http://www.metaefficient.com/archives/r ... thing.html

Solar Power Breakthrough: Solar Dyes Could Be Put In Windows, Clothing

Researchers from the Nanomaterials Research Centre at Massey University in New Zealand have developed synthetic dyes that can be used to generate electricity at one tenth of the cost of current silicon-based solar panels. These photosynthesis-like compounds work in low-light conditions and can be cheaply incorporated into window-panes and building materials, thereby turning them into generators of electricity.

Dr Wayne Campbell and researchers in the center have developed a range of coloured dyes for use in dye-sensitized solar cells. The synthetic dyes are made from simple organic compounds closely related to those found in nature. The green dye Dr Campbell is synthetic chlorophyll derived from the light-harvesting pigment plants use for photosynthesis. Other dyes being tested in the cells are based on hemoglobin, the compound that give blood its color.

Dr Campbell says that unlike the silicon-based solar cells currently on the market, the 10x10cm green demonstration cells generate enough electricity to run a small fan in low-light conditions – making them ideal for cloudy climates. The dyes can also be incorporated into tinted windows that trap to generate electricity.

campbell-wayne-1.jpgHe says the green solar cells are more environmentally friendly than silicon-based cells as they are made from titanium dioxide – a plentiful, renewable and non-toxic white mineral obtained from New Zealand’s black sand. Titanium dioxide is already used in consumer products such as toothpaste, white paints and cosmetics.

“The refining of pure silicon, although a very abundant mineral, is energy-hungry and very expensive. And whereas silicon cells need direct sunlight to operate efficiently, these cells will work efficiently in low diffuse light conditions,” Dr Campbell says.

“The expected cost is one 10th of the price of a silicon-based solar panel, making them more attractive and accessible to home-owners.”

It seems like for a long time people have been waiting for solar energy collection to get to a point where it's efficient and cost effective enough to be a viable solution for common energy consumption uses. I'm not sure this is the answer, but it sounds like a great step in the right direction. If it really is that much cheaper to make, as well as being far friendlier to the environment to produce, we could start seeing some interesting applications of solar technology in the near future.

Great. The next step is how to implement it on a large-scale basis. Otherwise, it's useless.

How do you mean a large scale basis? Like making a big solar collecting plant and distributing energy to homes? I dont think that is the intent as much as it could allow home owners to be energy independent. Let's say that you could build this solar technology into your home building materials, windows and such, and generate enough electricity so that you are independently generating all your electricity needs, without having to buy electricity every month from PG&E or whoever.
Also, they mention using the dyes in clothing to collect energy. Not sure how that works, but if it's practical enough, maybe powering your portable electronics with your cloths isnt too far off an idea....kinda weird tho.

That's actually exactly what I meant.
It goes for the same thing with fuel-cell cars still having to fillup at stations. Why not have machines to produce hydrogen at home?
From a consumer perspective, paying someone else money for hydrogen is no different than paying someone else for gas. The big step is to eliminate the corporate source of energy.

You're so sexy, Buggy.

These organic solar cells have actually been around for a really long time.

Organic cells have been around. But the light absorbing dyes are a different/newer idea. It was just in the 90's they started tinkering with the concept, and now they've started getting good efficiency out of the dyes.

These solar cells with dyes, a type of organic solar cells, have been around for awhile too. There was an article about it in the Technology Review a few years back. I did a research project on them 3 years ago. Exactly these kind of dye-sensitive cells.

How is that different than what I just said? I said they came up with the concept for the dyes in the 90's. Echo, echo, echo

Then there is not "breakthrough" as the article states. That photo of a PV-integrated window is old too.

buggy, he is always right, hes working on a PHd dont ya know

The breakthrough is efficiency gains by using synthetic Porphyrin in the dye-sensitised solar cells. The breakthrough isnt that the dyes or technology exist, it's that they've created something viable and with good potential with the technology.

OK, maybe you're talking about another article then. Because nowhere in this article does it talk about Porphyrin or new advances. Everything stated in this article as a "breakthrough" is actually old technology.

Sorry, I've read about 10 articles on it recently

No matter what the technology, the future of solar tech is in building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV). In other words, using the solar conversion technology as an integral part of the building materials. Instead of just slapping on some panels here and there, a building using BIPV would be able to generate power from the shingles, windows, cladding, facade, etc... It is more cost effective and resilient.

Using passive methods in conjunction with BIPV is also the way to go, i.e. BIPV-windows for optimized daylighting and power generation.

cool now make another version with a jesus figurine in it and all churches will be running over each other to buy these.

Go New Zealand scientists.

I disagree. I think that eliminating the corporate source is a minor consideration. IMO, the priority is creating an environmentally friendly, efficient source of energy. If I have to pay the electric company to bring the energy to my home through wires, I don't really care, if the cost is not significantly more, and the electric company can cease burning coal to make my energy. If I can put panels on my own house for a reasonable price, that's great too, but I'm not, as a consumer, willing to pay too much to install these things just so some "corporation" isn't selling me my energy.

After all, if this technology flies, we're all going to be buying our solar panels from some corporation that will end up owning us.

Also, the reasons you buy hydrogen at a "gas station" rather than producing it in your home are numerous. In addition to the fact that hydrogen is a highly combustable material that probably ought not be stored in one's home (for the same reason that you can't store gasoline in your basement), it is very energy expensive to produce hydrogen relative to the energy that you can get out of it, and it's cheaper (by a lot) to produce on a large scale than by millions of individuals on a small scale. Solar on the other hand works the opposite way, being more efficient on an individual use basis than on a large scale production basis.

Both of these statements go hand-in-hand with me saying "applying to the masses". It'll be a step-by-step process, but the aim is to make the energy source means practical by all means (safe, affordable, etc.).


I sort of understand this. But keep in mind that if you put the distribution power of this new energy in corporate hands, they have the ability to control prices just like what's happening to gas. Would you rather buy a Brita to obtain drinking water, or would you rather continually buy bottled water?

Leaving aside the question of whether gas prices are actually manipulated significantly, it's funny you ask about the water.

I've always just drank tap water. Where I grew up, it was very clean and tasted great. Most places it has been (Chicago tasted lousy). But where i live now, the water tastes bad and has more minerals than I'd like. We were wasting a lot of money on bottled water, but now we've bought a refillable 3 gallon bottle and pay 25 cents per gallon to refill it at the grocery store with "reverse osmosis" water, whatever that means. I haven't done all the math, but for the price of a Brita, and replacing the filters, I think I'm getting a better deal, especially since I still use tap water for cooking and everything that's not straight drinking.

Just like that, it's all about cost to the consumer if people want to see a real change in energy consumption. People will pay a tiny bit more to protect the environment, but not much, and they will only invest a small amount up front, even for a long term gain, because most people don't have the capital to invest up front.