New solar cell efficiency record (barely) achieved at 40.8%
By Darren Murph 
posted August 15th 2008 8:10AM
posted August 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]
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.