backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 99 comment(s) - last by FrankM.. on Jan 8 at 11:45 AM


Pictured is an ingot of indium. Indium is currently essential to the LCD and solar cell industries. However, there is estimated to only be a 10 year supply of indium left on Earth.  (Source: About.com)
German researchers claim breakthrough that may salvage the solar industry from the brink of disaster

It sounds like the death knell of the solar power industry -- shrinking Earth supplies of indium, which experts estimate will only last for another decade.  Facing its darkest hour, a new breakthrough by researchers at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research holds the promise of saving the solar industry from an untimely demise.

Solar cells have always relied on the metal indium, due to its transparency, which is essential to light emission or absorption in electronics.  Engineers also regard indium valuable in LCDs and other transparent electrical devices.  However, indium is a relatively rare metal on Earth and existing supplies are rapidly dwindling.  Researchers have frantically searched for transparent conducting materials to little avail.

A new team claims it may have found the solution in one of the Earth's most abundant elements.  Researchers at the Planck Institute have devised a new approach, utilizing graphene -- single 2D layers of carbon atoms, extracted from graphite -- 10 layers of which are applied to form an electrode.  Each layer that comprises the electrode is a mere 5 nm thick. 

The material has conductivity comparable or superior to indium and falls just slightly short of indium in transparent character.  The current device is 80% transparent to visible light and 100% transparent to infrared light.

The team constructed a prototype using a process that will be drastically changed and refined.  The prototype used graphite oxide flakes which were applied to form layers of surface coating between 10 nm to 100 nm thick.  The coating was then heated to remove the oxygen, leaving behind a simple graphene-like material.

Assuming a better production process can be devised, mass produced solar cells made cheaply and with even better efficiency.  The superior absorption of IR radiation would allow these cells to possibly surpass the production of traditional indium cells by capturing more of the EM spectrum.  The team stated that they strongly believe that visible light efficiencies of 90 percent or higher are achievable.

The biggest challenge is that the formation of graphene is difficult and often leaves "creases" of extra carbon atoms.  These creases distort light and lower the transparency.  A sheet of perfect graphene would have nearly 100% transparency across the EM spectrum, including visible light.  One positive, though is that the material is exceptionally stable and resistant to heat and acid, making processing much more viable.

While this discovery is likely 5 to 10 years from seeing serious production, it holds great promise to both provide unprecedented clean power and to provide a viable solution for electronics displays.  With the inevitable depletion of indium, this may be one process that is forced to move from theory to mass production at an accelerated rate.


Comments     Threshold


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

10 year supply?
By EglsFly on 12/29/2007 1:29:37 PM , Rating: 4
If there is an estimated 10 year supply of indium left and solar panels require this material. Why are organizations like Green Peace pushing Solar power as one of the future solutions to clean energy?




RE: 10 year supply?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/29/2007 1:36:17 PM , Rating: 4
There are other alternatives to indium, though surprisingly indium is the most cost efficient right now. At least it was until 2007.


RE: 10 year supply?
By dnd728 on 12/29/2007 5:45:33 PM , Rating: 5
Also, set aside Green Peace and their knowledge, solar power usually gets utilized by heating something rather by semiconductors, so there's really no need for any transparent conductors.


RE: 10 year supply?
By dnd728 on 12/29/2007 5:48:07 PM , Rating: 4
rather than, sorry


RE: 10 year supply?
By euclidean on 12/31/2007 12:40:53 AM , Rating: 1
Stock in indium rising? Indium > Gold/Platinum? lol...if it was always so rare why is it just now surfacing to the public...and why aren't more people buying up Indium coins instead of gold coins? Too hard to see due to it's transparency? lol!

/sarcasam....just found the thought pretty funny lol.


RE: 10 year supply?
By therealnickdanger on 12/31/2007 12:22:55 PM , Rating: 3
Funny how that works. Diamonds exist in massive supply and can be created inexpensively in labs, and then depending upon how shiny they look after being cut, we are supposed to spend ridiculous amounts of money on them. Ugh. Materialism is so effing weird.

I can understand wanting to spend 5K on a car, some home improvements, supporting starving children, or something that you'll actually USE, but simple minerals? Am I weird for not liking stuff just because it's shiny and the neighbor's wife got a bigger one?


RE: 10 year supply?
By Spuke on 12/31/2007 12:37:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Am I weird for not liking stuff just because it's shiny and the neighbor's wife got a bigger one?
I am the same so either we're both weird or we're both normal. Women like diamonds and my wife insisted on a diamond ring (regardless of how I felt) so I bought her one, then she insisted that have diamonds in my ring too (I just wanted a plain band). Sigh. Oh well.


RE: 10 year supply?
By FrankM on 1/8/2008 11:45:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am the same so either we're both weird or we're both normal.


We're men :D
I agree. Diamonds are interesting and have some attributes great for specific tasks and uses in the industry; but jewelery? I don't think it's any prettier than glass, and all its other, much more useful attributes would be wasted in this form of usage.
There are some minerals that are much more common and IMO beautiful that should be used as jewelery instead. Oh wait, they aren't as exorbitantly expensive, so they are not good after all... /sarcasm/


RE: 10 year supply?
By Strunf on 1/1/2008 7:28:53 AM , Rating: 1
The synthetic diamonds aren't anywhere good enough to be compared to "natural" ones... at least from the point of a jeweler. And today there's still no way to make big synthetic diamonds, like women love.


RE: 10 year supply?
By Ammohunt on 1/2/2008 3:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
You are kidding right? Lab created diamonds are flawless thats how jewelers determine they are lab created. The De Beers diamond monoply sure has you indoctrinated.


RE: 10 year supply?
By Strunf on 1/3/2008 8:32:52 AM , Rating: 2
Flawless in what? Artificial diamonds often carry inclusions, sure the naturals ones may too but it's not me saying that they are flawless. And besides again the biggest artificial gem diamond is only 34 carats while the natural ones go over that "easily"...

Da Beers certainly didn't indoctrinate me but I can't say the same about GE having indoctrinated you...


RE: 10 year supply?
By OddTSi on 12/29/2007 1:37:01 PM , Rating: 3
You honestly think "organizations like Green Peace" have even remotely in-depth knowledge about things that they're talking about? They're hippies. If it's not about art or drugs they know jack you-know-what about it.


RE: 10 year supply?
By JackBeQuick on 12/29/2007 1:40:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They're hippies. If it's not about art or drugs they know jack you-know-what about it.

Don't give them so much credit. It demeans us that actually know about art and drugs :)


RE: 10 year supply?
By TomZ on 12/29/2007 1:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
Just tell Greenpeace that India still has plenty of indium left, and they'll probably not worry about it too much. :o)


RE: 10 year supply?
By chrisld on 12/29/2007 1:58:38 PM , Rating: 4
I can verify that from experience. Unfortunately Green Peace are inadequate when it comes to having the scientific knowledge to back up their claims. They just create scares to keep themselves in the media. If they really were concerned about the environment they'd get some actual scientists onboard so they could do the right thing.


RE: 10 year supply?
By bpwilldo on 12/29/2007 5:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting comment.
My own take is that humans will spoil this planet to the point that we cannot live here. Eventually. I am resigned to that and don't care to care about it. However, there are others that do. I find it odd that some people have negative feelings against others who are doing what they can to protect our planet. Why is that bad?
I'm guessing you are a techiban.


RE: 10 year supply?
By TomZ on 12/29/2007 8:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
Being cynical is not the only reason to dislike Greenpeace. I personally think they are idiots for working to completely ban nuclear power. Nuclear power is the greenest technology available today for power generation, any they don't seem to understand that, or the implications of the other large-scale power generation options (coal, natural gas, etc.).


RE: 10 year supply?
By fake01 on 12/29/2007 8:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pro nuclear and think its a great alternative. But you have to look at Chernobyl. One single (rather large) disaster and everyone thinks its completely unsafe. The chances of a nuclear meltdown is VERY small. But so long as theres a "small" chance, nobody will except it. Well Green-Piece and those sorts of people at least.

I honestly don't know why we don't have nuclear power here in Australia. We got like the largest supply or Uranium in the world. I guess the government thinks it can get more money from it by selling it to places like America, UK etc. Better than the "clean" coal that we will soon be using, along with the tens of thousands of big wind power fan thingies.

But I'm sure there is a more efficient alternative to nuclear. Though I can't think of any at the moment.


RE: 10 year supply?
By TomZ on 12/29/2007 9:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
Chrynobyl is hardly a typical nuclear power plant by any standards, and it's not reasonable to use that as guide for setting public energy policy. Greenpeace should know better.

And how many people were killed/injured in that accident, the worst ever nuclear power plant disaster? Relatively few. Probably more people have died installing and servicing wind power generation towers.


RE: 10 year supply?
By DancingWind on 12/30/2007 10:39:55 AM , Rating: 3
Well Actually nobody know exactly how many are affected ... it was a huge embarecment to Soviet Union and therefore it was hushed up as much as possible. but let me tell you this, hundreds of so called firefighters 'voluters' were sent to 'put out the fire' ... they didn't know where they were going until they got to the chernoby, and noone told them how dangerous it is. And ppl had to work practically with no protective mesures. So please don't make comparations to stuff you dont know about.
On the nuclear power plant topic side, chernobyl type reators, two RBMK-1500 reactors (chernobyl had RBMK-1000 reactors) had been running for more than 25 years in my country (Lituania, Iganlina Nuclear Power Plant) without a hickup. Its all due to proper maintence and co