Black Silicon Solar Cell Hits 18.2% Efficiency, Should Help to Reduce Costs

Discussion in 'Energy' started by Matthew, Oct 13, 2012.

  1. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,737
    Thanks Received:
    4,605
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,190
    Black Silicon Solar Cell Hits 18.2% Efficiency, Should Help to Reduce Costs

    October 13, 2012 By Nathan 1 Comment
    Black Silicon Solar Cell Hits 18.2% Efficiency, Should Help to Reduce Costs - CleanTechnica
     
  2. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,488
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,328
    http://www.tayloredge.com/reference/Electronics/Photonics/HighEfficiencySolarCells.pdf

    ABSTRACT:

    This paper reports recent progress by SunPower Corporation to commercialize silicon solar cells with
    efficiency greater than 20%. Large-area (149cm2) cells with efficiency as high as 21.5% (confirmed by NREL) have been made on a 1 MW/yr pilot line, and a production line with 25 MW/yr capacity has been constructed. Using a back-contact cell design and novel manufacturing techniques, cells with efficiency over 21% were produced with techniques suitable for high-volume manufacturing using Photovoltaic-grade Float Zone (PVFZ) silicon. Modules have been built. All test sequences for IEEE 1262 qualification have been passed and a 5kW demonstration array has been installed. Advantages of the cell design include a grid-less front surface and n-type starting material that does not suffer the initial light-induced degradation of commonly-used p-type wafers. Additional technical information about cell design and experiment results is also provided.
    Keywords: High-efficiency, c-Si, back contact
     
  3. mdn2000
    Offline

    mdn2000 BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,766
    Thanks Received:
    278
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    conservative hell california
    Ratings:
    +278
    Green Energy, every example given is an example of corruption.

    SunPower: Twice As Bad As Solyndra, Twice As Bad For Obama

     
  4. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,737
    Thanks Received:
    4,605
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,190
    I think the fact that Obama pushes innovation within this area is one of the few good things about his Admin. I wish he was more pro-science and technology in other area's.
     
  5. TruthSeeker56
    Offline

    TruthSeeker56 Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    2,899
    Thanks Received:
    482
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Ratings:
    +496
    It is no secret that President Obama’s and green-energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.

    The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.

    So far, 36 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

    The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

    Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
    SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
    Solyndra ($535 million)*
    Beacon Power ($43 million)*
    Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
    SunPower ($1.2 billion)
    First Solar ($1.46 billion)
    Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
    EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
    Amonix ($5.9 million)
    Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
    Abound Solar ($400 million)*
    A123 Systems ($279 million)*
    Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
    Johnson Controls ($299 million)
    Schneider Electric ($86 million)
    Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
    ECOtality ($126.2 million)
    Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
    Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
    Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
    Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
    Range Fuels ($80 million)*
    Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
    Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
    Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
    GreenVolts ($500,000)
    Vestas ($50 million)
    LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
    Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
    Navistar ($39 million)
    Satcon ($3 million)*
    Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
    Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
    *Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

    LINK: The Complete List of Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,123
    Thanks Received:
    4,670
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,399
    My skepticism on this comes from an appreciation about how incremental engineering improvements make a diff (or not) in product improvements. This is an example of using nanotech to make a better anti-reflection (AR) coating for PV panels.. But the fact that it contributes a noticeable "black" surface worries me greatly --- Since thermal accumulation is the biggest threat to solid silicon efficiency and life. Until you account for ALL METRICS of a new process, --- all you have is a data point on ONE metric. And this one is better AR coating efficiency.. It's jumping the gun to declare that this will produce a concommitant increase in a real product..
     

Share This Page