New Coating To Help Solar Panels Absorb Near All Light

[stuntcat]

New Anti-Reflective Coating To Help Solar Panels Absorb Near All Light From Near All Angles
( http://devicedaily.com/misc/new-anti-reflective-coating-to-help-solar-panels-absorb-near-all-light-from-near-all-angles.html )

Although many scientists regarded this as almost impossible, a team of researchers from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have developed a new anti-reflective coating which will allow solar panels to absorb light from the entire solar spectrum, and to capture almost all the amount of sunlight from almost any angle. This is a major breakthrough which could lead to high-efficient and cost-effective solar panels.

“To get maximum efficiency when converting solar power into electricity, you want a solar panel that can absorb nearly every single photon of light, regardless of the sun’s position in the sky. Our new antireflective coating makes this possible,” said Shawn-Yu Lin, leader of the project and professor of physics at Rensselaer.

According to the researchers, only 67.4 percent from the sunlight is absorbed by an untreated silicon solar cell, but a silicon solar cell treated with Lin’s nano-engineered anti-reflective coating will absorb 96.21 percent of the sunlight. The success of this new material consists of the fact that it absorbs the entire solar spectrum from nearly all angles.

Until now, the angle represented quite an obstacle as surfaces absorb light, transmit it, or allow it to pass. The angle is the key as the solar panels have to be perfectly aligned with the sun in order to perform at full potential. However, Lin’s new anti-reflective coating will absorb sunlight from nearly all angles with an efficiency of 96.21.

“At the beginning of the project, we asked ‘would it be possible to create a single antireflective structure that can work from all angles?’ Then we attacked the problem from a fundamental perspective, tested and fine-tuned our theory, and created a working device,” said Lin.

This new anti-reflective coating consists of seven layers positioned one on top of the other which makes the sunlight to bend, and in the same time to enhance the anti-reflective properties. The light that should be reflected is now captured thanks to these seven layers which measure 50 nanometers to 100 nanometers. These anti-reflective layers who perform like a forest which captures the light between the trees are made of silicon dioxide and titanium dioxide nanorods.

Well, I know that I’m dreaming now, but I can’t stop thinking what a solar cell with 96.21 efficiency would represent. Currently, world’s most efficient solar cells have a 25% efficiency, and according to physicists, the first-gen of silicon solar cells could reach a maximum of 29% efficiency.




(sorry if this is a repeat! Also I'm too tired to fix the format)

[The Doctor.]

1. I was always thinking that Polar Bears would be the answer.

This is way better than Polar Bears.

With all the nano-tech coming out now, I'm just thrilled to little bits over this 'particular' upgrade.

[bertman]

2. Is this something that can be applied over existing panels? Now, that would be even more

incredible.

[Hydra]

3. Solar technology progresses in leaps and bounds

Even as people scream that we need nuclear, oil, natural gas and other bad ideas.

Let's hear it for the Sun, wind and waves and rain!

[NNadir]

4. Bullshit. The only thing the solar industry ever produces, besides toxic waste,

is announcements of "breakthroughs," each of which consumes more electricity powering websites announcing the "breakthrough" than solar power actually produces.

The solar industry gets a bye on its toxicity because it has continuously failed to make an impact in real energy terms. On this site, over two disasterous Presidential terms notable for fantasy, wishful thinking, and self delusion, we have had a brazillion announcements of solar breakthroughs. Almost all of them have been links to pop science in the pop literature and almost no references to the actual <em>scientific</em> literature on the topic.

In any case, the solar the industry's waste profile is almost identical with the electronics industry.

The inconvenient truth is that people wax romantic about solar energy because they don't actually understand its implications.

The more I look into the solar fantasy, the more questionable I find it. It is neither clean, nor safe, nor economical, nor reliable. Worse, it induces complacency and indifference that tends of extend, rather than mitigate, the dangerous fossil fuel status quo. I frankly am disgusted by the number of people who seem to think they can have solar powered cars and conclude, therefore, that the car culture doesn't require the emergency <em>action</em> of total abandonment.

The solar will save us meme fails on mass density grounds, particularly when one recognizes that the even with 60% of the world's largest source of land based solar energy - photosynthesis - devoted to human industry, humanity is no closer to the banning of dangerous fossil fuels than it was 3 decades ago.

[kristopher]

5. You often try to create the impression of being intelligent.

You are even able to carry off for a while until people see shit like this:
"The solar will save us meme fails on mass density grounds, particularly when one recognizes that the even with 60% of the world's largest source of land based solar energy - photosynthesis"

Photosynthesis has converts sunlight into stored hydrocarbons at a rate of from .02% for trees to maybe 6 in some algae.


Solar panels IN USE get an efficiency of about 14% to 25% with some non-production late development technology getting near 50%. This article sound like it is another step up that ladder.

Did you mother take you off your Ritalin again...

[Nihil]

9. ... whereas you don't even do that ...

Read what he says and criticise that (there's often plenty of material).

Don't just make things up.

You are so desperate to criticise anyone who fails to share your anything
but humble opinions that you generate strawmen where none are necessary.

:shrug:

[Javaman]

14. so I see you are now on an anti-solar jag rather than your usual ultra pro nuke rants.

you're always entertaining in that way a dog can't figure out why it can't get the sheet off it's head sort of way.

now please insult me with one of you many long winded witticisms that will be way to boring to read all the way through. :)

cheers!

[Nihil]

15. Ah ... someone else who doesn't bother reading before writing!

(Though I did like the "dog with a sheet on its head" quip.)

As you would discover if you read my posts, I am *NOT* anti-solar.

In many cases I am anti-"solar in the wrong places" but I am definitely
pro-"solar in the right places" ... both points you could find in earlier
posts by me.

In the above response I was neither anti-solar nor pro-nuclear: I was
anti-bullshit and anti-strawman. KKKristopher (wilfully?/accidentally?)
misread the one part of NNadir's decidely anti-solar rant to which
he replied and thus transformed a non-existant statement into something
to ridicule - hence the "strawman".

Clue: NNadir's post talked about 60% of photosynthesis being devoted
to human industry. Kristopher promptly rambled off about the .02%-6%
efficiency of photosynthesis compared to 14-25% for "solar panels".
Chalk & cheese. Point & strawman.

Like I said, there is usually enough material to object to in NNadir's
anti-solar rants without having to make it up.

Sorry about your attention-span.

[Javaman]

18. Dude, my total bad, you screen name is very similar to NNadir

no worries. I thought you were him.

Now who's the fool. Me. :blush:

[Nihil]

19. Not a problem!

It gave me a chance to explain my earlier comment as it seems to
have gone over the head of the original target anyway.
:hi:

[kristopher]

16. Not a straw man.

His argument targets energy density and uses photosynthesis as has example. The actual issue is define by two factors, energy density AND conversion efficiency. If all systems were limited to the same efficiency as photosynthesis, solar would not be able to meet our needs, the difference is that higher conversion efficiencies make the difference.

It would save you time if you actually learned what constitutes a straw man argument.

[Nihil]

20. Yet another field where your ignorance is broadcast.

As you yourself stated:
> His argument targets energy density and uses photosynthesis as his example.

You then introduced a second aspect, unstated in his original comment:
> The actual issue is define by two factors, energy density AND conversion
> efficiency

... and proceeded to attack this second aspect alone - i.e., attacking only
*your* addition to his statement to give the appearance that you were somehow
addressing his original statement.

This is one of the classic examples of setting up a strawman:
>>> "Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then
>>> refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual
>>> position has been refuted."

As I said, there *were* things that you could have attacked in NNadir's post
or you could have legitimately presented your counter-argument in the way
that you did to me. I just objected to the dishonesty of your original reply.

:shrug:

[kristopher]

21. "I just objected to the dishonesty of your original reply."

There was no dishonesty, except, perhaps, in your disingenuous statement quoted in the header. You habitually attempt the same kind of nonsensical snit, so spare us the feigned innocence, please.


My argument would be a straw man if it were logically false. It isn't. What it IS is an example of pointing out the falsity of the argument that omits conversion efficiency. For it to be a straw man, conversion efficiency would be totally unrelated to the point, which was: the possibility of using solar as an energy source.

The discussion was the potential of solar for alternative energy;
NAds claim was that the energy density of sunlight isn't adequate;
as a proof, he makes a claim based on solar energy used by humans that is aggregated via photosynthetic processes.

Nad's' argument implicitly applies the concept of conversion efficiency ((X area of light versus Y output of energy) only HE dishonestly omits overt reference to it since he knows full well that this vast discrepancy in CE exists.

It sort of falls in that "the truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the truth" thingie.

Added on edit: And in the spirit of "the whole truth" I should add one more element: the poor efficiency of using biomass for fuel. the thermal efficiency of burning biomass is very low compared to the efficiency of the end user use of the electricity generated by a PV cell. So to get the actual comparison, we'd take the .02% efficiency of photosynthesis in trees, and multiply it by whatever method of combustion is used - say a wood fired boiler to generate electricity, a cook fire, a fireplace, or a wood stove. I'm not going to look up the efficiencies, but when multiplied by the .02% of photosynthesis in trees, I can guarantee you it is way, waay, waaaaaaay down there.

[FREEWILL56]

6. I think you overstate the negatives of solar with some falsehoods

of your own and with some stretching of the truth too. A few points may have some merit and that of the breakthroughs being <mostly bullshit> is true. Most of these breakthroughs were to entice investors and then go belly up and run away with the investors' money. Many companies are forming to take advantage not only of investors, but also consumers wishing to implement some of these systems. The tendency is to overstate the equipment and performance of that equipment and that for little effort and money they can "spin their meter backwards". I am surprised at the number of people out there that think they can buy a 15w pv and heat their home with it.
Education on the realities of solar and other renewables is in order. It isn't a panacea, but it isn't a total farce as you indicate either. It promises some relief, but won't take us away from oil or our own bad habits. Conservation efforts prove to be number one with it being easier to save a watt than produce it and the same could be said in conjunction with oil usages.

[jpak]

11. LOL!!!!!11111 The "failed solar industry" grew by 51% and produced 3733 MW of PV panels in 2007

Reality

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5449

Unreality

"The more I look into the solar fantasy, the more questionable I find it. It is neither clean, nor safe, nor economical, nor reliable. Worse, it induces complacency and indifference that tends of extend, rather than mitigate, the dangerous fossil fuel status quo. I frankly am disgusted by the number of people who seem to think they can have solar powered cars and conclude, therefore, that the car culture doesn't require the emergency <em>action</em> of total abandonment."

((((the meds are poison))))

(((((obey the voices)))))

(((((LOL))))))

:rofl:

[comtec]

7. KEWL!!! Think of how efficient this would be in space !!!!

:wow:
This could revolutionize the entire solar vehicle industry!
Ive had an idea for a solar assisted electric auto for ages, but this could actually make it less assisted and mor self recharging!

[macllyr]

8. Not conversion efficiency

This is not about conversion efficiency (conversion of photon energy into electricity).

They are telling that the coating improves by about 40% (67 to 96 %)the number of photon
crossing the protective layer and reaching the silicon gates...

Mac L'lyr

[Kablooie]

10. but if panels didn't have to track the sun it would certainly be a cost savings.

[kristopher]

17. I don't see the distinction

Conversion efficiency is generally a measure of the amount of electrical output rated against the amount of energy striking the panel. While I realize the topic is rather complicated, I think that a coating on the panel which channels more of the light to the silicon thus increasing electrical output is appropriately referred to as increasing the panels conversion efficiency.
I could see drawing a distinction in the case of a Fresnel lens or something like that, but with a coating on the glass????

[kentauros]

12. That's a great idea

:)

And I'm glad to see yet another solar use for nanotech. Here's a different one (not sure if it's been posted before or not.)

Harvesting the sun's energy with antennas

I wonder if these two products could be combined for greater efficiency...

[IDemo]

13. Log in required on your link..

[kentauros]

22. That's weird.

Maybe it just doesn't like my removing the http portion. Try the full link:

https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1269&mode=2&featurestory=DA_101047