunlight trick on solar panels?

Furthermore, wouldn't this have very little effect on the power of the panels? Since it is merely concentrating light, not "amplifying" it, then all this will allow you to do is use smaller amounts of solar cells widely spaced under lenses rather than covering the whole area with photovoltaic cells. I guess lenses are cheaper than solar cells, but still.....

Can anyone explain this to me? Honestly, there's got to be a reason that I'm just not seeing...

[Penguin Warlord @ May 1st 2008 4:44PM]

I'm not positive but what I think the lenses do is also focuse light coming from other more extreme angles so you have a larger amount of light concentrated in the same space.

[Cory @ May 1st 2008 4:52PM]

It has been thought of before, as well as using a bunch of mirrors to reflect onto a single small PV cell. The benifit is exactly what you said, it's cheaper because lenses and mirrors are cheap, and solar cells aren't.
The major hurdle that SUNRGI is claiming to have overcome is the problem of temperature. When you concentrate that much sunlight into that small an area it raises the temperature considerably. This makes the solar cells less efficient, as well as just the threat of melting things. SUNRGI has some fancy cooling system in place to disipate all that heat.

[brian @ May 1st 2008 4:57PM]

When you concentrate the light you can focus it on a smaller cell. This means smaller (thereby cheaper) cells are spread out under the lenses aligned at the focal points. The assumption here is that the cost of the square footage of lenses is cheaper than the full square footage of solar cells.

[LarryLarryLarry @ May 2nd 2008 2:26AM]

The heating problem is self-defeating. When they drop from 3,300 to 100 degrees (assumiing Farenheit which the article does not specify), they are dumping A TON of energy. You should run a Sterling engine with that kind of temperature difference.

That has to kill their efficiency. One of several basic science problems with this report.

[K C Hagemann @ May 1st 2008 4:16PM]

Combine technology, superefficiency costing hundres of times less combined with 2000x magnification of solar.

[Mark @ May 1st 2008 4:17PM]

Here they come, Here comes Exxon, with its huge bag of cash!

[phanbouy @ May 1st 2008 4:20PM]

the Valdez! now solar* powered!


Exxon pledges to use 5% solar power for its tankers by 2025.

[BigD145 @ May 1st 2008 5:41PM]

Oh, you mean the same year they MIGHT decide to clean up the Valdez spill?

[NakedOldGuy @ May 2nd 2008 6:01AM]

Have you ever been to Alaska? All the natives talk about is how they got rich when the Valdez spill caused Exxon to pay them buttloads if they had a boat to help clean up.

On topic: I wonder if the oil companies really do buy up competing technologies or if that is just a myth. Anyone have some evidence? I'm honestly curious.

[Xtort @ May 1st 2008 4:24PM]

I think as long as it is actually cost effective companies should pick it up and run with it. This "could be" great for assisting conventional and nuclear power plants with drains from A/C units in the middle of the summer. We of course could not rely on it as a sole means of power production for obvious reasons.

[Bakari @ May 1st 2008 4:33PM]

Scientific American has a plan for a $400 billion energy infrastructure overhaul for the entire US. It involves switching over entirely to solar power using existing panel technology.

$400 billion vs $3 trillion + needless deaths of brown people around the world?

I'll take the $400 billion plan, thank you very much.

[phanbouy @ May 1st 2008 4:50PM]

to taunt, Benhur? really? you're trolling in the wrong place.

"nah nah! my carbon footprint is smaller than yours!!"

taunt indeed.

[phanbouy @ May 1st 2008 4:55PM]

waiiiiiit a minute that was a monty python reference wasnt it?

[Craig @ May 1st 2008 4:40PM]

"can produce as much electricity as much larger solar panels thanks to its use of lenses that magnify sunlight 2,000 times."

Sure but how effective is it against ants?

[sinjinn @ May 1st 2008 4:55PM]

lolz

[bevo4138 @ May 1st 2008 6:36PM]

Nice...

And can it play Crysis?

[p3t3b2 @ May 1st 2008 4:40PM]

American(s) foreign aid dollars at work, gotta love it!

[Loonie @ May 1st 2008 6:01PM]

Great news!

Now... WHEN CAN WE HAVE IT!?

Seriously, when is someone on the solar power front going to finish developing stuff and start damn well producing it? None of all this wondrous energy tech is going to change the world if it never, ever leaves the damn labs. So, how about it?

[Rick @ May 1st 2008 7:05PM]

Nice, I just hate getting excited and then reading 'within 3 years'.

[aarons12 @ May 1st 2008 9:13PM]

one thing's for sure. israel has to be pretty high on the list of countries who would be happy to see the world less dependent on oil.

[John @ May 1st 2008 10:00PM]

They might have a law suit on their hands.
An Australian company has designed & patented this technology and is now in production building solar farms:

http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/

[TimeZone4 @ May 2nd 2008 2:02AM]

It's funny, Joe Duval on the show Medium, in just the last few episodes has come up with an invention for magnifying sunlight to solar panels, much like this. He has even gotten a partner and started a business based on it. They obviously stole this idea from him:) And he just did a patent check and no one else had one or it. These guys are going to be disappointed when they find out.

[Core @ May 2nd 2008 12:16PM]

I like the one that doesn't use the and I quote "good old fashioned photosynthesis, which they were able to achieve not-so-old-fashionedly with the aid of some genetically engineered proteins and a little bit of nanotechnology." because it has less moving parts. Haha..

[Kevin @ May 2nd 2008 8:08PM]

Various forms of PV concentration have been around for decades. The basic concept: use a large, cheap lens to focus light onto a small, expensive solar cell thereby reducing the amount of solar cells for a given system size. The primary issues you have to deal with are 1) how accurate your tracking mechanism is (you have to point your lenses directly at the sun all day for this to work); 2) how tolerant your system is to inaccuracy; 3) how you deal with heat, and 4) how your various system components hold up in extreme desert temperatures and high winds.

I'm in the industry, and I never believe the projections of people who are still in prototyping. Most times it's not their fault; they just have never actually built a high-volume product.