Skip to content

Comment on Is it time to move away from silicon-based solar?parent

Comments

I was always under the assumption that Gallium Arsenide was the future after silicon.

What's the difference between GaAs and CIGS?

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.

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.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.