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.
Richard Boettner said ” A better idea is to turn windows into solar panels you can see out while still producing electricity”
And Spartacus mentioned ‘graphene’
Combine the two ideas and solar starts to make some sense, a film of graphene could be applied to an inner surface of a double or triple glazed window fairly readily I would have thought. OK, given the limited area involved in most peoples windows you won’t be getting a large rebate on your electricity bill, but it may nonetheless be cost effective without subsidy, which is where solar has to get to eventually.
Aside from household windows I would have thought that thin film solar such as graphene could be combined with thermal solar, so that the graphene is the first layer, perhaps beneath a protective film of some sort, even glass, and that the remaining solar passes through the graphene to heat a fluid or gas of some sort.
There’s just that storage issue to be resolved. But why bother to store locally, excess electricity could be converted at a number of suitable locations to hydrogen which could then be used to generate electricity during night hours, or smooth peaks, or fuel vehicles.
Why aren’t heat pumps more popular, they produce heat in winter and cooling in summer and do so with a headline COP of 4.5 perhaps 2.5 to 3 in the real world.
Not sure how even the cheapest PV helps when the current ones gave 800Watts from a 45 KW array when we really needed the energy here.
I will be interested when they solve the problem of organic solar cells degrading in sunlight.
I can imagine this paint on solar system reaching an affordable price to apply. The problem I see is connecting all the internal bits to form a coherent whole. This will be the problem of the manufacturer and installer. This is a huge obstacle as the pixies and fairies required charge huge amounts per hour, thou the pixies are a bit cheaper but refuse to guarantee their work.
The shortage and cost of these workers will make this the most expensive solar power in the world.
William McClenney says:
Further to what William says, they could make solar panels free and the average cost of electricity wouldn’t change much. Companies that currently provide our electricity would find their return on investment dropping so would either get out of the business or double their prices for the back-up service they provide. Either way, the half of the electric that you buy in would double in price. As William says, the only way around this is to store enough electric while the sun is shining. The limiting factor is therefore not the cheapness of solar panels, but the cost effectiveness of the storeage system.
Whenever I see the phrase “organic photovoltaics” I have to laugh.
Organic compounds feature chemical bonds between carbon and hydrogen atoms (C-H bonds), and among carbon atoms (C-C bonds). The ultraviolet component of sunlight can break these bonds, creating chemical radicals and ions, and generally degrading the material like the plastic top on a 1973 Lincoln. The only way to protect the plastic from this destruction is to shield it from the very radiant energy which you seek to capture with a photovoltaic array.
DOOMED from the get-go!
Although I can’t see the guts of the article, whenever I see the term “plasmon” or “plasmon enhanced” along with OLED I think silver nanoparticles. Silver somehow turns surface plasmons in the right direction so they can be used. Unfortunately, silver is sort of expensive and in short supply, I really can’t see too many people painting houses with it before silver supply/demand kicks in and renders the paint too expensive.
It seems to me that solar panels will likely be economically attractive in 20 to 30 years. In fact, several different solar technologies: some for the deserts (not just the Sahara, but those in China, India, Arabia, Peru, Spain, etc.), some for limited space commercial building roofs, and some for the far different environment of SE, S, and SW facing commercial building glass.
I don’t think that way about, say, nuclear fusion. For fusion to work, we have to figure out ways to create something like an milli or micro second 1 million degrees reaction burst, contain that reaction safely, figure out how to use that heat to produce electricity, and then make it economical. Nuclear fission has become way too expensive now, mainly for safety reasons, so how could the far more complex fusion ever be economic?
That paragraph is background for why solar WILL likely be economic. Unlike fusion, solar technologies bear many similarities to internet and telecom technologies — micro scale scientific and materials advances — these are familiar to us and even fairly predictable. Many technology efforts will fail, as they do in Silicon valley, but also as in Silicon valley, there will be major commercial successes.
The storage and backup issue is not necessarily a deal breaker for houses with Nat Gas – backup generator anyone? In New York the amount I pay for electricity is a bit less than the amount I pay to get it sent to my house. If solar becomes more popular the delivery fees will rise, since the cost of keeping all the above ground cables up during storms is a fixed cost. Fewer users = higher average user fees. However, gas is basically a requirement for heating up here. A moderate sized PV system with a Nat Gas generator (microturbine with heat recovery) and small battery bank (maybe 12 hours of power) would be sufficient here. During the winter the solar output is lower and the generator would need to run. However the total efficiency can run ~95% since thermal “losses” in this system would be useful for heating the home. During the summer the higher PV output combined with a small battery system would be sufficient for almost all electricity needs.
For those of you solar bashing-
When considering solar systems keep in mind the system costs don’t scale with size in the same way as fossil fuels. The break even is on the residential side, not the wholesale side. It can be economic for someone to mount their own rooftop system when they are gouged by a system that
a) refuses to put in new transmission lines (or add capacity, or command the production mode)
b) reduces strain on the system by raising “delivery fees”
c) introducing “temporary” or “special on time” fees every time there is a storm
d) introduces special taxes on “dirty” power sources
In NY I pay ~$0.20/kWh. So, if a system operates at 20% average peak output (night, clouds, snow) for 20 years I need a nominal cost of $6/W to break even over that time frame. The calculation is a little more complicated given the alternative potential return if the $6/W were invested (future value of present assets), and also the basic truth that the price of electricity will go up (future liabilities). However, in many areas (the gov. manipulated ones mostly) unsubsidized solar panels are the right economic choice. That is why Germany can’t get people to stop mounting them (even when they end subsidies).