Stanford process aims to make solar cheap enough to compete with oil
Stanford University engineers believe an energy harvesting process called "photon enhanced thermionic emission" could make solar power production more than twice as efficient as existing methods and potentially cheap enough to compete with oil.
By Suzanne Deffree, Managing editor, news -- EDN, August 11, 2010
Stanford University engineers are claiming an energy harvesting process that could surpass the efficiency of existing photovoltaic and thermal conversion technologies.The university's process simultaneously uses the light and heat of the sun to generate electricity and excels at high temperatures, unlike photovoltaic technology currently used in solar panels, which becomes less efficient as the temperature rises.
Stanford believes the process, called "photon enhanced thermionic emission," or PETE, could make solar power production more than twice as efficient as existing methods and potentially cheap enough to compete with oil.
"This is really a conceptual breakthrough, a new energy conversion process, not just a new material or a slightly different tweak," Nick Melosh, an assistant professor of materials science and engineering at the school and the leader of the research group, said in a statement. "It is actually something fundamentally different about how you can harvest energy."
The university reminded while high temperatures are necessary to power heat-based conversion systems, solar cell efficiency rapidly decreases at higher temperatures. According to the university, heat from unused sunlight and inefficiencies in silicon cells account for a loss of more than 50% of the initial solar energy reaching the cell. The Stanford team's work focused on wedding thermal and solar cell conversion technologies.
Melosh's group coated a piece of semiconducting material with a thin layer of the metal cesium, making the material able to use both light and heat to generate electricity.
"What we've demonstrated is a new physical process that is not based on standard photovoltaic mechanisms, but can give you a photovoltaic-like response at very high temperatures," Melosh said. "In fact, it works better at higher temperatures. The higher the better."
Indeed, while most silicon solar cells are inert by the time the temperature reaches 100 C, the PETE system hits peak efficiency when it is well above 200 C, making it useful for large scale, desert-located solar farms.
The researchers used a gallium nitride semiconductor to test PETE as it is able to withstand a very high temperature range. With other materials, like gallium arsenide, the researchers estimate the process could reach up to 60% percent efficiency.
Stanford noted that the materials needed to build a device to make the PETE process work are inexpensive and easily available, making the power that comes from it affordable. The team said it would like to design the devices so they could be easily bolted on to existing systems, thereby making conversion relatively inexpensive.
"For each device, we are figuring something like a 6-inch wafer of actual material is all that is needed," Melosh said. "So the material cost in this is not really an issue for us, unlike the way it is for large solar panels of silicon.
"The PETE process could really give the feasibility of solar power a big boost," he continued. "Even if we don't achieve perfect efficiency, let's say we give a 10% boost to the efficiency of solar conversion, going from 20% efficiency to 30%, that is still a 50% increase overall."
A paper describing the tests the researchers conducted was published online August 1, in Nature Materials.
The research was largely funded by the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford and the Stanford Institute for Materials and Energy Science, which is a joint venture of Stanford and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, with additional support from the Department of Energy and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Talkback
-
why does everyone here write in caps?
Justice - 2010-15-8 21:00:09 PDT -
I have seen a large solar panel manufacturer claiming that they are producing their panels at a cost of 76 cents per watt. This same manufacturer claimed that they had just broken the $1 per watt barrier in late 2008.
Using South Texas gasoline prices of $2.59 per gallon, a person driving 40 miles per day at 30 miles per gallon is using 1.33 gallons per day, or roughly $3.50 per day. This times 365 days times 7 years is about $8500.
A 40 mile trip generally requires about 12Kwh in equivalent energy. Solar panels have an output equivalent to 5 hours per day peak, so dividing 12Kwh by 5 yields 2.25 kilowatts. Since hydrolysis is only about 30% efficient one has to triple this to 6.75 kilowatts, and then since hydrogen reacted with CO2 produces 1 molecule of CH4 and 2 of H2O, one has to double it again to 13.5Kw. Dividing $8500 by 13,500 watts comes out to about 63 cents per watt. Of course, this ignores the cost of the other equipment to extract the CO2 and the hydrolysis cell, plus the reactor and methane storage tank. It also ignores the fact that 40 to 50 cents per gallon is taxes. On the other hand, it also is the 'worst case' scenario. If plant matter is used instead of Co2 some of the HC bonds are already formed, and all one has to do is extract the oxygen from the cellulose.
This may be a solved problem, but any progress is welcome in any case.
Meredith Poor - 2010-12-8 17:25:48 PDT -
Some comments have doubted the value of peak efficiency at 200C. Some researchers have put concentrating lenses in front of PV cells in order to boost their total output (never mind efficiency), recognizing that glass is cheap while the cells are expensive. Trouble with this technique has been that in concentrating the solar, the operating temperature rises. It hasn't paid off due to the low required operating temperature of PV solar. If this new technology pans out, it does seem to reopen this question. Can we use concentrators (lenses or reflectors) to boost total cell output if glass and real estate remain cheap?
John B. - 2010-12-8 07:27:41 PDT -
James Jarvis wrote: "If it doesn't require rare materials, doesn't mandate complex manufacturing processes, and doesn't come in limited supply on earth, perhaps we COULD bridge that 4x gap. "
To be completely accurate: A candidate technology has to be vertically scalable (to satisfy all current demand) and horizontally scalable (to satisfy that demand over time). Some solar variant is probably the basis for a solution, because it is essentially not consumed (at least not on a human timescale); however, the complete package has to meet the criteria you named in order to be truly sustainable over time.
Finally, long / complex supply chains, materials in short supply, and long / complex manufacturing processes have another name: targets of opportunity.
arclight - 2010-12-8 02:27:58 PDT -
Mikey: Nice try at a headfake, but: "creative", a word curiously missing in my entire posting, is not synonymous with PRAGMATIC.
I did not denigrate anyone's creativity in my posting. However, you've creatively tried to divert my context to discredit the fact that this scientific "dabble" is of no practical value until an engineer gets a hold of it.
Yes, it's got huge credentials of institution and people - does that make it any more pragmatic? Is calling themselves (or an editor calling them) "engineers" a feeble PR attempt at establishing pragmatism with the coulds, mights, and up to's?
In fact, I'll bow to you and acknowledge that these brilliant SCIENTISTS had to be mighty creative in writing their grant proposals to have someone pay for this work product and for their time in playing in the sandbox - no failure, no schedule, no goals, do what is fun or interesting, fluff up the good and bury the bad, get paid enough so you can live in Palo Alto, and is competitive and uncoordinated with your peers.
Still no cure for cancer.....now you know why.
Andy T - 2010-11-8 16:44:12 PDT





















