Record 7% efficiency for Colloidal quantum dot solar cells achieved - Polidicks

[quote]The researchers, led by U of T Engineering Professor Ted Sargent, created a solar cell out of inexpensive materials that was certified at a world-record 7.0% efficiency. "Previously, quantum dot solar cells have been limited by the large internal surface areas of the nanoparticles in the film, which made extracting electricity difficult," said Dr. Susanna Thon, a lead co-author of the paper. "Our breakthrough was to use a combination of organic and inorganic chemistry to completely cover all of the exposed surfaces."[/quote] [quote]Quantum dots are semiconductors only a few nanometres in size and can be used to harvest electricity from the entire solar spectrum -- including both visible and invisible wavelengths. Unlike current slow and expensive semiconductor growth techniques, CQD films can be created quickly and at low cost, similar to paint or ink. This research paves the way for solar cells that can be fabricated on flexible substrates in the same way newspapers are rapidly printed in mass quantities. The U of T cell represents a 37% increase in efficiency over the previous certified record. In order to improve efficiency, the researchers needed a way to both reduce the number of "traps" for electrons associated with poor surface quality while simultaneously ensuring their films were very dense to absorb as much light as possible. The solution was a so-called "hybrid passivation" scheme. "By introducing small chlorine atoms immediately after synthesizing the dots, we're able to patch the previously unreachable nooks and crannies that lead to electron traps," explained doctoral student and lead co-author Alex Ip. "We follow that by using short organic linkers to bind quantum dots in the film closer together."[/quote] [url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120729142319.htm[/url] I'm not sure why this hasn't been posted yet, this is excellent news.

I see the inexpensiveness as more beneficial than the efficiency here.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37020508]I see the inexpensiveness as more beneficial than the efficiency here.[/QUOTE] this is a proof of concept that someone did in a lab, not anything near the market yet

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37020608]this is a proof on concept that someone did in a lab, not anything near the market yet[/QUOTE] Yeah. I've been assisting some research on solid hydrogen storage for the last few months. We've managed to get some crazy high yields, but in controlled conditions not nearly equivalent to actual usage scenarios. It's still an awesome milestone though, for the solar panels.

That's good news. The low efficiency of solar panels is very offsetting to their "sell". Solar power can be very powerful, it's good that they are making progress.

Well at least it's more efficient than the 1% efficiency you get from atomic bombs.

[QUOTE=Gekkosan;37022471]Well at least it's more efficient than the 1% efficiency you get from atomic bombs.[/QUOTE] Why the [b]fuck[/b] would you want a 100% efficient atomic weapon? You realize that could literally put a hole in the crust and go into the mantle by a few miles right?

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;37022696]Why the [b]fuck[/b] would you want a 100% efficient atomic weapon? You realize that could literally put a hole in the crust and go into the mantle by a few miles right?[/QUOTE] Well, at least it will be an impressive explosion.

[QUOTE=ReligiousNutjob;37022744]Well, at least it will be an impressive explosion.[/QUOTE] Yes it would.

[QUOTE=Gekkosan;37022471]Well at least it's more efficient than the 1% efficiency you get from atomic bombs.[/QUOTE]Somehow I doubt nukes are 1% efficient, probably judging it by the wrong criteria. Most inefficiency in energy generation is heat; whereas in a nuclear [I]weapon[/I] heat is one of many things that enhances it's destructive effect.

This is the record for this so called quantum dot cells right? [thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/PVeff(rev120717).jpg[/thumb] [editline]31st July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE]ScienceDaily (July 29, 2012) — Researchers from the University of Toronto (U of T) and King Abdullah University of Science & Technology (KAUST) have made a breakthrough in the development of colloidal quantum dot (CQD) films, l[B]eading to the most efficient CQD solar cell ever.[/B] Their work is featured in a letter published in Nature Nanotechnology.[/QUOTE] Yup, renaming the thread.

[QUOTE=Gekkosan;37022471]Well at least it's more efficient than the 1% efficiency you get from atomic bombs.[/QUOTE] uh im p sure nuclear bombs are bloody efficient

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37022871]uh im p sure nuclear bombs are bloody efficient[/QUOTE]If I remember correctly, gun type weapons only have twelve to eighteen percent of available fissile material achieve fission; with implosion-type being higher. Of course, this depends on the fissionable material used, type of high explosives used to initiate the weapon, and whether or not there is a fusion-booster (which makes it not an atomic bomb, but w/e).

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37022871]uh im p sure nuclear bombs are bloody efficient[/QUOTE] that depends if you're talking about Energy conversion or devastation.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37022871]uh im p sure nuclear bombs are bloody efficient[/QUOTE] Only 1% of the mass of the uranium is converted to energy. Not too efficient really.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;37022834] Yup, renaming the thread.[/QUOTE] thanks, my original title was a little misleading.

I always wondered why the glass coverings on Solar Cells can't be one-way-see-through glass, so the light that passes through gets reflected back into the cells numerous times

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37022871]uh im p sure nuclear bombs are bloody efficient[/QUOTE] it's nice when you can just say "i'm p. sure" and that somehow makes you knowledgeable.

[QUOTE=Falcqn;37024144]Only 1% of the mass of the uranium is converted to energy. Not too efficient really.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;37023285]If I remember correctly, gun type weapons only have twelve to eighteen percent of available fissile material achieve fission; with implosion-type being higher. Of course, this depends on the fissionable material used, type of high explosives used to initiate the weapon, and whether or not there is a fusion-booster (which makes it not an atomic bomb, but w/e).[/QUOTE] wait dicks I'm thinking about the nuclear fusion in the sun, my bad