Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Science Technology

World's Oldest Nobel Prize Winner Is Working On Light 'Concentrators' That May Give Everyone Clean, Cheap Energy (businessinsider.com) 156

Posted by BeauHD from the there's-more-where-that-came-from dept.
A reader shares a report from Business Insider: Arthur Ashkin, the world's oldest Nobel Prize winner, [...] has turned the bottom floor of his house into a kind of laboratory where he's developing a solar-energy-harnessing device. Ashkin's new invention uses geometry to capture and funnel light. Essentially, it relies on reflective concentrator tubes that intensify solar reflections, which could make existing solar panels more efficient or perhaps even replace them altogether with something cheaper and simpler. The tubes are "dirt cheap," Ashkin says -- they cost just pennies to create -- which is why he thinks they "will save the world." He's even got his eye on a second Nobel Prize.

Ashkin's lifelong fascination with light has already saved countless lives. He shared the 2018 Nobel Prize in physics for his role in inventing a tiny object-levitating technology called optical tweezers, which is essentially a powerful laser beam that can "catch very small things," as Ashkin describes it. Optical tweezers can hold and stretch DNA, thereby helping us probe some of the biggest mysteries of life. [...] Ashkin has already filed the necessary patent paperwork (he holds at least 47 patents to date) for his new invention, but said he isn't ready to share photos of the concentrators with the public just yet. Soon, he hopes to publish his results in the journal Science.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World's Oldest Nobel Prize Winner Is Working On Light 'Concentrators' That May Give Everyone Clean, Cheap Energy More

World's Oldest Nobel Prize Winner Is Working On Light 'Concentrators' That May Give Everyone Clean, Cheap Energy

Comments Filter:

  • but (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    you still need to capture light from a large area to get more power.

    • It's sort of a problem with these kinds of solutions. In the past, they were proposed because the price per watt of PV junctions was very high. Nowadays a square meter of PV junctions can cost $100 or less and the mechanical and/or structural complexity of not simply making a large glass pane full of them does not generally outweigh the possible benefits.

    • I never thought of that! (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      you still need to capture light from a large area to get more power.

      See, even though I have a Nobel in physics, I come here to Slashdot so that I can be schooled by web programmers and app developers and middle managers on what I need to do.

      It's too bad Slashdot doesn't have a larger audience because of all you could solve all the World's problems in just a few posts.

      • " See, even though I have a Nobel in physics, I come here to Slashdot so that I can be schooled by web programmers and app developers and middle managers on what I need to do. It's too bad Slashdot doesn't have a larger audience because of all you could solve all the World's problems in just a few posts. " That is exactly what we are doing becouse the likes of you self consumed " oh so clever " tards bragging about having a nobel prize are doing everything else but saving the world.
    • Cover roofs with them.
    • Nowhere does TFA mention anything about the size of the tubes. The amount harvestable sunlight per square meter however is limited so even if the tubes would end up getting smaller with time, to scale things up you would need the same ground surface area. Even if we get so good that we are able to capture and convert 100 percent of sunlight, one can't build panels in shade so the only way to expand is sideways. You might get a lot more energy out but as far as physical dimensions of the panel go, we are at

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      Suppose you could double the efficiency of a solar cell, but it cost you 3x as much. In most cases that would not be a practical choice. Now suppose you could double the collecting area of that cell, but it only cost you 1.1x as much. In some cases that could be a practical choice.

  • If the patent doesn't tell the story, then it should never have been granted. If he has a patent, then what's the number? Without that, we have nothing to talk about. (I'd try to find it, but I'm on a small and slow tablet.)

    That he won't show it off, though, is a good indication that it doesn't actually work. Since he allegedly has a patent on it already, he has nothing to lose by showing it to us. Either he doesn't actually have a patent, or he doesn't actually have a working invention.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by pr0t0 ( 216378 )

      TFS says he's filed the patent paperwork, not that he's been granted the patent. Let's wait for that process, and maybe the published results in Science before we rush to judgement. But you are correct in that this is kind of a non-story until then.

      • Yep. Sounds more like some nerdy cousin of the "Vanity Fair" made a home story about the oldest nobel prize laureate during which he mentioned that he is still working on something useful and NOT like someone came forward claiming the next cold fusion breakthrough (revealed to be a scam later)

      • Even if he is granted a patent, that's no indication that it works as well as he hopes that it does. A patent is just an indication that he's created a novel invention. Nothing about a patent says that novel invention is actually useful. People get patents for cat litter boxes [google.com], they're nothing special in and of themselves.

    • If the patent doesn't tell the story, then it should never have been granted. If he has a patent, then what's the number?

      It says he filed the paperwork. It doesn't say the patent has been granted. Presumably he wants to keep it under wraps until he actually has the patent in hand which is reasonable.

    • Normal PV cells are more efficient the cooler they are, though attempts at water cooling them have given disappointing levels of improvement. They also run pretty hot without concentrators, anything more than 2-3x concentration is going to be difficult and probably seriously life shortening. What would be useful is an omnidirectional concentrator with no moving parts, either capturing light longer across the day or for something robust like solar steam generation.

      I don't have much use for thermal generation

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by MountainMan101 ( 714389 )

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        Some reading for you.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        One possibility is increasing density. PV installations take up a lot of space. Commercial operators don't want to do things like put them up high and build things under them because it increases and complicates maintenance. Residential operators probably don't keep them at optimal efficiency because they fail to get on the roof and clean them etc.

        If a cheap system was designed that allowed collecting the light over a smaller area and then delivering it to PV cells that could for instance be stacked...Th

        • If a cheap system was designed that allowed collecting the light over a smaller area and then delivering it to PV cells that could for instance be stacked.

          ...then it would be a solar diffuser, and it would generate even less power for even more money.

      • >attempts at water cooling them have given disappointing levels of improvement

        Perhaps so - but that picture might look much better when it comes to keeping them cool and damage free when used with a concentrator. Your water cooling system can also be capturing a lot more energy than the PV cells themselves, if you have a use for heat.

    • It could be this:
      https://patents.google.com/pat... [google.com]

      But if it is, it was filed in 2011 and granted in 2015 so it isn't exactly new. I don't know why he can't show us photos if he's been working on it since before 2011.

      • I hope that's not it. The thing in that patent looks like a decidedly bulky concentrator that actually needs a mechanism to track the sun. And concentrators which funnel light from a large area into a small one aren't that useful for PV panels: you're better off putting more panels in the area taken up by the concentrator, plus concentrating light onto panels will heat them up and reduce their efficiency.

        Now if it's something that makes PV panels more or less omnidirectional, he could be on to somethin
      • Assuming it's in any way similar, you can already see the problems with transportation. On the plus side, maybe it's somewhat cheaper per capacity by virtue of being a passive optical system. Perhaps it could even justify using better PV cells to improve efficiency. On the minus side, a replacement of a single flat panel will occupy the volume of a hundred of flat panels, with several dozen times the output even if the "reflector box" somehow produced twice as much as a single panel (for example, by using m

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 )

      As you already have a mountain of comments stating the paperwork is done for the patent but it hasn't gotten back yet, however for inventions that are simple and cheap to make, often means they are also really easy to copy. He is working out of his basement, a simple picture, could mean a large corporation can get the idea and mass produce them without completed paperwork. And facing one man against a big corporation in general means he lost a lot of research.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )

        He is working out of his basement, a simple picture, could mean a large corporation can get the idea and mass produce them without completed paperwork.

        Perhaps, but could he not then turn around and sue them (that is, not simply try and sue, but have a just case to *win* such a suit) once the patent was actually granted?

        • Re:Has patent but won't show photos? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Monday January 28, 2019 @11:45AM (#58034084)
          Yes, but let's look at the details. It takes around 10k USD in patent attorney fees to file the simplest of patents, 30-100k is more typical. Trying to do them yourself is a recipe for disaster as you broadcast your ideas without substantial protections. Patent attorneys are so expansive because they need a law degree and typically have a degree in the field they are writing the patent for, so in this case physics or engineering. After your 65k initial investment, if your idea or product becomes popular, many companies will start to copy it which is where defending your IP comes in. It's first to file so he may either be a reason other patents are denied or can start sending cease and desist letters to any offenders.

          Contrary to popular belief, patent law cases are far less about being right or wrong than simply using superior legal firepower to overwhelm your opponent. A small company sending a cease and desist to another small company may bleed them into stopping, this won't work against large companies. Against a company like Apple, Samsung, or a university with a law college you will massively lose 98% of the time unless you have similar resources to fight. A good patent challenge starts at around 500k and can easily climb past tens of millions USD in fees you keep needing to pay up front. This overwhelms any small company or inventor and they are cooked. That's why most small companies and inventors simply skip the patent and try to stay on top with nimble innovation (a competitive advantage for the small entity) and through obscurity. The system is really broken.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by mark-t ( 151149 )

            A good patent challenge starts at around 500k and can easily climb past tens of millions USD in fees you keep needing to pay up front.

            Why would he have to pay up front? If he would be in the right, a lawyer would probably jump at the chance to be paid on commission, as long as the payoff was big enough.

            If a big company makes millions trying to use his patent pending system, once the patent comes in, he can sue them for all of that. Yeah, probably nearly half would have to go to his lawyers but he'd sti

    • There's something seriously wrong with your thought processes when you jump to the conclusion that a recent Nobel prize winner is a scam artist despite his not seeking investors yet, simply because he doesn't want to show the general public photos of his project until his prototype reaches a point he's satisfied with.

      It'd be like letting the client install an early internal alpha of a software project. You'll get lots of useless feedback about things you were going to change anyway and bugs you already knew

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )

        Being able to replace solar panels with something that is both cleaner and simpler is an extraordinary achievement, but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

        Scientific integrity demands skepticism, and using the fact that he has won a Nobel Prize already to give the claim any further merit than it would be due if it came from someone who was unknown is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

    • It permits further development without disclosure which might enable competitors to beat you to the punch.

      If he's smart enough to win a Nobel he might be smart enough to do a risk/benefit analysis.

      https://www.heerlaw.com/benefi... [heerlaw.com]

  • This sounds kinda steampunk (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So it has to work, right?
  • When you are lost the light may guide you, or maybe not. Still many will follow only to be disappointed in the end but was fun while the suspense lasts.
  • everybody is looking for technological salvation... the only clean energy is to simply use less... Gaviotas in Colombia was already working on clever ways to harness energy. http://www.friendsofgaviotas.o... [friendsofgaviotas.org]

    • Unless the amount of energy you use is zero, inventing a more efficient way of producing energy is still beneficial. Since the world as a whole will continue to use slightly more than zero energy for the foreseeable future, any improvement in the generation of that energy will be massively beneficial.

      You're making it into an either/or scenario which is completely absurd.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by js290 ( 697670 )

        Unless the amount of energy you use is zero, inventing a more efficient way of producing energy is still beneficial. Since the world as a whole will continue to use slightly more than zero energy for the foreseeable future, any improvement in the generation of that energy will be massively beneficial.

        You're making it into an either/or scenario which is completely absurd.

        Strawman & Slippery Slope... I'm pretty sure I said "less"... you're the one that said "zero"

  • I have been under the impression that the problem with solar as a power source wasn't the collection or direction of light but the conversion process itself, no? If that is the case, how do intensifiers or collectors help with this? Efficiency gains in collection are only going to be incremental and not Nobel Prize worthy paradigm shifts, right? The real prize is in conversion. Correct my thinking here.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You're not inventing new physics, but you're expecting new physics. That's your problem. Design incrementalism does not work like that. You're going the "cold fusion" route instead, it goes nowhere fast.

      Getting a 20%+ increase in energy over existing designs/capture area is significant and useful. Being expectant of a 100% or 200% increase accomplishes jack the fuck-all in reality. YMMV, but not much.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jdharm ( 1667825 )
        I'm not questioning the value of incremental improvement. My question is how this incremental improvement gets us into the realm of "dirt cheap".
    • The real problem is storage. Conversion is satisfactorily solved by using just a single crystalline silicon junction - it's the *economically* optimal solution for now (and economics is the #1 factor here). Some people hope that in the future, some kind of nantennas could improve over them. It seems unlikely today that other types of semiconductor junctions will beat crystalline silicon on price (amortized over its lifetime - the lifetime of c-Si is crazy good [psu.edu], and that's *old* equipment).

    • Re: Honest question... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by c6gunner ( 950153 ) on Monday January 28, 2019 @11:22AM (#58033932) Homepage

      I have been under the impression that the problem with solar as a power source wasn't the collection or direction of light but the conversion process itself, no? If that is the case, how do intensifiers or collectors help with this?

      Well, for instance, the solar panels on the market today have efficiency ratings between about 15 and 22 percent. Additionally in the lab there have been examples of panels which were as much as 40% efficient.

      The cost of panels tend to reflect their efficiency. You'll pay more for a 22% efficient panel than for a 15% efficient one. If the 40% efficient ones could be mass produced it's safe to assume they would be even more expensive.

      If you can have cheap intensifiers then you don't need to buy as many panels. If you need fewer panels then maybe you can afford more expensive ones. If your intensifier has the same surface area as your neighbours non-intensified 15% efficient array, but you are focusing the sunlight hitting that surface onto a much smaller 40% efficient array, you're actually producing twice as much energy as he is, hopefully at a comparable cost.

      That's an overly simplistic analysis for sure; how well it actually works in real life will depend on all kinds of factors which I can't possibly fully know right now. But that's the general idea ... if you can focus light cheaply, you can have a more efficient system at a lower cost.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's an interesting idea. Particularly where light levels are on the low side or the panels are not ideally angled it could really help to get them working for a greater part of the day.

        On the other hand there is going to be a lot of heat concentrated by these things which could be an issue. With buildings you do have to be careful about anything reflective, lest you accidentally start melting nearby cars and tarmac.

        I'd also suggest that it might be better to use the heat directly, rather than converting to

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I knew an optics guy who left a smallish parabolic mirror in his car. When he came back, he found the moving sun had melted a line across the ceiling of his car.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AHuxley ( 892839 )
          Heat is the problem.... What to do with all the heat.

    • I have been under the impression that the problem with solar as a power source wasn't the collection or direction of light but the conversion process itself, no? If that is the case, how do intensifiers or collectors help with this? Efficiency gains in collection are only going to be incremental and not Nobel Prize worthy paradigm shifts, right? The real prize is in conversion. Correct my thinking here.

      Covering the entire collection area with cheap concentrators and a fraction of the area with expensive, high-efficiency converters might be more economical than covering the entire area with cheap, low-efficiency converters.

      In other words, the metric to maximize is kW h/$, not % conversion efficiency.

      1. The energy density of sunlight hitting the Earth is about 1360 Watts/m^2. [wikipedia.org]
      2. The atmosphere absorbs enough of that so the amount hitting the ground is about 750-850 Watts/m^2. Figure about 800 W/m^2.
      3. A 22% efficient panel can then pull in 176 W/m^2.
      4. But that's peak - you'll only get that much at noon on summer solstice with clear skies. You have to factor in night, movement of the sun, weather, dust buildup, weather, etc (capacity factor). The average capacity factor for fixed mount PV solar in the U.S. is
  • Is this anything like building a panel with hundreds of tiny magnifying glasses on it so that it is cheaper to build? The energy for every square inch of panel is focused into tiny areas that can more cheaply convert the concentrated solar energy into electrical energy. In other words, today it costs X dollars to build a panel with Y sq. ft. that produces Z watts peak. With this technology you can build the same Y and Z for a cheaper X? Or you can build a bigger Y and Z for the same X?

  • Arco used concentrators WAY back at the beginning. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Monday January 28, 2019 @01:11PM (#58034756) Journal

    Back in the early days, when Arco was running the test farm for what I think were the first for-the-general-market solar panels (the famous "Arco Panels" of early Renewable Energy hobbiests of the day), one of the things they tried was concentrators.

    I think the idea was to see of they could get away with half the area of (then very expensive) single-crystal cells - and was tested with the same prototype panels with the concentrator . The concentrator sat on the top of of the panel and focused the light that would have hit a whole cell into a square in the center of it, of about half the area.

    The result convinced them that they were ahead to just use more then-very-expensive panels. With modern dirt-cheap high-efficiency panels, I'd expect the economics would be even more weighted toward the just-panels solution. So this guy has a steeper hill to climb.

    One problem with a concentrator is that raising the insolation also raises the heating. Solar panels get less efficient as it gets hotter. So doubling or tripling the light hitting it does NOT double or triple the power. But it DOES increase any degradation of the cells.

    • One problem with a concentrator is that raising the insolation also raises the heating. Solar panels get less efficient as it gets hotter. So doubling or tripling the light hitting it does NOT double or triple the power. But it DOES increase any degradation of the cells.

      On the other hand, one of the degradations Arco panels had was a sun-induced darkening of the adhesive between the cells and the glass. The concentrators increased this, too - cutting the already short lifetime in half. This might have bee

  • I know this guy has a Nobel in physics and I don't, but I've spent a really long time in the solar business, mostly in R&D but also on the financial side, and even have some direct experience with concentrators. This article is mostly puff, but still something about the guy's claims seem off to me.

    It would be easy to say, "yeah, the guy's got a Nobel, but he's 96 years old," and write it off to some sort of senility or dementia. The article does not give me the feeling that's what's happening.

    It would a

  • My first thought when reading this was, "if this was possible, than somebody else would probably already have done it." Then it occurred to me that people like Arthur Ashkin are the "somebody else" who probably would come up with it. If anyone is likely to come up with a revolutionary improvement on photovoltaic technology, it would be a nobel prize winning scientist specialized in light manipulation.
  • Old guy attempts to remain relevant in modern age by working on a solar concentrator, makes premature promises of unlimited green energy. Fails to mention the vast space required for his possible future invention to fulfill his premature promises.

Slashdot Top Deals

With your bare hands?!?

Close