“A coating 100 times thinner than a human hair could be ‘ink-jetted’ onto your backpack, cell phone or car roof to harness the sun’s energy, new research shows, in a development that could reduce the world’s need for solar farms that take up huge swaths of land. Scientists from Oxford University’s physics department have developed a micro-thin, light-absorbing material flexible enough to apply to the surface of almost any building or object — with the potential to generate up to nearly twice the amount of energy of current solar panels,” reports CNN:
The solar coating is made of materials called perovskites, which are more efficient at absorbing the sun’s energy than the silicon-based panels widely used today. That because its light-absorbing layers can capture a wider range of light from the sun’s spectrum than traditional panels. And more light means more energy.
The Oxford scientists aren’t the only ones who have produced this type of coating, but theirs is notably efficient, capturing around 27% of the energy in sunlight. Today’s solar panels that use silicon cells, by comparison, typically covert up to 22% of sunlight into power.
The researchers believe that over time, perovskites will be able to deliver efficiency exceeding 45%, pointing to the increase in yield they were able to achieve during just five years of experimenting, from 6% to 27%.
Existing “ground-based solar farms take up a lot of land,” notes CNN. “Solar panels have contributed to deforestation” in Massachusetts, reports The College Fix, citing “a study from Harvard University”:
“Since 2010, over 5,000 acres of natural and working lands have been destroyed for solar development in Massachusetts, resulting in the emission of over half a million metric tons of CO₂— more than the annual emissions of 100,000 passenger cars,” Mass Audobon stated in a summary of its study with Harvard Forest.
“Under current siting practices, thousands of acres of forests, farms, and other carbon-rich landscapes are being converted to host large-scale solar,” the report stated.
The removal of trees undercuts the state’s requirement to reduce emissions by 2050. This is because trees are an effective carbon removal tool. “By 2030, climate-polluting emissions in Massachusetts must be reduced by 50 percent relative to 1990 levels, and by 75 percent by 2040, on the way to net-zero emissions by 2050,” the study stated.
“Because it is not feasible to eliminate fossil fuel use across the entire economy by 2050, reaching our net-zero goal will also require removing carbon from the atmosphere, to counteract our remaining [greenhouse gas] emissions,” the study stated.
It makes little sense to subsidize solar panels in Massachusetts, which is often cloudy or overcast, with thin blue or snowy gray puritan skies. Solar panels are more useful in sunnier states. Paige Lambermont, a research fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, notes that “Solar power works when the sun is shining, and then quickly stops producing as soon as the sun goes down. As a result, it is unreliable and only provides electricity on an intermittent basis.”
Ground-based solar farms result in more environmental contamination than nuclear power plants. As an environmentalist notes, “solar panels require 17 times more materials in the form of cement, glass, concrete, and steel than do nuclear plants, and create over 200 times more waste,” such as “dust from toxic heavy metals including lead, cadmium, and chromium.” Nuclear plants emit no air pollution, only harmless steam. Unlike wind farms, nuclear power plants don’t kill birds. The biggest U.S. utility that generates wind power pleaded guilty to federal crimes for killing 150 eagles.
Many years ago, France and Sweden replaced most of their fossil-fueled electricity with nuclear power, and as a result, ended up emitting less than a tenth of the world average of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. “Nuclear power is the safest form of energy we have, if you consider deaths per megawatt of energy produced,” notes Yale University’s Steven Novella. “Wind turbines, surprisingly, kill more people than nuclear plants,” notes Michael Shellenberger.
Nuclear power is better for the environment than wind farms or solar farms, notes Reason Magazine’s Ronald Bailey, citing a recent study.
