[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130626153926.htm[/url]
[IMG]http://images.sciencedaily.com/2013/06/130626153926.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE][B]Most efforts at improving solar cells have focused on increasing the efficiency of their energy conversion, or on lowering the cost of manufacturing. But now MIT researchers are opening another avenue for improvement, aiming to produce the thinnest and most lightweight solar panels possible.[/B]
Such panels, which have the potential to surpass any substance other than reactor-grade uranium in terms of energy produced per pound of material, could be made from stacked sheets of one-molecule-thick materials such as graphene or molybdenum disulfide.
Jeffrey Grossman, the Carl Richard Soderberg Associate Professor of Power Engineering at MIT, says the new approach "pushes towards the ultimate power conversion possible from a material" for solar power. Grossman is the senior author of a new paper describing this approach, published in the journal Nano Letters.
[I]Although scientists have devoted considerable attention in recent years to the potential of two-dimensional materials such as graphene, Grossman says, there has been little study of their potential for solar applications. It turns out, he says, "they're not only OK, but it's amazing how well they do."[/I]
Using two layers of such atom-thick materials, Grossman says, his team has predicted solar cells with 1 to 2 percent efficiency in converting sunlight to electricity, That's low compared to the 15 to 20 percent efficiency of standard silicon solar cells, he says, but it's achieved using material that is thousands of times thinner and lighter than tissue paper. The two-layer solar cell is only 1 nanometer thick, while typical silicon solar cells can be hundreds of thousands of times that. The stacking of several of these two-dimensional layers could boost the efficiency significantly.
[I]"Stacking a few layers could allow for higher efficiency, one that competes with other well-established solar cell technologies,"[/I] says Marco Bernardi, a postdoc in MIT's Department of Materials Science who was the lead author of the paper. Maurizia Palummo, a senior researcher at the University of Rome visiting MIT through the MISTI Italy program, was also a co-author.
For applications where weight is a crucial factor -- such as in spacecraft, aviation or for use in remote areas of the developing world where transportation costs are significant -- such lightweight cells could already have great potential, Bernardi says.
[I]Pound for pound, he says, the new solar cells produce up to 1,000 times more power than conventional photovoltaics. At about one nanometer (billionth of a meter) in thickness, "It's 20 to 50 times thinner than the thinnest solar cell that can be made today," Grossman adds. "You couldn't make a solar cell any thinner."[/I]
[I]This slenderness is not only advantageous in shipping, but also in ease of mounting solar panels. About half the cost of today's panels is in support structures, installation, wiring and control systems, expenses that could be reduced through the use of lighter structures.[/I]
In addition, the material itself is much less expensive than the highly purified silicon used for standard solar cells -- and because the sheets are so thin, they require only minuscule amounts of the raw materials.
John Hart, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering, chemical engineering and art and design at the University of Michigan, says, "This is an exciting new approach to designing solar cells, and moreover an impressive example of how complementary nanostructured materials can be engineered to create new energy devices." Hart, who will be joining the MIT faculty this summer but had no involvement in this research, adds that, "I expect the mechanical flexibility and robustness of these thin layers would also be attractive."
The MIT team's work so far to demonstrate the potential of atom-thick materials for solar generation is "just the start," Grossman says. For one thing, molybdenum disulfide and molybdenum diselenide, the materials used in this work, are just two of many 2-D materials whose potential could be studied, to say nothing of different combinations of materials sandwiched together. "There's a whole zoo of these materials that can be explored," Grossman says. "My hope is that this work sets the stage for people to think about these materials in a new way."
While no large-scale methods of producing molybdenum disulfide and molybdenum diselenide exist at this point, this is an active area of research. Manufacturability is "an essential question," Grossman says, "but I think it's a solvable problem."
An additional advantage of such materials is their long-term stability, even in open air; other solar-cell materials must be protected under heavy and expensive layers of glass. "It's essentially stable in air, under ultraviolet light, and in moisture," Grossman says. "It's very robust."[/QUOTE]
[quote]Such panels, which have the potential to surpass any substance other than reactor-grade uranium in terms of energy produced per pound of material[/quote]
fuckk
[QUOTE=Hellduck;41211075]fuckk[/QUOTE]
Well, there's still the space issue. If they're thinner, they'll be lighter as well, so more panels but I imagine that a pound isn't a lot for Solar panels.
[QUOTE=Hellduck;41211075]fuckk[/QUOTE]
Nuclear power still best power, sun power is for scrubs.
I was waiting for Graphene to come into the picture when I read the article, I was not disappointed :v:
[QUOTE=Riller;41211363]Nuclear power still best power, sun power is for scrubs.[/QUOTE]
Sun power is nuclear power.
[QUOTE=Riller;41211363]Nuclear power still best power, sun power is for scrubs.[/QUOTE]
Well we can't control the sun, but we can [I]"somewhat"[/I] control nuclear power.
Blackouts and brownouts ain't my cup 'o tea.
Aren't solar panels still ridiculously damaging to the environment to make?
[QUOTE=Netsc;41211912]Aren't solar panels still ridiculously damaging to the environment to make?[/QUOTE]
The process for the current affordable panels on the market are, Yes.
[QUOTE=OvB;41211445]Sun power is nuclear power.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, [I]faggy, hippie nuclear power[/I]. You can't even make proper bombs from it.
I was wondering. We all want to switch to green energy that reduces waste, or produces no waste at all, and no carbon emmisions.
These solar panels take energy from the sun's rays. Does this mean that the heat of the rays captured by the panel is converted to energy then? Wouldn't that mean solar panels do a double-duty in lowering the temperature of the Earth?
Or am I just dumb and not understanding.
[QUOTE=OvB;41211445]Sun power is nuclear power.[/QUOTE]
Technically, it's fusion power. :eng101:
[QUOTE=SweetSwifter;41212749]I was wondering. We all want to switch to green energy that reduces waste, or produces no waste at all, and no carbon emmisions.
These solar panels take energy from the sun's rays. Does this mean that the heat of the rays captured by the panel is converted to energy then? Wouldn't that mean solar panels do a double-duty in lowering the temperature of the Earth?
Or am I just dumb and not understanding.[/QUOTE]
The heat that the panels are absorbing and converting to energy is still present on the surface of the panel itself, so I'd say no. The panel heats up too.
[QUOTE=pentium;41212993]Technically, it's fusion power. :eng101:[/QUOTE]
which is a nuclear reaction, yes
[quote]
Such panels, which have the potential to surpass any substance other than reactor-grade uranium in terms of energy produced per pound of material
[/quote]
Not fair.
When you use a solar panel you do not expend the solar panel, as such you could theoretically generate infinite energy out of it.
When you use nuclear fuel you expend the nuclear fuel.
[QUOTE=Riller;41211363]Nuclear power still best power, sun power is for scrubs.[/QUOTE]
When solar power goes wrong, something breaks, maybe lose a few dollars, but no one gets killed. When nuclear power plants go wrong, they wipe out half a countryside. Even if the newer nuclear plant designs are safer than dancing in flowers, they take billions to set up, so most countries are just using the ones they built back in the 80's.
[QUOTE=Schmaaa;41213490]When solar power goes wrong, something breaks, maybe lose a few dollars, but no one gets killed. When nuclear power plants go wrong, they wipe out half a countryside. Even if the newer nuclear plant designs are safer than dancing in flowers, they take billions to set up, so most countries are just using the ones they built back in the 80's.[/QUOTE]
Uh, yes? Another reason that nuclear power is [I]fuckin' rad![/I]
[QUOTE=Schmaaa;41213490]When solar power goes wrong, something breaks, maybe lose a few dollars, but no one gets killed. When nuclear power plants go wrong, they wipe out half a countryside. Even if the newer nuclear plant designs are safer than dancing in flowers, they take billions to set up, so most countries are just using the ones they built back in the 80's.[/QUOTE]
Ergo we should switch to Thorium/LFTR reactor until Fusion is commercialized
[QUOTE=Riller;41212685]Yeah, [I]faggy, hippie nuclear power[/I]. You can't even make proper bombs from it.[/QUOTE]
You can make death rays with enough of it
Much cooler
[QUOTE=Zeke129;41221093]You can make death rays with enough of it
Much cooler[/QUOTE]
pls i watched mythbusters try and not even they could do it
[QUOTE=pentium;41212993]Technically, it's fusion power. :eng101:[/QUOTE]
I believe this would be a more suitable emoticon: [IMG]http://www.giraffeboards.com/images/smilies/addons/sciencefail.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Schmaaa;41213490]When solar power goes wrong, something breaks, maybe lose a few dollars, but no one gets killed. When nuclear power plants go wrong, they wipe out half a countryside. Even if the newer nuclear plant designs are safer than dancing in flowers, they take billions to set up, so most countries are just using the ones they built back in the 80's.[/QUOTE]
Dancing in flowers is probably more dangerous than modern reactors.
"The material is cheaper and thinner, so we can use more of it"
Sounds like people who eat more because it's low fat.
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;41221669]Dancing in flowers is probably more dangerous than modern reactors.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you might develop an allergy or step on a bee.
[QUOTE=Riller;41222559]Yeah, you might develop an allergy or step on a bee.[/QUOTE]
Oh no the poor bee! D:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
