This would be nice, except this idea keeps surfacing every couple of years, and I’ve yet to see one actually become viable. – Anthony
“Organic photovoltaics can be fabricated over large areas on rigid or flexible substrates potentially becoming as inexpensive as paint.”
From the University of Buffalo –
Most Americans want the U.S. to place more emphasis on developing solar power, recent polls suggest.
A major impediment, however, is the cost to manufacture, install and maintain solar panels. Simply put, most people and businesses cannot afford to place them on their rooftops.
Fortunately, that is changing because researchers such as Qiaoqiang Gan, University at Buffalo assistant professor of electrical engineering, are helping develop a new generation of photovoltaic cells that produce more power and cost less to manufacture than what’s available today.
One of the more promising efforts, which Gan is working on, involves the use of plasmonic-enhanced organic photovoltaic materials. These devices don’t match traditional solar cells in terms of energy production but they are less expensive and – because they are made (or processed) in liquid form – can be applied to a greater variety of surfaces.
Gan detailed the progress of plasmonic-enhanced organic photovoltaic materials in the May 7 edition of the journal Advanced Materials. Co-authors include Filbert J. Bartoli, professor of electrical and computer engineering at Lehigh University, and Zakya Kafafi of the National Science Foundation.
The paper, which included an image of a plasmonic-enhanced organic photovoltaic device on the journal’s front page, is available at: http://bit.ly/11gzlQm.
Currently, solar power is produced with either thick polycrystalline silicon wafers or thin-film solar cells made up of inorganic materials such as amorphous silicon or cadmium telluride. Both are expensive to manufacture, Gan said.
His research involves thin-film solar cells, too, but unlike what’s on the market he is using organic materials such as polymers and small molecules that are carbon-based and less expensive.
“Compared with their inorganic counterparts, organic photovoltaics can be fabricated over large areas on rigid or flexible substrates potentially becoming as inexpensive as paint,” Gan said.
The reference to paint does not include a price point but rather the idea that photovoltaic cells could one day be applied to surfaces as easily as paint is to walls, he said.
There are drawbacks to organic photovoltaic cells. They have to be thin due to their relatively poor electronic conductive properties. Because they are thin and, thus, without sufficient material to absorb light, it limits their optical absorption and leads to insufficient power conversion efficiency.
Their power conversion efficiency needs to be 10 percent or more to compete in the market, Gan said.
To achieve that benchmark, Gan and other researchers are incorporating metal nanoparticles and/or patterned plasmonic nanostructures into organic photovoltaic cells. Plasmons are electromagnetic waves and free electrons that can be used to oscillate back and forth across the interface of metals and semiconductors.
Recent material studies suggest they are succeeding, he said. Gan and the paper’s co-authors argue that, because of these breakthroughs, there should be a renewed focus on how nanomaterials and plasmonic strategies can create more efficient and affordable thin-film organic solar cells.
Gan is continuing his research by collaborating with several researchers at UB including: Alexander N. Cartwright, professor of electrical engineering and biomedical engineering and UB vice president for research and economic development; Mark T. Swihart, UB professor of chemical and biological engineering and director of the university’s Strategic Strength in Integrated Nanostructured Systems; and Hao Zeng, associate professor of physics.
Gan is a member of UB’s electrical engineering optics and photonics research group, which includes Cartwright, professors Edward Furlani and Pao-Lo Liu, and Natalia Litchinitser, associate professor.
The group carries out research in nanphotonics, biophotonics, hybrid inorganic/organic materials and devices, nonlinear and fiber optics, metamaterials, nanoplasmonics, optofluidics, microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), biomedical microelectromechanical systems (BioMEMs), biosensing and quantum information processing.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does this mean we can dismantle the windmills?
What is that going to cost?
Will the PV paint cost less than coal power?
On the matters solar
Another X-class solar flare
two in one day, very rare.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/Xray.gif
see NASA’s LASCO2 image
To borrow something said of fusion power: Inexpensive solar power is the energy of the future and always will be.
Solar has its uses, and for some things it is perfect. I cannot see it ever replacing conventional energy sources for the bulk of our energy.
I’m sure they’ll make them with embryonic stems cells …
“leads to insufficient power conversion efficiency.”
Even less than “normal” cells?
Maybe it really is “inexpensive as paint.” But it depends on which paint they’re talking about. Go look at the pearls available from Kolor House – the paint for my street rod is around $5,300 per gallon. And no, I didn’t go out and buy a wildly expensive brew compared to everything else….
Assuming the cost is reasonable, the other issue is, How long will it last?
Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Gila Stein, at the University of Houston is also working on a $500,000 NSF grant. “Using current fabrication techniques, polymer solar cells have reached approximately 11% efficiencies int he lab and only about 2% in the field. Standard silicon solar cells, on the other hand, have topped 20% in real world installations.”
“Real world” includes azimuth tracking, optimum siting and maintenance during peak insolation times of the day. The “Parameter” magazine article continues…”Steins research in this field will focus on the solar cell’s active layers…the polymer film that receives the sunlight and produces the electrons, as well as the material that receives the electron (in this case a spherical carbon molecule known as fullerene)”
Clarification required….No photon is converted to an electron. A photon only excites some base material element to surrender an electron in a one-time, one-way molecular erosion process. Sorry, but this form of photovoltaics is a dead end technology for long term energy solutions. It can never recover the fossil fuel generated investment energy to be anything more than the 1.5 volt, 1.5 watt/sq ft, direct current battery charger that it would be….sans massive tax and rate payer subsidies.
Having researched solar cell systems for house I was once planning on building, I found that the solar cell costs do not comprise the major portion of an installation. The install costs are greater,
and the required inverter costs not that much less than the panels, especially if the more efficient
microinverters are used rather than a central inverter. There are also the costs if the roof requires replacement and the whole system has to be de-installed and then re-installed. And solar panels require land, lots and lots of acreage : to produce the same amount of output power as a typical
Gen 3 nuclear reactor, you’ll need about 80,000 acres packed full of thin film commercial solar panels. And you’ll need to back up that unreliable solar power (which cannot be produced 24/7)
with conventional generating capacity. And that costs appreciable amounts of money. Unreliable power requires additional expense because of its undesirable side effects. This is true for any unreliable power generator.
I’ve been wanting to add solar power to our place, but I haven’t found any affordable solutions yet, and I’m concerned about hail damaging them. I see alot of houses with large panels installed on the roof. There are some small panels available from Harbor Freight Tools for around $200, but the output is barely enough for one lightbulb. Alot of people in our area are installing small wind turbines. I don’t know how effective they are though.
With current silicon panels above a dollar watt, they are not very viable. If these new less efficient panels can hit two bits a watt – it’s all over – solar panels everywhere!
10 May: NYC.gov: Press Release: MAYOR BLOOMBERG, HUD SECRETARY DONOVAN AND SENATOR SCHUMER ANNOUNCE FEDERAL APPROVAL OF CITY’S PLAN FOR NEARLY $1.8 BILLION IN HURRICANE SANDY RECOVERY INITIATIVES
Infrastructure and Resiliency Programs
The City has set aside $294 million for resiliency investments to be detailed in a report issued by the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency later this month…
“We’ll also take the first steps toward making the City more resilient to the impacts that we know climate change will bring.”…
http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2013a%2Fpr159-13.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1
The best solar panel technology, that will never be improved on, was developed 2-3 billion years ago by evolving life: plants, photosynthesis and the rubisco protein.
Some time ago, there were researchers from the University of Toronto that said they could produce Infrared photovoltaic cells. Those were suppose to revolutionize the market since there are much more infrared than visible light and also you could still use them during night time … well, we are still waiting for them.
“The reference to paint does not include a price point but rather the idea that photovoltaic cells could one day be applied to surfaces as easily as paint is to walls, he said”
Oh I understand now. But I thought we already almost there, aren’t we? Applying current photovoltaic panels is almost like sticking posters to your walls. Extremely expensive posters, that is…
From the article:
“… fabricated over large areas on rigid or flexible substrates potentially becoming as inexpensive as paint.”
Say that again?
From the article:
“The reference to paint does not include a price point but rather the idea that photovoltaic cells could one day be applied to surfaces as easily as paint is to walls, he said.”
Huh?
So what they’re saying is “the cost of fabrication” is as cheap as you want to go. Hire someone as cheap as a painter or DIY. Notice that in order to compete against “conventional” solar you need 10% efficiency. What’s the “conventional” solar power efficiency? 12-18%
Keep dreaming or keep banging those rocks together
So here’s the deal. If these printable solar cell researchers can actually come up with cartridges for the 3D printer that will allow people to print ‘power-boards’ that meet their needs, then they will be added incrementally to existing buildings.
Then there will be a need to store and re-use the energy… LED lighting does well on lower voltage DC and that retrofit might be achievable with home expertise and resources. Being able to have lighting off the grid is a good first step… once people can do it themselves it will happen. Requiring high-skill contractors and permission from the city to install, not going to be a major factor anytime soon if at all.
When human capital becomes the final hurdle, it will happen very fast.
Solar Power is the energy from the past (oil and coal) and it will be the energy of the future. If we can optimise the farming of this huge amount of energy to a fraction of what plants do and solve storing problems, we will have lots of problems solved. Fusion and solar energy are much more interesting than wind-power for instance. Considering that solar power is farmed by quantic interactions, the only way is to solve things in a quantic scale. Some teams are working hard and this is an example (see link) of a prototype that it’s already competitive with the best solar cells available. Considering that it uses graphene, cells can have tridimensional structure and can bend easily. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2013/05/01/science.1235547
You just increase the engineering and building costs to duplicate the current paths and keep them working safely, efficiently and correctly. Then work within the lower power budget as well.
Organic photovoltaics can be fabricated over large areas on rigid or flexible substrates potentially becoming as inexpensive as paint.
Lots of names instead of explanations and an absence of numbers except perhaps on the next grant application form. I bet the words “climate change” will be found there too.
Best of luck with it though.
Lots of wiggle room in their language – mostly sounds like noise intended to keep funding coming their way for continued research.
Key quote for me :
“The reference to paint does not include a price point but rather the idea that photovoltaic cells could one day be applied to surfaces as easily as paint is to walls, he said.”
In other words – this isn’t cheap ….. and probably not cost competitive, even with current solar technology, let alone hydrocarbon based power.
I applaud their efforts though – if solar is going to work on a large scale & compete against hydrocarbons, it has to be much more cost competitive than it currently is & these researchers clearly recognize that hurdle that must be overcome & they are working to solve the problem.
You can make your own cells from tea and donuts. It isn’t that hard. Makes you wonder why they aren’t everywhere. 😉
http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2010/03/how-to/how-to-make-your-own-solar-cell
The big issue no one has found a way around is weathering. Solar paint would weather very similar to other paint which mean output would drop year to year until the house was repainted. Not a practical idea in my opinion. Too expensive. A better idea is to turn windows into solar panels you can see out while still producing electricity. They would last long than solar paint and not be much more expensive to regular windows. Just my thoughts.
BTW….the “spherical carbon molecules known as fullerene” mentioned above, are named after R Buckminster Fuller, the single greatest human that i have ever heard in person. He spoke to a capacity crowd of several thousand at the Cullen Auditorium at U of H in the mid seventies. I attended with a group of senior engineering students. I was familiar with the geodesic dome and his mathematical patents, i was unprepared for the mind expanding two hour lecture that was to follow.
The stage was set with a podium and a pitcher of water. A bald, eighty year old man with coke bottle thick glasses and the shape of an egg, walked out to a standing obviation. He spoke for two hours, with no notes, an occasional sip of water and only one loss of his formidable train of thought. He covered our Universe from his recently announced carbon nano-spheres [called Bucky Balls] and nanotubes to the spectrum analysis of other galaxies. This was the most inspirational lecture of my lifetime, his biographies are near unbelievable.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller
Amazing that a few hours of inspiration can last a lifetime.