Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Spheral Solar Technology Approaching Reality 23

Posted by timothy from the top-of-my-car-please dept.
CactusMan writes: "A technology previously owned by Texas Instruments and then Ontario Hydro, Spheral Solar Technology is 'a low-cost alternative [to conventional solar cell technologies] involving flexible, lightweight solar cells comprised of thousands of tiny silicon spheres in an aluminum foil, which can be "formed and applied to virtually any curved or flat surface."' Automated Tooling Systems has just received $29.5 million (Canadian) to bring the technology to commercial viability. Read the article here or go directly to the Spheral site."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spheral Solar Technology Approaching Reality More

Spheral Solar Technology Approaching Reality

Comments Filter:
  • I've always dreamed of travelling to the sun in a sphere.
  • A billion geeks walking around in aluminum foil hats powering their wearable electronic tools and toys.

    So why didn't Orwell see that one?

  • What's the time to market for a cap with a solar powered beanie propeller?
  • Did any one find out how efficient this material will be?
    I searched up and down on the site and found some really cool stuff. It's very light and very durable, but no specs. Normally when someone talks about a new solar panel, they mention the efficiency. I'm worried it might be really low, so they hid it.

    I've been wishing for low cost solar panels all my life.

    • Re:Efficiency? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Midnight Thunder ( 17205 )
      Looking around the net with google [google.ca] I found this link [ibiblio.org] that indicates 8 to 10% efficiency. This is fairly low when compared to standard solar cells ( see CNN article [cnn.com] ) which indicates 40% efficiency. Although spheral solar cells aren't as efficient, since they can be used in places where regular solar cells can't, any efficiency is better than none at all.

      • Re:Efficiency? 40% is BS (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        They're only getting 32% in the lab. Much less once a bird has shat on the device. They're using gallium arsenide - Bill gates could not afford to power his house with this stuff.

        The stupid thing about PV research is that more money gets put into chasing the percentages with wierd compounds rather than trying to achieve something that is useful.

        The Aussies have the solar challenge - a showcase for PV. Unfortunately, again, the focus is on spending bazzillions of dollars in making expensive cars - which does not help make PV a real-world energy solution.

        • The stupid thing about PV research is that more money gets put into chasing the percentages with wierd compounds rather than trying to achieve something that is useful.

          High efficiency, high cost PV cells are useful, in two applications: (1) on spacecraft, and (2) in concentrator systems with high (500x, say) concentration factors. For the latter you want to get as much energy as you can to defray the cost of the optics and tracking hardware, so you want the PV cells to be as efficient as possible (and since the concentration is so high you can afford to spend a lot per unit cell area.)

          Gallium arsenside is also useful in space because it can be made much thinner (hence, lighter) than silicon, and because it doesn't lose efficiency so quickly as it gets hot (for spacecraft on solar orbits bringing them closer to the Sun than 1 AU).

    • if they aren't as efficient as conventional cells, if they are a lot cheaper to produce, and more durable, useful in more environments, etc.... then it works out.

      The problem isn't so much the efficiency of current cells as it is the cost.
    • Please don't all gang up on me.
      I was just worried the panels might have about 1% efficiency. You have to admit that at some point it becomes silly to even bother.

      That said, I think 8-10% is great (maybe higher as they refine the process). Why don't they admit it up front? Since the rest looks pretty cheap to make, lets hope they have a cheap way to make little silicon balls, because I'm going to need lost of electricity to run my cheap digital wall paper (another dream I hope to see in my lifetime).

  • ... or were there others that thought there was spelling error in the title?

    I have been on /. too long :-)

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close