Solar3D Unveils 1st Working Prototype, 250% More Efficient than Control Solar Cell

Print Friendly

 
Solar3D, which we’ve covered several times (click that link), has completed the first working prototype of its “breakthrough 3-dimensional solar cell technology.” The 3D solar cell it has created “produces at least 250% of the power of a basic silicon solar cell,” according to the company.

“Scanning electron microscope image of initial prototype of light trapping 3D photovoltaic structures on a thin silicon wafer.”

3D Solar Cell Transcending Expectations

Apparently, the team is even surprised at how well its solar cell is performing at this stage. (Of course, it seems that’s always the way scientists express themselves in news releases).

“When measured relative to a conventional solar cell design, our working prototype produces electricity beyond our previous expectations,” Dr. Changwan Son, Solar3D’s Director of Technology, commented.

“First, we fabricated our working prototype. Then we created a simple cell based on the conventional design, using the same fabrication environment, to serve as a control sample. By measuring the side-by-side power output of both cells, we were able to determine the relative performance under a number of conditions, ranging from bright sunlight to lower, diffuse light. In each test, our 3D Solar Cell consistently outperformed the control cell and produced at least 2½ times the amount of electricity under the same conditions.”
 


 
“This is a game-changing result,” said Jim Nelson, CEO of Solar3D. “Two powerful characteristics of our 3D Solar Cell make it superior to current technology. First, it is substantially more efficient in producing power. Second, is our wide-angle light collection feature, which allows our 3D Solar Cell to collect light at all times of the day, month and year, an attribute unique in the solar world. Our computer simulation analysis indicated that the combination of these two features would produce double the power of a conventional solar cell. Based on the performance of our first working prototype, it appears that our 3D Solar Cell will exceed even that ambitious expectation.”

Next Step: Bring Down Costs, & Manufacture the Thing!

The company is right in line with its game plan (i.e. technology development and commercialization strategy). The next big step is to continue improving the technology in order to bring costs down and get ready for some serious manufacturing.

Dr. Son (with emphasis added): “Our mandate was to create a solar cell that would produce substantially more power than the current technology at a low enough cost of production to deliver a considerably lower cost per watt of solar electricity. We spent the first half of the year completing our fabrication process methodology. In July, we announced the fabrication and showed pictures of the first cell. Now, we have an actual working cell that produces substantially more power than the control samples, which fulfills part one of our two-part goal. Now, our near term objective is to continue to improve the fabrication process and the power output, as we optimize the cost of manufacturing. We believe that the result will be a 50% reduction in the cost of solar electricity. Perhaps the installed system cost savings will be even greater.”

I can’t say I’d mind. Though, that might throw the rest of the solar cell manufacturing industry for another loop.

What’s the timeline to commercialization, you ask? I think CEO Nelson is happy to answer that question:

“We are focused on bringing this breakthrough technology to market. Our next major step will be to produce a manufacturing prototype, which is required to undertake a pilot production run in early 2013. The pilot run will prove the 3D Cell’s performance characteristics in a production environment and lead us to a manufacturing partner and entry into the marketplace by the end of 2013.”

I’ve been watching the company for about a year. I don’t have enough technical expertise to know if this product will really transform the solar industry (and I know there are several other solar companies looking to put their own spin on the industry), but Solar3D has certainly progressed as planned, or even better (as indicated above), throughout this year. I’d keep my eyes on the company.

Connect with me on Google+ or other social media sites.

Source: Solar3D/Business Wire
Image & Caption Source: Solar3D

Zachary Shahan (2359 Posts)

I'm the director of CleanTechnica, the most popular clean energy website in the world, and Planetsave, a leading green and science news site. I've been covering green news of various sorts since 2008, and I've been especially focused on solar energy, electric vehicles, bicycling, and wind energy for the past few years. You can also find my work on Scientific American, Reuters, Think Progress, GE's ecomagination site, several sites in the Important Media network, & many other places. To connect on some of your favorite social networks, go to zacharyshahan.com or click on some of the links below.


  • Thilak raj

    very nice concept guys i have one doubts how should u get sun light efficient in rainy days

  • rama

    Sunpower does 22% eff cells…I don’t know who these guys are comparing with in terms of efficiency.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stan-Stein/1756064509 Stan Stein

    Ya, a penny stock scam it is…..believe me…if any of my PPA investors thought this was true….the company would have a check for at least 250 million by close of business today.

  • robblog

    Bypass Wall Street & Buy Discounted Solar3D Shares Directly from the Company
    http://www.solar3d.com/investor_information.php

    sorry but it just reeks of being a penny stock scam

  • Aaron Russell

    Haha, wow. Good to hear some good news. Keep it up everyone

  • Pingback: Solar Insights: China to double 2015 PV target to 40GW : Renew Economy

  • Gary

    The viability of this technology depends on being able to mass produce reliable cells at a cost per watt not too much higher than conventional technology.

    If cell cost per watt is the same, then balance of module cost is reduced by around 60% by the higher efficiency (glass, back sheet, connectors etc.) Also reduced in similar proportion are the racking and bracket costs, physical and electrical installation costs as well as most soft costs as a given size array will produce 250% of the traditional amount of electricity. The only costs to go up in proportion to the increased peak power output is the inverter cost as higher power needs a bigger inverter and cable costs as thicker cables will be needed to deal with higher current.

    • Bob_Wallace

      I don’t understand the part of your comment about “increased peak power output” causing a need for a larger inverter and cable. Wouldn’t the inverter/cable be the same as hooking 2.5x as many regular panels?

      The rest of your points – spot on. The more efficient panels become the lower all the other stuff becomes per watt produced. Except inverter and wire size. (Picky requires me to point out shorter runs with more efficient panels, so a little wire saved.)

      Their test – against a cell they created? I wonder how efficient that cell is. Is this an apples to apples comparison?

      Ability to use light coming from wider angles – how are we doing with non-reflective glass coatings? Some of the loss when panels are not facing the Sun comes from cover loss.

      • http://soltesza.wordpress.com/ sola

        I was wondering about that too.

        It is very fishy that they don’t speak about efficiency at all.

        It probably means that they manufactured a baseline cell with a very low efficiency (say 4-6%) and the 250% performance improvement stands only compared to that and not to top-of-the-line crystalline cell from the market.

        Currently, it is impossible to tell whether their technology would really improve 250% on a 18% cell and make that a 45% cell.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=49200657 Russell Geisthardt

          The advantage they are advertising isn’t an improvement in peak power, it is a 250% increase in the total amount of energy the cell produces over the course of a day, due to better collection when the sun is at non-optimal angles. So they aren’t working towards a 45% cell, and you wouldn’t need larger inverters. You would just get more electricity out of a system with the same advertised peak power.

          I agree with sola that it is this advantage doesn’t do much good if the baseline efficiency is really low.

          • dynamo.joe

            The quote says the combo of higher efficiency and the wide angle collection ability, so they think they are more efficient than something.
            Is that industry average cell or some single crystal cell or even some triple juntion? I dunno. However, given the difficulty inherent in producing that complicated a geometric structure, why wouldnt you make it a triple junction? It seems like that would be relatively easy.
            Like others have mentioned, I think the big issue is going to be the protective coating the put on this.

        • dcard88

          It makes no sense at all to suggest they might be using a base of 4 to 6%, if almost all panels currently produced are over 14% and some are 20%.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Thing is, we don’t know if they baselined at 4% or 14%. And because of that there is no way to know what 250% means.

            These might be sterling individuals who would never engage in smoke and mirrors but there are some….

          • http://soltesza.wordpress.com/ sola

            Yes, but their baseline cell is “manufactured” in their lab without proper equipment.