Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Solar Cells That Work All Day

On the surface of a new photovoltaic prototype, microscopic nanotube towers perform best when they catch light on their sides.

By David Talbot

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Solar cells generally crank out the most power at noon, when the sun is at its highest point and can strike the cell at a 90-degree angle. Before and after noon, efficiencies drop off. But researchers Georgia Tech Research Institute have come up with a prototype that does the opposite. Their solar cell, whose surface consists of hundreds of thousands of 100-micrometer-high towers, catches light at many angles and actually works best in the morning and afternoon.

3-D solar: Jud Ready, a senior research engineer at the Georgia Tech Research Institute, holds up a prototype photovoltaic material that is efficient at generating electricity when sunlight strikes it from many different angles. The surface is covered with thousands of microscopic tower structures that are 100 micrometers tall, 40 micrometers wide, and spaced 10 micrometers apart.
Credit: Georgia Tech Photo: Gary Meek

"It may be intuitive: when the light goes straight down, the only interaction is with the tops of towers and the 'streets' below," says Jud Ready, senior research engineer at the institute's Electro-Optical Systems Laboratory. "But at an angle, the light has an opportunity to reflect off the sides of the towers." When the sun is at a 90-degree angle, the prototype delivers only 3.5 percent efficiency. But it delivers better efficiencies at many other angles and is actually at its peak efficiency--7 percent--when light comes in at a 45-degree angle. That means the device operates at relatively high efficiencies during much of the day and has two efficiency peaks: one before noon, and one after noon.

While those efficiencies are too low for commercialization, Ready is working on optimizing the size and spacing of his towers as well as their chemical composition. As a first application, his sights are set on powering spacecraft and satellites, which could benefit from solar cells that don't require a mechanical means of moving the orientation of the cell to keep it facing the sun. "Anytime you have anything mechanical, it breaks," says Ready. "In space, that is fabulously difficult to try and repair."

Construction of the towers begins with a foundation of silicon wafers coated with a patterned layer of iron. The iron-coated areas become a seedbed for carbon nanotubes, which are grown using standard chemical vapor deposition; the carbon--separated from hydrocarbon gases in a furnace--assembles into nanotubes on the iron areas. The finished towers, each made of arrays of nanotubes, are 100 micrometers tall, 40 micrometers wide, and 10 micrometers apart.

Story continues below

Once the carbon-nanotube towers are complete, they are coated with cadmium-telluride and cadmium-sulfide semiconductors, which do the work of electron generation. Finally, a thin coating of indium tin oxide is deposited to serve as an electrode. In the finished cells, as with some other nanosolar approaches, the nanotubes serve both as a scaffold for the photovoltaic material and also as a conductor to help move electrons to the electrodes. (See "Cheap Nano Solar Cells.") In Ready's technology, each square centimeter of the finished solar cell contains 40,000 towers, and each tower consists of millions of vertically aligned carbon nanotubes.

Ready says that over the next two years, he will scale up the prototypes and test them to ensure that they can survive a rocket launch and the harsh environment of space. He is also trying to make the technology work with semiconductors other than cadmium telluride, which is considered too toxic for widespread commercial use. If all goes well, some version of the technology could be commercialized in five to ten years, Ready says.

Comments

  • $ / net KWH; EROEI
    The holy grail.

    How much does it cost to produce how many net KWH?

    Secondly, what is its EROEI?
    (Energy Return On Energy Invested)
    (spending, say, 1 KWH / unit to produce a device that returns, say, only 1 KWH / unit over its lifetime produces *NO* net KWH - a break even EROEI of 1.0)
    Rate this comment: 12345

    nekote
    04/17/2007
    Posts:138
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: $ / net KWH; EROEI
      In our energy-aware climate this is important. Yet, in space applications, we can afford to invest a substantial sum of energy towards creating a portable lightweight panel that will work off-planet as an energy source* for decades.

      *More accurately, "energy converter".
      Rate this comment: 12345

      tonycecala
      04/17/2007
      Posts:2
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
    • Re: $ / net KWH; EROEI
      Good question and maybe difficult to calculate the answer.  Perhaps something else to consider is that if a PV system allows the user to consume energy at point of production, then there is savings vs potential loss in transmission lines.... so even if the system only produced the same as it consumed to be created, it could still have some benefit (decrease loss in transmission)
      Rate this comment: 12345

      rollsplit
      04/18/2007
      Posts:5
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
      • Re: $ / net KWH; EROEI
        If transmission losses AVOIDED at the user-site are to be taken into account, then the transmission losses CREATED at the PV cell manufacturing site must also taken into account - net result zero. The EROEI of the cell is critical, no externalities can justify a sub-unity EROEI.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        kragzy
        08/07/2007
        Posts:1
        • Re: Re: $ / net KWH; EROEI
          For NASA applications and plenty of other very remote power needs, the energy used to produce the panel is of low importance. So what if it took 5000 pounds of coal to produce a solar panel that will only return the equivalent energy of 4500 pounds of coal over its life? You can't hoist 5000 pounds of coal and a coal-burning generator into space.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          Tysto
          08/29/2007
          Posts:24
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
  • Nano-tracking better?
    How about putting small / nano flat 2-D PV unit atop a small / nano pedestle device that tracks the sun, keeping the PV surface at ~ 90° ?

    In plants, is the word:
    Diaheliotropism: A tendency of leaves or other organs of plants to have their dorsal surface faced towards the rays of light?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    nekote
    04/17/2007
    Posts:138
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Nano-tracking better?
      As I understand it the cost in energy to move the chips would outweigh the increased energy production. But having a solid state answer that would allow the PV cells to reach peak effeciancy a couple of time a day would go a long way to increasing the overall viability of the system
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Rubingrinnol...
      04/24/2007
      Posts:2
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Whole 24h day
    My first thought was that device will work really 24h (yes at night too!)
    What about combining solar cell with phosphorus that will glow at night too?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Macrob
    08/05/2007
    Posts:2
    • Re: Whole 24h day
      There is a company that has a patent on 24 solar generation. I have seen it working and the company is producing commercially 60MW a hour. They have 2 products. The first product is the Micro Grid for powering a home. The second product is called a mini grid. The mini grid is for selling electricity to the power companys. The name of the company is Power House Industries LLC and they are located in Jupiter, Florida.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      James McKird...
      10/26/2007
      Posts:1
  • Too much emphasis on efficiency
    I know solar energy conversion efficiency is important, but it seems like there is too much emphasis on it in these stories. My current roof is 0% efficient. Invent solar panels that replace conventional shingles at the same cost and it won't matter if they're only 5% efficient.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Tysto
    08/29/2007
    Posts:24
    Avg Rating:
    4/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Making 3D Maps on the Move
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.