The cells make use of proteins from the machinery of plants, turning sunlight into electric charges that can do work.

The cells simply assemble themselves from a mixture of the proteins, minute tubes of carbon and other materials.

The self-repairing mechanism, reported in Nature Chemistry, could lead to much longer-lasting solar cells.

The design and improvement of solar cells is one of the most vibrant areas of science, in part because sunlight is far and away the planet’s most abundant renewable energy source.

More than that, nature has already proven that sunlight can be captured and turned into other forms of energy not only with extraordinary efficiency but also with a self-repair mechanism that counteracts the ravages of sunlight.

“Sunlight, when it hits oxygen, is very damaging,” explained Michael Strano, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology chemical engineer who led the research.

“It’s the reason why we age, and the reason why when we leave paper or plastic out in the sun, it fades.”

The destructive mixture of sunlight and oxygen, Professor Strano told BBC News, means that many of the best solar cells in the laboratory might not survive well when put into use.

“There’s a kind of a horse race among scientists around the world to make the highest efficiency cell, but very few people are asking what happens with that cell when you plug it in for a few hours or for a week or for months,” he said.

‘Jigsaw puzzle’

Now Professor Strano and his colleagues have made novel use of the photosynthetic reaction centre, one of the plant parts nature has developed for the task, in a bid to increase the lifetimes of solar cells.

The nanotubes are scaffolds on which the light-sensitive proteins can build

They also employed lipids, the molecules that pair up end-to-end form much of the walls of all living cells, and carbon nanotubes, tiny “straws” of pure carbon that are renowned for their electrical properties.

Lastly they added a surfactant – a molecule that, like soap on grease, breaks certain molecules apart and keeps them separate.

To the team’s surprise, this cocktail of disparate parts, when the surfactant was pumped out, assembled itself into a suite of working solar cells, each just a few nanometres – billionths of a metre – across.

The lipids paired up to form discs that attached to the nanotube on one side and to the reaction centres on the other.

Incoming light is gathered by the reaction centre, knocking free an electron that is channelled by the lipids and into the nanotube.

Inside what is known as a photoelectrochemical cell, those electrons can be scooped up and together constitute an electric current.

“It’s like a jigsaw puzzle that you throw into the air and it comes down completely assembled,” Professor Strano said.

This self-assembly leads naturally to a self-repair scheme.

Surfactant is added, along with a few proteins to replace those damaged by sunlight, and the recipe is complete.

When the surfactant is removed, the bits re-assemble into a pristine set of solar cells.

Professor Strano said that the efficiency of the cells as designed is just a tiny fraction of that provided by the current best solar cells.

While he said great gains are still to be had in efficiency as the experiment is refined, he added that the idea behind the research was as important for future work.

“What our paper is good for is starting to think about device lifetime and borrowing concepts from nature. Can we make cells that have an infinite lifetime?”

It has increased a bonus paid to the owners of solar panels.

SA Premier Mike Rann says the “feed-in” bonus will rise by 10 cents to 54 cents per kilowatt-hour.

It is paid for power sent to the electricity grid from solar panels.

Greens MP Mark Parnell wants a higher threshold on the total number of solar panels installed before the bonus closes off.

“It’s great that panel owners are going to get some more payment but the disappointing side of this announcement is the cap on the scheme means that within a year it may well come to an end,” he said.

“That means we’re going to continue to see the boom and bust cycle in solar energy.”

The scheme was established in January and the Energy Minister Paul Lynch says 30,000 households are now being paid to feed renewable energy into the electricity grid.

He says the first milestone of 50 megawatts has now been reached, triggering the review.

The government had anticipated that would not happen until 2012.

The Minister Paul Lynch says if changes are made, they will not be retrospective.

“Whether that tariff will be changed, whether a period a time will be changed we’ll see when the review is completed,” he said.

“We need to think about the aims of the scheme and whether we can get those aims done in a different way, or whether we leave it as it is.”

The New South Wales Greens say a review of the scheme should not be used as an excuse to cut it back.

Greens Upper House MP John Kaye says it was intended to run for seven years and it is appropriate that it should be reviewed.

“We’re concerned however that Treasury will use this review to axe the program,” he said.

“We know from the outset Treasury and the Treasurer were opposed these gross feed-in tariffs.

“They tried at every step to water them down. These are an important mechanism for building up a solar industry in New South Wales.

The panels are used to provide power and pump water in toilet facilities along the Gulf Developmental Road.

Georgetown officer Will Attwood says four panels valued at $8,000 have been stolen in the past few months.

He says he is worried that travellers may be stealing them to power caravans.

“These things are put in there for the use of everybody and there’s been lots of approaches to councils to have toilet stops put in,” he said.

“It’s just stupid that people come along and straightaway vandalise them.

“Certainly if I catch anybody, they’ll be charged with stealing and it’s a very, very serious offence.”

Government and company officials were on hand during the August 19th unveiling. The solar project incorporated Sanyo’s patented HIT technology – hybrid solar cells made of “thin mono crystal silicon surrounded by an ultra-thin amorphous silicon layer.”

The installation took part in two stages. The first stage, operational in June, comprised of 100 kW and the second stage of the installation, operational last week, comprised of the additional 100kW. The 952 solar panel installation will save the Johnson & Johnson Medical approximately 10 percent on electricity costs. The solar installation will produce enough energy to power 50 homes annually.

The project is part of Johnson & Johnson’s sustainability program, Project Leaf: linking environment and future. The company will replace one of its older chillers and will also install sensor-driven efficient lighting. All in all, the projects are expected to reduce the company’s energy usage by 20 percent annually.

The company will plant 37 trees to offset the environmental cost of the solar installation. Johnson & Johnson Medical is also expected to implement other sustainable initiatives including water conservation and waste management over the coming years as well.

The Soladey-J3X houses a solar panel at the base of the brush that transmits electrons to the head of the toothbrush with a lead wire. When the electrons reach the head, they react with acid in the mouth, creating a chemical reaction that breaks down plaque cells and kills other bacteria in the mouth. The toothbrush uses about the same amount of power as a traditional solar-powered calculator.

Komiyama and Uswak have tested the toothbrush on bacteria cultures that cause dental disease and Komiyama said that the toothbrush causes “complete destruction of bacterial cells.” The Soladey-J3X also won the first place prize at the annual FDI World Dental Conference in Dubai last month.

WA’s Mines and Petroleum Minister Norman Moore opened Horizon Power’s Pippunyah Solar Diesel Power Station today.

The new $34 million station is powered by the biggest sun-tracking solar panel farm in Australia.

“Marble Bar is significant for many reasons; the three billion year-old rock on which it was based, the world record it held for the most consecutive days of maximum temperatures and, now, a world-first in power generation technology,” the minister said.

The power station will generate 1048 megawatt hours of solar energy a year and provide 65 per cent of daytime energy demand from solar power.

It is estimated it will save 1119 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year and save between 35 and 40 per cent of diesel consumption a year.

The station began powering Marble Bar in May but the testing period was only completed at the end of July.

Horizon Power managing director Rod Hayes said the traditional custodians of the 45,373 square kilometres east Pilbara region, the Njamal people, were consulted during the development of the new station.

“The group chose the name Pippunyah, which is the name of the river that runs below the power station,” he said.

The project is supported by the Federal Government through the renewable remote power generation program and is implemented by WA’s Office of Energy

* Australia, the world’s biggest coal exporter, uses coal to generate about 84 percent of electricity.

* Australia’s net greenhouse emissions totalled 537 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2009, falling by 13 million tonnes from 2008 to 2009. Australia represents about 1.5 percent of world emissions.

* Carbon dioxide represents 75.2 percent of Australian emissions, methane 19.7 percent, and nitrous oxide 4.1 percent.

* Transport and energy account for 76 percent of Australian emissions, or 416 million tonnes.

* Transport contributed 14 percent of emissions, or 80 million tonnes, with 86 percent of that from road transport. Passenger cars largest source contributing 41 million tonnes.

* Electricity generation accounts for 37 percent of emissions, or 204 million tonnes. More than 80 percent of electricity comes from coal-fired power stations.

* Agriculture created 16 percent of emissions, or 87 million tonnes. Around 10 percent of Australian emissions, or 59 million tonnes, come from sheep and cattle, due to gases produced when they digest food. Livestock emissions fell almost 11 percent between 1990 and 2008, driven by a 57 percent fall in sheep numbers due to severe drought.

Sources: Australian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2010

WHO could complain about renewable energy?

Not the idea of renewable energy itself – that would be like objecting to recycling or saving the planet or motherhood – but rather the way it is being introduced here in Queensland and in Australia.

Queensland Parliament’s Environment and Resources Committee is currently holding an inquiry into “growing Queensland’s renewable energy sector” and recently called for public submissions.

Most of the 62 responses overwhelmingly acknowledged the good sense of more renewable energy in the mix, but several questioned existing and proposed government strategies for meeting the federally mandated target of 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity being supplied from renewable sources by 2020.

Last year it also produced the Queensland Renewable Energy Plan, which promises “a cleaner energy future for Queensland”. This 28-page document details a “bold vision” which aims to “stimulate up to $3.5 billion in new investment, create up to 3500 jobs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 40 million tonnes”.

In summary, the state has a bureaucracy and policy structure in place, all directed at increasing the renewable energy sector.

But how has it actually performed? It is early days, but already some worrying signs have emerged, most notably the recent revelations that an ambitious government-backed plan to convert Cloncurry into Queensland’s first fully solar-powered town has seemingly ground to a halt, reportedly because of “glare issues”.

Whatever the specific issues surrounding the Cloncurry project, the delay is significant for a couple of reasons. First, it was supposed to be a “ground-breaking” project, in the words of Premier Anna Bligh, that would lead the way for other such schemes in regional Queensland.

More significantly, however, it was one of the first recipients of funds from the Government’s renewable energy fund, which had earmarked up to $7 million for the project. The fact that the scheme is now struggling raises questions about how funding decisions are taken and potential projects assessed.

That returns us to the Environment and Resources Committee, which in its call for public submissions posed the following question for consideration: “What have the Queensland Government’s own investments in renewable energy projects for the generation of electricity achieved to date, and at what cost?”

Clean Energy Australasia, a private company that wants to generate geothermal power from underground hot rocks in the state’s west, answered by noting that “the process of Government-initiated grants and financial support mechanisms are non-transparent and not divulged voluntarily”. That lack of transparency, in turn, made it difficult to assess the effectiveness of Government spending to date.

Mining company Rio Tinto similarly noted it was “not aware if a review of the Queensland Government’s investment in renewable energy projects has been conducted”.

In short, we don’t know just how the Government has decided to hand out public money to companies and we don’t yet know, in any objective way, just how those projects are performing.

Again, it is still early days, but transparency and accountability will be essential if the Government wants to ensure the credibility of its expensive renewable energy plans.

And that is to say nothing of the actual worth of the Government’s renewable energy strategy, which has an emphasis on encouraging greater use of solar, particularly at the domestic level, through its solar hot water rebate scheme.

The Queensland Resources Council, in its submission to the inquiry, claimed an “expanded, public funded R&D effort” was required rather than schemes which produce a large quantity of non-peak power at very high costs.