x
  • Bookmark and ShareShare
  • Earn Points
    What's this?
5 breakthroughs that will make solar power cheaper than coal
Solar technology charges forward despite Washington's backward march.
Mon, Aug 08 2011 at 4:12 AM
 75
Solar power is at our fingertips

Photo: Echo Energies

There was some good news last week. While Washington was busy holding the global markets hostage and placing billions in badly needed R&D funding on the chopping block, a new report from REN21 (the Renewable Energy Network for the 21st Century) showed that global investments in renewable energy jumped 32 percent to a record $211 billion, this despite a downturn in the economy and massive R&D cuts in clean energy. 
 
It's a little reassuring that progress marches forward, despite our nation's best efforts to stop it. Solar in particular appears to be growing in leaps and bounds due in large part to a 60 percent drop in price per kW (kilowatt) production in just the past three years. In many regions solar power is getting competitive with coal power, and its price will continue to drop with the onset of a many new advancements in solar technology.
 
I've been keeping abreast of the latest solar developments happening at MIT, and over the past few months scientists appear to be having one breakthrough after another. Below I've listed five of the most impressive — taken together, these could mean nearly infinite solar energy, stored easily and safely at a fraction of the cost of burning coal:
 
1. Nano-templated molecules that store energy
MIT associate professor Jeffrey Grossman and others successfully created a new molecule called azobenzene using carbon nanotubes to structure the molecules so that they "lock in" stored solar thermal energy indefinitely. These molecules have the remarkable ability to convert solar energy and store it at an energy density comparable to lithium ion batteries. As Grossman says, "You’ve got a material that both converts and stores energy. It’s robust, it doesn’t degrade, and it’s cheap.”
 
2. Print solar cells on anything
An MIT team led by professor Karen Gleason has discovered a way to print a solar cell on just about anything, using low temperatures and vapor as opposed to liquid solutions that are expensive, require high temperatures and degrade the substrate materials. The resulting printed paper cell is also extremely durable and can be folded and unfolded more than 1,000 times with no loss in performance. 
 
Photo by Patrick Gillooly, Courtesy of MIT
 
3. Solar thermal power in a flat panel
Professor Gang Chen has been working on a revolutionary new way to make solar power — micro solar thermal — which could theoretically produce electricity at 8 times the efficiency of the word's best solar panel. Solar thermal usually requires huge arrays of mirrors that heat up an element to run a steam turbine. Chen's system, which is about the size and shape of a typical solar PV panel, uses nanostructured thermoelectric generators that capture the heat differential created by the sun's light striking the top of the panel. Because it is a thermal process, the panels can heat up from ambient light even on an overcast day, and these panels can be made from very inexpensive materials. 
 
4. A virus to improve nano-solar cell efficiency
MIT graduate students recently engineered a virus called M13 (which normally attacks bacteria) that works to precisely space apart carbon nanotubes so they can be used to effectively convert solar energy. The virus acts, in a sense, as a tiny machining tool to pattern the nanotubes properly creating a jump from about 8 percent efficiency to 10.6 percent efficiency — a jump of nearly one-third. 
 
5. Transparent solar cell could turn windows into power plants
The world's cities are packed with miles and miles of glass. What if all that glass could be used to harness the sun's rays while maintaining their transparency? This idea has been out there for a while, but current attempts have resulted in terrible efficiencies (less than 1 percent) and tend to block too much light, rendering the window useless. Electrical engineering professor Vladimir Bulovic has made a breakthrough that could eliminate two-thirds of the costs of installing thin-film technology by incorporating a layer of new transparent organic PV cells into the window glazing. The MIT team believes it can reach a whopping 12 percent efficiency at hugely reduced costs over thin film solar cells.
 
This is the stuff that Star Trek is made of, and it's a shame that our elected leaders see little value in spurring the next generation of energy tecnology rather than preserving tax cuts for oil and coal companies who are currently making record profits while spending millions on Capitol Hill to fight the very incentives that would unlock a 21st century energy revolution. 

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: 75
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
anonymous
Jeeves Mar 12 2013 at 8:05 AM

Far more often than not, here is a large gap between theoretical advances and affordable manufacturing processes. We've all seen false hope proffered in the form of pop journalism.

|
FD8Rwx8u93
Simon Hamblett Mar 01 2013 at 9:01 PM
Solar PV Or Whatever Renewable Energy source was always going to and will still require a subsidy based system in place to allow it to grow and take roots in order to ultimately have a chance of competing against fossil fuels and the nuclear power which we currently rely so heavily upon. I don’t believe that anyone who actively entered into the industry either as an investor, customer, business owner or installer thought that the initial subsidies were sustainable or indeed good for the industry
.... More
in the long run but without them the industry would not be where it is today! However, many individuals built their UK business models around subsidy guidelines in the form of the feed in tariff system that were changed radically by the government and caused many to go out of business and made unemployed many of the workers who were drawn into the industry. This is all fact! After reviewing the Energy industry as a whole, the Economy and how best to integrate Renewable forms of generation into the domain for the greater good of all i put together the design for a system which will result in “Grid Cost Parity” for renewables and that will not require a subsidy system to work. If you are truly an enthusiast of finding and supporting a way to make the world a better place then please visit my website http://www.solar-panel-installs.com and follow the tab to the Patent Application which has all the details of the design which is now at the publication stage with the Intellectual Property Office in the UK. In brief, The conceptual background to this patent application is based on the benefits associated with the practice of sharecropping embedded within a competitive marketplace by directly attaching the rights and distribution to the output of the crop (In this case Renewable Energy Electricity, farmed on a large scale basis) directly back to the owning individuals within defined limits for his own personal useage and therefore outside of the monetary and taxation system. This financial approach being in line with the Governments current policy with regard to the benefits obtainable from the current feed in tarrif system for domestic installations. Full details of this application and other articles which i have written on the subject, including “Why and How the Government and the Energy Companies Sacrificed thousands of Jobs in the Solar PV Industry” are also open for discussion on my Solar blog page. I truly believe the way forward is to keep installing but the Green deal is just another load of Green Spin Policy and should just be thrown in the bin!
|
anonymous
Wess Presley Mar 11 2012 at 10:48 AM

All this is great forget Obama he is out spent to much has to large of government. The Acid test for this tech. is the private market like everything else that has proved great if it is as good as seams more importantly if there is market for it ( not electric cars us tax payers have to pay people to buy) someone will develop and profit that is capitalism.

|
anonymous
Irving Pinsky Dec 11 2011 at 10:51 AM

I am hopeful that when Obama gets reelected he will feel free to put the full court press on this. I know for sure that the GOP bunch is wholly owned by big oil. Can't wait to see what he does when he does not need to run for reelection.

|
anonymous
Ron Sep 05 2011 at 10:42 PM

I hate to be pessimistic, MIT had announced rechargeable batteries out of nano plastic tubes on how they would hold the same charge as a regular rechargeable battery and charge in seconds. This was a few years ago, I haven't seen them yet on the market.
Is this just to get us all excited and then nothing?
I hate being disappointed by this stuff.

|
abolnour_ashraf's picture
abolnour_ashraf Sep 04 2011 at 7:54 AM

Iwant to express my deeply appreciation for the team work Professor;Jeffery Grossman and others who created anew molecule called azobenzene.Professor Karen Gleason who discoverd away to print a solar cell.Professor Gang Chen who found anew way to make solar power-micro solar thermal last not least MIT grauate students

|
catie_mack's picture
KMc Aug 22 2011 at 4:16 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLHBFyfvK8A
This is a link to "Here Comes the Sun" - like this article, reminds me of the hope that comes with solar energy as technology improves.

|
anonymous
Enter your name Aug 13 2011 at 5:37 AM
"It's a little reassuring that progress marches forward, despite our nation's best efforts to stop it." Maybe you can support that statement by pointing out in your article the law that outlaws solar power, or whatever other kind of alternative energy. This may come as a surprise to you but not funding something is not the same as trying to stop it. You can send me a check in the mail for my comment. What you refuse to fund my commenting with a check. Well this comment is being posted despite
.... More
your "best efforts to stop it".
|
anonymous
free_energy Jan 31 2013 at 1:21 PM

You are confused ... the People You elect into govt. positions take lobbyist kickbacks in offshore banking accounts and give them (the corporations) huge welfare in the form of tax incentives and tax breaks; otherwise they would go bankrupt. While the growing solar industry is held back hugely with hurdles, flat tires and locked doors. Very ignorant and naive.

|
anonymous
Guest Aug 13 2011 at 11:13 AM

But Of Course! I can see it now...

"Yes, I know your family was in a terrible car accident, and they're bleeding on our lobby floor, but seeing as our Patron over there stubbed his toe, and we have only a limited free-clinic budget (thank you Mr. Patron!), I'm not going to fund your family's surgery. I'm not *stopping* it, mind, but well you see it's just too expensive, and, well, oh look, a distraction!"

|
anonymous
Amy Aug 13 2011 at 4:39 AM

However hard we may try to use renewable energy to save the planet we will never be successful if certain business organizations are not willing to sacrifice their profits. For example the government of Canada will not keep its promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a result of excessive oil sand production. We call ourselves an environmentally conscious nation but our government is doing everything to damage this self-stereotype of ours.

|
anonymous
Steverino Aug 13 2011 at 12:21 AM
"Solar technology charges forward despite Washington's backward march." I wonder if the author might have considered that solar technology is charging forward BECAUSE of Washington's backward march, not in spite of it. The free market is the most efficient way to find solutions to problems. Letting the government decide where to throw our money is usually the best way to make sure it goes to waste. The discussion is moot anyway, because solar and wind power will not do the job for us now or in
.... More
the future, especially as demand for energy skyrockets in developing nations. It is a supplement at best, mainly because of the enormous problem of having to store a hydrogen bomb's worth of energy to power a city after the sun goes down. The only truly viable, large scale solution is nuclear energy.
|
anonymous
Christopher Aug 14 2011 at 7:47 PM

Studies have been studies done all over the world, based on actual peak and base load requirements and weather patterns, which demonstrate that all energy requirements can be met (in some cases by 2050 or earlier) using a combination of wind, solar-thermal, photovoltaic, wave, hyrdro, geothermal and biomass generators. Nuclear is not sustainable by any reasonable definition of the word, nor is it necessary at all.

|
anonymous
Leonardo the En... Aug 15 2011 at 7:38 AM
Let's do a little math. Let's assume we're going to replace a 2,000 MW powerplant with solar or wind (2,000 MW is a little bigger than a two unit pulverized coal plant and a little smaller than a two unit nuclear plant). The "density" of a wind farm is about 10 KW per acre of land. Concentrated solar is about 12.3 KW/acre and photovotaic solar is about 50 KW/acre. At this rate to replace a 2,000 MW conventional power plant with these technologies would consume: about 313 square miles for wind;
.... More
about 63 square miles for photvoltaic solar; and, about 250 square miles for concentrated solar. The peak load in the US this summer wil be about 800,000,000,000 KW. To meet this requirement with wind would require about 125,000,000 square miles; with photovotaics, about 25,000,000 square miles; and, with concentrated solar, about 100,000,000 square miles. How many trees are you going to knock down, or farming acres take out of production or endangered species displace in order to accomplish this?
|
anonymous
Guest Aug 30 2011 at 7:04 PM
Let's do the math using actual data, and not numbers pulled from your nether regions. 10kw per acre? Please. Class 3 power density is 350 watts per square meter. Class 7 goes up to 2000 watts per square meter. http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/tables/1-1T.html Let's take the lowest class that can be reasonably used for a wind farm - class 3 At 4094 square meters to the acre you get a wind density of slightly over 1.4 MW per acre. Efficiencies have hit 40% in 2006 the latest data I could find (
.... More
there have been improvements since then). http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_11... Rounding gives you 500KW which is nearly 2 orders of magnitude higher than your number. And that's for class 3. As for your fears around land clearing, wind turbines have a footprint of only 5 to 10 percent of the land they are built on. (see link above) To go good math, you need good data to start with.
|
anonymous
Leonardo the En... Aug 31 2011 at 6:13 AM
Okay - let's do the engineering and then the math. "Wind power Density" refers to the theoretical maximum power available in the wind passing over a particular place. Unfortunately, all of this power can not be harvested. As a practical matter, wind turbines cannot be installed tip-to-tip. You’ve got to keep turbines out of the wake created by other turbines. Typical turbine spacing in wind farms places the towers 5 to 10 turbine diameters apart, depending on local conditions. When you take
.... More
this into account, the average practical density of wind turbines is about 10 kW/acre based on nameplate rating of the machines. Note that the 40% efficiency number your cite, refers to the efficiency with which a given turbine extracts power from the wind, not the net that can be extracted given the practicalities of actually having to install physical machines on a piece of land: that is, your 40% efficiency number has nothing to do with the density of machines per acre.
|
anonymous
Leonardo the En... Aug 31 2011 at 6:13 AM
Okay - let's do the engineering and then the math. "Wind power Density" refers to the theoretical maximum power available in the wind passing over a particular place. Unfortunately, all of this power can not be harvested. As a practical matter, wind turbines cannot be installed tip-to-tip. You’ve got to keep turbines out of the wake created by other turbines. Typical turbine spacing in wind farms places the towers 5 to 10 turbine diameters apart, depending on local conditions. When you take
.... More
this into account, the average practical density of wind turbines is about 10 kW/acre based on nameplate rating of the machines. Note that the 40% efficiency number your cite, refers to the efficiency with which a given turbine extracts power from the wind, not the net that can be extracted given the practicalities of actually having to install physical machines on a piece of land: that is, your 40% efficiency number has nothing to do with the density of machines per acre.
|
anonymous
Telina Aug 29 2011 at 4:55 PM

You don't need to cut trees for exploiting solar power, dummy !!
There are enough deserts on the earth to generate electric power using CSP (Condensed Solar Power) Plants. Never heard of Desertec ? If not, look it up on the internet and widen your mind !

|
anonymous
Leonardo the En... Aug 30 2011 at 7:48 AM
Ah, the prototypical liberal ad hominum attack! Ah, the prototypical liberal ad hominem attack! It's fulfilling to have one's suspicions so clearly supported by concrete evidence. I'm quite familiar with concentrated solar, having done design work on the Acciona Energy project in Nevada. The issue remains the same: such plants require a huge investment in land and therefore have a huge impact on the ecosystem. I take it you would rather destroy the fragile desert ecosystem than the more robust
.... More
eastern woodlands - a matter of choice. There's another problem with locating all of our generation, say, in the desert in the American Southwest: it's located half a continent away from load centers in the east. There are large electrical losses associated with a 2,000 mile long transmission line (not to mention the huge impact to the ecosystem of such a long line. A lesson learned early in an engineers life is that everything man made is a study in compromise. In other words, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."
|
anonymous
Guest Oct 22 2011 at 6:12 PM

it is going to take lots of different ways to achieve that goal, solar, wind, geothermal, waves and of course US, we have to stop using so much power. We have to relearn the Art of walking and buy LED bulbs, sure you dont get your investment back, but do you get it back on home insurance, the new car, the granite counter tops .... we have to lessen our impact ... and it can be done. But we have to stop being so narrow minded, and yes .... you sound just like a government paid professional ...

|
anonymous
Guest Aug 13 2011 at 4:59 AM

You are correct! And that is why the defense budget should be reduced 90% so that the free market can enhance our security!

In fact, the government should stop spending ANY money on ANYTHING. Then everything will improve.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

|
anonymous
Guest Aug 13 2011 at 2:24 PM

A minuscule defense budget has worked wonders for Brazil. Why do we have to be the world's cop? And why is Germany occupied with our armies?

|
anonymous
Stephen Aug 13 2011 at 12:09 AM

Solar roads. They're coming and it's gonna be awesome.

|
anonymous
Stephen Aug 12 2011 at 11:59 PM

Plain and simple, when solar is predicted to be a cheaper option, free enterprise will develop it. Just not going to happen in our lifetime.No reason to throw our money after pipedreams such as this. There are too many people suffering, ie Somalia, to even discuss putting money towards this is just shameful.
If you take every single solar energy plan ever made, it would not offset the production of a single coal plant.

|
anonymous
cj Aug 12 2011 at 9:37 PM

They should take every dollar of RnD money for solar off the table. Move it to funding the purchase of solar equipment and let the companies reinvest the money they get in RnD.

|

EDITORS' PICKS

tease kids in woods

line

tease stargazing

line

tease hand

Earn 100 points for signing up for a free iMeet trial now.
JOIN NOW
Advertisement
From our sponsor

NEWSLETTER

Mother Nature. Delivered
Advertisement