Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

KungFuHamster t1_ja4lbef wrote

After a bit of digging, it looks like the 250% efficiency increase is just in relation to the existing performance of perovskite-based solar panels, not versus silicon solar panels. I was unable to find a straight comparison to silicon cell efficiency, merely that the new techniques make them an "equally efficient replacement for silicon."

346

QristopherQuixote t1_ja4pajx wrote

Perovskite cells are much cheaper to manufacture than traditional silicon solar cells. The problem is they contain lead and other environmentally unfriendly materials. Peroskite cells are much thinner and could have applications that wouldn’t work for silicon.

126

korinth86 t1_ja4vy29 wrote

They also do not last nearly as long

54

QristopherQuixote t1_ja4zc0n wrote

Supposedly scientists and engineers have crossed the 30 year mark for perovskites cells. We’ll see.

54

korinth86 t1_ja54ibj wrote

That would be interesting. Hadn't heard of that yet I'll look it up.

2

Zestyclose-Ad-9420 t1_ja9cgmq wrote

If they keep easy to recycle materials and structure, lifespan might not be an issue.
Might even motivate companies to close their product life cycle and build recyling plants.

1

Nervous-Newt848 t1_ja4m6b5 wrote

Clickbait title then

82

ButterflyCatastrophe t1_ja4szmu wrote

The scientific article isn't even about solar power, but about photodetectors.

The ustrend.us article reads like it was written by an AI.

34

Poly_and_RA t1_ja5faya wrote

That was my first hunch too -- that 250% improvement from current state-of-the-art solar-cells would be a gorram miracle if true -- but is a claim much too good to be true so it probably isn't.

The best multi-junction cells are already at over 40% efficiency, so improving that by 250% would result in a cell with 140% efficiency which is a tiiiiiiny bit unlikely on account of things like basic thermodynamics.

The fact that the 250% improvement is loudly proclaimed, but the actual efficiency isn't even mentioned (a very suspicious absense) my guess is that the actual efficiency is anything but exciting. Probably substantially worse than the most common cells today.

31

The-Fox-Says t1_ja670fv wrote

From what I can find online they’re normally 24-29% efficient so that would be over 60% efficiency which is very significant if true

7

Born-Trainer-9807 t1_ja8hkw5 wrote

I'm doubling it! But if 60% is true, then I would like to know the cost of the cell and other "pitfalls". Because 60% is a breakthrough in energy.

1

gordonjames62 t1_ja8dahx wrote

> would be a gorram miracle

when do we get a new season of Firefly

3

Poly_and_RA t1_ja8dpx3 wrote

I hear it'll be out any decade now. The Last of Us is pretty good in the meantime.

2

IronWhitin t1_ja7ben1 wrote

140% is basically your cell not only has 100% light/electric conversion rate, you are literally generate 40% of energy outt of no where, if a cell like that is true you can literally use solar lamp to illuminate them even in the night to harvest that juicy 40% ....XD

2

shine-like-the-stars t1_ja68nbg wrote

You sound like you know a lot about solar. I want to get solar on my house and have no idea where to get started. Is there some tech that’s leaps and bounds ahead, or are most rooftop solar solutions the same?

1

TheAppleFallsUp t1_ja58qvz wrote

YOU GUYS ARE SO NEGATIIIVE IN FUTUROLOGY! IT'S RUINING IT, UUUUUUGH!

Weeeeelllp... What do you expect when its this crap you gotta contend with.

7

Intercellar t1_ja5q8ql wrote

Dammit I got all excited but it all faded away after reading replies in your thread lol

0