Print 15 comment(s) - last by johnsmith9875.. on Jan 10 at 3:28 PM

By finding out how pure and large the acceptor domain is and what the interface of the donor domain looks like, efficiency can be increased

Source: Eurekalert

Comments     Threshold

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

By tng on 1/8/2013 4:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
The end result was an efficiency gain of 42 percent.
OK,the article states 42% in the headline, but here at the end, it makes it sound different.

Is this 42% efficiency overall or just a 42% gain from original? Both numbers are good, but for me this is confusing.

RE: ?
By Jedi2155 on 1/8/2013 4:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
As I understand it, current organic based PV is extremely inefficient at under <10%. The maximum achieved PV efficiency is done with multi-junction (being able to absorb multiple wavelengths) PV cells composed of a variety of crystalline materials, which has barely reached 44% with the power of a 1000 suns (that means its able to convert 440 suns worth of power).

RE: ?
By Shig on 1/8/2013 7:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
Organic solar cells are usually in the 6-8% range.

RE: ?
By Odysseus145 on 1/8/2013 8:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
10% is the commonly quoted efficiency to make large scale commercialization practical. Despite not being anywhere near as efficient as silicon (>20%), organic solar cell will be an order of magnitude easier and cheaper to make.

I expect 10% will be achieved within the next couple years or so.

RE: ?
By Azethoth on 1/8/2013 9:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
The math is simple: efficiency gained / increased 42%.
Efficiency was X, now it is X * 1.42
From above X usually ranges from 6-8%, so with the solvent and smaller size we could be looking at 9-12% roughly.

This would make a great word problem in a Math class!

RE: ?
By Silver2k7 on 1/9/2013 3:17:35 AM , Rating: 2
marketing bs in % is damn silly..

the topic should perhaps say
*new solar cells at 12% efficiency*
if that is the correct efficiency.

RE: ?
By Silver2k7 on 1/9/2013 3:19:21 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if a big magnifying lens and something that converts heat into electricity would be better.. in say a desert.

RE: ?
By daboom06 on 1/9/2013 5:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
Where's your heat sink going to be? you'd have to run a refrigerator to draw the heat out of the carnot engine to make electricity. or run a heat pipe out of the desert? that seems impractical.

or you could use the atmosphere as the heat sink and the center of the earth as the heat source, which is already used by geothermal power plants.

forgive me if your comment was an inside joke or veiled sarcasm.

RE: ?
By Odysseus145 on 1/9/2013 8:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
Look up power towers. They concentrate a large area of sunlight onto a very small spot which heats a molten salt to run a boiler.

RE: ?
By johnsmith9875 on 1/10/2013 3:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
Power Towers look promising as they work in daytime and to a lesser degree at night. The trick is of course convincing the public that its not insane to build a skyscraper in the desert that holds no people.

"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki