SPECIAL FEATURES:
Email
Solar goes Hyper in the U.S.
HyperSolar magnifying film can increase solar panel efficiency by up to 300%, making solar competitive with fossil fuels.
Wed, Feb 09 2011 at 3:08 PM
Related Topics:
Image courtesy of HyperSolar
As the U.S. government continues to heap billions in subsidies to the world's wealthiest coal and oil companies, the solar industry has been struggling to make it in the United States. This is sad for many reasons, not the least of which is that we're missing out on one of the biggest growth industries in the world.
Currently there are 16 gigawatts of installed solar power globally. That number will grow to about 1,800 gigawatts in the next 20 years, making it one of the best job creators. U.S. engineers invented the solar panel, and the U.S. should be dominating that market. Instead, foreign manufacturers (particularly in China) have taken our IP and run with it, as we become increasingly dependent on foreign oil and dirty coal operations to meet our power needs.
Fortunately HyperSolar, a new U.S. company, offers a ray of sunny hope on the clean energy frontier.
The company does not manufacture solar panels. It makes them ultra-efficient using a field of science called photonics. Similar to a microchip that moves individual bits of data around at hyperspeed, HyperSolar's thin magnifying film routes and separates specific light spectrums, delivering them exactly where they're needed to make an array of PV solar cells ultra-efficient.
I saw an early prototype for such a magnifying optical layer a few years back, but the company was "dark" at the time, so I couldn't write about the innovation. But I'm as excited now as I was then for good reason — HyperSolar's optical layer can increase PV efficiency by up to 300 percent!
Theoretically that means cutting the installation cost of a solar array in half. Instead of a home solar system costing $30,000 (or more) it would only cost $15,000 (or less), making the upfront investment much lower and payback periods much quicker.
This is a great example of a disruptive technology that could get us to the holy grail of "grid parity" — meaning that solar would be as affordable as other sources of energy like coal and natural gas. And no more polluting coal mines or fracking for natural gas! The sun (for at least the next 5 billion years) will provide free and abundant energy. It's up to us whether we want to invest in that technology or continue to destroy our beautiful landscapes for a few more years of "cheap" (i.e. heavily subsidized) coal.
Innovations like this make several recent reports ring true. If we have the political will to overcome the stranglehold of the fossil fuel industry on our nation's energy policy, we could become 100 percent renewably powered in a 2030-2050 time frame. Check out these two reports and a new study by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) about how large-scale wind power is now cost-competitive with natural gas:
- Physorg.com: 100 percent renewables by 2030
- WWF: 100 percent renewables (no nuclear) by 2050
- AWEA: Wind cost-competitive with gas
So, what do you think? Can we kick the fossil fuel habit?
Also on MNN:
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.
You might also like:
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
EDITORS' PICKS
Advertisement
TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON
- Student science experiment finds plants won't grow near Wi-Fi router
- How to get a second crop of tomatoes -- for free
- 9 habits that may do more harm than good
- 10 cats made famous by YouTube
- Man looks for missing cat, finds 'UFO' instead
- Food fraud: 10 counterfeit products we commonly consume
- 10 false facts most people think are true
- Men and women literally see the world differently
- 15 houseplants to improve indoor air quality
- Bras don't actually work, says French study
From our sponsor
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
It is necessary to continue to find and use alternative energy sources that are affordable for everyday use.
What nonsense. This is a physical impossibility. In fact it is fraudulent if the intention is to raise capital.
As much as I agree we need to increase our solar and wind funding the real reason it won't happen is because of the abundance of natural gas. We started to subsidize all these clean energies 4 years ago, but with the advent of fracking an more interest in natural gas that is where the majority of our energy and funding will be coming from for the next 20 years unless something changes.
If this technology goes to market, more homeowners will be able to afford solar on their homes...me included. I just hope the solar efficiency keeps going up with the price going down to make it affordable for everyone.
Please stick to the facts and stop blatantly hawking an agenda so much. This article, like many of your recent contributions, is a blend of interesting and useful data mixed into a slurry of rhetoric-laced opinion and wild conjecture. You have a gift for technical writing, but this bad habit is reducing the value of your articles and your credibility as a writer. Given your level talent, I hope you overcome serious flaw before it drags you permanently down to the level of a mere hack.
To quote that it has 300% better efficiency doesn't mean anything. 300% better than what? If you take the average solar panel efficiency (around 10%) that brings us up to 30% but who knows? This is just spin reporting.
30% or even 10% efficiency is not bad at all. Just take into consideration that you get an output of 30 calories out of an input of FREE 100 calories. It's not like the case of a diesel generator, when you pay for fuel and the don't get the expected amount of electricity. These are great efforts that would bring hope for greener & safer future for coming generations.
Great news there! But just want to p*ss on your bonfire. The yanks didn't invent the solar panel sorry. It was a french guy called Antoine Cesar Becquerel
The Frenchman developed the theory and the American invented the device that made it relevant.
so you agree the french invented it and the americans used his invention? i suppose you also think americans invented the jet engine, the internal combustion engine and electricity because you also make them?
Electricity was discovered it wasn't invented.
I see a lot of debate over weather or not this will heat up or cool down the earth... The laws of thermal dynamics state that the universe is always directed towards disorder. Things become more random, etc... We will never, no matter how efficient we become, get around this, we will always generate heat. Heck we waste more energy than we use just making it, let alone transporting it. It's a good thing that the Earth does vent off energy too; an amazing self equalizing mechanism she is.
When a solar panel absorbs energy it is absorbing energy that is bombarding the Earth anyway. That is far better than releasing stored energy by burning. Yes if it spins an electric motor or is used to power a PC the appliance will release some heat at the other end of the process. But it is energy that already would have struck the Earth anyway. Burning fuels to cook or stay warm is at the same level of a cave dweller. Solar is a real breakthrough.
but barbequed ribs are sooo good.
Is it possible to create a spray on PV layer that can be applied to any surface?
the article from wwf states that 100% renuable energy will be produced by 2050 ... there is still a long way to go ... who knows it can happen or it might not happen ??? and billons of dollors would be wasted ...
Again words like "theoretically" are used to explain the coming wonders of free energy that are always 20-50 years away. What happens until we reach that promised land is never really explained.
And, a claimed 300% increase in efficiency results in a 50% cost savings for a home installation? Must be using union labor...
I think what the article didn't spell out was the fact that the hypercell layer is expected to be more expensive than a simple glass layer thereby increasing the cost of a solar panel while increasing its efficiency. This sounds like an excellent trade-off, as 'hypercell' panels should come down in price over time, and the effective cost savings could approach or exceed the 300% mark.
Free energy? I must have missed that part... I didn't see anything about "free energy," I just saw a claim of increased efficiency in a fairly inefficient technology.
Maybe I'm just not clever enough to understand what I'm reading? (Well, maybe SOMEONE here isn't clever enough to understand what they are reading...)
..it is possible the 300% increase in efficiency requires a more expensive manufacturing process. They didn't say "a 300% increase in efficiency with the same production costs."
But, hey, far easier to reflexively demonize unions than to engage your brain for a few moments and realize that unions have nothing to do with the story, right?
it's obvious that production cost will increase somehow, otherwise, a 300% increase in efficiency would cut the cost to 1/3, and not to only 1/2 like stated.
Pages