New solar cell efficiency record (barely) achieved at 40.8%

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]

[From My Cube @ Aug 15th 2008 8:15AM]

way to shoot for barley above the record....next up 40.9% in 3 years

[raheem @ Aug 15th 2008 8:20AM]

mmmm, barley.

[Nelson @ Aug 15th 2008 9:17AM]

mmmm, Wheat.

I'm not much for barley.

[JDGATX @ Aug 15th 2008 11:22AM]

Let's get some hops and some yeast up in this bitch and have a real party.

[ShadowKain @ Aug 15th 2008 12:43PM]

You get the hops, and grain and ill bring the keg, screw this joint, lets party

[zomg0t @ Aug 15th 2008 8:18AM]

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.

[fraz @ Aug 15th 2008 8:37AM]

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

[J @ Aug 15th 2008 12:20PM]

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.

[Vidikron (FU) @ Aug 15th 2008 4:40PM]

@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.

[Andir3.0 @ Aug 15th 2008 8:23AM]

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.

[Miles @ Aug 15th 2008 11:19AM]

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.

[Xenoterranos @ Aug 15th 2008 11:36AM]

As opposed to McCain and friends who basically want to give them America's checkbook and basically drop them off at the mall?

[maveric101 @ Aug 15th 2008 11:50AM]

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

[o29 @ Aug 15th 2008 2:04PM]

"so stfu and gtfo"? What a retort.

I'm not taking sides, but saying stupid things like that completely invalidates your point.

[Ignatius @ Aug 15th 2008 5:17PM]

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...

[icepop4who @ Aug 15th 2008 8:25AM]

man vs. nature. we still haven't won.

[Raheem @ Aug 15th 2008 8:26AM]

Never will.

[LiNTEK @ Aug 15th 2008 8:47AM]

we cant win against nature

[Taylor @ Aug 15th 2008 9:07AM]

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.

[ppk @ Aug 16th 2008 3:09PM]

Photosynthesis efficiency: 6%

Good luck with that.

[Morningstar @ Aug 15th 2008 8:26AM]

What is the error-margin?

[nastro @ Aug 15th 2008 8:34AM]

Nuclear FTW

[maveric101 @ Aug 15th 2008 11:26AM]

seriously. why don't we go nuclear?

[zero21xxx @ Aug 15th 2008 11:32AM]

Because of TMI. People got their panties up in a knot and all real research and work came to a grinding halt. Unlike France.

[thatrotierkid @ Aug 15th 2008 11:38AM]

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"

[maveric101 @ Aug 15th 2008 11:40AM]

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.

[BigD145 @ Aug 15th 2008 12:04PM]

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.

[Adam @ Aug 15th 2008 3:06PM]

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)

[quag @ Aug 15th 2008 8:35AM]

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

[Ryan @ Aug 15th 2008 1:00PM]

34 + 20 = 54

The they have now reached 40.8% which is not even close to a 20% gain. Its a 6.8% gain.

[Alex @ Aug 15th 2008 1:10PM]

34 % * x = 40.8 %

40.8/34= 1.2 or a 20% gain

c'mon dude, you're better than that

[Lyle @ Aug 15th 2008 1:39PM]

@ 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

[Walt @ Aug 15th 2008 1:36PM]

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

[Bill @ Aug 15th 2008 8:35AM]

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.

[Joe Maki @ Aug 15th 2008 8:58AM]

Bingo. Give me 20% efficiency and production costs at 20% of what they are today and we have a winner.

[Phillip @ Aug 15th 2008 9:02AM]

If they make 'em cheap enough, we could mount one of these puppies on an EV!

[a ham sandwich @ Aug 15th 2008 9:31AM]

...and solar cars!

umsolar.com

[Stu L Tissimus @ Aug 15th 2008 10:21AM]

Heh, I'm working on the UMich solar car next year actually.

[maveric101 @ Aug 15th 2008 11:31AM]

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.

[maveric101 @ Aug 15th 2008 11:35AM]

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)

[Jonathan Sundy @ Aug 15th 2008 12:06PM]

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.

[kal326 @ Aug 15th 2008 9:02AM]

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.

[TheJalAbides @ Aug 15th 2008 9:13AM]

dude, i wish i could vote you up more than once.

[img eL @ Aug 15th 2008 10:19PM]

Right on kal326, why can't improvments in design, operation & cost be major advancements

[Teron @ Aug 15th 2008 9:03AM]

thats just depressing

[BirdofPrey @ Aug 15th 2008 9:05AM]

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.

[BirdofPrey @ Aug 15th 2008 9:07AM]

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.

[Jonathan @ Aug 15th 2008 9:19AM]

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.

[DamienS Sturdy @ Aug 17th 2008 1:28PM]

Well, thinking like that works for me- I never buy ANYTHING. Loadsa money. Own nothing.


.......Dear LORD I'm so bored!

[happy_penguin @ Aug 15th 2008 9:24AM]

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.