Record high performance with new solar cells

A perfectly efficient solar collector cannot achieve 1350 Watts/meter^2

"for this type of solar cell"

...

And they breakdown over time. Ho-hum. :/

8.5 to 10 % under 1.5 times solar lighting (found nowhere on this planet) is hardly worth reporting. There are cells with efficiencies of 23%.

A little fact checking next time please!

And just think, we have new cap and trade rules just around the corner. With the expected higher cost for fossil-generated electricity due to cap and trade, this will be looking better and better.

Actually, there are solar cells that have even greater efficiency than 23%. The problem is that they are so costly that recapping the capital expenditure will take more than a decade in the sunbelt states. We just aren't where we need to be technologically before any capital investment is justified.

Actually, there are solar cells that have even greater efficiency than 23%. The problem is that they are so costly that recapping the capital expenditure will take more than a decade in the sunbelt states. We just aren't where we need to be technologically before any capital investment is justified.

They just changed the standards for efficiency.

The old 41% is now 23% according to another Physorg article. The efficiency statement is now based on usable capture as opposed to overall capture.

I don't think Solar is the way to go.
There's only so much surface area on the planet, and we'll need as much as we can get for vegitation.

Roof's/walls of buildings are the only real good spots for solar energy.

ShadowRam: the total energy consumption of all humankind comes out to about 0.0086% of the sunlight that hits Earth's surface (see http://en.wikiped...J#1012 ), so I would say that puts solar within shooting distance of satisfying all our needs. ;-) We just need to get efficiencies up and costs down.

Roof-mounted solar might be enough by itself -- a typical 1kW household could be powered by 5 to 10 square meters of 100% efficient panels depending on location -- but solar panels can also be put in deserts, along cleared power line routes or freeways, on arid mountaintops, maybe in the oceans or at the poles though it would be expensive -- and, eventually, in space. But, honestly, rooftops alone will probably be enough.

That link was http://en.wikiped.../1_E14_J -- and search the page for "human" and "sun"

rheuthenium is expensive. Too expensive to use.

ShadowRam: the total energy consumption of all humankind comes out to about 0.0086% of the sunlight that hits Earth's surface (see http://en.wikiped...J#1012 ), so I would say that puts solar within shooting distance of satisfying all our needs. ;-) We just need to get efficiencies up and costs down.

Roof-mounted solar might be enough by itself -- a typical 1kW household could be powered by 5 to 10 square meters of 100% efficient panels depending on location -- but solar panels can also be put in deserts, along cleared power line routes or freeways, on arid mountaintops, maybe in the oceans or at the poles though it would be expensive -- and, eventually, in space. But, honestly, rooftops alone will probably be enough.

You realize that 100% efficiency is impossible when talking about electricity.

Hell, right now 60% is a stretch.

next we will get some report that a new solar panel substance has been developed which achieves an unheard of 5% efficiency. Then a few years later a new product will be used with an unbelievable 3% efficiency, then after that a new type of solar panel will be developed that achieves an incredible 1% efficiency.

I don't want to be a cynic but it just seems we are heading backwards.

And yes, if someone comes up with a solar cell collector that I can spray on my roof that achieves 10% efficiency, then I will consider it, unless, it degrades to 1% efficiency after 12 months.

You realize that 100% efficiency is impossible when talking about electricity.

Hell, right now 60% is a stretch.

100% may be impossible, but 95% is not. Costs will eventually come down and efficiency will go up. That is how it is with all new technologies.(except combustion engines of course) :P

Hi Damon_H
where do you get a 1KW houshold from unless you live in a tent?

You realize that 100% efficiency is impossible when talking about electricity.

Hell, right now 60% is a stretch.

100% may be impossible, but 95% is not. Costs will eventually come down and efficiency will go up. That is how it is with all new technologies.(except combustion engines of course) :P

Name one technology or system that is over 60% efficiency in regard to energy collection and transmission.

(We'll skip the storage part right now as that'd make me have to lower the percent to 40 just to be fair.)

Velanarris: even at 60% efficiency, you still only need less than 20 square meters of solar panels per house. Right now that would cost a fortune, but wait a decade or two.

Ant: 1kW is about the average figure I saw on the web for typical household energy consumption. Search for "typical household energy consumption kw". Don't forget this average includes nighttime. Larger houses will consume more power -- but will also have more room for more solar panels. ;-)

Velanarris: even at 60% efficiency, you still only need less than 20 square meters of solar panels per house. Right now that would cost a fortune, but wait a decade or two.

Ant: 1kW is about the average figure I saw on the web for typical household energy consumption. Search for "typical household energy consumption kw". Don't forget this average includes nighttime. Larger houses will consume more power -- but will also have more room for more solar panels. ;-)

The average home consumes 920 kWh per month. Not 1 kW. Your figures are wayyyy off. That and how many homes don't have 20 m^2 of surface area with access to direct sunlight?

It is not efficient enough, it's too expensive, and you can't store it. The technology has a long long way to go before it's feasable to remove a home from the current grid.

The average home consumes 920 kWh per month. Not 1 kW. Your figures are wayyyy off. That and how many homes don't have 20 m^2 of surface area with access to direct sunlight?

Velanarris, you apparently don't know the difference between between power and energy. One thing that should have clued you in is that Damon Hastings did not quote you a period of time, not to mention the units he used. To compare your number with his, you'd have to take 1 kW and multiply it by the number of hours in a month, which is about 730.5. This results in a monthly usage of 730.5 kWh, which is quite close to the 920 kWh you quoted. So no, the numbers are not "wayyyy off." Please get a clue.

none

The average home consumes 920 kWh per month. Not 1 kW. Your figures are wayyyy off. That and how many homes don't have 20 m^2 of surface area with access to direct sunlight?

Velanarris, you apparently don't know the difference between between power and energy. One thing that should have clued you in is that Damon Hastings did not quote you a period of time, not to mention the units he used. To compare your number with his, you'd have to take 1 kW and multiply it by the number of hours in a month, which is about 730.5. This results in a monthly usage of 730.5 kWh, which is quite close to the 920 kWh you quoted. So no, the numbers are not "wayyyy off." Please get a clue.

Actually I'm quite comfortable with it, which would be exactly why I'm questioning the use of a figure of energy when talking about electrical power. Sometimes the argument isn't as complex as you desire.

Velanarris: You're flat wrong. The 720 to 930 kwh / month figure is very commonly used and useful.

I'd also note that the solar dish stirling units NOW BEING INSTALLED in western US already provide 30% net efficiency (and at very reasonable costs).