Researchers develop cheaper way of making solar cells

leemoo

VIP Member
VIP Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
1,749
Reaction score
472
I know solar panels hae been mentioned on here and there are quite of few people who have them also so thought this would be of interest to them people.
Who knows how long before it becomes mainstream though?

Tellurium is a material that would hold it back apparently from reading the article.



Researchers have developed a new manufacturing method which could bring down the cost of making a type of solar cell.

A team at Liverpool University has found a way of replacing the toxic element in the process with a material found in bath salts.

The scientists say that this could have a "massive, unexpected cost benefit".

The research has been published in the Journal Nature and unveiled at the ESOF conference in Copenhagen.
Jump media player
Media player help
Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.

Dr Jon Major explains how the simple new technique could dramatically reduce the cost of solar energy

Dr Jon Major, who led the research said that his team's work might be the development that brings the cost down to the level of fossil fuel," he told BBC News.More than 90% of the solar cells are made from silicon. Around 7% are made from a material called cadmium telluride. The cadmium telluride cells are thinner than silicon and these are popular because they are also lighter and cheaper.
Toxic ingredient

They have the drawback that a toxic chemical, cadmium chloride, is needed to manufacture them. Cadmium chloride is also expensive.

A significant proportion of the manufacturing cost of cadmium telluride cells is to protect the workforce from toxins and to dispose of contaminated waste products safely, according to the research team.

Dr Major discovered that a cheaper, non-toxic alternative, magnesium chloride, could be used instead of the toxic compound and work just as well.

More of the story here:

BBC News - Researchers develop cheaper way of making solar cells
 
Interesting article, trouble is while most gov'ts are in the pockets of the oil majors, precious little will be done on the development front.
 
Interesting article, trouble is while most gov'ts are in the pockets of the oil majors, precious little will be done on the development front.

Sadly I would have to agree.
 
Sadly I would have to agree.

The evidence here is clear for all to see. Ideal conditions, with an average of over 300 days/year of sunshine, there was an incentive (buy-back grid-tie) scheme in operation, but as soon as it became popular, the subsidies were cut, then cut again- so payback on initial investment went from 8~10 years to over 20. All gov'ts are corrupt, we know that. It's just that here they're not quite so good at hiding it. They didn't have to hide it in dictatorship days (40+ years ago) but it seems old habits die hard.
 
I agree @trevortron.

It is a shame, without sounding like a greenpeace nutter lol...

It would be nice if they could not think about money and think about more natural energy sources.

Whilst Britain might not be the best place for solar, every little helps right!!!

Mick
 
Last edited:
The evidence here is clear for all to see. Ideal conditions, with an average of over 300 days/year of sunshine, there was an incentive (buy-back grid-tie) scheme in operation, but as soon as it became popular, the subsidies were cut, then cut again- so payback on initial investment went from 8~10 years to over 20. All gov'ts are corrupt, we know that. It's just that here they're not quite so good at hiding it. They didn't have to hide it in dictatorship days (40+ years ago) but it seems old habits die hard.

You argument doesn't hold water. The scheme was for the well off (£10k to invest) or Rent a roof scheme (e.g. a shade greener), i.e. the governments biggest supporting group. Why would drop the subsidies unless they couldn't afford them ?
 
Back
Top