How Thin Can You Go?

Twin Creek Technologies, of San Jose, CA, is developing a solar cell manufacturing technology which utilizes a high-energy ion accelerator to slice silicon wafers that are ten times thinner than typical layers.

In today’s typical wafer sawing process, half the silicon is lost to “sawdust”. But Twin Creek ditches the saw altogether. They use injected hydrogen atoms to thermo-chemically shear off 20 micro thick wafers with no waste.

Twin Creek's cells are so thin, they could be curved to match building surfaces.

 

This is a valuable breakthrough, because the cost of the silicon wafer accounts for almost half the total cost of solar panels.

Manufacturing a standard cell today requires 6.5 grams of silicon per watt of capacity, worth about 40 cents; the new system will use just 600 milligrams and cost 10 cents per cell, he said. The finished product can be wrapped in plastic instead of being covered with a special grade of low-iron glass on a hard backing. [via nytimes.com]

This innovation reduces the cost of the silicon required for a given power output, and it also reduces the amount of other supporting materials required, like low-iron glass. The company also claims that–surprisingly, since this process required the design of an ion accelerator 10 times more powerful than any commercially available today–this process has lower capital costs than existing methods. That goes to show how much manufacturers are paying today to Applied Materials for the cutting and finishing machines.

Watch a video on the company’s website describing the process here.

This is all very cool, but Twin Creek isn’t the only firm that is innovating to reduce the amount of silicon required for a PV cell.

Ampulse Corporation is leveraging technology developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to grow silicon crystals directly on an inexpensive foil substrate using chemical vapor deposition. This process claims to grow a silicon layer as thin as only 10 microns.

The Ampulse process “goes straight from pure silicon-containing gas to high-quality crystal silicon film,” said Brent Nelson, who runs the PDIL at NREL. “The advantage is you can make the wafer just as thin as you need it — 10 microns or less.” [via renewableenergyworld.com]

Other thin silicon startups worth watching:

[via GTM]

Posted in Energy | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

So Clean It’s Deadly

The upcoming book The Big Thirst by Charles Fishman discusses the ultra-pure water used in semiconductor manufacturing. It’s so pure and free of dissolved minerals that drinking it is dangerous. Apparently it will leech these vital minerals from your body to a dangerous degree. (This might be some hype, because it doesn’t say how much of the water you’d need to drink–people have been accidentally killing themselves for years by overconsuming normal water in misguided attempts to pass drug tests.)

The Big Thirst

The water must have nothing in it except water molecules–not only no specks of dirt or random ions, no salts or minerals, it can’t have any particles of any kind, not even minuscule parts of cells or viruses.

And so every microchip factory has a smaller factory inside that manufactures ultra-pure water. The ordinary person thinks of reverse-osmosis as taking “everything” out of water. RO is the process you use to turn ocean water into crystalline drinking water. And in human terms, RO does take most everything out of the water.

But for semiconductors, RO water isn’t even close. Ultra-pure water requires 12 filtration steps beyond RO. (For those of a technical bent, the final filter in making UPW has pores that are 20 nanometers wide. At the IBM semiconductor plant I visited, they send the 20 nm filters out to be inspected by a private company, using a scanning electron microscope. They want that company to find filters with nothing in them.)

via The Dangerously Clean Water Used To Make Your iPhone | Fast Company.

Posted in Science, Technology | Tagged | Leave a comment

Americans, are you serious?

Americans cannot be taken seriously.

Let’s prove this theory by studying the recent most popular stories list on CBSNews.com. The key words that seem to drive clicks include:

  • adorable cat (x2)
  • Palin+Trump (2012 Presidential campaign mates)
  • terrible teeny-bopper pop music
CBSNews.com Most Popular Stories

This is a disturbing list, America

I rest my case.

 

Posted in Culture, Internet, Journalism & News | Tagged | Leave a comment

Just How Clean Is Natural Gas?

I am always intrigued when new life cycle greenhouse gas footprints are published, because the results are often surprising. It is challenging to accurately estimate the life cycle footprint of a product with intuition alone. Examples: bottled water is up to 2000 times more energy-intensive than tap water; bananas aren’t so bad, but avoid air-freighted asparagus; the footprint of a 6-pack of Fat Tire beer is 3.2 kg CO2e (give New Belgium props for measuring).

Recently, questions around the life cycle greenhouse gas footprint for natural gas have been appearing. (I know, natural gas can’t compete with Fat Tire, or even asparagus, for flavor, but it is a critical fuel as we strive for energy independence.)

Natural gas is a relatively clean burning fuel, releasing about half as much CO2 as coal during combustion. But natural gas is mostly methane, which when leaked into the atmosphere has a greenhouse effect 25 times more potent than CO2 (100 year GWP, IPCC AR4).

As discussed in this Times article, some recent studies have raised the estimate for the amount of natural gas that is leaked to the atmosphere during natural gas extraction, particularly during hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” One study went as far as saying that shale gas could have a greenhouse gas footprint 20% greater than coal.

This will certainly lead to contentious debate. These studies will be cited by opponents to fracking as reason to avoid the practice. The gas industry and its allies will argue that the figures are overestimated and don’t reflect recent improvements in leak protection. Further analysis will be needed before any verdict can be declared and before any policy decisions are made.

(It should be noted that, even if the gap in greenhouse gas footprint between gas and coal shrinks, gas is still cleaner than coal in terms of particulates and other toxic emissions.)

Even if the worst-case estimates for gas leakage are true, it seems to me that gas won’t necessarily lose its long-term luster. Leaking gas is like leaving the refrigerator door open–it wastes money. When that gas is captured, it can be sold for additional revenue. According to ProPublica, ”Several studies show that maintaining and installing equipment to capture the emissions pays for itself within 24 months.” In other words, gas can notably reduce its life cycle footprint with positive NPV investments.

On the contrary, shrinking the footprint of coal will require capturing CO2 pre- or post-combustion. Carbon sequestration technology for coal power plants is about 15 years from widespread commercialization, and it will add about 30% to the cost of electricity.

For an in-depth analysis of the issue, and for information on EPA’s recent upward revision of its estimates for natural gas leakage, see this article from ProPublica, Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated.

The New York Times article discussed above: Studies Say Natural Gas Has Its Own Environmental Problems.

Posted in Climate Change, Energy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear Power and the “Dread to Risk” Ratio

I’m writing this post in light of the recent disaster and its aftermath in Japan. Plus, the issue combines several subjects of my personal interest: energy technology, science, and psychology.

Before going on, let me state that this post isn’t about my opinion on the matter of expanding nuclear power. Rather, it’s about the public perception of nuclear power.

(For the record, I am Goldilocks on the future of nuclear. Not too cold: we need a carbon-free source of electricity until renewable energy reaches baseload scale, and nuclear power is a better option than devastating climate change. Not too hot: nuclear is expensive and waste disposal is an unsolved problem. But that’s the subject of another post.)

I initially started pondering this subject when I noticed that, day in and day out, I was finding far more U.S. news stories about the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant than about the tens of thousands of citizens who were killed or displaced by the tsunami. Although disappointed, I was not surprised that the media had seemingly misdirected its attention. (This is the same media that brought you Balloon Boy, after all.)

The issue gained a name when I read Andrew Revkin’s post on the Times DotEarth blog, “The ‘Dread to Risk’ Ratio on Radiation and Other Discontents.” Of the many links in his post, check out at least these three: Humans ‘Wired’ for Terror Over Remote Radiation Threats (Greenwire), Reflections on Fukushima: A time to mourn, to learn, and to teach (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists), and a Radiation Dose Chart infographic (from the artist behind XKCD).

These articles explain the issue quite coherently, so I won’t rewrite them here. The summary is this: humans instinctively fear certain types of risks, including things they don’t understand (e.g., nuclear power), and humans do poorly at assessing the relative risk of different threats (e.g., driving a car vs. nuclear power).

What do you think is the relative risk of coal versus nuclear? Here’s a visual answer. Seth Godin created this image comparing the death rate per watt produced from nuclear, oil, and coal from these statistics:

Death rate per watt produced

 

(Godin attributed this discrepancy in risk assessment to successful coal industry marketing, which if true, could explain why the risk of coal is underestimated, but he does not directly address the overestimated risk of nuclear.)

What I am particularly interested in are the lessons that can be learned from this event and society’s reaction to it. I believe these lessons have relevancy to science and technology issues far beyond nuclear power, including potentially to my own career when I launch a startup technology in the future.

Here are a few takeaways from me.

  • People will inherently be afraid of technologies that they don’t understand (for another example, see the recent smart meter hubbub with PG&E)
  • The public needs exposure directly to scientists communicating the facts, for accuracy and believability, but only recently have scientists started to accept they have a role in communicating directly with the public
  • The public will mistrust authority when that authority has wronged them in the past. In this case, the secretive history of nuclear testing has clouded the future reputation of the technology.

Can public perception of risk be managed? What other technologies are being held back by a similar situation?

Posted in Climate Change, Energy, Science | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Gimme that green, French wine

It ain’t easy being green. Apparently we will now need to calculate “green lines” for every buying decision. I wonder where the green line is for microbrew vs. homebrew…? My front porch?

Last year, a study of the carbon cost of the global wine trade found that it is actually more “green” for New Yorkers to drink wine from Bordeaux, which is shipped by sea, than wine from California, sent by truck. That is largely because shipping wine is mostly shipping glass. The study found that ‘the efficiencies of shipping drive a ‘green line’ all the way to Columbus, Ohio, the point where a wine from Bordeaux and Napa has the same carbon intensity.’

via Switchboard, from NRDC :: Kaid Benfield’s Blog :: Think globally, eat locally? Maybe, maybe not . . ..

Posted in Climate Change, Environment, Food | Leave a comment