
12-Year-Old May Hold Key to Solar Energy  - pbnaidu
http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/232218;_ylt=At7wIJSXbEEWIPVwyKKT5KEDW7oF
======
neilk
The kid didn't invent it, but he did make an implementation of a relatively
new idea.

[http://blog.wired.com/geekdad/2008/09/12-year-old-
rev.html?n...](http://blog.wired.com/geekdad/2008/09/12-year-old-
rev.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp)

~~~
hugh
Did he actually build one? I haven't seen any indication that he did anything
other than "design" one. And it's a lot easier to "design" a nanoscale device
than it is to build one.

I mean, I'm sure the kid is smart and all (and no doubt has had some help from
his parents) but the media-hype to technical-details ratio here is off the
charts.

~~~
Tichy
Yeah, that is what would interest me: how to experiment with Nanotech at home.

------
mark-t
> Most solar cells in use today are either photovoltaic, meaning they harness
> only visible light, or thermal.

Hmmm. I'm pretty sure that's not the definition that I learned.

------
rflrob
Is free-standing actually a good thing? It seems to me if you're trying to
maximize flux per unit material, you can't do much better than a flat sheet.
The only problem is that the sun moves, but it seems like a free-standing
array would only get slightly better performance for much greater cost.

~~~
briancooley
From a related article (<http://www.katu.com/news/local/28432984.html>):

 _If he is right, solar panels with his 3D cells would provide 500 times more
light absorption than commercially-available solar cells and nine times more
than cutting-edge 3D solar cells._

So apparently there is some advantage to 3D cells, apparently related to
multiple light interactions:

 _"Regular solar cells are only 2D and only allow light interaction once," he
said._

It's still not apparent what the basis is for the 500x light absorption
figure. Seems to me that the most meaningful basis is the footprint of the
device, but that is not clear from any story I've read on this subject.

~~~
DabAsteroid
_It's still not apparent what the basis is for the 500x light absorption
figure._

Maybe it is a mis-paraphrase of 500-suns concentration capacity. Alternately,
it might only refer to UV.

------
osmfac
I don't think the 500 times boast is relative to percentage, but rather the
standard of measurement used ...therefore the arguement of 3500% efficiency is
a mute point...I'm no scientist, in fact my mind doesn't work even close to
that of a scientist, but I paid attention in math class...if you are looking
at something that is relatively inefficient as far as potential to begin with,
500 times the standard although very impressive is not unrealistic in the
least.

~~~
lutorm
Yes except that would imply that current solar cells have an efficiency of at
most 0.2%. Which isn't true.

Maybe they are 500x more efficient _in the UV_ , but in that case it's a
meaningless number because the Sun emits very little energy in the UV.

------
ajkirwin
500 times the light of a traditional cell? And if traditional cells run at
what, somewhere from 7 to 12% efficiency for standard ones?

So he's getting what, upwards of 3500% efficiency? Even accounting for the
extra energy of using ultraviolet wavelengths, this sounds a lot like bad
math.

Now if he boosted the efficiency to say, three times what we get now? That'd
be amazing all on its own.

~~~
PieSquared
Maybe the efficiency only counts the visible radiation? So that the fact that
it uses ultraviolent screws up the 7-15% (that is, if you include UV light,
its much lower?) That'd be my guess...

Although it is rather low on facts and high on hype.

~~~
ks
Yes, I think you're right.

From the article: _Most solar cells in use today are either photovoltaic,
meaning they harness only visible light, or thermal._

Also: _they're engineered to stand freely in three dimensions_

So you have panels that catch both visible and UV light, and can do it in
three dimensions.

~~~
hugh
The amount of energy coming through in the UV portion of the spectrum is quite
small:

<http://www.sunwindsolar.com/a_images/solar_insolation-b.jpg>

Everything to the left of the "visible light" portion.

~~~
PieSquared
Huh. In that case, there's no way that '500 times' can have any bearing
towards reality whatsoever. :)

------
MaysonL
Wow!

