All That Matters

The temporal cloak. A light beam of a single colour is directed at a split-time lens (STL) that converts it into different colours. As the beam then propagates through an optical fibre, the blue light components travel faster than the red ones (the vertical axis shows time), so that eventually a brief gap is formed in the travelling beam during which there is no light present. Therefore, any even taking place during that temporal gap will be concealed from the beam. Afterwards, a reverse process restores the original beam so that an observer does not notice the cloaking device. Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Nature (2012). doi:10.1038/nature10695

Devices that conceal objects from an observer are called cloaks. Conceptually, the idea of cloaking devices has its roots in science fiction, but such devices have indeed been demonstrated in the past few years. These cloaks are based on tiny structures that are able to bend light on predetermined paths as it passes through the structure. This is like a lens, but consisting of manmade materials, and much more versatile and powerful.

A very different type of cloak has now been published in Nature by Alexander Gaeta and colleagues from Cornell University. Following earlier theoretical proposals, they have now demonstrated the first temporal cloak where events are hidden in time, not in space so that an event is concealed from a light beam travelling through the same space for a certain amount of time. To understand the difference of a temporal to a spatial cloak, Robert Boyd and Zhimin Shi from the University of Rochester make a very good comparison in their News and Views article on the paper: Continue reading…

This week I am attending the Materials Research Society Fall meeting in Boston, where there is a big focus on energy. Catalysis, fuel cells, batteries, solar cells, solar fuel, you name it. And I had a discussion with some researchers from the inorganic solar cell community, who asked me what is with the organic solar cells? There is a lot of university research in this area they said, but at industrial trade shows in comparison you don’t see as many start-ups working on organic solar. Eight19 is an exception to this that comes to mind.

And as we’ve discussed, the problem is basically efficiency. There have been a lot of advances in inorganics recently, with single films now easily reaching efficiencies above 20%. A thin film GaAs solar cell this year achieved a record efficiency of 28.2%! These highly efficient cells are only about 1 micrometre thick(!), which means they are also quite flexible and bendable. And what’s more, fabrication is also very cheap. To make a thin-film solar cell doesn’t even waste an expensive wafer any more, there are techniques to remove the devices from the substrate and to reuse the wafer for the fabrication of the next cell.

In contrast, organic solar cells are much less efficient, less than half what those record breakers achieve – whether it is dye-sensitized cells or polymer-based ones. In the official, verified solar cell efficiency tables (reference below), GaAs as said achieves 28.2%, silicon thin films 19.1%, silicon crystals 25%, CIGS (of Solyndra fame) 19.6%. On the other hand, dye-sensitized solar cells achieve 10.9% and organic polymers 8.3%. And if you’re wondering, the absolute record is held by the more expensive so-called inorganic multijunction cells at 43.5%, but for concentrated light, not normal light.

But such huge differences in efficiency are known. Typically, the argument made in favour of organic solar cells is cost. But is that so? As explained, the latest generation of inorganic thin-film cells are very cheap to make as well. Moreover, one of the most expensive parts of solar cells are the panels that hold the cells, as well as installation. Assuming that these costs are half of the costs of solar modules (a not unreasonable approximation), fabricating organic solar cells that even would be only 10% to 20% the cost of inorganic ones will cut the cost per panel by 40% to 45%. Yet, with efficiencies of less than half of the inorganic ones, you need twice the amount of panels, so it won’t come cheaper. Continue reading…