backtop


Print 19 comment(s) - last by SSDMaster.. on Dec 6 at 8:21 AM


Sumit Chaudhary and Kanwar Singh Nalwa   (Source: Leah Hansen/Iowa State University )
Thin and uniform layer on textured substrates provides enhanced efficiency in polymer solar cells

Iowa State University and Ames Laboratory researchers have improved the efficiency of polymer solar cells through the use of a new process that increases light absorption. 

Lead researchers working on the study include Sumit Chaudhary, Iowa State assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering; Kanwar Singh Nalwa, a graduate student in electrical and computer engineering and student associate of the Ames Laboratory; Kai-Ming Ho, an Iowa State Professor of Physics and Astronomy and an Ames Laboratory faculty scientist, and Joong-Mok Park, an assistant scientist in the Ames Laboratory. Together, these researchers have created a new process that increases the efficiency of solar cells. 

To do this, researchers took flexible, lightweight polymers and added a textured substrate pattern that provided a uniform and thin light-absorbing layer. Also, this textured substrate pattern remains uniformly thin when going up and down the flat-topped ridges, which are less than a millionth of a meter high. 

The polymer solar cells were indeed much more efficient with this layer, as they were able to absorb more sunlight within the ridges. The absorbing layer was also able to maintain its electrical transport properties. 

"Our technology efficiently utilizes the light-trapping scheme," said Chaudhary. "And so solar cell efficiency improved by 20 percent."

Previous studies have used textured substrates to increase efficiency, but these attempts didn't work because they required difficult coating technologies or additional processing steps. Also, these previous studies had light-absorbing layers that produced air gaps or were too thick or too thin over the ridges, which can cause short circuiting and a loss of charge in the ridges leading to a less efficient solar cell.

"This may be an old idea we're using," said Chaudhary, "but it's never before been successfully implemented in polymer solar cells."

Not only does this light-absorbing layer make the solar cells 20 percent more efficient, but after testing the polymer solar cells, Chaudhary and fellow researchers found that the amount of light absorbed at the red/near infrared band edge "increased by 100 percent over flat cells." 

This study was published in Advanced Materials


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

20 percent
By danobrega on 12/3/2010 2:50:48 PM , Rating: 3
"And so solar cell efficiency improved by 20 percent."

20 percent of what?

20 percent of their efficiency? Meaning that if they had a 10 percent efficiency now they have a 12 percent?

Or 20 percent overall, meaning that if they had a 10 percent efficiency now they have 30 percent?




RE: 20 percent
By solarrocker on 12/3/2010 3:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
In the linked article it states "Tests indicated the research team's light-trapping cells increased power conversion efficiency by 20 percent over flat solar cells made from polymers"

So I am guessing that they are 20% more efficient as it states "over", so by going by your 10% would mean 12% efficiency? Still it a nice little boost.


RE: 20 percent
By foolsgambit11 on 12/3/2010 5:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with your reading. As a side note, a 20% increase in efficiency is also a 20% increase in power output. Which is nice, especially if the additional costs of this process are low enough. The whole point of these types of solar cells is their low cost, but if this process adds more expense than it adds power output, it isn't very helpful from a practical standpoint.


RE: 20 percent
By Shadowself on 12/3/2010 3:20:44 PM , Rating: 4
In the reference article it says they've gotten it so that "Power conversion efficiency (PCE) exceeding 7% has recently been achieved." So that would give a base efficiency of approximately 5.8% or more.

This type of solar cell is not very efficient. If your looking for the most efficient look into milti junction GaAs type cells with focusing lenses on each cell. Those are pushing above the mid 30% or so. I've even heard claims of greater than 40% though I've never seen any test data proving this. They are also *very* expensive.


RE: 20 percent
By ViroMan on 12/3/2010 7:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
Gallium arsenide substrate you can see it in wiki form here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multijunction_photovo...


RE: 20 percent
By AnnihilatorX on 12/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: 20 percent
By Kurz on 12/4/2010 11:01:00 AM , Rating: 2
Math fail?


RE: 20 percent
By AnnihilatorX on 12/6/2010 7:28:13 AM , Rating: 3
What? I don't know why I got rated down for.

When you say there is a 5% death rate in crime and that has been increased by 1% this year. It means it's gone up to 6%

When you say there is a solar cell which is 10% efficient, and a new breakthrough gives 20% increase efficency. It means now it is at 30% effiency


RE: 20 percent
By AnnihilatorX on 12/6/2010 7:31:28 AM , Rating: 2
For people who have no idea of percentiles, and voted me down, you only add a percentile to another percentile, but not when the other is a pure number.

If the solar efficiency was not quoted in %, but say 10 watts per square metre, 20% increase then will then be 12 watts per square metre.


RE: 20 percent
By SSDMaster on 12/6/2010 8:21:28 AM , Rating: 5
Your sad devotion to that ancient religion (math) has not helped you conjure up the appropriate rating points... or given you the clairvoyance to pass Calcu... (choking sounds)

AnnihilatorX: I find your lack of faith disturbing


random
By solarrocker on 12/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: random
By ClownPuncher on 12/3/2010 4:57:26 PM , Rating: 5
They're called "names".


RE: random
By Omega215D on 12/5/2010 10:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
And if you contact them through phone those will change to Jon Smith and Bob Sanders.

*ducks*


Focusing vs: Surface area
By TimberJon on 12/3/2010 3:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
I get all the surface area jazz, but why could you not collect sunlight into a beam, and then split it into equal but individual beams of light. Doesn't light maintain it's brightness when you split it? Alas I know nothing of science on this topic... but I always thought that you would multiply the amount of light collected by concentrating an area of light and then splitting it to multiple collection points. In solar farms, they just simply multiply the surface area.




RE: Focusing vs: Surface area
By casket on 12/3/2010 4:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
Are talking about putting a magnifying glass over a solar cell, and then re-splitting with a crystal?

"Doesn't light maintain it's brightness"
-- color really doesn't matter... it's number of photons. In electricity, that would be amps.

Is water any less wet when you split it? The more water you have flowing into a damn, the more electricity.

Yes, with soloar farms, you can have solar concentrators. If you want to arrange multiple parabolic mirrors shining light into a solar cell, go for it. It's still going to only convert a percentage of the energy available.

Of course, a mirror won't be 100% efficient. With a cheap enough plastic cell, the solar cell might be cheaper than a mirror.


RE: Focusing vs: Surface area
By Fritzr on 12/5/2010 5:20:27 AM , Rating: 2
Color does matter...the "color" directly reflects the frequency. Photovoltaics of different designs favor differing frequencies. If a prism mechanism could be built to direct portions of the incoming light to cells that prefer specific frequencies then efficiency could be improved. The difficulty is designing the beam splitter, then designing an arrangement that will generate enough additional power per square meter of area to repay the additional cost.

One variation could be strip cells and strip prism lenses focusing selected frequencies to photocells that best convert those frequencies.

Placing an infrared photo-voltaic array beneath a visible light array would be one example of this concept. Where the infrared heats the visible light array, and the infrared array then converts the infrared glow created by this heating. This version of the idea has been tested, but as I have seen nothing of it since that one report, it would seem that it did not pan out economically.

As with so many new ideas, it all comes down to economics. Cost per watt is the final arbiter of efficiency.


Nice improvement but how long until market?
By chunkymonster on 12/4/2010 9:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
A 20% increase is a nice little boost given the relatively low efficiency of a PV cell. Most consumer solar cells are about 20% efficient with commercial versions being up to 27% efficient. The average solar panel is about 36x36in, this substrate process could effectively drop the panel size to about 28x28in; get the same kWh/m^2 with less surface area.

I hope the company Ames Industry doesn't dink around and dilly-dally getting this process to market.




By chunkymonster on 12/4/2010 9:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
Should have looked before I lept...Ames Laboratories is a government contractor...chances of this getting to market just sunk to zero.


More information...
By AdrianMiller on 12/6/2010 4:55:52 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the interest in this work! We’ve set the original scientific paper that this piece is based on free to access for the next few weeks; if you’d like to know more, you can find it here: http://www.materialsviews.com/details/news/884245/...

Adrian Miller
Advanced Materials




"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki