Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

12-Year-Old May Hold Key to Solar Energy

news.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–18 of 18 posts

Re: 12-Year-Old May Hold Key to Solar Energy

#11

Post by hugh »

ks wrote: post #10
PieSquared wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the efficiency only counts the visible radiation? So that the fact that it uses ultraviolent screws up the 7-15% (that is, if you include UV light, its much lower?) That'd be my guess... Although it is rather low on facts and high on hype.

Yes, I think you're right. From the article: Most solar cells in use today are either photovoltaic, meaning they harness only visible light, or thermal. Also: they're engineered to stand freely in three dimensions So you have panels that catch both visible and UV light, and can do it in three dimensions.

The amount of energy coming through in the UV portion of the spectrum is quite small:

http://www.sunwindsolar.com/a_images/solar_insolation-b.jpg

Everything to the left of the "visible light" portion.

Re: 12-Year-Old May Hold Key to Solar Energy

#12

Post by rflrob »

Is free-standing actually a good thing? It seems to me if you're trying to maximize flux per unit material, you can't do much better than a flat sheet. The only problem is that the sun moves, but it seems like a free-standing array would only get slightly better performance for much greater cost.

Re: 12-Year-Old May Hold Key to Solar Energy

#13

Post by briancooley »

rflrob wrote: post #12

Is free-standing actually a good thing? It seems to me if you're trying to maximize flux per unit material, you can't do much better than a flat sheet. The only problem is that the sun moves, but it seems like a free-standing array would only get slightly better performance for much greater cost.

From a related article (http://www.katu.com/news/local/28432984.html):

If he is right, solar panels with his 3D cells would provide 500 times more light absorption than commercially-available solar cells and nine times more than cutting-edge 3D solar cells.

So apparently there is some advantage to 3D cells, apparently related to multiple light interactions:

"Regular solar cells are only 2D and only allow light interaction once," he said.

It's still not apparent what the basis is for the 500x light absorption figure. Seems to me that the most meaningful basis is the footprint of the device, but that is not clear from any story I've read on this subject.

Re: 12-Year-Old May Hold Key to Solar Energy

#14

Post by DabAsteroid »

briancooley wrote: post #13
rflrob wrote: post #12

Is free-standing actually a good thing? It seems to me if you're trying to maximize flux per unit material, you can't do much better than a flat sheet. The only problem is that the sun moves, but it seems like a free-standing array would only get slightly better performance for much greater cost.

From a related article ( http://www.katu.com/news/local/28432984.html ): If he is right, solar panels with his 3D cells would provide 500 times more light absorption than commercially-available solar cells and nine times more than cutting-edge 3D solar cells. So apparently there is some advantage to 3D cells, apparently related to multiple light interactions: "Regular solar cells are only 2D and only allow light inte…

It's still not apparent what the basis is for the 500x light absorption figure.

Maybe it is a mis-paraphrase of 500-suns concentration capacity. Alternately, it might only refer to UV.

Re: 12-Year-Old May Hold Key to Solar Energy

#15

Post by Tichy »

hugh wrote: post #7
neilk wrote: post #4

The kid didn't invent it, but he did make an implementation of a relatively new idea. http://blog.wired.com/geekdad/2008/09/12-year-old-rev.html?n...

Did he actually build one? I haven't seen any indication that he did anything other than "design" one. And it's a lot easier to "design" a nanoscale device than it is to build one. I mean, I'm sure the kid is smart and all (and no doubt has had some help from his parents) but the media-hype to technical-details ratio here is off the charts.

Yeah, that is what would interest me: how to experiment with Nanotech at home.

Re: 12-Year-Old May Hold Key to Solar Energy

#16

Post by PieSquared »

hugh wrote: post #11
ks wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I think you're right. From the article: Most solar cells in use today are either photovoltaic, meaning they harness only visible light, or thermal. Also: they're engineered to stand freely in three dimensions So you have panels that catch both visible and UV light, and can do it in three dimensions.

The amount of energy coming through in the UV portion of the spectrum is quite small: http://www.sunwindsolar.com/a_images/solar_insolation-b.jpg Everything to the left of the "visible light" portion.

Huh. In that case, there's no way that '500 times' can have any bearing towards reality whatsoever. :)

Re: 12-Year-Old May Hold Key to Solar Energy

#17

Post by osmfac »

I don't think the 500 times boast is relative to percentage, but rather the standard of measurement used ...therefore the arguement of 3500% efficiency is a mute point...I'm no scientist, in fact my mind doesn't work even close to that of a scientist, but I paid attention in math class...if you are looking at something that is relatively inefficient as far as potential to begin with, 500 times the standard although very impressive is not unrealistic in the least.

Re: 12-Year-Old May Hold Key to Solar Energy

#18

Post by lutorm »

osmfac wrote: post #17

I don't think the 500 times boast is relative to percentage, but rather the standard of measurement used ...therefore the arguement of 3500% efficiency is a mute point...I'm no scientist, in fact my mind doesn't work even close to that of a scientist, but I paid attention in math class...if you are looking at something that is relatively inefficient as far as potential to begin with, 500 times the standard although v…

Yes except that would imply that current solar cells have an efficiency of at most 0.2%. Which isn't true.

Maybe they are 500x more efficient in the UV, but in that case it's a meaningless number because the Sun emits very little energy in the UV.

Post reply on HN