this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
339 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

58135 readers
4935 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 71 points 1 month ago (5 children)

So, the team ... got efficiencies in the area of 33 to 34 percent. They also sent a sample to a European test lab, which came out with an efficiency of 33.7 percent. 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.

Love this research and I hope solar eventually beats ICE engines for efficiency.

However....

The crystals were reasonably stable when simply exposed to light. But the combination of light and heat caused a more significant decay in performance. The researchers say that "devices maintain ≥90 percent of their initial performance up to 1,000 hours," but a decay of up to 10 percent in about three months is not ready for commercial deployment. So, still some work to do there.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The differences in efficiency result in very different things.

ICE - heat, smoke, carbon, pollution

Solar -

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Solar still indirectly creates pollution in the form of production of the materials needed, manufacturing, etc. Also, huge solar farms can have a significant detrimental impact on local ecosystems, in addition to the large amount of waste created from old panels: https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power

https://www.popsci.com/environment/solar-farm-construction-epa-water-violations/

It's still better than ICE, as that also creates waste and actively pollutes, but it's still notable and hopefully over time those negative byproduct can also be eliminated/significantly reduced.

[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Agreed!

However ICE arguments include efficiency so that'll be one major obstacle hurdled

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 10 points 1 month ago

I hope solar eventually beats ICE engines for efficiency

I'm not sure your comment makes a lot of sense. The problem with solar isn't that it's not as efficient as internal combustion engines, it's that you can't generate electricity on-demand. But it's already a cheaper form of energy than burning fossil fuels in many countries.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Even conventional solar panels work better when they are cool. Someone smart figured out that you can pump water through them and then use that hot water in your house. You get hot water while making your solar panels more productive. Of course they are crazy expensive.

[–] baduhai@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

ICE engines

Internal combustion engine engines.

[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Sorry, I forgot to go to ATM machine before I wrote that comment

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Do you still remember your PIN number though?

[–] froh42@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

No, but I have a device with a LCD display where I can look it up

[–] baduhai@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago
[–] Thrashy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Given that the first perovskites studied had lifespans that could be measured in minutes, this is great progress, but the fundamental problem is that as a class of materials they just don't want to exist outside of an inert atmosphere. Without significant progress in stability and encapsulation materials, they're more of a research curiosity than a viable real-world PV tech.