Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!janus.Berkeley.EDU!cameron From: cameron@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Mike Williamson) Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ca.environment,sci.electronics Subject: Re: Fuel efficiency Message-ID: <38842@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 28 Sep 90 19:42:44 GMT References: <38776@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <70019@sgi.sgi.com> <8220@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov> <34284@cup.portal.com> <38826@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1990Sep27.185524.21413@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: cameron@janus.Berkeley.EDUIn article <1990Sep27.185524.21413@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> ghhart@eos.ncsu.edu (GREGORY HUGHES HART) writes: Lines: 20 >Hasn't there been some advancement in solar cells recently by using >something (germanium-something) instead of silicon, with an efficiency >of much more than 10% (25-30%?) > >Anyone know the latest? As far as I know, there have been a number of different cells made with materials other than silicon which have higher efficiencies, some as high as 35%. Unfortunately, these are much more expensive than the basic silicon cells that are most widely available. (how much more expensive I can't say) In addition, those high efficiencies were measured under ideal lab conditions (optimal light, temperature, etc.) and those cells would have a diminished efficiency in actual practical use (but by how much I can't say - they still would probably be more efficient than basic silicon). Gallium-arsenide integrated circuits are faster than silicon circuits, but are more expensive. Similarly, gallium-arsenide cells are more efficient than silicon cells, but are also more expensive. -Mike