Silicon/Perovskite Solar Panels Can Reach 34% Efficiency, Researchers Show (arstechnica.com) 54
An anonymous reader shared this report from Ars Technica:
[I]t might be worth spending more to get a panel that converts more of the incoming sunlight to electricity, since it allows you to get more out of the price paid to get each panel installed. But silicon panels are already pushing up against physical limits on efficiency. Which means our best chance for a major boost in panel efficiency may be to combine silicon with an additional photovoltaic material.
Right now, most of the focus is on pairing silicon with a class of materials called perovskites. Perovskite crystals can be layered on top of silicon, creating a panel with two materials that absorb different areas of the spectrum — plus, perovskites can be made from relatively cheap raw materials. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to make perovskites that are both high-efficiency and last for the decades that the silicon portion will. Lots of labs are attempting to change that, though. And two of them reported some progress this week, including a perovskite/silicon system that achieved 34 percent efficiency.
One team of researchers "sent a sample to a European test lab, which came out with an efficiency of 33.7 percent," Ars Technica notes. "The researchers have a few ideas that should boost this to 35 percent, but didn't attempt them for this paper.
"For comparison, the maximum efficiency for silicon alone is in the area of 27 percent, so that represents a very significant boost and is one of the highest perovskite/silicon combinations ever reported."
Right now, most of the focus is on pairing silicon with a class of materials called perovskites. Perovskite crystals can be layered on top of silicon, creating a panel with two materials that absorb different areas of the spectrum — plus, perovskites can be made from relatively cheap raw materials. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to make perovskites that are both high-efficiency and last for the decades that the silicon portion will. Lots of labs are attempting to change that, though. And two of them reported some progress this week, including a perovskite/silicon system that achieved 34 percent efficiency.
One team of researchers "sent a sample to a European test lab, which came out with an efficiency of 33.7 percent," Ars Technica notes. "The researchers have a few ideas that should boost this to 35 percent, but didn't attempt them for this paper.
"For comparison, the maximum efficiency for silicon alone is in the area of 27 percent, so that represents a very significant boost and is one of the highest perovskite/silicon combinations ever reported."
Re: (Score:2)
E-waste? (Score:2)
E-waste vs burnt coal waste?
Not even a contest.
Re: (Score:2)
There exists a passive device that creates electricity from sunlight. Free energy. No maintenance and no moving parts. Why aren’t they on every surface?
There's nowhere to plug in your iPhone charger?
Think about it indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Think about it (Score:2)
Why arenâ(TM)t they on every surface?
Hail storms?
Re: (Score:2)
Hail storms?
Yes, this is what I was looking for. An answer that takes a stupid question and yet some how comes off even more stupid. Most solar panels are way stronger than and more resistant to hail storms than the existing rooves they are on. If hail was in any way an impediment to solar panels then tropic Australia wouldn't have them given their infamous hail storms. Instead the area has one of highest percentages of houses with panels in the world.
Re: Think about it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most solar panels are way stronger than and more resistant to hail storms than the existing rooves they are on.
Ask your insurance company.
Re: Think about it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the FUCK is going on with slashdot?!?!
Same as all tech sites: An massive influx of idiots.
Re: (Score:1)
You forgot the batteries in your nice conspiracy theory.
You are an idiot.
Re: Think about it (Score:2)
This is patently untrue. Do you have a source? Does it include the methane links for the gas lines?
Re: (Score:2)
Dig through my history. I posted a link to exact numbers on this some time ago. I don't have it on hand.
Essentially the problem with solar is the spread. We don't know how polluting its production is, because PRC's production is utterly opaque. We know it's significantly polluting, so the spread is from about 1/3 of piped natgas into normal CCGT to about a fifth more. The primary issue is that reactor needed to cook the panel precursor required a lot of carbon monoxide.
A 25% performance boost is nothing to sneeze at (Score:3, Informative)
However, if the expense is more than 25% higher or if there is any drop in the lifetime performance (currently they lose 2% every three months), then they're a non-starter.
There's a LONG way to go on these.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not about batteries, but solar cells. Pervoskites are very promising, but as the GP said, "there's a LONG way" for this particular solar cell technology. Maybe they will only be useful for certain high value applications, say satellites, where the 25% boost is worth the additional costs.
Re:A 25% performance boost is nothing to sneeze at (Score:5, Interesting)
However, if the expense is more than 25% higher or if there is any drop in the lifetime performance (currently they lose 2% every three months), then they're a non-starter.
There's a LONG way to go on these.
TFA says "The crystals were reasonably stable when simply exposed to light. But the combination of light and heat caused a more significant decay in performance". Sadly, the article was scant on details and the paper is paywalled, so I don't have any idea of what the curve looks like that represents temperature vs degradation.
The reason I mention this is that bi-facial vertical solar installations already significantly reduce heating while increasing efficiency. So maybe installing the panels vertically would result in more reasonable lifetimes?
Also, the perovskite panels could be used in colder climates where the degradation will presumably be slower, while the added efficiency might make such installations economical where they might not be cost-effective with traditional silicon panels. So maybe - just maybe - these new panels will become useful sooner than you think.
Re: (Score:3)
Perovskites are unstable at air (they come laser sealed in glass) and suffer from temperature and UV exposure. In this paper, there was a 10% drop after 800 hours, which is already very impressive but still far from usable. Also the materials are an issue, they contain lead (Pb).
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
We don't need a boost in efficiency, we need a reduction in total capital cost requirement per watt (panel + backup battery + installation). Efficiency doesn't really matter because we have enough desert land to place the panels. We need to fund research into reducing cost and panel longevity (which sucks with perovskite), not (necessarily) boosting efficiency. Reduction in capital cost, more than anything else, will drive adoption.
Re: (Score:3)
If the panel itself is not that much more expensive than the regular ones, you get a reduction in the price per watt.
Re: Huh? (Score:3)
We need to shift to DC as the primary supply
Why? Panel output voltage rarely matches storage battery voltage. So some sort of DC-DC conversion will be needed anyway.
Re: Huh? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Huh? (Score:1)
Inverters are taxed to hell too. At least 30%, probably more.
THIS IS DELIBERATE US POLICY. Who do you think is writing these laws and presenting them to the government to pass into law?
https://www.pulseelectronics.c... [pulseelectronics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Go for it. Most of the stuff in your house is probably already either DC or doesn't care.
Re: (Score:3)
Better efficiency means fewer panels needed, and that means fewer mounts, fewer foundations to dig, and less wire to connect the panels.
"Solar panels are just 12% of the total cost of a solar panel installation."
https://www.energysage.com/loc... [energysage.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What we really should do is bite the bullet, swallow our pride, and everyone buy chinese solar cells for the next decade or so. They’re actually pretty good, because Si cells are 50-year old tech and hardly even advanced at this point, and the Chinese government is shoveling so much taxpayer dollars at the industry that they’re selling them below cost. If China wants to impoverish itself and practically give away solar cells to the
Re: Huh? (Score:1)
I would love to buy a ton of Chinese panels but every time they get cheap enough to make the math work out that it will be cheaper than staying on grid, the gov increases the tax on them. I have been trying to solarize for years, but the fed keeps making them slightly too expensive so the math doesn't work out.
Re: (Score:3)
Reduction in capital cost, more than anything else, will drive adoption.
No we don't. Solar panels are borderline worthless to the point where people are happily installing them and paying them off in places like Scotland (infamous for getting sunny weather for only a couple of days a year).
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, that's a great idea!
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
Note the y axis is logarithmic.
Re: (Score:2)
the fusion of solar cells (Score:2)
Very consistent improvements in efficiency, very poor improvements in lifetime.
Right now it's looking like they will always be a few more years away.
It is possible though that they will cross a threshold where the lifetime will be good enough versus the cost of manufacturing that they will make more sense than Silicon. Being 10% or 20% better is not good enough simply because of the current manufacturing capacity which is in place for Silicon.
Not sure what the crossover point would be, but there is one.
It'
Panel longevity? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
but what would be even better is increased longevity
40 years not enough for you? What is your minimum requirement? That future archaeologists can dig them up and find them still working?
Re: (Score:2)
Peroskovite panels do not last 40 years.
I assume the OPs point is that eking out an extra fraction of a percent efficiency to claim the record isn't particularly impressive when the actual problem with peroskovites is that they break down rapidly in air and a bit less rapidly in sunlight.
Re: (Score:1)
I assume the OPs point is that eking out an extra fraction of a percent efficiency to claim the record isn't particularly impressive when the actual problem with peroskovites is that they break down rapidly in air and a bit less rapidly in sunlight.
I assume based on a long tradition of solar panel negativity and misinformation from sinij that they have NFI what peroskovites even mean and that they were very much talking about normal solar panels not being reliable enough.
This is slashdot. We can give up on the assumption that people here are smart - especially about tech related to climate change. That ship sailed long ago. Everyone here's been braindamaged by misinformation so that's the safest assumption to start with until proven otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They are at the research stage, far from commercially viable.
It's a big hill to climb. It may be more efficient, but PV is incredibly cheap. These days even on large installs, the bulk of the cost is labour, not the panels. We aren't short on space overall, although some people do have small roofs so may eventually benefit.
Party like it's 1999 : cheap thin film solar cells (Score:2)
They were supposed to be everywhere by now because the cost would be less than toiletpaper.
Still waiting.