Safe Mode: On
Ultra-Efficient Solar panels

Under the right circumstances, solar cells from Semprius could produce power more cheaply than fossil fuels.





This past winter, a startup called Semprius set an important record for solar energy: it showed that its solar panels can convert nearly 34 percent of the light that hits them into electricity. Semprius says its technology, once scaled up, is so efficient that in some places, it could soon make electricity cheaply enough to compete with power plants fueled by coal and natural gas.
Because solar installations have many fixed costs, including real estate for the arrays of panels, it is important to maximize the efficiency of each panel in order to bring down the price of solar energy. Companies are trying a variety of ways to do that, including using materials other than silicon, the most common semiconductor in solar panels today.

For example, a startup called Alta Devices (see the TR50, March/April 2012) makes flexible sheets of solar cells out of a highly efficient material called gallium arsenide. Semprius also uses gallium arsenide, which is better than silicon at turning light into electricity (the record efficiency measured in a silicon solar panel is about 23 percent). But gallium arsenide is also far more expensive, so Semprius is trying to make up for the cost in several ways.

One is by shrinking its solar cells, the individual light absorbers in a solar panel, to just 600 micrometers wide, 600 micrometers long, and 10 micrometers thick. Its manufacturing process is built on research by cofounder John Rogers, a professor of chemistry and engineering at the University of Illinois, who figured out a way to grow the small cells on a gallium arsenide wafer, lift them off quickly, and then reuse the wafer to make more cells. Once the cells are laid down, Semprius maximizes their power production by putting them under glass lenses that concentrate sunlight about 1,100 times. Concentrating sunlight on solar panels is not new, but with larger silicon cells, a cooling system typically must be used to conduct away the heat that this generates. Semprius's small cells produce so little heat that they don't require cooling, which further brings down the cost.

Scott Burroughs, Semprius's vice president of technology, says utilities that use its system should be able to produce electricity at around eight cents per kilowatt-hour in a few years. That's less than the U.S. average retail price for electricity, which was about 10 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2011, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Semprius's advantages are tempered by the limitations of using lenses to concentrate light: the system works best when the cells receive direct sunlight under a cloudless sky, and energy production
drops significantly under any other conditions. Even so, it could be suitable for large, utility-scale projects in places such as the American Southwest.

First, however, Semprius has to begin mass-producing its panels. The company, which has raised about $44 million from venture capital firms and Siemens (which builds solar power plants), plans this year to open a small factory in North Carolina that can make enough solar panels annually to deliver six megawatts of electricity. The company hopes to expand that to 30 megawatts by the end of 2013, but to do so it must raise an undisclosed amount of money in an atmosphere that is no longer kind to capital-­intensive energy startups. All the while, Semprius will also have to reduce its manufacturing costs fast enough to compete with conventional silicon panels, whose prices fell by more than half in 2011 alone.


Added: Aug-25-2012 Occurred On: Aug-25-2012
By: MrScabs
In:
Science and Technology
Tags: Solar, cells, energy, Semprius
Location: United States (load item map)
Marked as: approved
Views: 1928 | Comments: 26 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 2
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • if it works, it won't require a government subsidy

    Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

    (2)

    • @_Byron_

      If it works, the oil and gas companies will buy them out.

      Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

      (0)

    • @_Byron_ ...but imagine being free of Saudi Arabian oil. Watch the dress-wearers return to the Stone Age.

      Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

      (0)

    • Comment of user 'psommerfeld' has been deleted by author!
    • @_Byron_
      Strange comment ...
      Semprius already required government subsidies. It would have never had a chance without them. DOE funded their initial characterization, and they got one of four incubator spots in the coveted NREL lab.
      Gov't subsidies are essential in this line of work.

      Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

      (0)

    • @Nepean109 dont think so. America will still be interested in cooperation (spending alot of US taxpayers money for the countries well-being) with that countries regime of Al-Saud because its the one thing that keeps the so called Islamists from rising over all ME.

      Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

      (0)

  • I like this... The Arabs wont.

    Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

    (1)

  • key phrase: under the right circumstances

    Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

    (1)

  • This is what we need. This stuff needs to be as cheap and common as toilet paper, or at least, roofing shingles. :)

    Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

    (0)

  • The problem that they're going to run into is that a lot of the American Southwest is protected land. For instance, I live in the Mojave Desert in So Cal, and a huge portion of the land is set aside for the purpose of protecting the desert tortoise.

    We are already running into this issue where they are building these huge solar plants, and they are encroaching upon the territory of the tortoise. So the interesting part is that you then have environmentalists vs. environmentalists.

    For years, More..

    Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

    (0)

    • @fadeinlight ...I think the most obvious locations for these panels on roofs of buildings in cities - not the desert.

      Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

      (0)

    • @fadeinlight
      Not a problem at all. The average house uses 12 kWh per year. Even in Northern states, this requires only 800 sq ft of solar using your everyday ordinary polycrystalline silicon, mass-produced in China and elsewhere. 800 sq ft is half the roof space of the average US home built in the 1970's (new homes became much larger). So, no need for public land to feed residential suburbs electrical needs.

      This works great in suburbs, but not dense residential like NY, so for that public lan More..

      Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

      (0)

    • @psommerfeld "The average house uses 12 kWh per year."

      I think you are off by a factor of 1,000. My electricity usage last week was 883 kWh. The previous week was 967.2kWh.

      Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

      (1)

  • Great, thanks.

    Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

    (0)

  • now this is technology I like...
    Unlike that fake lava that helps in nothing

    Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

    (0)

  • Cool stuff.

    Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

    (0)

  • I'm pretty sceptical about this technology at the moment, but it may be that I don't know enough about it.

    I just read some of the more technical material on their technology, and it seems that the incident light has to be almost perfectly on-axis. Even 2 degrees off-axis and the cell produces almost no power. This necessitates an expensive 2-axis tracker.

    I sure hope the technology is commercially viable on a large scale, but they are competing with exponentially decreasing costs of silicon-d More..

    Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

    (0)

    • Comment of user 'MrScabs' has been deleted by author!
  • Good luck, but I don't see them getting electricity down to $0.08/kWh.

    Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

    (0)

  • Replace coal and gas ? I doubt it.

    Power production of any form MUST meet peek demands. Solar is totally incapable of reliable peek-demand production.
    You therefore have to include power plants in your grid with the assumption that Solar contributes NOTHING.

    If you plan to use Solar simply to boost gas, then you have to use relatively inefficient variable gas plants. Constant output gas plants are way more efficient than variable.

    Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

    (0)

  • This AFTER being heavily subsidized. Good luck when the pork runs out folks.

    Posted Aug-26-2012 By 

    (0)

  • We used solar and wind power for tens of thousands of years before oil was discovered. Look at time line of technology. Thousands of years nothing-oil age-everything.

    Solar and wind sucked then and it still sucks. Electric rates are going up because of money WASTED on this crap and government mandates..

    Natural gas, oil, nuclear and clean coal work just fine. It's why the Left invented the global warming fraud.

    Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

    (-1)

    • @onepercent ...so you believe the mysterious "left" invented global warming BECAUSE oil and gas work just fine. Mind like steel trap, boy!!

      Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

      (-1)

    • @onepercent
      You're still using solar and wind. They happen to directly or indirectly grow all the food you eat. Oil is not a requirement for plants.

      Oil and coal do not work "fine". And they didn't just "arrive", they arrived with huge costs and peril to humans and other life. Don't be surprised that the renewable energy revolution doesn't come at some cost. The costs are far, far less than the industrial revolution!

      And I'm far-right, not a leftist. Global warming is an u More..

      Posted Aug-25-2012 By 

      (0)