The Independent brings us — Breakthrough in solar panel manufacture promises cheap energy within a decade.
A study has shown that the solar cells produced with magnesium chloride — which is also found in bath salts as well as used to coagulate soya milk into tofu — work just as efficiently as conventional cadmium cells but at a fraction of the cost and with much lower toxicity.
"We certainly believe it's going to make a big change to the costs of these devices. The cost of solar is going to match fossil fuels eventually but this is going to get us there quicker," said Jon Major of the University of Liverpool, who led the research.
The cheapest solar cells being manufactured today are based on a thin film of insoluble cadmium telluride. Alone, these cells convert less than two percent of sunlight into energy. By applying cadmium chloride to them, this efficiency increases to over 15 percent.
"Magnesium chloride is incredibly low-cost and it's simply recovered from seawater. It's used to de-ice roads in winter and it's completely harmless and non-toxic. We've managed to replace a highly expensive, toxic material with one that's completely benign and low cost," Dr Major said.
This sounds like a big find for Solar PV manufacturing; one that will both reduce the costs of materials and make the panels less toxic to manufacture. Considering the reduced costs, I would bet on this change in process to get to market sooner. How soon can we hope to see solar get to a cost per kWh finally drop below that of coal?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday June 28 2014, @06:04AM
Always 10 years away, every week another announcement, always 10 years out or more.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28 2014, @06:38AM
I know at least 2 people in my town who benefit enough from solar power that they don't pay power bills any more. The upfront cost can be steep but worth it if you own your own home. If you pump more into the grid than you pull out you get an account in credit. Solar is viable already for homes*, enough with the fud.
*note: For 'homes' that can count on the grid when needed.
(Score: 1) by theronb on Tuesday July 01 2014, @07:43PM
Many locales do not permit backfeeding into the grid - one way energy companies have of suppressing decentralized solar power generation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by davester666 on Saturday June 28 2014, @06:56AM
and when it does finally ship, it's priced just a little more than solutions that are slightly worse.
It WON'T be cheaper than coal, even if the company could make a good profit at that price.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28 2014, @08:34AM
Eh, solar in terms of price per watt of capacity has been falling dramatically in recent years. Like a 40% drop since 2008. [reneweconomy.com.au]
In fact, solar costs are so much cheaper now that half of the installed cost in the US is all from the government red tape like permits and licensing. [forbes.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Saturday June 28 2014, @08:46AM
http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w05/coal%20prices.JPG
However, it will crumble eventually, and the curve will almost certainly start to take on the upward shape that oil has (note, wildly different x axis, and logarithmic y)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crude_oil_prices_since_1861_%28log%29.png
which appears to be above exponential.
Of course, it may take half a century before that kicks in. But at some point, the "in 10 years", which the OP is perfectly correct to take the piss out of, will actually become a reality, as technology never gets worse (I know it's easy to find counter-examples to that as worded, but you know what I mean). So PV will on paper dominate coal eventually, it's an inevitability (unless WWIII hits us first). The problem with the "on paper" rider is that there'll always be an early adopter peak in costs, which can significantly delay adoption. And that's not just being an early adopter of some nebulous "solar energy" concept - each new generation of technologies will have new overheads. I don't expect to see PV as a common source of power for the masses in my lifetime. (Even though I saw loads of small installations in Poland last week. I presume they're subsidised. Which of course would mean non-Polish tax payers in the EU probably paid for most of it. I guess we can consider that as paying them to test the effectiveness/efficiency/reliability before we roll it out here, so not a waste of our tax money. However, I'd still prefer the pot-holes down my road fixed as a higher priority, thank you.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Saturday June 28 2014, @06:29AM
How likely is it that seawater would be just as effective at activating the cadmium telluride?
- its cheap
- makes good press
- attracts investors...
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2, Informative) by MuadDib on Saturday June 28 2014, @08:13AM
A chloride source, not chlorine. Entirely different species.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28 2014, @09:38AM
How does Solar PV compare to Solar Thermal? Are the theoretical efficiencies higher? Will it be cheaper?
Solar Thermal has the potential advantage of generating electricity at night (from residual heat - e.g. molten salt).
I suppose it's easier to have a solar pv installation on your home/land than a solar thermal installation. So if it does get much cheaper I might be tempted to install some PV panels.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by richtopia on Saturday June 28 2014, @03:37PM
The fact that installations of both thermal and PV suggest roughly similar costs. Thermal probably will fall by the wayside because it does require massive installations. There are instances of thermal facilities (concentrated dishes on Stirling engines) which were later replaced with PV for higher efficiency. This is an example of the solar thermal being competitive, but PV making advances faster and outpacing for efficiency.
Also, ironically PV scales better in manufacturing. This is because they aren't quite one offs, as concentrated solar typically is. And one day one of the "ten years from now" breakthroughs for PV will probably happen, really reducing the manufacturing cost (similar to Li batteries displacing Ni).
The only way for thermal to keep up is for a lot of government contracts to come through; something like China covering the Gobi with troughs.
(Score: 2) by mrider on Saturday June 28 2014, @03:42PM
Oblig XKCD [xkcd.com]
Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"
Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."