Nanoantenna Arrays Seen As Possible Solar Cell Replacement
Traditional solar cells only use up to 20% of the visible light they collect, and more efficient solar cells are too expensive for mass production. Now researchers at the US Department of Energy’s Idaho Laboratory have figured out a way to capture solar energy on the cheap: plastic sheets filled with billions of nanoantennas.
The nanoantennas are made up of small gold squares or spirals set in polyethylene. Researchers believe that under the right conditions, the simulated nanoantennas could harvest up to 92% of energy at infrared wavelengths.
- » See also: Asia Light Years Ahead of the US in Clean Tech Investment — Financial and Economic Consequences
- » Get CleanTechnica by RSS or sign up by email.
While traditional solar cells only use visible light, the nanoantennas use mid-infrared rays. This means that they can still collect energy after dark.
Eventually, researchers hope that the plastic sheets of nanoantennas will power everything from hybrid cars to iPods.
Of course, there is still plenty of research that needs to be done before nanoantennas can go into production—in fact, scientists still don’t know how to convert energy from the devices into electricity. But the nanoantenna research is an interesting preview to a more affordable solar future. For now, though, we’ll have to make do with traditional devices.
Posts Related to Alternative Energy Sources:
- Texas To Build Wind Power Superhighway
- Wind-Powered Tall Ships Are Once Again Important As Oil Prices Hurt Trade
- Solar Power From Outer Space Could Reduce Fossil Fuel Dependence
Solar is the final answer to the energy crisis, and nano antennas will boost efficiency for certain and If the U.S. had chosen to be a moral people, and leaving Iraqi oil alone, and following Al Gore, decided to develop the South Western deserts, with the technology of the times - solar/thermal-molten sodium - electricity installations, for the same amount of money as that war cost, ($650 Billion), today, we would be tapping into the largest, renewable, sustainable, energy source the world has ever known. It would have paid every energy bill in the U.S.A. for maintenance fees only - FOREVER! It would be equivalent to an oil field that can NEVER run dry! Low cost electric power, and storeable hydrogen gasoline replacement from the electricity, for all!
After the millions of murders, and $650 billions of dollars, borrowed from our children’s futures and pissed away, with thousands of our own and others maimed and disfigured for life, millions of families utterly destroyed, ours and theirs, we are no closer to Iraqi oil production than the Iraqis are!
The next time you hear a blithering idiot spoiled brat, drunken, drug addicted, sociopath, rich Arabic saber dancing daddie’s boy oilman, stand at a microphone and threaten YOUR safety with someone ELSE’S weapons, remember what you lost America, remember, and weep! (also see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan)
I like the direction that this could take us. Unfortunately, Al Gore lost any realistic chance of leading us in this direction when he cast his lot into the Global Warming/ Global Climate Change ring.
He might be able to trick politicians into lowering carbon emissions, but that IS NOT THE POINT. Scientists don’t take Gore or global warming seriously because Carbon Dioxide only makes up 10% of Greenhouse gasses. Most of GG’s are nitrogen, which is outside of our control. Only 1% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is human-contributed annually. Sure, that number might increase to 2% at some point, especially with China’s growth and India not far behind, but let’s just take a step back and look at what we Americans can do to combat Global Climate Change (which, by the way, we haven’t even scientifically established is EVEN REAL).
You can limit United States carbon emissions, but in doing so, you are limiting its economy and growth. IF the ENTIRE WORLD were to COMPLETELY ELIMINATE CO2 emissions, you would reduce the total greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere by 0.01%. In other words, you are hurting your economy for no reason. Of course, the carbon emissions are harmful to people, smog in big cities and pollution into waterways is really nasty.
THOSE are the areas we should be placing government regulartions. Current emission standards enforced by our government serve to 1.) make it seem like the “Greens” are doing something good but 2.) actually only hurting the economy.
I am ALL FOR harnessing renewable resources and getting out of this harmful cycle of oil dependence. But PLEASE. If you even MENTION Al Gore’s name, your credibility takes a HUGE hit, because HE DOESN’T KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. And anyone who thinks he does is MISINFORMED or worse.
F*ck yes US Dept. of Energy. F*ck no, Al Gore.
This is potentially incredible technology. That efficiency rating is unbelievable, and the ability to harness solar energy at night would eliminate the need for a complicated energy storage system.
One note though. I think that traditional solar, when using concentrator photovoltaic (CPV) schemes, can reach 40% efficiency (Cost-Effective Solar Energy Technology). Of course, that’s a whole heck of a lot less than 92%, but it is double the 20% mentioned here.
Thanks for the link, Tim. I hadn’t seen that before - good to know.
Uncle B…
Cheer up.
I think this could be seen as an answer to harvesting more of solar energy. Sounds great. I think if it’s workable, government agencies should consider giving incentive or subsides to homes and companies with to purchase these.s
@Shawn - you are badly misinformed, about several things. First off, nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas, it in fact composes about 78% of our atmosphere.
Please check Wikipedia for some quick facts. Then follow up with other sources. (Hint: look for scientific papers, not media rantings that do not disclose sources.)
We (people, due to industrial processes and deforestation) have increased the concentration of CO2 by about 35%, what makes you think this is harmless?
Finally, yes, eliminating CO2 emissions totally would not reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by any significant amount, it would simply stabilize it at current levels. I think the assumption is that we then need to scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere, and sequester it until we reach an acceptable level.
Just because this is difficult does not mean we should not try. There is also no reason to assume this will hurt the economy, probably quite the reverse.
Nanoantenna Arrays Seen As Possible Solar Cell Replacement | nerdd.net…
\r\nTraditional solar cells only use up to 20% of the visible light they collect, and more efficient…
“The next time you hear a blithering idiot spoiled brat, drunken, drug addicted, sociopath, rich Arabic saber dancing daddie’s boy oilman…”
Anytime someone carries on with this kind of rhetoric, you can basically write anything they say off as political babble. Mature men and women have a political bent, but they do not have such a deep seated hatred for someone that they find it necessary to slander another when trying to make a non-political point.
Guys, this only absorbs in the INFRARED. While it is efficient at those wavelengths, it doesn’t get any of the visible part of the spectrum. Anyone have stats on what percentage of the light that we receive from the sun is in the infrared?