x
  • Bookmark and ShareShare
  • Earn Points
    What's this?
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
 178

Related Topics:

Energy Independence, Smart Grid
Solar Panel Magnifying Layer

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:
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:

Join the conversation

Comments: 178
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
anonymous
Huh Feb 18 2011 at 8:06 PM

If you check out Prism Solar... I think it's a similar approach.

|
anonymous
Ben Feb 20 2011 at 12:39 AM

Yeah, what they're doing is literally the first thing everybody tries. There are lots of ways to split the spectrum.

|
anonymous
Darkstar Feb 18 2011 at 8:04 PM

Obvious pump and dump stock scheme. Look at the chart of Hypersolar (HYSR) since this article was released. Up about 50% Bet it crashes back next week and we never hear anything else about this. And what are the trillions in subsidies to the oil companies. Does this include the approximately 50 cents a gallon tax we pay on the gas we buy. This sounds more like the government doesn't want us to use gasoline, like alcohol and cigarettes.

|
anonymous
Angela Birch Feb 20 2011 at 1:19 AM
The taxes you pay on gasoline are used to build and maintain Highways. Keep the pothols being filled, the snow plowed ,the bridges from collapsing. It has nothing to do with the massive oil, natural gas, and coal subsidies. One can argue over the question of "are they a good idea" without them gas would probably cost about $6.00 per gallon but one can't argue as to their existance. Actually the gas tax makes it possible for you to use gasoline. Try driving very far without roads. The subsidies
.... More
make gasoline much less expensive. I can't see how you figure that the government is trying to discourage use, it sounds to me like they are encouraging it.
|
anonymous
Ron Castle Feb 18 2011 at 6:21 PM

The great thing about my off grid solar cottage is almost no energy expense for the next 25 years. I made my investment and kissed the power company goodbye. If Hyper Solar can create a retro skin for existing panels, I'm in.

SunshineWorks.com

|
anonymous
Basilio Feb 20 2011 at 10:50 AM

The top film technology works along with the cell placement. An existing panel already has the cells in a certain placement that will not yield as much of a benefit.
It may provide you a 10% boost, but most likely you would have problems like the peeling car window tinting stuff.

|
anonymous
Paul A. Feb 18 2011 at 6:17 PM

Direct Exchange Geothermal heating, cooling and hot water is the best kept secret in renewable energy/energy efficiency. Geothermal systems are cost effective WITHOUT government subsidies. Payback in new construction in 4-6 years. More comfortable, healthier and safer. Plus no burning fossil fuel.

Learn more: www.TotalGreenUS.com

|
anonymous
Jaimie Feb 18 2011 at 8:33 PM

All that heat stored inside the planet is kinda important. If everyone goes hog wild, drilling holes into the earth to waste all that heat as fast as possible. Oh..... crap.... then we end up like Mars. Oops.

|
anonymous
J. Louis Martina Feb 19 2011 at 9:20 AM

! jamie !. You are a stupid head...... And your mother dresses you funny!!!!!

|
anonymous
Eco Feb 18 2011 at 5:32 PM

Yes, Solar Energy is Ten Years Away. I am certain this is true, because I have heard it for 30 years. It is even more true today. It may always be true! Solar energy is not going to make the super rich even richer. Therefore, it will never, ever happen.

|
anonymous
Jaimie Feb 18 2011 at 8:36 PM

Hmm... I could have sworn those solar panels on my roof exist right now. Darn. I must be delusional. I haven't paid an electric bill in years. I must owe a lot.

|
anonymous
RichG Feb 18 2011 at 5:14 PM

using a large fresnel lens to concentrate the light could be balanced against a circulating cooling fluid to keep the solar cells in their safe operating range, all the while heating or at least preheating water for your shower. Win Win.

|
anonymous
Ben Feb 19 2011 at 11:44 PM

Those kinds of cogeneration approaches can be effective, though they tend to be limited to fairly specific applications. They make a lot of sense for home use, especially off grid.

|
anonymous
RichG Feb 18 2011 at 5:14 PM

using a large fresnel lens to concentrate the light could be balanced against a circulating cooling fluid to keep the solar cells in their safe operating range, all the while heating or at least preheating water for your shower. Win Win.

|
anonymous
yes Feb 18 2011 at 3:51 PM

whoever doesnt buy stock in this company is retarted

|
anonymous
Dan Feb 18 2011 at 3:42 PM
Let's not forget that in the 1970s, we were well on our way to starting a real solar industry, until the beloved Reagan stepped in and cut all federal subsidies for the solar energy industry. Domestic solar companies went Chapter 11 and the technology moved overseas. Here we are 30+ years later trying to catch up on three lost decades. I wouldn't be too mad about the dismal progress of solar power technology unless we can acknowledge Reagan's role in taking a typical politician's short-term view
.... More
and screwing us.
|
anonymous
Paul NYC Feb 18 2011 at 3:41 PM
Oil is only cheap because the U.S. has spent trillions on wars and invasions and free rent to guarantee its flow to U.S. consumers. You could even argue that 50% of our defense budget indirectly goes to ensuring that the U.S. has cheap, easy access to oil. We should be spending $50 billion plus a year on investment in alternative energy, especially solar. China and India, two nations that have growing energy needs and little domestic carbon fuel, will probably make solar more cost effective before
.... More
we do. All energy is subsidized. Pay for it with brains and sweat or blood and diplomacy. You choose.
|
anonymous
Howard Herdman Feb 18 2011 at 3:05 PM

Roof top Solar is the best and most cost efficiant way to reduce our dependence upon fossil fuel but it cost $ and the mean family income in the US is $50,000 per year which meand that the vasy majority of citizens are struggling to get through each month with out thinking about clean energy. Until this changes dramatically progress will be very slow. Give it 50 yars or more.

|
anonymous
Jaimie Feb 18 2011 at 8:39 PM

Hmm... my living expenses are about 2K$. Yes, 2000$ per year. Partly because of the solar panels on my roof.
Think long terrm solutions, and next thing you know, all these "problems" people think are so insurmountable are gone.

|
anonymous
thatonegirl Feb 19 2011 at 8:45 PM
...or you would be spending more than that. I mean, you could be the kind of person that takes care of their own food sources by farming, but if that were the case you wouldn't have time to be posting online so often. $2000.00 a year is less than $6.00 a day. You don't just have to eat though, you're (clearly) getting internet. You could be paying for it (at least $15.00 a month, more like $50.00 for quality) and I'm guessing you are, because of the amount of posts you have made today (librarians
.... More
usually kick people off after an hour or so). You also have a phone (I assume), and/or a car (most likely). Other things include clothing (oh you spin fibers make your own thread, use a loom so that you have fabric, and then still have time to sew it so you can have clothing?) activities (who doesn't like to watch a movie now and then?) medical bills (you clearly aren't paying for insurance, so I hope you're a healthy person. A trip to an urgent care center costs ~ $100.00-600.00 depending on what kind of trip it is) tools for your farm (I can't even begin to name how expensive tools are to purchase, maintain, and repair)... the way I see it, there is no way all you're getting a year is $2000.00. I applaud you for using solar energy, I wish more people did. Don't bash them though, for having families, working hard, and still not making it 100% of the way. The entire country needs to focus on this, rather than leaving it up to the few who can make it happen. Either help those around you get the thing going, or go away, because bragging about how you can live on so little (which I highly doubt you do) isn't helping. If you'd posted HOW you lived on so little a year...then maybe you'd be doing something. Now, so that I don't seem totally useless, and since I have asked Jaimie to be useful in (his/her?) posts here is something that can help EVERYONE save money. Get DVDs and books that have just come out from your library! (if they don't have them, or like me you're living out of city limits and don't qualify for a library card, then try Redbox or something similar that only costs a dollar a day and is usually at a convenient location like Fred Meyers.) If you're don't really have the time (or desire) to sit down and read/watch a book/DVD then you can do something to help this energy crisis: Replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent light (CFLs) bulbs. These bulbs use 75% less energy and last 10 times longer. They take some getting used to, and they won’t work in every light fixture (like those with muting controls). But use them where it makes sense and save energy and money. (Often then need to be left on for a short time to get to full brightness, so don't be surprised if they seem dull at first.)
|
anonymous
Sigh Feb 19 2011 at 1:25 PM

The dollar sign goes in front of the number.

|
anonymous
George Bright Feb 18 2011 at 2:01 PM
I clicked on the link to this artcle / opinion piece hoping to be informed about a new way to make solar cells more efficient. Unfortunately there was very little in the way of information here other than the name of a company that has announced a new technology. There was no background information on the company, no explanation of how the technology works, no real comparison with existing tech other than the vague "300 percent better" and no analysis of when this tech may be available and what
.... More
effect it may have. At least it has a link to the company's website.
|
anonymous
George Bright Feb 18 2011 at 2:27 PM
Now that I've followed the link to HyperSolar's website and read through their materials, now I know why there was so little information in this article - there's very little to report. HyperSolar has finally announced that they've successfully completed a prototype. No data on how the prototype performs. No estimate on costs when the tech gets commercialized. No explanation on how the prototype even works. Perhaps the company name is a play on the phrase "Solar Hype" because I see nothing but
.... More
pie-in-the-sky optimism on their website and in their press releases. There's nothing of substance in this article because the company isn't showing us anything substantial. (They may actually have a revolutionary technology or this may just be a penny stock pump-and-dump; there's no way to know with the information they've revealed so far)
|
anonymous
SG Feb 18 2011 at 2:00 PM
I dont see how this technology can possibly work. Solar photons come towards the PV panel as a collimated light source (all the photons are traveling in parallel). For a solar concentrator to work, it must be MUCH larger than the PV cell area so that it collects the photons from a larger area, and focuses them down to a smaller PV cell. If you put a "concentrator" over a panel that is the same size as the panel, WHERE is the concentrator focusing the light down to??? SPOTS on the PV array? Lets do
.... More
the math: Solar radiance at the earth's surface is ~1300 watts per square meter. Current solar panels get no higher than ~30% efficiency. So 1 square meter of PV panel receives about 1300 watts of power and output ~390 watts of power. The only way to get more from this is to increase the amount of sunlight that hits the panel using a large concentrator OR increasing the efficiency of the PV cells themselves. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a sheet of "fancy glass" THE SAME SIZE as the 1 m^2 panel to receive any more than 1300 watts. So there is no way it can suddenly shine more than 1300 watts at the panel. There is also no way that the concentrator to alter the efficiency of the PV cells. NASA has been using solar concentrators for year on spacecraft but the concentrator has to be MUCH larger than the cell or it does not work. So I say this promising new technolgy is snake oil. Notice how they dont explain any of the technical aspects of how this works?
|
anonymous
D. chuck Feb 18 2011 at 1:34 PM

the solar industry has been struggling to make it in the United States. This is sad for many reasons,

Why is it sad? The solar industry is not a cost-efficient way of producing energy yet. Not to mention the fact that it's practically useless in large cities, as there isn't any room to put solar panels on the roofs of skyscrapers.

|

EDITORS' PICKS

tease painting

line

tease devil's kettle

line

tease calories

Advertisement
From our sponsor

NEWSLETTER

Mother Nature. Delivered
Advertisement