New light-harvesting system could revolutionize solar energy, researchers claim

zohaibahd

Posts: 228   +5
Staff
What just happened? The solar energy revolution might be about to shift into an even higher gear. Researchers in Germany have developed a groundbreaking new light-harvesting system that could drive a huge leap in solar cell efficiency by absorbing light across the entire visible range.

For years, solar tech has been hamstrung by some fundamental limitations. Traditional silicon-based solar cells can absorb light across the entire visible spectrum, which is great, but they do so "weakly." They also need to be thick – we're talking micrometers – to soak up enough photons to generate meaningful electricity. That added bulk makes them heavier, pricier, and harder to integrate seamlessly into buildings and vehicles.

On the flip side, thin-film solar cells made from organic dyes are cheap and lightweight, clocking in at just 100 nanometers thick. But they can only absorb a narrow slice of the solar spectrum, which is not an ideal tradeoff.

Now, scientists at the University of Würzburg may have cracked the code with a new bio-inspired design. The study, published in the journal Chem, highlights a new system, dubbed URPB, modeled after the photosynthetic antennae in plants and bacteria that so efficiently capture sunlight.

But rather than relying on nature's complex machinery, the URPB uses a simpler structure – four different dyes arranged in a precisely stacked configuration. Because the arrangement is so neat, it can capture light across UV, visible, and near-infrared wavelengths with excellent efficiency. And that's where the name comes from. URPB corresponds to the four light wavelengths each layer can absorb: ultraviolet, red, purple, and blue.

In the team's testing, the system converted a full 38% of incoming light into useful energy – orders of magnitude better than the individual dyes could manage on their own, maxing out at just 3%.

Current solar cell technology is rapidly maxing out in efficiency and the above research is far from the only attempt at squeezing more power out of cells. For instance, a recent Turkish study analyzed a semi-spherical photovoltaic solar cell structure that could absorb up to 66% more light compared to flat panels. Computer simulations looked promising, but real-world prototyping is needed.

Before this in 2023, scientists attempted to enhance traditional silicon solar cells by adding a new perovskite layer on top. This compound captures different light wavelengths, potentially increasing efficiency beyond 30% – a pivotal threshold for making solar energy more viable at a global scale.

Of course, moving technology like this from the lab to commercial-scale manufacturing is always an uphill battle. Every solar breakthrough sparks plenty of hype before reality sets in.

Permalink to story:

 
Wish their was a breakthrough in solar policy and legislation at least in CA as their is no major incentive switching anymore.
 
Any breakthrough needs to be proven, over time, to be durable. How long will this tech last and remain efficient in the real world? Ideally, there will be no loss of output, as current solar panels slowly wear out at the rate of 0.3 to 0.8 percent per year. I want to see generational lifespans, not mere decades.
 
Solar improvement articles are coming out nearly as frequently as new battery tech articles.
I cannot believe I'm saying this, makes me feel old, but I've been on this site, 15 years now?

I remember some very early articles when I joined of new battery tech that was "imminent"... I'm still waiting...
 
Yeah, switch EVERYTHING to solar and wind...and if we ever have a huge volcano erupt, like Mount Tambora in 1815, which blocked out A LOT of the sun, and in 1816 was known as the year without a summer.
Without a lot of BACKUP like coal & nuclear...we'll all be screwed.
Solar/wind are nice to add to the grid, but they can't be counted as 100%
 
Wish their was a breakthrough in solar policy and legislation at least in CA as their [sic] is no major incentive switching anymore.
When technologies make good economic sense, there's no need to incentivize them through government policy and legislation. People switch to them on their own volition.
 
Yeah, switch EVERYTHING to solar and wind...and if we ever have a huge volcano erupt, like Mount Tambora in 1815, which blocked out A LOT of the sun, and in 1816 was known as the year without a summer.
Without a lot of BACKUP like coal & nuclear...we'll all be screwed.
Solar/wind are nice to add to the grid, but they can't be counted as 100%
I think we'd all be screwed whatever our energy sources, given the crop failures that occurred in its aftermath, and the relatively low world population (less than 1/8th of today's ~8billion)
 
Yeah, switch EVERYTHING to solar and wind...and if we ever have a huge volcano erupt, like Mount Tambora in 1815, which blocked out A LOT of the sun, and in 1816 was known as the year without a summer.
Without a lot of BACKUP like coal & nuclear...we'll all be screwed.
Solar/wind are nice to add to the grid, but they can't be counted as 100%

The theory is that if your panels aren't making power you can buy power from someplace where the Sun is shining, India is developing a site larger than the City of Paris!!
 
The theory is that if your panels aren't making power you can buy power from someplace where the Sun is shining, India is developing a site larger than the City of Paris!!
That's not how power transmission works. It's fine for short distances, but not between always sunny and mostly cloudy areas, the distance is too far, current resistance too great.
 
That's not how power transmission works. It's fine for short distances, but not between always sunny and mostly cloudy areas, the distance is too far, current resistance too great.
Very true: current AC system are limited to a few hundred miles, and even then they lose several percent of the power generated. HVDC transmission can more than double the range ... but these systems rely on thyristors to work, since transformers don't work with DC current. And building thyristors -- essentially fancy transistors with an extra layer -- to handle megawatts of power at 500,000 volts is far from simple or cheap.
 
The competition is hitting 30 percent efficiency so the only way this will be adopted is if it's a quarter the cost per panel of what's currently available. Another factor that will play into this is as someone else pointed out. longevity. Current products are waranted for 25 years with at least 10 years without any drop in performance. Can this new method match that?
 
Another factor that will play into this is as someone else pointed out. longevity. Current products are waranted for 25 years with at least 10 years without any drop in performance. Can this new method match that?
Organic dyes? I imagine the panels will show serious degradation within less than five years time. UV and organic molecules have never played well together.
 
Yeah, switch EVERYTHING to solar and wind...and if we ever have a huge volcano erupt, like Mount Tambora in 1815, which blocked out A LOT of the sun, and in 1816 was known as the year without a summer.
Without a lot of BACKUP like coal & nuclear...we'll all be screwed.
Solar/wind are nice to add to the grid, but they can't be counted as 100%
Exactly, just like the grid can't be counted on 100%. A combination of all the options is the best option.
 
Yeah, switch EVERYTHING to solar and wind...and if we ever have a huge volcano erupt, like Mount Tambora in 1815, which blocked out A LOT of the sun, and in 1816 was known as the year without a summer.
Without a lot of BACKUP like coal & nuclear...we'll all be screwed.
Solar/wind are nice to add to the grid, but they can't be counted as 100%

This is a badly flawed anti-solar argument. The eruption of mount Tambora in 1815 is estimated to be the biggest eruption of that last 600 years. We don't have an exact figure for the consequent decrease in in sunlight, but most expert studies estimated a decrease of between 5% to 10% in the following year.

I don't think solar dropping performance by (splitting the difference) 7.5% every 600 years is a good reason to avoid one of the cheapest forms of generating electricity.

If anything I think it means we should continue to add a mix of wind and solar to the grid, along with increasing the number of HVDC lines we have for efficient long distance transmission of power.
 
That's not how power transmission works. It's fine for short distances, but not between always sunny and mostly cloudy areas, the distance is too far, current resistance too great.
HVDC transmission is alive and well in many parts of the world. This line from wikipedia sums up the long distance transmission issue:
"HVDC transmission losses are quoted at 3.5% per 1,000 km (620 mi), about 50% less than AC (6.7%) lines at the same voltage"
 
The eruption of mount Tambora in 1815 is estimated to be the biggest eruption of that last 600 years.
And yet Krakatoa (1883) was nearly half as severe, and even Pinatubo (1991) was about 1/4 as severe -- in terms of radiative forcing, rather than total eruption volume.

We don't have an exact figure for the consequent decrease in in sunlight, but most expert studies estimated a decrease of between 5% to 10% in the following year.
That's a global figure. Some continental-sized areas experienced losses topping 20%. And remember: such an event would also cause an enormous increase in energy demand. Imagine if Northern Europe lost 20% of its electricity capacity, during a winter so cold that power demand jumped 40%.

...it means we should continue to add a mix of wind and solar to the grid, along with increasing the number of HVDC lines we have for efficient long distance transmission of power.
Or instead of papering the globe with hundreds of thousands of miles of ultra-high voltage HVDC lines, we could take the green solution of relying on nuclear and hydroelectric sources, generated much closer to where the actual demand is.

"HVDC transmission losses are quoted at 3.5% per 1,000 km (620 mi), about 50% less than AC (6.7%) lines at the same voltage"
The perils of the first Google hit. Those are line losses only. HDVC system also require enormous converters at each end, which add several more percent loss. These monstrosities are the reason there are no "short" HVDC lines ... the converter at each end for an 800 KV, 500 MW line can require a facility of one million square feet.
 
And yet Krakatoa (1883) was nearly half as severe, and even Pinatubo (1991) was about 1/4 as severe -- in terms of radiative forcing, rather than total eruption volume.


That's a global figure. Some continental-sized areas experienced losses topping 20%. And remember: such an event would also cause an enormous increase in energy demand. Imagine if Northern Europe lost 20% of its electricity capacity, during a winter so cold that power demand jumped 40%.


Or instead of papering the globe with hundreds of thousands of miles of ultra-high voltage HVDC lines, we could take the green solution of relying on nuclear and hydroelectric sources, generated much closer to where the actual demand is.


The perils of the first Google hit. Those are line losses only. HDVC system also require enormous converters at each end, which add several more percent loss. These monstrosities are the reason there are no "short" HVDC lines ... the converter at each end for an 800 KV, 500 MW line can require a facility of one million square feet.

All good points, but it doesn't refute my main point that avoiding solar just because of volcanos is a terrible idea. Sure they will lose a bit of power, but they won't lose a lot of power and it won't last that long in the grand scheme of things.

And I don't quite agree on your Nuclear versus HVDC idea. I don't think it's a case of one versus the other, I think both should be done at the same time, whatever suits the situation. It's the same with things like rooftop solar, it's not the great savior that some people make it out to be, but if you've got a large south-facing roof, go nuts.
 
Back