NJIT Researchers Develop Inexpensive, Easy Process To Produce Solar Panels

Researchers at New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) have developed an inexpensive solar cell that can be painted or printed on flexible plastic sheets.

“The process is simple,” said lead researcher and author Somenath Mitra, PhD, professor and acting chair of NJIT’s Department of Chemistry and Environmental Science. “Someday homeowners will even be able to print sheets of these solar cells with inexpensive home-based inkjet printers.”

“We foresee a great deal of interest in our work because solar cells can be inexpensively printed or simply painted on exterior building walls and/or roof tops. Imagine some day driving in your hybrid car with a solar panel painted on the roof, which is producing electricity to drive the engine.  The opportunities are endless,” said Mitra.

The science goes something like this. When sunlight falls on an organic solar cell,  the energy generates positive and negative charges. If the charges can be separated and sent to different electrodes, then a current flows. If not, the energy is wasted. Link cells electronically and the cells form what is called a panel, like the ones currently seen on most rooftops.  The size of both the cell and panels vary.  Cells can range from 1 millimeter to several feet; panels have no size limits.

The solar cell developed at NJIT uses a carbon nanotubes complex, which is a molecular configuration of carbon in a cylindrical shape. The name is derived from the tube’s miniscule size. Scientists estimate nanotubes to be 50,000 times smaller than a human hair. Nevertheless, just one nanotube can conduct current better than any conventional electrical wire. “Actually, nanotubes are significantly better conductors than copper,” Mitra added. 

Mitra and his research team took the carbon nanotubes and combined them with tiny carbon Buckyballs (known as fullerenes) to form snake-like structures.  Buckyballs trap electrons, although they can’t make electrons flow. Add sunlight to excite the polymers, and the buckyballs will grab the electrons. Nanotubes, behaving like copper wires, will then be able to make the electrons or current flow.

“Using this unique combination in an organic solar cell recipe can enhance the efficiency of future painted-on solar cells,” said Mitra.  “Someday, I hope to see this process become an inexpensive energy alternative for households around the world.” 

My question is, where does this technology stand?  How many years before a commercial panel couod be developed? The term developed means, to me, that the research is done and it is ready to be commercialized.  I don't think so in this case.

Comments

[Paul Nurse]

Carbon Nanotubes are still extremely expensive, £1000 per gram the last time I checked.

[Buddy]

Very misleading article title, like so many others. If you read the article you will see several statements such as "a cheap and potentially simpler alternative" pay close attention to the word 'potentially' as this is nowhere near developed for commercialization or even lab samples.

Also "Imagine some day", and "Someday, I hope to see this process become an inexpensive energy alternative"

So really the title should have been something like "Researchers Develop New Configuration for Potential Future Nanotube-based Solar Cells".

[Robert Pritchett]

What about what NanoSolar is doing in Palo Alto?

http://www.nanosolar.com

[Chandranshu Pandya]

I too think that the information provided in the article is rather confusing.

[david foster]

"Someday homeowners will even be able to print sheets of these solar cells with inexpensive home-based inkjet printers.”

“Imagine some day driving in your hybrid car with a solar panel painted on the roof, which is producing electricity to drive the engine."

These two statements make me wonder about these guys. Why would it possibly make more economic sense to print the solar sheets on a home printer rather than in a high-volume industrial setting?

And it seems unlikely that solar panels on car roofs would generate a high enough proportion of the total energy consumed to be worth the bother.

[go-offgrid]

At the moment, Geothermal and wind are better options....

[go-offgrid]

At the moment, Geothermal and wind are better options....

[Tim]

Slashdot had a link to this paper. I really didn't understand it. I did see the sentence in the introduction: "The relatively low power conversion efficiency (0.04%) of the device ..."

It could take a while to get it to the point that it is commercailly useful.

[Brian Wang]

http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/07/cheap-solar-cells-could-be-printed-from.html

New tandem organic solar cells seem like a better bet. One of its developers is talking big.

"It takes 2 U.S. dollars to generate one watt of electric power if you use silicon solar cells," explained Professor Lee, "Only ten U.S. cents [would be required] to generate 1 watt if you use this tandem polymer solar cell," said Lee. The use of inexpensive plastics is a key to cut down the cost for its fabrication. They expect to reach the market in 3-5 years.

Carbon nanotube production is ramping up and will be 5,000 to 10,000 tons is 2011 up from about 60 tons last year. Prices should fall 5 to 50 times over the next 4 years. From $200/kg down to $4-40/kg. Prices vary based on the type of carbon nanotube.

[A]

"The key is using inexpensive plastics ..."

They mean oil ?

[Iggy Dalrymple]

I've been reading this geewhiz stuff for close to 40 years and it's still not practical. It's always soon, next year....but never available now. I'm 68. Will I live to see it?