Jones Beene
Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:26:29 -0700
Nick, Yes, this low efficiency is undoubtedly true for now. But here is the (possible) paradigm shift, and I should have tried to explain my enthusiasm as involving a paradigm shift rather than as a step-wise improvement. Even if the efficiency remains far less than for a dedicated solar panel, with this kind of shift in economics, that lower efficiency is not the real issue. When any nearly-transparent film can be applied so thinly and cheaply to glass, not needing to be crystalline like silicon - then even if the result is modest efficiency- that is not so big an issue since you are *going to install a window anyway.* IOW - most of the cost is already covered by the main use - and we could be facing the situation in the next few years when the glass industry says- we can convert all of the window glass we make into low efficiency electrical converters for only a little extra cost, in mass production. The graphene required for this is 'de minimis' due to the thinness, and carbon is cheap. "Ditto" for the roofing and ditto for siding industry, not to mention exterior surface of every automobile, etc. Even painting contractors might get into the act somehow. At that point it might be wise to legislate this for 100% of new construction. Look at how much glass is in a forty story high rise- even one percent conversion, if it can get that high - becomes enticing, considering the enormous surface area, and the fact that most of the cost is going to be covered by the normal expense of glazing. The same would be true for roofing, or even wall panels, if the wiring and connection situation could be worked out to be done easily. Applying graphene would be most comparable, or analogous, in this paradigm to applying paint... and almost every exposed surface of a building which has any coating at all could have a graphene coating for little more than the normal paint, no? That would be assuming you could figure out how to get two distinct layers wired up to collect the energy. It is a weird suggestion, but provocative. Solar panels for an automobile roofs are expensive, but the factory applied paint (containing graphene?) is required and not optional, so there could be little or no major cost increase to get some solar energy converted into electricity that way. Multiply that by millions of "bettery" powered cars basking in parking lots and you have some major reductions in fossil fuel. Where are Lerner and Loewe when we need them? This could be a new twist on "paint your wagon" ... which for the trivia-challenged out there did have such catch tunes as "Whoop-Ti-Yay" and "There's aCoach Comin' In" when Cherry and her Fandango girls arrive ... ...not to mention, fellow prospectors, we can opt for "They Call the Wind Maria" if this one doesn't pan-out. Jones ----- Original Message ---- From: Nick Palmer Jones wrote about graphene as an alternative to the transparent indium tin oxide solar cell. It looks promising but on page two of the article there was this dampener... <<They also need to improve the conductivity of their film: indium tin oxide is still hundreds of times more conductive. Organic solar cells with indium tin oxide electrodes are between 3 percent and 5 percent efficient. "With graphene thin-film electrodes, we get 0.1 percent," Chhowalla says, "but these are proof-of-concept devices and of course will improve with time.">>