Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

creationavatar t1_j1d265e wrote

Cost and longevity are the first 2 things I want to know.

56

greatdrams23 t1_j1d46ee wrote

Exactly, cost per sq m, per generated per sq m is the key.

25

bat_in_the_stacks t1_j1d8zxs wrote

If my math is right, it generates only 1/5th the power in a given area compared to the traditional cells.

18

HiddenCity t1_j1ertug wrote

But if you don't need structural support and can wrap it around all sorts of stuff, that's a huge advantage. As an architect, panel size, limited space, and structural support are tge major reasons why we don't put solar on roofs when the building even when the owner has expressed interest in it.

18

Christos0720 t1_j1f54xv wrote

I’d be concerned with durability at this thickness.

2

HiddenCity t1_j1f6fwp wrote

Yeah, It would have to be so cheap that you could easily repair it every year

3

sake22 t1_j1dd5bg wrote

So it has a power density of 370 watts per 10 square meters (37 watts per m2).

''The fabric modules had a power density of 370 watts per kilogram and weighed 0.1 kilogram per square meter.''

While this has power density of 214 watts per m2

''Commercial residential silicon solar panels, by contrast, have a power density of 20 W/kg and weigh 10.7 kg/m2''

And this has power density of 182 watts per m2

'' while cadmium-telluride thin-film solar modules on glass substrates have a specific power of 13 W/kg and weigh 14 kg/m2.''

​

It needs to be way cheaper, because it uses A LOT more space to produce same amount of energy. It uses 5,78 m2 to produce 214 watts or 4,92 m2 to produce 182 watts.....oh and of course it isn't commercialized still, we don't know about reliability, efficiency drop in the long term. But I see this technology now being used in transport for example, because of lightness, nothing more.

16

Faysight t1_j1efui3 wrote

Needing more space isn't necessarily a problem if it's cheaper... or even just easier to transport/deploy or has a longer useful life. But the word "cloth" doesn't say any of those things to me except maybe deployment.

5

sake22 t1_j1epgp5 wrote

Hi, English is not my first language... if you could just explain to me the ''cloth'' thing, if it isn't problem for you, I can't make sense of it.

​

Why space matters and why is that pretty big problem? For example: a house owner wants to install on his roof some solar system. Let's say when researching he finds final two best systems (first and second). His roof is 20m2. With the first system installed, it can produce 740 watts, while the second system can produce 4280 watts, both in perfect conditions, of course. But the owner uses much more energy during the day.

Now, I see their system working well in villages- for those places space that that system takes is not problem, but not in towns or cities. They have to make better efficiency, at the moment it is just small. I applaud them for creating this light tech, but it just takes too much space, while people are year by year using more energy.

1

Faysight t1_j1fr9tf wrote

I guess it varies by location. Per capita electricity usage has been falling in the west for decades, and surface parking lots, roads, parks, playgrounds, and even some farmer's fields have proven happy places for solar panels if only they could be built cheaply enough to break even quickly (...without extraordinary subsidies). Maybe in the developing world there are fewer and less-suitable places, but I do notice that cloth tents work on all sorts of terrain with very little preparation... if such solar cloth were a few cents per yard and lasted a few years then I bet we'd see it all over the place in short order.

2

bat_in_the_stacks t1_j1d8tjz wrote

1/100 as heavy per area, only 18X more power generation by weight/area, so it's generating roughly 1/5th the power per area of the traditional solar cells.

13

AccomplishedAge2903 t1_j1da5et wrote

Maybe make a ‘solar tree’ in your yard with these as the leaves to maximize your area?

6

grundlesquatch t1_j1daue9 wrote

Interesting concept

4

AccomplishedAge2903 t1_j1db6k2 wrote

Saw an article a few years back on a concept for a wind powered “tree” with hundreds of small fans on it to generate power and thought it might work here too.

3

Kprich1224 t1_j1giupm wrote

I’d love to see like a giant wind powered tree house with solar panel roofing.

0

unverifiable_user t1_j1d8qb6 wrote

Power per kilogram is a very odd thing to measure. Efficiency/power per square meter is more important…. IMHO of course. This stuff could be way too fragile for most applications. That being said, solar is freaking awesome. I don’t understand how anybody could be ever against anything to do with solar energy. Well, I understand certain companies, but not humans being humans.

5

Turksarama t1_j1dgw20 wrote

I can't think of a single example of someone saying "solar sure is nice, if only it weren't so heavy!"

Possibly useful for space applications, but then you need to take the weight of the structure you apply it to into account.

3

StateChemist t1_j1dyv7k wrote

On the roof of a truck or other vehicle?

Minimal added weight, some efficiency added from solar gains.

Obviously won’t power the whole thing but can increase range slightly or top you off while you are parked at work.

I’m intrigued.

0

Turksarama t1_j1fpga4 wrote

Power per square metre is far more important. There's maybe two EVs which aren't even on the market yet with solar panels on them and one of them is absolutely optimised for efficiency (aptera). They're typically not worth it, you're better off just having panels on a roof facing the right direction and charging a battery.

1

StateChemist t1_j1hspzs wrote

Por que no los dos?

You say typically not worth it.

I hear typically not worth it, yet.

For things that move, lightweight is very important.

For houses I agree efficiency per area is more important.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t uses for this tech, just means it won’t revolutionarily replace rooftop panels.

But I’m in favor of all research in this sector, every innovation adds to the toolkit a renewable future might need.

1

Markharris1989 t1_j1dg3u6 wrote

Solar is ok, but PV technology is already up against some pretty firm physical constraints that stop any meaningful further ‘breakthroughs’ with the exception of niche areas like use in space.

Millions of dollar of research money is being pissed away finding ways that don’t make Solar any more efficient, cheaper or less dependent on resources that are hard to source and environmental hazardous then what we already have.

So I would say I’m against Solar but it isn’t gonna solve this thing by it’s self, or even likely be a major component of it. (Background: BSc, major in physics)

2

RedditorsArGrb t1_j1h18p7 wrote

there are thousands of experts working to engineer cheap tandem architectures in both public and private research environments. such breakthroughs are not at all precluded by any "firm constraints" physics undergrads learn in passing.

0

naad2019 t1_j1gvqwu wrote

MIT researchers?! This has been around for over a decade, developed by an Australian University.

They haven't been able to productionse it commercially and haven't found a real practical usage for this tech.

Main issues being durability, life of the panel & power production efficiency- factors that directly effect economic viability of the tech.

Moreover, with the perovskite solar having entered the scene, the whole ballgame has changed along with the future of solar.

Meanwhile, thin film solar is already being commercially produced and being sold already with much of the benefits envisaged by this tech.

3

FuturologyBot t1_j1cw1o8 wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/tonymmorley:

While Elon was busy stuffing Twitter around, a new paper-thin photovoltaic was developed. "These thin-film solar cells are one-hundredth as heavy as conventional solar cells while generating 18 times as much power per kilogram." u/IEEEorg https://spectrum.ieee.org/thin-film-solar-panels ☀️

"MIT researchers have developed what they say is a scalable fabrication technique to produce ultrathin, lightweight solar cells that can be adhered to any surface."

>"The fabric modules had a power density of 370 watts per kilogram and weighed 0.1 kilogram per square meter. Commercial residential silicon solar panels, by contrast, have a power density of 20 W/kg and weigh 10.7 kg/m2"

Root Study: Printed Organic Photovoltaic Modules on Transferable Ultra-thin Substrates as Additive Power Sources, First published: 09 December 2022 https://doi.org/10.1002/smtd.202200940, Small Methods

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/ztbpvl/paperthin_solar_makes_any_surface_photovoltaic/j1ctijd/

1

somethots t1_j1dvnz5 wrote

i wonder how long this last until the competition tries to kill it off, seems like finally a good solar product for everyone

1

EditorForYou t1_j1donpx wrote

“Paper-thin solar makes any surface photovoltaic. Unroll this solar carpet onto a roof, or any other surface that sees sunlight.”

0

tonymmorley OP t1_j1ctijd wrote

While Elon was busy stuffing Twitter around, a new paper-thin photovoltaic was developed. "These thin-film solar cells are one-hundredth as heavy as conventional solar cells while generating 18 times as much power per kilogram." u/IEEEorg https://spectrum.ieee.org/thin-film-solar-panels ☀️

"MIT researchers have developed what they say is a scalable fabrication technique to produce ultrathin, lightweight solar cells that can be adhered to any surface."

>"The fabric modules had a power density of 370 watts per kilogram and weighed 0.1 kilogram per square meter. Commercial residential silicon solar panels, by contrast, have a power density of 20 W/kg and weigh 10.7 kg/m2"

Root Study: Printed Organic Photovoltaic Modules on Transferable Ultra-thin Substrates as Additive Power Sources, First published: 09 December 2022 https://doi.org/10.1002/smtd.202200940, Small Methods

−5

betam4x t1_j1cwhx2 wrote

So when does it get commercialized?

8

Smokey_Katt t1_j1d8la8 wrote

Exactly my question. If it’s fragile, short-lived, or very expensive then it’s probably not commercially viable.

2

nospamkhanman t1_j1ei6nd wrote

Right after the millions of battery breakthroughs finally come to market.

2