Purple Pokeberries Yield Cheap Solar Power 206
separsons writes "Researchers at Wake Forest's Center for Nanotechnology and Molecular Materials created a low-cost solar power system geared towards developing nations. By coating fiber-based solar cells with dye from purple pokeberries, a common weed, scientists created a cheap yet highly efficient solar system. Wake Forest researchers and their accompanying company, FiberCell Inc., have filed for a patent for fiber-based solar. Plastic sheets are stamped with plastic fibers, creating millions of tiny 'cans' that trap light until it is absorbed. The fibers create a huge surface area, meaning sunlight can be collected at any angle from the time the sun rises until it sets. Coating the system with pokeberry dye creates even greater absorption: researchers say the system can produce twice as much power as traditional flat-cell technology."
And abandoned fields... (Score:5, Interesting)
And abandoned fields across the American south became the new gold fields of the Yukon.
That stuff pops up everywhere, and grows like you wouldn't believe. I can't imagine how well it would do if you fertilized.
And of course, you can use the leaves for poke salad. With a lot of boiling...
Re:And abandoned fields... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sometimes the best thing to do is benign neglect.
I was going to call this hype, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I expected reading this article to call this hype... there are many new discoveries reported here on Slashdot, especially with regard to optical technologies like solar cells and LCD displays, that are interesting and potentially useful... if they were at all practical or near market ready.
This looked like another one, except upon reading what there is of the article and web page it just looks like the company building these has no PR or web staff, and seems completely focused on technology. Their web page looks like it was made by an intern, and they don't seem to have supplied much in the way of exciting facts or sound bites to the reporter, leaving them to provide some basic facts and fill in some boilerplate hyperbole: "Could Provide Low-Cost Solar for Developing Nations".
From the looks of the technology, the basic principles were discovered prior to 2007 and a patent filed about then. Likely the patent was just granted. The company that is researching this stuff formed then, got a round of funding, and started delivering prototypes and test types.
As of now they seem to be creating and testing whole assemblies, IE solar panels you can put outside and use for electricity.
This is interesting because it means this isn't a lab curiosity.. they haven't demonstrated an effect in the lab, they've actually managed to develop it into a form that is nearing mass production capability.
So why is this interesting for those of us not in the third world? Well, that bit about "developing nations" is an attempt to get people to relate to what the tech is good for.... possibly because wide implementation of solar power needs more than just good cells to work, it requires a massive change in infrastructure to distribute power or a major change on a per home basis to store and use the power in your own house. That's not as much of a problem in third world countries which have no reliable power anyway, and where people would be happy to have solar during the day.
Third world comments aside, if the efficiency curve they're measuring is correct, these cells are a disruptive technology for the solar cell business. They're cheap to produce, relatively environmentally friendly, flexible, light... basically an excellent solar cell technology that everyone can use everywhere it's sunny.
If these work out and get into mass production (the technology company making them is partnered with a couple manufacturing firms already) then you'll see a lot of them around everywhere, because they'll remove a couple major barriers to wider solar cell use... cost and the fragility of existing cells.
Of course, odds are this is another cool announcement that won't go anywhere, but at least there are indications of some substance here and there...
Erik
Re:And abandoned fields... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not meaning to sound like a dick, but it's poke salat. There was even a song about it way back in the day, Poke Salat Annie.
It's also poke sallet and salit. It's still pronounced as salad is normally. My grandma spelled it sallet, but said it as salad, so I went for conventional orthography.
Re:Great... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And abandoned fields... (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't ask me what salat means, though. I have no idea.
It's an islamic prayer: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2902594/learn_how_to_pray_salat/ [metacafe.com]
Sounds like a Graetzel cell (Score:4, Interesting)
This sounds very much like a Dye-sensitized solar cell [wikipedia.org], also known as Graetzel cell.
Unfortunately that means that the new invention does probably share the same (unsolved) long term stability problems.
Re:Pokeberries? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is one reason (of many) why it's unwise to date single mothers...
Right. Romance is dead... it was bought out by an aggressive takeover by hallmark and then sold off piece by piece. In other news, you're a jaded asshat who's trying to reduce the enormous complexity and diversity of human relationships into some neat little rule of "all single mothers are SATAN." Baka...
I don't think you realize or appreciate how many men are in that guy's position. Note I told him he was not a victim. If he was a victim, that would have been her fault, as in something she did to him. It really wasn't. He made a decision without understanding what he was signing up for and he got screwed. That's his fault.
I made no claims to have summed up all of human relationships, and that's for a reason, so please put aside your emotional visceral hyperbole. I didn't say single mothers were "satan" or anything of the sort. I said that they are generally not the best match for a single man to have either casual sex or a serious relationship with and proceeded to give reasons for that. I never said they should be treated as second-class citizens, I never said it's wrong to care a great deal about them, to be friends with them, etc. Only that having a sexual relationship with them is a lot more complexity and comes with more risk than most men are bargaining for, and that men need to seriously consider this instead of being so thoughtless or trying to play the victim.
I'm saying men need to do a better job of taking responsibility for their decisions, such as whom they choose to be with. If you are a woman who disagrees with that, I'd wager you are in a tiny minority.
Romance is far from dead, though as a man I can tell you that the number of women who appreciate it is lower than one would think, for the simple reason that "wham, bam, thank you ma'am" is (falsely) viewed by many of them as more manly. That's beside the point, however. It's pretty obvious to me that the original poster was thinking with his penis and it got him into trouble. I don't find anything particularly romantic about that, so no, romance was not what I wrote about. I think you're capable of realizing that on your own but your irritated emotional reaction required you to find some fault with me and created the need for me to point this out.
If you'd like to stop calling me names and falsely characterizing both me and what I wrote, I'd be willing to have a rational discussion about this with you, but you need to know that those techniques are useless on me and anyone else who isn't in the business of winning your approval. I've had discussions with you before and from those I know that you normally adhere to a higher standard than this. That usually makes it a pleasure to hear what you have to say. If you still need to demonize me because I said something you dislike then unfortunately a rational discussion is going to be rather difficult. But, my offer stands and that choice is yours.
Really? Pokeberries? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why only "developing nations"? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Cheap" as in "our competitors will make it cheap in 20 years after the patent expires" is more likely. If they're going for a patent, they don't want it to be as cheap as possible. If they are going for a patent and targeting developing nations then one of three things is happening:
Any of those explain why they are talking about only or primarily developing nations.
Take any one of those with or without the idea that it's most important to target developing nations first so that they don't build a non-solar infrastructure first that needs to be replaced later. Like cell phones or satellite TV skipping over wired phones and cable TV when countries develop after those innovations with lower infrastructure costs came about, going from little energy infrastructure straight to a solar one rather than going through oil and coal will be cheaper and more popular. Also, providing the energy needs of a region with rapidly growing energy demands with clean energy from the start is good for the environment (even if you don't believe in anthropic global warming smog, particulates, and acid rain suck). Focusing on explosive energy usage growth rather than replacing existing infrastructure at first is a smart way to go if yields won't be high enough to target everyone at once.
Re:Still need nuclear (Score:2, Interesting)