Submitted by TimeSpentWasting t3_z60rfh in gadgets
ThatOtherGuy_CA t1_iy0ubqo wrote
Reply to comment by PM_Your_Wololo in News Release: NREL Creates Highest Efficiency 1-Sun Solar Cell - 39.5% efficiency by TimeSpentWasting
Material costs, eventually the amount of materials you need to add per extra % is more than just building a second panel at the same efficiency. So around 50% in order to get an extra 1% in efficiency, you need a panel with double the cells. So you might as well just build 2 50% efficiency panels rather than 1 51% one.
That’s basically why most panels are stuck around 23% right now, it’s more cost effective to just build 2 panels than to build a panel 1% more efficient.
Basically as technology advances it gets easier to improve the efficiency with less waste, but around 50% is when you can’t really make anything smaller to get those efficiency gains in a similar sized panel.
PM_Your_Wololo t1_iy10rlt wrote
Great answer, thank you!
LouSanous t1_iy4302w wrote
>So you might as well just build 2 50% efficiency panels rather than 1 51% one
The most recent info I was able to find shows it to be like 300:1. Standard utility scale solar panels in the 20% efficiency range are 1/300 the cost of triple junction GaAs.
ThatOtherGuy_CA t1_iy47zui wrote
Yup, which is why you pretty much only see them in space applications. Because the weight saved can save enough fuel costs to offset the insane price increases.
LouSanous t1_iy4fmek wrote
I'm not sure how much it costs spaceX with their reusable rockets (and given that Musk is in charge, I would bet that he never did achieve the multiple orders of magnitude cheaper costs he promised), but prior to the space shuttle cost per kg into space was $18,500. After the space shuttle, $54,500/kg.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments