In early October 2017 we posted about Nanotech Engineering's novel graphene-enhanced solar panel, a post that raised many eyebrows. Nanotech says that their graphene panel reaches a 92% efficiency (compared to around 20% for large commercial silicon-based PV panels), and the cost per Watt of their panel will be 0.55 cents (compared to a US average of $3.26 for silicon PV panels).

Rice team studies thermal properties of graphene-CNTs junctions image

Graphene-CNT junctions (source: Rice University)

Our post quoted Nanotech's PR, stating that Jeffrey Grossman, Professor of Engineering at MIT verified the technology and said that “Pound for pound, the new solar cells produce up to 1,000 times more power than conventional photovoltaics”.

Our article received many responses - most of them declaring this news as a hoax: 92% is a theoretically impossible feat and that the MIT professor quoted in the company's PR says he has no connection to this tech. Considering Graphene-Info's place as an objective news hub, we cannot vouch for anything so we simply reached out to Nanotech to hear more about the business and technology and their reply to the issues above. Following is the information we got from the company - we posted it as is, without any commentary or opinion of our own,

So first of all, Nanotech's panels are reportedly built from ten layers of graphene and a carbon nanotube forest on top. The CNTs convert the photons to electrons while the graphene is the conducting layer. The company says that this structure enables the high conversion efficiency - while still being very cost effective.

Our readers pointed out the Schockley-Queisser limit - according to research the maximum theoretical limit of PV efficiency is 86.8%. Nanotech, however, says that this limit is only applicable to Silicon, but for Carbon Nanotubes and graphene it does not hold.

Regarding MIT, Nanotech admits that this was a mistake. The original post came from their advertising company which made a wrongful statement. Nanotech later removed that article and post. The quote from MIT was correct - but it had no relation to Nanotech's technology - it was about graphene solar potential in general.

Nanotech posted the technical specification of their panels - actually stating that the cell efficiency is 96.9% and the module efficiency is 94.7%. These results are from the company's own testing, and it has signed up for a third-party test by Intertek which will inspect the panels and provide its own results. The Intertek results are expected within a few months. Towards the end of 2017 Nanotech received its first panel samples, and posted the video you can see below.

Finally, the company updated us that they are currently in the process of finalizing a financing round, which they hope will bring in $30 million to enable them to commercialize the panels. Nanotech is also looking into other graphene applications, including composite materials.



will this save the biosphere?

This technology breakthrough appears to be our only real chance and relies on a deep secret of physics that nevertheless is solid science. Ecological crisis is much worse than is reported in the media - with Dr. Natalia Shakhova exposing the ESAS methane "bomb" and the Global Dimming Effect - we need a massive energy conversion, very soon - within five years at the most. thanks.

Nano panels

Is this a hoax or not. The company has solicited an investment from me. If it is on the up and up I wouldn't mind investing...


Ditto. Did you go thru the presentation? The biggest challenge I had was believing that such a radical leap. They even show someone comparing the volts and amps from their small panel outputting as much as an off-the-shelf panel that is 10 times bigger.



I was also approached about an investment. I like the solar energy industry and I like nanotechnology. I'd like to know if the efficiency and costs are real. Their PPM is substandard, especially the financial projections. I want to know their plans and costs for production as well as costs to take the product to market. The PPM tends to assume they can capture as much market share as they want as fast as they want. However there are significant costs to ramp up and support all/some of the market. It's worth doing more research!

It looks a scam to me.

It looks a scam to me. National average for silicon panel is .6 cent not $3.25 per watt. Their production cost is .55 cent, so they can not sell at $2.5 per watt. Also, their technology has not established yet.

XFNANO: Graphene and graphene-like materials since 2009 XFNANO: Graphene and graphene-like materials since 2009