19.9%: New Thin Film Solar Efficiency Record

Awesome! Now the race is really on. When will silicon PV get to 25%?

Thin film is suppose to be a lot cheaper. I just hope there as durable as the old ones. Mine are 15 years old a still going strong.

What are the efficiency rates of coal? I saw a ZDnet article talking about how a large-scale coal plant puts out 500 megawatts per year, comparing it to the manufacturing capacity of the plant and the energy that can be generated with the solar panels produced through a year... but I would also like to see metrics about the efficiency rates... to put it into context even more.

liveinvt, I'm not sure I see the link between solar panel efficiency and coal plant efficiency. Could you elaborate a bit more?

I just want $1/watt solar cells already!

Coal I don't know. But the best internal combustion engine rarely breaks 50% efficiency. Diesels are a little more at around 60-75% efficient. But remember, the laws of thermodynamics prevent anything from being 100% efficient.

Remember that current power plants are nothing more than steam engines driving turbines turning generators.

If someone does know the efficiency of the coal plants, I would like to know the efficiency of energy input to energy removed at my wall plug. This includes processes for ground extraction, to transport, to burning, to steam, to rotary motion, to power grid and system parasitics, to light bulb efficiency.

I'm more interested in when will I be able to buy it.

Dumb question, but can someone help me? The post refers to a high of 20.3 % efficiency without concentrators, so when the light is concentrated the efficiency does go up? By how much, and when does silicon get too hot that it loses some of its efficiency? I only ask this because I smell a weekend DIY project coming up.

Thanks.

- from various wikipedia articles

None of these numbers count fuel to mine, process, deliver or dispose of waste which can be alot with coal and nuke.

>95% best production electric motors
>85% common lead acid car battery
>95% best batteries
>99% production capacitors

>90% best production gas turbines with cogeneration (hot water/heating side effect)

>92% US electric grid
>96% US natural gas network

So we can see that the best fossil solution is natural gas pipeline to the house to run a co-generation system. Such systems are already sold in Japan and can reach over 90% if you need the heat for water or house heating.

We can also see that even with a coal fired plant, wired delivery, charging the batteries, an electric car is still better than a gas car and that's before we even consider regenerative braking and how much longer electric motors last.

Coal and nuke people love to talk about upfront costs of their powerplants. They never want to talk about fuel costs, waste disposal costs or polution. When you look at total lifecycle costs, solar and wind win hands down.

The real impediment to implementation is the entrenched oil and coal interests get all kinds of tax benefits and subsidies both for themselves and for their users. A coal plant converts hundreds of tons of coal to polution every year yet instead of getting a bill for the dammage they do, they are allowed to deduct the cost of the coal from their profits on their taxes.

Anyway, NanoSolar thin film costs less per watt than an empty coal plant does to build - before you even buy any coal. Now, today, it's shipping. Their entire production is already sold though 2009. There is no reason to build another coal plant, only more solar.

Coal plants are measured in Heat Rate, a measurement of the efficiency of converting coal into electricity. It's not the same as a percentage, http://www.econsci.com/euar9801.html, but can be converted to such.

Most modern coal plants hover between 9000-12000 There's a paper here: http://www.econsci.com/euar9801.html. The higher the heat rate, the worst the efficiency. The curve of efficiency on a boiler is basically a shallow bowl, with the sweet spot near the maximum delivery.

This fellow says the rough percentage of all this is 42% for a coal plant in terms of efficiency. http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=179562&page=1

Efficiency of coal versus solar is irrelevant.
Coal may be more efficient but it is a finite resource that is very polluting.
Solar is a limitless resource with very little environmental impact.
Cost per watt along with environmental effects thrown in should be the real measure.
How you measure the environmental effects is the hard part.

% efficiency matters less than $/watt in most applications.

Most of us would run out of money before running out of south facing roof space, and even if we did pole mount or tracking pole mounts are an option.

A typical coal fired plant's-
Thermal Efficiency: 33%
Fuel->Electricity: ~27%

In order to properly compare the efficiency of a CFP to a PV module all steps in the energy chain must be accounted for. Mind you that there is a loss at every step.

Coal Fired Plant-
Sun->Biomass->Coal->Mining->Transport->Firing->Generator->Grid

Photovoltaic-
Sun->Grid

See the elegance of PV? Simple.

Whoever said diesel could reach 60-70%TE.... wrong, sorry. Two stroke diesel engines struggle to crack 50%TE. State of the art LDV deisels hover around 42%TE. Otto cycle engines manage 30%TE while Brayton cycle engines can manage 65%TE.

Don't forget, that's TE (Thermal Efficiency) and completely disregards mechanical losses (such as piston, cam, valve, or transmission friction). It has been estimated that, on average, less than 10% of the energy stored in the fuel tank of a gasoline powered car actually makes it to the wheels. I've seen estimates as low as 1% but I find that too extreme.

Way to show off your American't side there folks. I would like to see a comment page from other countries and then look at this page,.......blah,blah[excuse],bla[cry/whine], blah, blah [ change the subject to allow me to waste], Blah, Blah! [leave my energy consumption alone] whawaahn. What pathetic county spirit.
How about "Where can I buy one and when are they going to be avail for install? What kind of production and manufacturing is needed? Can American companies make these? Can I start a manh=ufacturing plant in my town??

yes now we have lighter for roofs for homes and cars ,and toys,,whats next

Does it really matter how much E a solar plant uses, if we are reducing the amount of E consumed by fossil fuels overall? If more people switch to solar panels, less will need the E generated by the coal plants right? If the solar panels themselves can compensate for the amount of E saved overall, then what is the issue?

I'm more interested in $/W than efficiency.

Who cares if you can get 0.5% more efficiency if it costs even 0.6% more?

copper indium gallium diselenide ....
mmm I wonder how much of that there is around?
There is also the possibility that in 20 years from now we just happen to find that it's all over our rooftops and its bad for our health. And the costs for disposal when it has reach its lifespan? (remember asbestos)

Disposal cost of solar devices couldn't be near as much as the cost of the toxic stuff that comes out of a coal fired power plant.
Mercury, Arsenic, Sulphuric Acid, Lead, never mind the CO2. All in millions of tons a year

I'm am a turbine operator at a Co-generation power plant.
Are fuel is used railroad ties and telephone poles.
While are suppliers pay us to get rid of the waste wood. We run around 87-93% efficiency. With a 98.3 % power reliablity with a avg. output of 12 megawatts/hour.
Efficiency varies on the amount of steam used in production of new ties.
Now we do it with only avg of 25 ppm of CO, 50 ppm of NOx and save huge amounts of landfill space. The ash is used by farmer to coat they fields. And all the scrap metal is recycled.
Let's see coal do that.

Tim, what is a megawatt/hour? That unit has no meaning, as far as I can tell. Do you put out 12 megawatts? Or 12 megawatt-hours per day (500 kilowatts), or something else?

No to much comment activity for this is there, the last posted in July.

As for coal plant efficiency, the number you are probably looking for is how many watts of energy are inputted into the plant and how much do I actually get at home. The number is a lot lower than you would expect, only about 30%. Why, more than have the energy produced by burning coal goes out as heat from the cooling towers. Coal is burned, produces steam, the heat transfer is about 85%, a fair amount of heat goes up the stack. The turbine efficiency is about 90%. The turbine takes in steam at high pressure, and exhausts steam at low pressure, normally near atmospheric pressure. But the steam is not condensed yet, which is where most of the heat is, going from a vapor to a liquid. The steam is condensed in heat exchangers, and the condesate is reused for the boiler feed water to make more steam The heat removed in the heat exchanger is taken away by cooling water, which then vents the heat in a cooling tower. These are usually the big hour glass shaped concrete towers you see by a power plant.

As for cogeneration at the home level, this is technically feasible, but generally not economic. Two things come into play, first, micro turbines are used. The heat from burning natural gas passes through the turbine, spinning the turbine. The smaller the turbine tough the faster it has to go to take advantage of the energy. Speeds as high as 400,000 rpm are frequently used. The waste heat can be used to produce steam, and the steam used to go through a second turbine blade (same shaft as first), extracting more energy. The steam can then be used to either heat the house, hot water, or with a absorption chiller, you can cool your house as well. Unfortunatetly the amount of waste heat from the system is generally more than a house would need. But as the turbines get a bit larger, they do not have to turn as fast, the efficiency goes up and if you have enough customers or demand for heat, you can get an overall system efficiency of 70-80%. This is much better than a power plant burning coal or natural gas and supplying you with electricity at 30%.

For more information go to the Capstone Turbine website. They have some very good technical summaries.

A small company by the name xsunx has a new product that should take over the market place thin film.(xsnx).New Factory.

check it out.

Hopefully solar cells can be made even more efficient and less expensive.
I worked for a fuel cell and battery research company in the late 1970's and early 1980's until it was gutted under Ronald Reagan when oil became cheap. It was my job to plot performance data and I can say without reservation that outstanding progress was made with various fuel cell types during that time. Had funding for all energy research continued at 1980 funding until present many alternative energy technologies would be years ahead of where they are now.
Jimmy Carter started energy research programs mainly out of national security reasons. From the 1970's to present I've never been a real tree hugger (except when I'm hiking up a steep hill and really do hug trees!) but have followed fossil fuel as a national security issue. For the life of me I've never understood why so many people who wave flags and speak of patriotism have taken so long to wake up to the issue of energy security. I don't care what political party a person belongs to, it should be humilating to see George Bush essentially beg the Saudis for a break on oil prices.
I'm voting for Barrack Obama since he's more likely to walk the walk on energy security although McCain will probably be better than George Bush with is token programs for political cover.

Very exciting stuff. Anyone have a ballpark as to what the pound (or kg) per Watt is for thin film today? For the industry I'm in, weight is king and directly related to dollars. Price is almost a secondary concern.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Very exciting stuff. Anyone know the weight per watt of the most advanced thin film wafers? txs

thin film solar panels were suposed to make solar power more affordable to the masses. where's the savings? solar manufacturers keep talking of deep price cuts on the way but never deliver.

Coal uses too much energy to mine transport and clean to even come close to comparisan. Solar film would be great if you could buy it at home depot but that is about 200 years away it seems. If you want really reliable energy use earth batteries. charge your car and spaceships with them. they could be installed on any planet to difference of output, but they work day and night. no moving parts and works 24 hours a day. try that with solar coal wind or anyother power output