4 ms·

That's exactly the direction some folks have gone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_indium_gallium_selenide_solar_cells http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_

That's exactly the direction some folks have gone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_indium_gallium_selenide_solar_cells http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_indium_gallium_selenide_... One of the startups, nanosolar, seems to have failed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosolar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosolar You can actually pick up some nanosolar stuff on ebay right now. http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/151190922913?lpid=82 http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/151190922913?lpid=82 I am not sure if there are any other companies still trying to make a go of this but last I checked -- a couple of years ago -- there were two or three others.

durkie 13y ago
that's a damn shame about nanosolar -- they had a really cool process that made a lot of sense.
canistr 13y ago
I was always under the assumption that Gallium Arsenide was the future after silicon. What's the difference between GaAs and CIGS?
- jobu 13y ago
  The article mentions Gallium Arsenide and that it's prohibitively expensive as a straight up replacement for Silicon. They're tinkering with the form factor to figure out the best way to focus more light on small bits of GaAs.
- msandford 13y ago
  A number of people realized that they could lay down really thin films of CIGS materials and process the cells reel-to-reel. Imagine loading up a 10 ton roll of thin stainless steel in the morning and having 200 acres (or some crazy number) of solar cells by evening. If they had been able to sort the process technology out it would have been INCREDIBLE. But of course the devil was in the details. This was a hardware based company so it's not terribly surprising that their R&D time went out past their funding. Look at how badly hardware Kickstarts do on average, blowing multiple "deadlines" because often-times hardware is more difficult than software. Not that it's impossible, but it's definitely unforgiving. When it absolutely has to be exactly right the first time it's going to take a lot longer than you think, even once you account for the fact that its' going to take a lot longer than you think.

durkie 13y ago

that's a damn shame about nanosolar -- they had a really cool process that made a lot of sense.

canistr 13y ago

I was always under the assumption that Gallium Arsenide was the future after silicon. What's the difference between GaAs and CIGS?

jobu 13y ago
The article mentions Gallium Arsenide and that it's prohibitively expensive as a straight up replacement for Silicon. They're tinkering with the form factor to figure out the best way to focus more light on small bits of GaAs.
msandford 13y ago
A number of people realized that they could lay down really thin films of CIGS materials and process the cells reel-to-reel. Imagine loading up a 10 ton roll of thin stainless steel in the morning and having 200 acres (or some crazy number) of solar cells by evening. If they had been able to sort the process technology out it would have been INCREDIBLE. But of course the devil was in the details. This was a hardware based company so it's not terribly surprising that their R&D time went out past their funding. Look at how badly hardware Kickstarts do on average, blowing multiple "deadlines" because often-times hardware is more difficult than software. Not that it's impossible, but it's definitely unforgiving. When it absolutely has to be exactly right the first time it's going to take a lot longer than you think, even once you account for the fact that its' going to take a lot longer than you think.