SA solar scientists put the rest of the world in the shade

[ChromeStar]

Hi Guys

There have been some very interesting developments in solar panel technology recently. This article was in my local news paper.

IN A SCIENTIFIC break through that has stunned the world, a team of South African scientists has developed a revolutionary new, highly efficient solar power technology that will enable all homes to obtain all their electricity from the sun.

This means high electricity bills and frequent power failures could be a thing of the past. The unique South African-developed solar panels will make it possible for house to become completely self-sufficient for energy supplies. The panels are able to generate enough energy to run stoves, geysers, lights, TV's, fridges, computers - in short all the mod-cons of the modern house.

The full story can be found at How Earth Works

[ToSeek]

Sounds a little over-hyped, but we'll see what comes of it. Cheaper solar power is certainly a good thing, whether it's a major improvement or just incremental.

[Duane]

This sounds fishy to me. HowEarthWorks.com is definately an envoiromental action type site (not that that ios a bad thing!) so I wonder if they are making this out to be bigger than it really is. I'm looking into it a bit deeper.

[Laguna]

Sounds fishy for me too.
No details how efficient these panels are or any other info.

And by the way. I am quiet into the photovoltaics-market in Germany, but I have never heard of "IFE solar systems".
I am unable to find something about them too.
There is a small company named "IFE Solar Systeme", but they do not produce solar panels,
nor do they invest in research.
They usually install the modules on your roof. They don't build them.

I would be really happy if anything in this article is true.
Some of these would look great on my roof, but...

[Duane]

Ok I checked at the Cape Angus newpaper site, and found the original story. Unfortuanantly I could not delve deeper into their sources as you have to buy a subscription . (For home delivery no less--wonder if they'ld seend it to me in Canada! )

I checked at cooltech.iafrica.com (they were credited with the photograph) and came across thier story. The photograph seems to be a silicon-based panel, not one of these new ones. (why they included the picture is beyond me).

I checked into solar energy in South Africa (SA) and came across this site. Nothing mentioned about any revolutionary solar panels.

I checked at the University of Johannesburg and found nothing about it. I checked into Prof Vivian Albert and found papers he has written where he is looking intosolar cells based on CuInSe2, but nothing about any breakthrough or anything.

Eskom, a SA power company, has nothing about it on their website (not surprising really--why would a power company want to promote a product like this?)

I have found some interesting sites (here, here, here for eg) (run a search on Vivian Alberts for more) It appears that Dr Alberts was granted money by the SA government in 2004 to build a pilot assembly facility and worked in co-ordination with physicists from the U of Pretoria and the U of Port Elizabeth to produce the new panels (and no doubt to test them too). The story from cooltech is from Oct 2005, and appears to have been essentially copied right onto the Earthworks site.

Long and short--it appears this is a viable technology, however there is no mention of any working panels at this time. The news story may be premature in its enthusiasm, but the technology looks promising.

[Skipjack]

Well the problem is IMHO not so much the efficiency of the solar panels, but more the problem of storing the electricity. Because, you use a great deal of electricity when the sun does not shine (mean at night).
The other question is what the net- value of energy looks like, if you take production and transport of these panels into account. Further they probably wont last foreever, but have to be replaced at some point (it will still be in the positive, I think, but how much?).
CU
Skipjack

[Ara Pacis]

From every discussion we've had about PV here, over the years, the consensus appears to be that efficiency is the main problem. There are plenty of power storage technologies, but most of those have the same problem, efficiency.

Power companies might be interested in these, not only for generating power to sell, but for generating power for them to buy and resell. In many US states, the private PV generator sells at wholesale and buys at retail, allowing the power plant to make money. They might even make money installing PV equipment in homes. If efficiencies are high enough, I could see electric companies capitalizing the construction of neighborhood PV facilities that have high capacity storage as well as interchanges for legacy power generation and distribution during long periods of less sunlight.

[Van Rijn]

From every discussion we've had about PV here, over the years, the consensus appears to be that efficiency is the main problem. There are plenty of power storage technologies, but most of those have the same problem, efficiency.

The key issue is cost. Efficiency is an issue but somewhat indirectly. Assuming you had free 1% efficient PV panels, you would need to install a lot of panels to produce substantial amounts of electricity. Installation costs money. You need appropriate places to put it. If you put it out in the middle of nowhere, you have to run power lines to it. You need to do at least some maintenance (keeping them clean). And so on. Free panels could very well cost too much to use!

On the other side of the coin, if you had 100% efficient conversion* but the panel cost $1000 per square inch, it isn't going to do you much good. There is a real tradeoff on efficiency versus cost. Highly efficient cells/panels tend to be overly expensive, really low efficiency panels aren't worth bothering with.

You also want panels that will maintain output for a long time (for one, amorphous panel output tends to drop significantly). Also, for the most part, we use AC and panels put out DC. Today's converters are quite good and efficient, but it still takes a bite out of the output, and they aren't free. So that adds to the cost.

If solar PV was inexpensive enough, it could provide somewhere around 15-20% of the electrical mix before power storage became a serious concern. Then that would be a significant additional cost, both in equipment and efficiency. Large scale power storage technology is pretty primitive.

Regarding the claim in the OP of this thread: I've seen many "Gee Whiz" solar claims. Back in the '70s and '80s, practically every issue of Popular Science had one. If this one is real, we'll find out soon enough - the company won't be able to sell the panels fast enough.

*100% efficient conversion is impossible. This is a hypothetical example.

[beskeptical]

Ok I checked at the Cape Angus newpaper site, and found the original story. Unfortuanantly I could not delve deeper into their sources as you have to buy a subscription . (For home delivery no less--wonder if they'ld seend it to me in Canada! )

I checked at cooltech.iafrica.com (they were credited with the photograph) and came across thier story. The photograph seems to be a silicon-based panel, not one of these new ones. (why they included the picture is beyond me).

I checked into solar energy in South Africa (SA) and came across this site. Nothing mentioned about any revolutionary solar panels.

I checked at the University of Johannesburg and found nothing about it. I checked into Prof Vivian Albert and found papers he has written where he is looking intosolar cells based on CuInSe2, but nothing about any breakthrough or anything.

Eskom, a SA power company, has nothing about it on their website (not surprising really--why would a power company want to promote a product like this?)

I have found some interesting sites (here, here, here for eg) (run a search on Vivian Alberts for more) It appears that Dr Alberts was granted money by the SA government in 2004 to build a pilot assembly facility and worked in co-ordination with physicists from the U of Pretoria and the U of Port Elizabeth to produce the new panels (and no doubt to test them too). The story from cooltech is from Oct 2005, and appears to have been essentially copied right onto the Earthworks site.

Long and short--it appears this is a viable technology, however there is no mention of any working panels at this time. The news story may be premature in its enthusiasm, but the technology looks promising.

Excellent post, Duane. Thanks for the fact checking work you put into this.

[beskeptical]

Cost comes down after increased use and there's no doubt hydrocarbon fuel based energy will eventually cost more and more. We should be supplementing the higher cost of alternative energy sources now if we have any desire to plan for the long term.

I heard an interesting follow up to Bush's State of the Union comments on energy. Apparently most electricity in the USA is not from oil burning generators. The oil mostly goes for transportation. I'm not sure they addressed home heating in the discussion.

Anyway, what we need most is something to move us about besides oil based fuels.

But I'm considering installing solar and whatever other alternative energy source option I might have in my home even if it isn't cost effective.

[Ara Pacis]

True, Beskeptical, the killer app for energy tech is locomotion. If PV power storage research gives us better batteries (chemical or flywheel or ?) then that could possibly be useful for mobile energy. At the very least, it would reduce the demand for fossil fuels in hybrid engines.

However, petroleum is used for home energy as well as for vehicles. Many homes use heating oil and many power companies use gasoline-turbine engines for peak power. One of the advantages of solar is that it's maximum is often linked to the peak power maximum --hot days with air-conditioning.

Van Rijn, I agree with the cost issue, but I don't see it as key. If we develop a tech that is more efficient, then consumer demand will lead to economies of scale. It may be that the technology can't be scaled. We'll just have to wait and see.

[The Supreme Canuck]

*Cough* Nuclear *Cough*

[Van Rijn]

I heard an interesting follow up to Bush's State of the Union comments on energy. Apparently most electricity in the USA is not from oil burning generators. The oil mostly goes for transportation. I'm not sure they addressed home heating in the discussion.

Coal is the primary source. From here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...m/epm_sum.html

"Year-to-date through November 2005, 49.7 percent of the Nation’s electric power was generated at coal-fired plants (Figure 1). Nuclear plants contributed 19.2 percent, 18.9 percent was generated by natural gas-fired plants, and 2.4 percent was generated at petroleum liquid-fired plants. Conventional hydroelectric power provided 6.6 percent of the total, while other renewables (primarily wind, but also geothermal, solar, and biomass) and other miscellaneous energy sources generated the remaining electric power"

Anyway, what we need most is something to move us about besides oil based fuels.

Oil isn't going to be supplanted in the transportation sector any time soon. I would like to see nuclear replace coal because of pollution issues, with some help from PV solar. At some point in this century I do expect to see synfuel production from a variety of sources (including coal) make a resurgance, so it would be nice to reduce other use.

[Ara Pacis]

I think an electric automotive infrastructure could be developed that significantly reduces the need for petroleum. The interstates and other major arteries could transfer energy to a vehicle, reducing or removing the need for the hybrid engine to even run. Pay parking lots could have metered electric connections for recharging the car's batteries while it is not being used.

These could be powered by Nuclear baseline power. The peak power could be generated by Modular Pebble Bed Reactors and responsive coal-derived fuel plants. Current Nuclear plants can't respond in time for peak power, but MPBRs might have that capability.

[beskeptical]

Coal is the primary source. From here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...m/epm_sum.html

"Year-to-date through November 2005, 49.7 percent of the Nation’s electric power was generated at coal-fired plants (Figure 1). Nuclear plants contributed 19.2 percent, 18.9 percent was generated by natural gas-fired plants, and 2.4 percent was generated at petroleum liquid-fired plants. Conventional hydroelectric power provided 6.6 percent of the total, while other renewables (primarily wind, but also geothermal, solar, and biomass) and other miscellaneous energy sources generated the remaining electric power"
.....

These were similar to numbers I saw but where in there do you see the large number of individual houses that heat with oil? Houses use oil tanks filled by delivery trucks. Those won't be included in electricity generating stats.

[Van Rijn]

These were similar to numbers I saw but where in there do you see the large number of individual houses that heat with oil? Houses use oil tanks filled by delivery trucks. Those won't be included in electricity generating stats.

I was only addressing the electrical mix question. A quick google turns up on heating oil use:

http://api-ep.api.org/filelibrary/ACF1AC.pdf


"Residential and commercial heating oil accounted for about 17 percent of all distillate oil supplied in the United States and 3 percent of all petroleum supplied. In 2001, homes and businesses purchased 9.8 billion gallons of heating oil, most of it concentrated in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. Heating oil was used in an estimated 11 million households and more than 500,000 commercial buildings."

And from here:

http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/uses_residential.asp


"According to the AGA, 51 percent of heated homes in the U.S. (or 49.1 million households), used natural gas heating in 2000. [snip] According to the U.S. Census Bureau in their report Characteristics of New Housing, 2003, 70 percent of single family homes completed in 2003 use natural gas heating, followed by 27 percent that use electric heat, and 2 percent that use heating oil."

So the majority of homes use natural gas for heating, and new homes use natural gas, followed by electricity (which mostly comes from coal) with heating oil as a small percentage.

[Van Rijn]

I think an electric automotive infrastructure could be developed that significantly reduces the need for petroleum. The interstates and other major arteries could transfer energy to a vehicle, reducing or removing the need for the hybrid engine to even run. Pay parking lots could have metered electric connections for recharging the car's batteries while it is not being used.

Technically possible, sure, but it would require a huge investment and massive commitment to infrastructure. Battery electric cars just can't come close to the performance of conventional cars. Hybrids are about the only option for electrics for the next decade or two (eventually fuel cell designs may start becoming economically competitive). Building a power transfer system into roads will cost a lot. Building the additional power plants (about double the current capacity if we fully switched over to electric) will cost a lot and meet a lot of environmental resistance - even if they are the cleanest option. As for powered parking lots, you're going to need high capacity electrical feeds (expensive, lots of upgrades to electrical distribution) and a lot of extra hassle for automobile users. I don't want to have to remember to plug in the car all the time or find I have to wait a few hours before I can drive away.

Changes that work with the current system, such as mixed fuel vehicles and other fuels, would be much easier to develop.

[Ara Pacis]

Technically possible, sure, but it would require a huge investment and massive commitment to infrastructure. Battery electric cars just can't come close to the performance of conventional cars. Hybrids are about the only option for electrics for the next decade or two (eventually fuel cell designs may start becoming economically competitive). Building a power transfer system into roads will cost a lot. Building the additional power plants (about double the current capacity if we fully switched over to electric) will cost a lot and meet a lot of environmental resistance - even if they are the cleanest option. As for powered parking lots, you're going to need high capacity electrical feeds (expensive, lots of upgrades to electrical distribution) and a lot of extra hassle for automobile users. I don't want to have to remember to plug in the car all the time or find I have to wait a few hours before I can drive away.

Changes that work with the current system, such as mixed fuel vehicles and other fuels, would be much easier to develop.

Oh sure, it would be easier, but not necessarily better or cheaper. I'm not talking about electrifying the entire roadbed and or using pure-electric vehicles. I was thinking of having the Left lane be the only one used for electricity distribution. The power could be sent via roadway contacts or beamed via microwave from overhanging light posts. The power use would be paid by general tolls, divided lane tolling, or some sort of wireless data system. Even fuel-cell cars could benefit from battery hybridization, and this power transfer tech.

Electricity recharging parking lots would be pay parking lots. They may use manual plugs or some sort of automatic contact system. Or maybe the attendent would check them ever half hour and track usage via electric-data feeds on a computer. Of course, I am anticipating that these would still be hybrids, not pure electric. But the idea would be for a charging system that doesn't require the engine to run to reduce petroluem use and inner city pollution. The power required for the parking lots and urban interstates could be provided by better PV or by newer, safer nuclear (MPBR?).

As for forgetful drivers, they might make a mistake once or twice. But if you can remember to charge your cell phone and fill your tank with gas, you should have no problem. The capitalization costs could be recouped by charging people to park or use those roads. Finally, the costs to install new electric lines shouldn't be too expensive... even with union labor.

[The Supreme Canuck]

I still say go with a closed-loop fuel cell. Fill the car with distilled water. Plug it into the wall. Wait for it to produce hydrogen by electrolysis (maybe oxygen, too. You don't want your garage to have a 100% oxygen atmosphere). Run it through a fuel cell to power the car. Repeat.

The electricity, of course, is provided by some sort of nuclear plant.

[mattes12]

Eskom, a SA power company, has nothing about it on their website

I have found some interesting sites:
Financial Mail

I'm a little late on this...

But Eskom does indeed have a news article about this on their site:

http://www.eskom.co.za/live/content.php?Item_ID=702


From the first site you mentioned:

A typical 60W panel, which measures 1.2m x 0.5m

My 55W solar panel (Siemens SM55) is approximately this size, so there is little efficiency difference. Considering 1000W/m^2, this gives about 10% efficiency for the newly proposed design. Maybe it will improve...but the professor's real goal was cost, it seems.

From the Eskom page:

Each 60-W panel to be produced is 1,2 m x 500 mm in size. "The pilot plant has shown the production cost per watt to be €0,95, verified for a 25-MW production facility, assuming a 10% efficiency and average production yield of 85%," says Alberts.

So this confirms.

- Arthur Matteson
- EE Graduate Student
- Michigan State University, USA

[DIEBOER]

Tech specs at:
http://general.rau.ac.za/physics/eng...tovoltaics.htm

The storage devices and inverters talked about on are maybe still under wraps to give time for production to hit the market before everybody else wakes up!

The material is much more efficient: see

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/200...ber/energy.htm

CIGS is much more efficient than silicon at converting incident sunlight into an electric current: Less than one micron of CIGS absorbs more than 99% of available incident solar energy, compared to 350 microns of silicon to do the same job.

[John Dlugosz]

My main consumption of electricity is for air cooling in the house. If the solar panels only ran the AC, which is made as a unit to go with the power cells, I would save a lot and not care about producing 120VAC for general use, or storing it for very long.

I wonder though... if the solar panels are on the roof, in principle how much power can it generate, relative to how warm the same sunlight makes the house under it? Is it even possible to generate enough power to cool the house, when the house is being heated by the same energy that is generating the power?

--John

[eburacum45]

That shouldn't be an insurmountable problem, John; the solar cells would become warm, but they could be insulated from the house by various means.

[pixelbrain]

hello

i´m from germany. there are some new things about the solar panel.

the link

Erster Spatenstich für Solarfabrik mit 180 Arbeitsplätzen in Hohenstücken

(Article removed by moderator as a copyright violation - it's all at the link)

[beskeptical]

I heard mention today on my liberal radio program that China is rapidly moving ahead in the solar power field. Interesting development.