Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

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

DonManuel t1_ja4grnl wrote

Article doesn't exactly explain 250% more than what? Definitely not more than currently available solar cells which are around 20% efficient. Because that would mean 50% for perovskite cells and that's of course not the case.

59

Wrexem t1_ja4ku0s wrote

It's 250% more than previous perovskite. I think.

17

ArOnodrim t1_ja4qvt6 wrote

Which is close to silicon cells, making them roughly equal in power, but cheaper, lighter, and more functional, along with more dangerous because of the materials in them.

21

Me_Krally t1_ja5pf7y wrote

Not an expert, but those typically mount to the roof so is the materials exposure dangerous to humans?

4

ArOnodrim t1_ja5qxz3 wrote

They contain a certain very small amount of lead. It is stabilized in the cell, so exposure without destroying the cell is difficult, but any exposure to lead is...

9

Me_Krally t1_ja6e6v3 wrote

Dangerous ;) But we've all probably been exposed to it by now.

3

ArOnodrim t1_ja6jau6 wrote

It's heavy metal poisoning. It will make you sick forever. There is no safe level of lead to have ever had in your system.

3

Me_Krally t1_ja8l2af wrote

I didn’t know that. I thought something like lead paint exposure was something that only caused an issue when initially exposed.

2

marsrover001 t1_ja922c4 wrote

Think of it like asbestos, it's perfectly safe as long as you don't mess with it.

Don't lick the walls, or demolish one (making dust) and you are fine.

In regards to the solar panels, I'm sure manufacturing is mostly automated and since we know the hazards of lead very well I'm not concerned there.

From a consumer perspective the wafers are behind a sealed glass panel, you'll never touch them and they will never touch rain.

Recycling is same as manufacturing, we know the risks and can manage them well.

3

Me_Krally t1_jab1v1o wrote

Very interesting. I didn’t know lead behaved similar to asbestos. Now I understand what you’re saying?

2

Kinexity t1_ja5p0gm wrote

The base efficiency isn't important. Perovskite panels suck because of their shitty lifespan and currently there doesn't seem to be much change in that regard.

5

vriemeister t1_ja62va5 wrote

It's an increase in electron "motility" in a type of solar cell that is dirt cheap but no one uses because they suck in every other metric.

Maybe someday they'll be useful, but this is clickbait.

3

davvb t1_ja5k2cc wrote

Terribly worded clickbait article and not even interesting content. Perovskites had two new record breaks last week published in real journals.. Why don't we post those instead 🙄

13

marcandreewolf t1_ja4mkbq wrote

For a proper reference and development over time across all PV technologies, see here: https://www.nrel.gov/pv/assets/pdfs/best-research-cell-efficiencies.pdf Perovskites (which are a range of materials that only share the perovskite structure) are in that graphic the red round dots with yellow filling.

11

on_ t1_ja4s4eb wrote

Great thxs.: not a boring paper, a very informative graph that leads you through the rabbit hole.

3

rafaelfootball63 t1_ja6k8sl wrote

It should be noted that multijunction cells here are not a 1:1 comparison and they are made by effectively stacking multiple cells that have different bandgaps to absorb more of the light. The limit for single junction is ~33%. One of the big potential applications of perovskite is depositing them over current silicon cells to form a tandem cell.

1

iNstein t1_ja5g2s7 wrote

So they are claiming 250% more efficient which makes a 20% efficient cell go to 70‰ efficiency. Not gonna happen. Skip to next clickbait article.

3

salgak t1_ja6envl wrote

Obviously, it has Electrolytes! What Solar Energy craves !!! 😜

3

Elephantee77 t1_ja7kxqt wrote

all of these click-bate articles end the same way:

> However, more research is required to fully understand the physics behind the interaction between perovskites and metal and dielectric substrates..

2

FuturologyBot t1_ja4kjo6 wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Renu_021:

Research conducted at the University of Rochester has shown that perovskites can improve the energy efficiency of solar panels by up to 250% through the use of metal and dielectric substrates.

Perovskites are a family of materials that have a very promising crystalline structure as a replacement for silicon in solar cells and detectors due to their lower cost and similar efficiency.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11cqgq9/the_ultimate_solar_panels_are_coming_perovskites/ja4fgo2/

1

gordonjames62 t1_ja8d5hr wrote

the ultimate solar panels will be when we get real efficiency up, and cost down.

I don't know what tech it will be, but we have a long way to go still.

1

Zestyclose_Effort_68 t1_ja9fish wrote

Best not to get too hyped up about these things because it's in some lab metric without context. Maybe we'll see it in benefit us in the real world 10 years from now, who knows. But renewable energy and batteries have definitely been and will continue making incremental advancements every year which is awesome!

1

Candid_Note6120 t1_jad7gwl wrote

This article is terrible misreporting. It's in regards to photosensitivity of photodetectors, not PVs. Big difference... The journalist/bot that wrote this nonsense should be fired!

1

Stock-Bid-9509 t1_ja56yy3 wrote

everyday the 'Ultimate' something is 'right around the corner' to change life as we know it!

−2

Words_Are_Hrad t1_ja5iyki wrote

Yesterday it was the ultimate shit I took after eating some burritos...

2

Renu_021 OP t1_ja4fgo2 wrote

Research conducted at the University of Rochester has shown that perovskites can improve the energy efficiency of solar panels by up to 250% through the use of metal and dielectric substrates.

Perovskites are a family of materials that have a very promising crystalline structure as a replacement for silicon in solar cells and detectors due to their lower cost and similar efficiency.

−7

snoopervisor t1_ja4zzqc wrote

> can improve

Come back when they will have actually done it. For now, it's a clickbait. The same way, I can claim humans can be immortal by gene editing.

9

Waslw t1_ja4i31c wrote

Better materials are great and all… the main issue with solar is even if energy transfer was 100% efficient, there is a finite amount photons per square cm, so eventually it’s a surface area problem and never having enough of it.

−7

Philbot_ t1_ja4m9fx wrote

Full direct sun is around 1000W/m2. A tennis court is around 200m2. 200kW can power a large office building with a roof area of multiple tennis courts.

If we had 100% efficient solar panels, humanity would be set for a very long time.

11

Waslw t1_ja4oejf wrote

I’m not knocking the tech and I know the math… and as far as where we are today in our energy needs it’s promising, in my opinion things like nuclear are still superior because of shear energy density. Thorium is 35 times more energy dense than Uranium. 1 Kg of Uranium has an energy density of 45,000 kWh, 1 Kg of oil 12 kWh and 1 Kg coal only having 8kWh.

−5

gulgin t1_ja4pg9h wrote

Everything is relative. It is unlikely that fusion will ever be as scalable or reliable as solar. Solar panels are so incredibly simple that they will always be more efficient than fusion in certain circumstances. That being said, it is possible that fusion would be more efficient in different circumstances where high power density is required or solar suffers from environmental issues. One is not better than the other, any more than a carrot is a better vegetable than broccoli. They are both good. For better or worse solar is shooting up the maturity ladder much faster than fusion, but fusion will get there eventually. (I hope)

2

Waslw t1_ja4uwu6 wrote

I think your confused… I’m not talking fusion, I’m talking fission, technology that has existed and has been used for many many decades… arguably out of all the “green energy” technologies that exist today it is the most scalable, affordable, safest as far as deaths, injuries and illnesses (that includes aftermath of things like Chernobyl, Fukushima, and 3 mile island) … and over its life the only energy technology that is truly carbon neutral and with little improvement carbon negative.

0

gulgin t1_ja4w4t6 wrote

Apologies, I assumed you were talking fusion. Either way the exact same arguments apply. Fission is still necessarily much more mechanically complicated than solar and will never be as reliable or maintenance free. I am also not sure how you are considering nuclear safer than solar, but in the long run the safety stuff gets solved either way so I wouldn’t hold that against either technology. Carbon neutrality is also a very complicated question, environmental impact is a difficult if not impossible thing to holistically judge.

Either way, there will always be situations where solar is a better energy production method than any kind of nuclear, and there will always be situations where any kind of nuclear is better than solar. As the technologies develop that crossover point will swing back and forth.

2

SandAndAlum t1_ja5ttbg wrote

Closed fission fuel cycles are scifi, safe, clean thorium separation doubly so. And the largest uranium mines and deposits like Inkai would produce more power as solar farms than uranium mines.

1

peadith t1_ja4lc0w wrote

Yeah but 1kW per square meter would still kick ass.

6

dwkdnvr t1_ja4qmcp wrote

There are problems with Solar to be sure, but surface area is not one of them.

6

Waslw t1_ja4vmd4 wrote

I’m not saying it’s problematic… I’m just pointing out a simple function of the limits engineering… the biggest problem is electricity needs to be consumed the instant it’s produced and there just isn’t an energy storage technology available today that is efficient enough to make it viable.

3

SandAndAlum t1_ja5u93m wrote

It's called putting water on top of a hill and it's existed for millenia. It's not widespread because there isn't enough VRE or inflexible generation like nuclear to require it yet.

1

ArOnodrim t1_ja4rd6x wrote

If you covered an entire house in California, it could reasonably power 10 homes every day. If you covered a parking lot in California, it could power multiple buildings. 200 Sq km of empty Arizona desert could power the entire US right now.

3

allenout t1_ja4sx85 wrote

Thankfully perivskites should be significantly cheaper than silicon solar panels.

1

Personal_Problems_99 t1_ja533w0 wrote

It's not even just a surface area problem though. If it was indeed 100 percent efficient... You could use lasers to transport energy from point a to point b.

You can condense light into a very small area.

1

SandAndAlum t1_ja5tkuo wrote

Even in northern ireland in mid winter GHI is about 1kWh/m^2

That is over 1kW time averaged hitting the space required to park a single car. A small 2 bedroom apartment sharing its roof are with apartments above and below has about the world average final energy hitting its roof in ireland in mid winter.

Space is not even slightly a problem.

1