backtop


Print 7 comment(s) - last by Tiffany Kaiser.. on Sep 21 at 8:04 PM


Organic solar cell  (Source: Blogspot)
Researchers study the effects of solar cell technology

Rochester Institute of Technology researchers have conducted a study to assess the environmental advantages and disadvantages of organic solar cells as well as the amount of energy required to make them.

Solar energy is seen as a potential alternative to petroleum for energy production, but solar-cell technology is expensive to mass produce and the total energy required to make it is high. Also, there is not enough information on what effect solar energy has on the environment. But now, Annick Anctil, a fourth-year doctoral candidate in RIT's doctoral program in sustainability and lead researcher on the study, along with Brian Landi, assistant professor of chemical engineering at RIT and faculty advisor on the study, and their research team have performed one of the first life-cycle evaluation's of organic solar cells. 

The problem with previous assessment's was that they didn't provide a component-by-component breakdown of the materials needed in an organic solar cell or what the total energy payback of these cell's are. Through the study conducted by Anctil, the environmental impact of the fabrication, material collection, mass production and use of organic solar cells as well as the total energy use was calculated. What they found is that the total energy required to make these products, or the embodied energy, is less for organic solar cells than traditional inorganic units. 

"Organic solar cells are flexible and lightweight, and they have the promise of low-cost solution processing, which can have advantages for manufacturing over previous-generation technologies that primarily use inorganic semiconductor materials," said Anctil. "However, previous assessments of the energy and environmental impact of the technology have been incomplete and a broader analysis is needed to better evaluate the overall effect of production and use."

The study also found that the energy produced from solar cells versus the energy needed to manufacture it was lower compared to inorganic cells. But the team added that continuous studies to verify the cell's stability are "still warranted."

"The data produced will help designers and potential manufacturers better assess how to use and improve the technology and analyze its feasibility versus other solar and alternative-energy technologies," said Landi. 

Anctil, Landi, and the team hope to analyze the environmental impact of solar cells further with more life-cycle assessments of varied types of solar cell technology. The team presented their study at the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers 2010 Photovoltaic Specialists Conference



Comments     Threshold


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

Very confusing statement
By jbartabas on 9/21/2010 3:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The study also found that the energy produced from solar cells versus the energy needed to manufacture it was lower compared to inorganic cells. But the team added that continuous studies to verify the cell's stability are "still warranted."


It is not clear what exactly is lower here. The way it is written, it seems to me that the ratio energy produced/energy used for manufacture is lower than with inorganic cells, hence this is a disadvantage of the organic cells. However, the original article states:

quote:
The team found that when compared to inorganic cells, the energy payback time for organic solar cells was lower.


It would mean the opposite of the first statement, as the lower payback time for organic cells would result from a larger ratio of energy produced/energy used for manufacture. Can the author clarify/correct its text.




RE: Very confusing statement
By Tiffany Kaiser on 9/21/2010 8:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
I apologize for the confusing wording, jbartabas.

What I was trying to say was that the amount of energy required to make organic cells is less than what is required to make inorganic cells.

But in this paragraph:

quote:
The study also found that the energy produced from solar cells versus the energy needed to manufacture it was lower compared to inorganic cells. But the team added that continuous studies to verify the cell's stability are "still warranted."


You were right, I was saying that this is a disadvantage of the organic cells. While it takes less energy to make them, their payback time is lower than that of inorganic cells. It requires more energy to make inorganic cells, but the payback time is higher. That was the main idea, and again, sorry for the confusion.

I hope this helps. Here is the original article as well: http://www.rit.edu/news/release.php?id=47796


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki