Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
China Science

Solar Panel Developed That Can Generate Electricity From Rain (sciencenewsjournal.com) 106

Posted by msmash from the affinity-for-solar-power dept.
Reader Socguy writes: Scientists in China have developed a prototype solar panel with a single atom-thick layer of graphene on the surface. This layer allows the panel to generate electricity, not just from the sun but also from any rain that falls on it. This development promises to further boost the output of solar panels during times of less than optimal conditions.Also from the report, "All it takes is a mere one-atom thick graphene layer for an excessive amount of electrons to move as they wish across the surface. In situations where water is present, graphene binds its electrons with positively charged ions. Some of you may know this process to be called as the Lewis acid-base interaction."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Solar Panel Developed That Can Generate Electricity From Rain More

Solar Panel Developed That Can Generate Electricity From Rain

Comments Filter:

  • ... to recharge my batteries at the solar urinal.

    • the more you drink, the more power you can generate.

      you, literally, are increasing your potential by drinking more.

      • I wonder how this compares to the current potential. Hopefully it is insulated from any negative effects, but we rarely see well-grounded arguments on certain charged topics. Its hard to resist dismissing these stories entirely.
    • CAREFUL! You don't want to get zapped! The electricity generated by the solar-urinal may send a charge up your conductive stream! (Some viagra will allow you to eject that stream at a force faster and greater than light, preventing the charge from reaching the - ahem - 'nozzel' ;-)

  • Real world (Score:5, Insightful)

    by afidel ( 530433 ) on Saturday April 09, 2016 @01:59PM (#51875617)

    In the real world a one atom thick layer graphene layer is going to be destroyed incredibly quickly by UV, water, random pollutants in the atmosphere, etc. This seems to be another case of scientists going "I can do this in the lab" and engineers just shaking their heads.

    • Re:Real world (Score:4, Interesting)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Saturday April 09, 2016 @02:22PM (#51875727) Journal

      This seems to be another case of scientists going "I can do this in the lab" and engineers just shaking their heads.

      All technological advances start that way. Remember the Manhattan Project? The space program? Einstein?

      Nothing makes a certain type of Slashdotter anti-technology faster than a development in renewable energy. The same people who are talking about a manned mission to Mars will go, "...but renewable energy isn't practical!"

      • Not what is going on here. I'm extremely in favor of renewable energy, and have spent a fair bit of time on Slashdot harping about what people can do to encourage the use of renewable energy, and I had the same reaction. Yes, there are people who immediately condemn any sort of new renewable technology in a knee jerk fashion, but that doesn't change that some ideas really aren't good ones for practical applications.
        • That doesn't mean other scientists aren't going to then develop a practical protection for a 1 atom thick layer of graphene that still allows the process to work.

          What isn't practical today has *very* frequently become practical in the future.

      • Well, it doesn't help that we've been reading Slashdot articles about "breakthrough" advances in solar and battery technology that never went anywhere about three times a month for the past five years. It makes you jaded after a while.

        • Well, it doesn't help that we've been reading Slashdot articles about "breakthrough" advances in solar and battery technology that never went anywhere about three times a month for the past five years. It makes you jaded after a while.

          Those advances in solar and battery technology have gone a lot farther than your beloved, "Private Industry Space Exploration", which still hasn't been able to put a human being into space.

          • private space industry just landed a reusable rocket on a heaving platform in the ocean. That's nothing to sneeze at.

      • All technological advances start that way.

        All technological advances start the same way as technological dead ends do? Obviously. It's just that this is overwhelmingly likely to be the latter.

    • Re: Real world (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 09, 2016 @02:41PM (#51875807)

      Engineers at companies I've worked for that just shook theirbhead at new buy impractical ideas were the ones that had to find new jobs after restructuring, or were sent to positions to do grunt work without bonuses and raises. The good engineers responses were to have a discussion about options and directions for further research to make the impractical into practical. It doesn't always work out, but in general it s good for people to get excited about new ideas because sometimes it does work with further development.

      • But it's one of the duties of a good engineer to quickly reject stupid ideas with a back-of-the-envelope argument. Otherwise time gets wasted with perpetual motion machines. A "discussion about options and directions for further research to make the impractical into practical" simply won't work for perpetual motion machines, or other similar ideas.
        • back of the envelope arguments said that 1. a moon shot was ridiculous 2. that Apollo 13 was doomed.

          Posters point is still valid.

        • But it's one of the duties of a good engineer to quickly reject stupid ideas with a back-of-the-envelope argument.

          True, as long the argument is valid.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by slazzy ( 864185 )
      You're probably right, but you never know. Maybe the idea could be developed further into something more robust.

    • This seems to be another case of scientists going "I can do this in the lab" and engineers just shaking their heads.

      One of my professors years ago said that scientists show what's possible, engineers show what's practical.

    • Graphene is a two-dimensional form of carbon in which the atoms are bonded into a honeycomb arrangement. It can readily be prepared by the oxidation, exfoliation, and subsequent reduction of graphite. Graphene is characterized by its unusual electronic properties: It conducts electricity and is rich in electrons that can move freely across the entire layer (delocalized). In aqueous solution, graphene can bind positively charged ions with its electrons (Lewis acid-base interaction). This property is used in
    • I get that you wouldn't want to take a piece of sandpaper to graphene, but what makes you think that it can't stand up to any of those things?

      It looks like graphene is at least UV resistant?
      http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/1... [acs.org]

      I can't find any clear information on its reactivity, other than depending on thickness and substrate material.

    • In the real world a one atom thick layer graphene layer is going to be destroyed incredibly quickly by UV, water, random pollutants in the atmosphere, etc. This seems to be another case of scientists going "I can do this in the lab" and engineers just shaking their heads.

      The whole idea of the lab to is demonstrate the new technology in principle. Once proven, it is trivial to scale up to whatever level is required to make it commercially viable.
      Any Engineer that doesn't understand this should probably look for another job.

      • "Once proven, it is trivial to scale up to whatever level is required to make it commercially viable."

        Yes, just look at all the commercial applications of graphene and carbon nanotubes out there thanks to how trivial they are to mass produce.

        • We may as well give up then. If there's one sure fire way to make new things happen it's by complaining about it and giving up....

          • Huh? It's not trivial so we may as well give up? That's a weird dichotomy you've set up there.

            • Sarcasm detector broken?
              The GP, seems to have jumped from research concept to lack of real world viability so is belittling the research.
              This may or may not end up with a real world application, but that doesn't automatically discredit the effort, or the fact that it may lead to some thing slightly different but related. The GP's comment about the Engineers just shaking their head is ignorant, yet still manages +5. Seriously, what fucking dumb arse mods are polluting this place?

      • You are very right.

        Your only mistake was using the word 'trivial'.

        • Maybe "relatively trivial"?
          The point was, the R&D is the harder part of the equation, so engineers shouldn't be scoffing at the results

    • Or the engineers could read the article. It says "one atom thick is all you need", not "one atom thick is all we are planning".

      Then the engineer would say "oh, good, it can be as thin as we like, because graphene is expensive".

  • Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Saturday April 09, 2016 @01:59PM (#51875619) Homepage Journal

    Slashdot is still doing this. Ugh. It's not much better than the typical science-fair story.

    How much energy? I can make a free-power radio receiver with not much more than a long wire and a rectifier. It will feed your earbuds but it won't charge your Tesla.

    There is also the prospect of dirt getting in the way when things depend on one-molecule-thick layers.

    • I'd suggest you read the article.

      Hang on. Probably best to wait until there actually *is* one.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Saturday April 09, 2016 @02:51PM (#51875853) Homepage Journal

      TFA is unclear but seems to be saying 1uA and a few hundred mV, so maybe 0.5uW for some unknown area under simulated conditions. Basically useless.

      A little turbine in the drain pipe would be far more effective and practical.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DamonHD ( 794830 )

        Actually, something from ~1uW upwards would be just fine for some IoT/sensor applications. Our current (OpenTRV V0p2) base board takes ~3uA (~1.5uA, ~1.8V+) to run the basics including software RTC, and then some for sensors and radio, but you can choose who often you sense and send to fit an energy budget. And there are newer MCUs then ours.

        Rgds

        Damon

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I engineered some really low powered sensors for work too, similar sort of low single digit uA range. We looked at powering with RF energy harvesting which can provide more than this can. And don't forget that it will be part of a solar panel generating many Watts. A cheap supercap would easily store more than this technique will generate during the night.

        • Actually, something from ~1uW upwards would be just fine for some IoT/sensor applications

          We're talking about solar panels here. There's already plenty of energy coming from the sun, so there's no need to add fancy extras to capture a miniscule amount of energy from the rain. And even on a rainy day, you'll get a lot more than 1uW from a solar panel.

    • Not much energy, on inspection:
      the math is about high-school physics level, so here goes:

      For one square meter of square module, inclined at your latitude angle L, at 2.54 cm of precipitation per hour, the power from the water sliding across the module is good for about

      cos L * 1 sin L * 1 * 25400 / 2 * 0.000098 watts.

      For 45 degrees latitude, that's about .622 watts, at 100% efficiency (which it is not). That's the sweet spot.

      That's about 1/350 the energy available falling on a 22% efficient module on June 2

      • Even if correct, your calculations are not relevant. The energy extracted is chemical, not mechanical.

        • If you read the article, figure S7 of the supplementary material graphs a linear relationship between the velocity of the droplets and the induced voltage, so there is definitely a mechanical component to the power generation.

    • How much energy?

      No clue. But the threshold is a lot lower, because presumably it's sharing a lot of infrastructure with the existing solar panel. So as long as the incremental gain outweighs the incremental cost, this is a good thing.

      It's a prototype, which means we're still at "hey, neat trick", not at "this will allow us to make our third-quarter projections".

  • Now those living in Seattle can finally be part of the green revolution!

  • I live in the maritime US Pacific Northwest. It really does rain/drizzle for much of the fall, winter, and spring (although the last few days have been glorious!), which is really when our area has higher electricity needs - our summers tend to be fairly cool, so there's not a huge load due to air conditioning.

    This could turn out to be a big deal in areas with our sort of weather.

    • It really does rain/drizzle for much of the fall, winter, and spring [...]

      and summer.

      Yeah, I know, cheap Seattle joke. Like the summers in Minnesota being so beautiful--both weeks!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AJWM ( 19027 )

      Too bad all that rain, drizzle etc just sits there in puddles or soaks into the ground instead of, say, flowing down to rivers which could be dammed for hydroelectric power.

      Oh, wait.... ;)

      • flowing down to rivers which could be dammed for hydroelectric power.

        You need other conditions for hydro. A sufficient gradient, for example.

  • That'll be super popular here in Seattle Washington where the rainy season is from February to January (with a week or so of dry weather in June or July).

    Now if they could just get it to generate electricity from "gloomy days" we'd be the world's #1 producer of electrical power.

  • Exposed to the elements? It would not last even a day. Covered with dust, react with air and in no time it will stop working as both solar cell and as rain cell.

  • Sorry, but this is just terrible reporting. Not much information to go on, no link to external sources, just some technobabble.

  • This sounds more like the potential for an interesting moisture sensor rather than as a new source for bulk electricity. A thin layer of grapheme, cheap to print onto throw away limited use sensors has plenty of valuable applications.
  • This would be ideal for a country like Scotland . Just think , we could become world leaders in wind and rain power

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close