New solar cell efficiency record (barely) achieved at 40.8%
By Darren Murph 
posted Aug 15th 2008 8:10AM
posted Aug 15th 2008 8:10AM
Just under two years ago, researchers at Boeing-Spectrolab managed to achieve 40.7% solar cell efficiency. Two years later, scientists at the US Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory have demonstrated their nerve by trumpeting an all new world record... one that's 0.1% points better than the last. Yes, your new record now sits at 40.8% -- tremendous progress, wouldn't you say? Looking outside of the numbers, you'll find that these cells differ "significantly" from the prior record holders, which enable them to be thinner, lighter, cheaper and altogether swanker. That's it for now folks -- come back in a couple years, we hear 40.9% is just around the bend.[Via CNET]
way to shoot for barley above the record....next up 40.9% in 3 years
mmmm, barley.
mmmm, Wheat.
I'm not much for barley.
Let's get some hops and some yeast up in this bitch and have a real party.
You get the hops, and grain and ill bring the keg, screw this joint, lets party
I thought MIT made several break-throughs in solar cell technology recently. Maybe these break-throughs did not improve actual efficiency and only improved implementation, but perhaps if they performed an official test, they could obtain a new record.
It depends though, although the solar efficiency (light to energy) is marginally higher, it's possible that the overall cost of manufacture, installation and running is significantly lower, it may be a that the MIT changes improved the cost of those other areas as well as light efficiency. Just a thought, though obviously the key is the longevity which is proved to have not improved.
It's also possible that aside from the MIT advances, they may not have made it to the production of these panels because they weren't production ready in time or weren't incorporated into the manufacturing process of these panels
really efficiency is not that important when you are talking about solar. sunlight is free and (almost) infinite, so unless you have a strict surface area restriction, weight, durability and W/$ are much more relevant numbers.
@J
"really efficiency is not that important when you are talking about solar. sunlight is free and (almost) infinite, so unless you have a strict surface area restriction, weight, durability and W/$ are much more relevant numbers."
I'd argue that efficiency is the most important. Increased efficiency could potentially directly impact everything else you mentioned. Increased efficiency would also be highly important in areas that get fewer hours of direct sunshine.
Considering that this was a government agency that achieved this, consider me completely amazed. They don't exactly have a track record of being extremely good at anything that doesn't involve destruction.
Yes, our government is really only good at using it's army.
Which makes it perplexing that Senator Obama wants to give it more responsibility.
As opposed to McCain and friends who basically want to give them America's checkbook and basically drop them off at the mall?
liberal sheep. plenty of the technology we use in todays society was developed by the military. the Invisible Shield on my phone was developed by the military to protect the leading edge of helicopter blades.
yes the military does more than it's fair share of destruction, but don't you think that's expected considering they're a freaking ARMY?! that's why we give them weapons. it's in their job description. but they also do their fair shair of building. it's not a one way street like the liberal media and the sheep that follow them would have you believe.
so stfu and gtfo
"so stfu and gtfo"? What a retort.
I'm not taking sides, but saying stupid things like that completely invalidates your point.
The people you're supporting with that 'gtfo' and such are the same people that decided to pull the solar panels off the White House saying they didn't work.
Hurrrrr...
man vs. nature. we still haven't won.
Never will.
we cant win against nature
We've learnt a lot from nature and applied it for our own purposes - fire for example.
One day we might figure out how to get energy out of photosynthesising plants.
Photosynthesis efficiency: 6%
Good luck with that.
What is the error-margin?
Nuclear FTW
seriously. why don't we go nuclear?
Because of TMI. People got their panties up in a knot and all real research and work came to a grinding halt. Unlike France.
i think the scientific community should get together a secretly change the term 'nuclear energy' to 'rainbow energy' and 'nanotechnology' to 'care bear technology' so that the activists will let us do our job. once we get things to where they need to be we can let them in on the secret and be like "see, its not immoral or dangerous"
i don't know that research has stopped entirely. i remember seeing plans for plants that would recycle uranium and create hydrogen as a by-product.
isn't this EXACTLY what we want? lots of clean energy (solar creates SO much more energy in a FAR smaller space) and hydrogen for fuel cells? stupid environmental hippies are shooting themselves in the foot by stopping nuclear.
You have to store your waste on site, above ground, for 10-15 years. You can't recycle the waste on a commercial scale. There isn't enough fuel to power the entire US for longer than 5 years. Most nuclear plants get about 30-45 percent efficiency.
Our sun will burn for several billion more years. Solar is looking better and better.
It used to be NIMBY (Not In My BackYard)
But no, they've moved beyond that. Now we're at BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything)
Um, right.
But back in 2000, maximum solar panel efficiency was running at about 34%. So, that's a 20% increase over the past eight years. Addmitedly, it's not Moore Law, but this is real progress.
Source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/PVeff%28rev110707%29d.png
34 + 20 = 54
The they have now reached 40.8% which is not even close to a 20% gain. Its a 6.8% gain.
34 % * x = 40.8 %
40.8/34= 1.2 or a 20% gain
c'mon dude, you're better than that
@ Ryan
(40.8-34)/34 = .2 , also known as "20%"
You use the 34 as your base, since that's what's being improved upon.
Thus, solar cells are 20% more efficient than they were, but only 6.8% more efficient overall.
Remember, an improvement from 1 to 2 is an improvement of 100%, even though it's only an improvement of 1
A 20% increase of 34% is 0.2 x 34% = 6%
If you add that to 34%, you get 40%.
The efficiency has increased BY 20% of the earlier value. But it has not increased 20% on an absolute scale.
^v^ math
Replacing the currently available 15% solar panels with these at the same cost (just under $5/watt) would be the breakthrough we need.
Currently, 40% efficient solar cells are too expensive for anything but space applications.
Bingo. Give me 20% efficiency and production costs at 20% of what they are today and we have a winner.
If they make 'em cheap enough, we could mount one of these puppies on an EV!
...and solar cars!
umsolar.com
Heh, I'm working on the UMich solar car next year actually.
already been done, sorta. there is already a kind of solar panel that can be made in rolls on a metal backing. it's relatively inefficient, but apparently so cheap it beats coal in watts per dollar.
found the link: http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/18/nanosolar-begins-shipping-world-s-lowest-cost-solar-panel/
solar at less than 1$ / watt (coal price)
How exactly does the pricing of these things work? I assume it's by square foot. Any idea what the currently on market panels cost and their efficiencies vs this? I was thinking about the whole solar roof thing, but 10 - 15 years to break even seems like a waste of money at this point. I'm really looking forward to these advances in solar technology to remove some of the burden of high tech living.
Come on Engadget you left out one critical part to the story, cost. "The resulting device is extremely thin and light and represents a new class of solar cells with advantages in performance, design, operation and cost." However I'm sure this little addition would have taken some steam out of your otherwise mediocre .1% better rant.
dude, i wish i could vote you up more than once.
Right on kal326, why can't improvments in design, operation & cost be major advancements
thats just depressing
It is obvious they are failing at the efficiency aspect so maybe the should attack solar power from a different angle and make panels more affordable.
A decrease in efficiency will be rappidly made up for by an incerase in their abundance and thus cause more power generation anyways.
If only more people realised the potential of that though.
Most people are still stuck in the 60s when reactors were wasteful and inefficient. Sadly this also leaves reactors stuck there to since noone thinks to upgrade them.
Some of the comments are bang on. It is a function of both the efficiency *and* the cost.
For the best investment, the indicator should always be "Installed Cost/kwh."
being in the solar industry, the one issue I have with all these efficiency improvement announcements is the lack of a clear "this is not commercialized yet" line. Clients are *always* asking "but I was reading the other day that solar panels are now like 50% efficient?!?" Then they get turned off. But I think it is sort of like the computer industry. I mean, when I was out shopping for my IBM XT (286), I didn't think "hey, I should hold off for a 486" cause then I would have just waited for the 486 but then I'd be wondering if I should wait again for the Pentium chip. With that arguement, you never get a computer.
Well, thinking like that works for me- I never buy ANYTHING. Loadsa money. Own nothing.
.......Dear LORD I'm so bored!
Welcome to reality, folks. This is why your dream world of renewable energy will not exist in any of our lifetimes. Fossil fuels and nuclear are here to stay for a long, long time.
Wrong.
Also, your dream world of cheap fossil fuels will soon be extinct in our lifetimes.
Fossil fuels will be here in one form or another for a lot longer than you think. Do you think this solar tech is new? It's been around for decades and it won't get any better tomorrow or next week. You low rank me because I speak the truth and you can't handle the truth.
no its because you apparently have decided its better to just give up and accept things the way they are instead of trying for a better future. i am 19 so i certainly hope they can pull off alternative fuel sources in the next 60 years before i die b/c there wont be fossil fuels by then. also, look how much technology is advanced in the past decade as opposed to the previous 50 years. we are developing at a faster rate then ever. also, the drive is finally there from the citizens of the world to pursue renew sources now that the cost of fuel and living has sky-rocketed. in a way (and excuse for saying this) but the oil crisis is the best thing to happen to energy in years.
Fossil fuels yes, _cheap_ fossil fuels, no. That was his point.
Who said anything about giving up? Who said anything about not pursuing alternative fuels?I said that we will not have a dream world of RENEWABLE energy in our lifetimes. Certainly there will be fuel alternatives but they will come into play alongside the fuels we use now and certainly there will be renewable energy as well but we won't be free of non renewable energy such as oil, coal and/or nuclear in some for many many decades.
I actually think there are very few ways to gain electricity that go above 50% efficiency, this isn't that bad at all, cost reduction and longevity are more important issues imo.
Anybody have a graph or something that shows the efficiency rates of all the different power sources?
That's still good. If I am not wrong, the ones currently in commercial use have an efficiency of ~8%.
40% is not that bad, as modern coal power plant would be as efficient.
What they are focusing on, is finding new materials, to make the manufacturing cheaper, and also possible, as some of the needed materials are not so abundant as one would like.
First of all, the record is 42.8%:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=49483
And the most cost effective for large scale is still CSP (heating water to drive turbine generators), not photovoltaic panels, even though the efficiency is under 20%.
Wow!!! So in another 90 or so years we will have 100% efficient Solar Panels!!! XD
But anyhow, this is still much more efficient than internal combustion engines, right?
To be a huge nerd, you can't have 100% efficiency, as that would break a few laws of Thermodynamics.
I would settle for 70%. I bet we could have solar powered cars and homes for everyone if we could hit 70% but I don't expect that for a really long time.
So what about efficiency? It only gets 40.8% of the suns energy that hits the panels? Who cares about that number? It produces electricity from an object that will never run out of fuel in human existence. Make it cheap and easy to install and that is ALL that matters. This number must be pushed by the coal industry or something.
A solar panel cannot currently output more energy in its lifetime than was required to produce it. It's counterproductive to create them.
Yep. All you need is a football field full of these and you can power your house.
Am I the only one that thinks 0.1% more of the sun's energy is probably a fairly large increase? I mean, the sun is really, really hot, right? So, like, maybe a 0.1% increase equates to, like, 2.21 jiga-watts.
no. we're not capturing the sun's entire output.
You mean 1.21?
Well I don't about your numbers, but yeah i agree, even a .1% increase in the long term is a great big number
It's a large increase for a Dyson sphere. :)
I love the sarcasm on this one :)
jigawatt? jigawho?
The fact that we are even getting close to 50% is a great thing, I too wonder about retail cost of these and how soon they can get a decent plant up and running.
This increase from just a couple of years ago means that the same area of the roof will cut the return rate by a few years as well as just possibly getting the "average US home" off the grid for good.
Nuclear for GENERAL use is a hundred times better/safer than it was when the last plant was built here, especially when you consider that the ultimate way of doing it would be to set up small re-processing plants near a few and then a mega size one out in nevada where all the stuff that has been transferred to is sitting there doing nothing.
That is the only real problem I have with Obama and his energy plan, his knee jerk reaction to THAT "N" word
More on this at Greentech Media:
http://preview.greentechmedia.com/articles/federal-lab-breaks-efficiency-record-with--solar-cell--1275.html#comment-top
They said cheaper people, thats the key word. Solar power is still very expensive. To get it to be mass marketable it needs to be
cheaper then oil/coal and more efficient then the combustion engine which is at 26%. So 40% is huge and if this model is even 10% cheaper then current solar tech its a winner.
Why don't we just build a string of nuclear power plants on the US-Mexico border?
Hate to put the damper on engadgets mini rant but I believe this article is incorrect. 40.08% is not the record, its 42.8 % set by researchers at the University of Delaware and their panels are still much thinner than spectrolabs(previous record holder) 40.7 % panels. Here is a link to an article about it http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/08/428_efficiency.php
Actually, the progress is not in 40.9% efficiency. The real progress IS just around the corner. In efficiency somewhere below 20% but at cost of some 10% of the competition.
What would you rather have, 1kW worth of "40.8%" panels (5 pcs, $1k/panel) for $5,000 total or 2kW worth of "20%" panels (20 pcs, $100/panel) for $2000 total?
This is a very big deal. Having efficent energy sources is just one part of it. The other part is having efficent TV's, computers, washers, dryers, refrigerators etc. that go above & beyond energy star ratings. Don't forget insulation
I just care about cost per watt per square feet.
Show us the cost.
If you increase the efficiency by a few percent by a few hundreds percent increment on cost, it is really meaningless.