Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › Business › Energy

Ascent Solar's 'breakthrough'

NREL verifies high efficiency of thin-film modules

By Gargi Chakrabarty, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published December 3, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

Related Links

More Energy

More stories »

Solar company Ascent Solar Technologies Inc. will announce today that it has taken a major step toward commercial production of its thin-film modules, which eventually could be used in building materials to produce solar energy.

Ascent says the modules achieved more than 9.5 percent efficiency at its research and development center in Littleton - compared with the 8 percent common among similar products.

High-efficiency modules can generate electricity from solar rays at higher efficiencies than conventional solar panels.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory also has independently verified that Ascent's modules measured as high as 9.64 percent in efficiency.

"That would be a breakthrough in terms of highest efficiency for a flexible module," said Bolko von Roedern, a scientist at NREL.

Roedern has worked in solar cells and modules based on copper indium gallium selenide thin films, also known as CIGS.

Ascent is developing what's called "flexible CIGC monolithically integrated modules" at the Littleton facility and plans to begin commercial production at a Thornton plant in two years.

"We began the process earlier this year and now this is a step closer to our goal of commercial production by 2010," said Ascent spokesman Brian Blackman.

Ascent bought the 120,000- square-foot Thornton facility for $5.5 million in February to house its world headquarters and commercial manufacturing operations. It plans to spend an additional $4 million to modernize and retrofit it to the company's specifications.

Norsk Hydro ASA, a Norwegian company and Fortune Global 500 supplier of aluminum and aluminum products, owns a roughly 35 percent stake in Ascent.

Hydro has said Ascent Solar's solar modules will provide a "simple, elegant and architecturally attractive means to incorporate photovoltaics into buildings."

Comments

  • December 3, 2008

    6:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    VVVV writes:

    Gee, I wonder how much of our really cheap coal power will be used to build these wonders of inefficiency? How much cheap gasoline and diesel? And you thought ethanol was a boondoggle? You ain't seen nothin' yet.

  • December 3, 2008

    7:03 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    windbourne writes:

    vvvv,
    you are an odd one. Your hero Ritter backs coal and ehtanol power. He is opposed to gas, nukes, and only solar PV and Wind for AE. Neither of these can be used for base load power and Solar PV is currently the most expensive form of AE there is.

  • December 3, 2008

    7:20 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SheikYurBooty writes:

    VVVV - how cheap is all the mercury, particulate and other pollution that coal spews???? How cheap is the gas that keeps us dependent on and funding OPEC and Chavez??? Why do you hate America????

  • December 3, 2008

    8:46 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Willy writes:

    In my opinion, we need to pursue all types of alternative energy solutions and not put all of our eggs in one or two baskets. I read about a company in Australia that has made a device the size of a file cabinet that sits in your garage and runs on solar power that will produce enough hydrogen in a day to power the current fuel cell cars 200 miles. The only reason we don't have fuel cell cars on the road here is the lack of a distribution network for hydrogen. If the Australian device is real, why aren't we aggressively building and importing them? Why isn't the government putting money into battery development and ultra-capacitor development as alternatives for transportation? Why did congress funnel virtually all support into the ethanol dry hole?

  • December 3, 2008

    9:39 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    windbourne writes:

    Willy.
    First, it was not COngress that sunk money into ethanol. It was neo-cons prior to the 2006 election in hopes of gaining support. The dems need to phase it out, but they are afraid to do so. It would lead to a collapse of corn prices.
    If you believe that lack of hydrogen support is holding back fuel cell cars, you are SADLY mistaken. Lets assume that we do hydrogen via splitting water. It takes energy to do that. In fact, a LOT of energy. Then you have to pipe it around. Then you have to store it, which costs a lot (either hard compressed, bonding, or freezing to, iirc, 2.73K; all requires LOTS of energy). Then you have the issue of the fuel cell not lasting long and being expensive. NREL/SERI and other experts say that fuel cells SHOULD be able to work decently and cheaply by 2025. BTW, nearly ALL hydrogen production is from stripping it from Natural Gas. It is more efficient. Even with that, it is still less than burning CNG directly.

    It is actually better to focus on electricity storage in batteries or capacitors. Then you have a production and grid already in place. All that is needed is the cars. Tesla and others are already building these. Of course, Clinton started the battery initiative, but W killed it. It will be back. Personally, I am hoping that Obama will adopt McCains push; create an x-prize of 300M for increased capabilities on batteries/capacitors.

  • December 3, 2008

    9:47 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    GILPINMAN writes:

    The joke about hydrogen powered vehicles is that the oil company's back it for one reason and only one... we still need to go to the pump and buy it. I did a lot of research on a company in oregon several years ago while designing an electric car for the pikes peak race to break the world record for the clime. They make batteries for satellites. for the volume of a 40 gallon tank you get 400hp. The best thing about these are 1 they never need charging, and 2 you can make them in any shape you want. Instead of having 1 big one you can use lots of them all over the vehicle in every unused space and use them to balance the weight distribution on all four wheels. We also designed a motor cycle that had only 2 moving parts in the drive train... the wheels.
    The only drawback is the cost my prototype needed a battery that would have cost $80,000 that is if I had only 1 big one. some day we will see these in cars but not soon because of the cost.

  • December 3, 2008

    9:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    GILPINMAN writes:

    When I get the $ I will build the car I have a model of on my shelf, but it won't be soon:(

  • December 3, 2008

    9:56 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    Windbourne,

    Congress passed two energy bills (2005 and 2007) with substantial ethanol and bio fuel mandates. I do not understand your neo con comments. I believe that both parties supported ethanol and bio fuel subsidies in the bills. Both parties have increased farm subsidies to attract farm state votes. Bush's support for ethanol and biofuel mandates is one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency.

    I am not sure what initiative that you refer about battery technology. There has been lots of R&D on battery technology in the last 5 years. Battery technology seems very difficult but perhaps in 10 to 15 years many obstacles will be overcome. A very large obstacle largely ignored by environmentalists is disposal. The idea that the Prius is a green car is mistaken because the costs to manufacture and dispose of the battery are ignored in the environmental analysis. Tesla uses lithium-ion batteries but lithium is a scarce element, even more so than fossil fuels.

  • December 3, 2008

    11:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Willy writes:

    windbourne - mmanino is correct about the two bills and both parties buying votes with the ethanol black hole.

    You ignored the portion of my post about the Australian company that has home hydrogen production machines (they are reverse fuel cells and work with water). I understand the logistical problems with the movement of hydrogen and the problems of producing it from NG.