by quakeguy on 12/19/22, 6:51 PM with 94 comments
by philipkglass on 12/19/22, 8:10 PM
The main obstacle to commercialization is keeping the perovskite material stable over long periods of operation. This family of materials is more sensitive to water/oxygen/light than silicon itself, but they need to last nearly as long as silicon for cells used in solar farms and rooftop panels.
by walrus01 on 12/19/22, 8:32 PM
There are a large number of research-lab-only PV cells made in the last 10-12 years which greatly exceed 23% but are economically unfeasible or impossible to purchase for ordinary use. Some of this tech does trickle down eventually, however.
Of more practical real world interest is $ per STC watt for a panel you can buy in a 20-panel pallet load from an ordinary PV wholesaler. Like a figure of $0.28 USD/W for nominally 380W rated 72-cell monocrystalline Si panels for rooftop or ground mount applications. Meaning that a pallet of 20 panels would be somewhere around $2100 to $2200 USD to purchase plus freight.
In approximately the last 12 years we've seen things go from if you buy a pallet of "cheap" mass market 72-cell panels, you'd get 320W rated per panel (STC rating of about 4.44W per cell), to now being able to buy something that is 380W rated as mentioned above, approximately 5.27W per cell. All under STC measurement conditions which are only a rough approximation of real world sunlight of course. The same panels typically measure 1.99 x 0.99 meters so you can do the math on the improvement in STC W per square meter if mounting space is a limiting factor.
by sfifs on 12/19/22, 11:56 PM
by NextHendrix on 12/20/22, 8:40 AM
On the cool side, it's theoretically possible to make them translucent (without the silicon substrate ofc) which could make for cool power generating windows in the future.
On the not so cool side you really don't want the materials anywhere near you or your water table in the event of a panel being damaged. Lead halide perovskites, methylammonium lead iodide, are insanely toxic and a race to the bottom on price if they become widespread could be an environmental disaster waiting to happen.
Not to take from the achievements described here, but there isn't any mention of it. There is some hope in taking the lead out (tin based perovskites) but that tends to result in a drop in efficiency.
by hubraumhugo on 12/19/22, 8:52 PM
by 0cf8612b2e1e on 12/19/22, 9:23 PM
Edit: I mean widespread usage. One lone 10kw plant using 30% panels was not my intention.
by einpoklum on 12/19/22, 8:37 PM
But I have a question to the more knowledgeable here: The chart in the story shows other technologies which achieve significantly higher efficiency figures:
https://www.helmholtz-berlin.de/pubbin/news_datei?did=15092
specifically, multi-junction cells. Why are they faded-out? Are they not practicable to mass produce and deploy? Only usable in limited scenarios?
----
Partial self-answer: According to Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-junction_solar_cell
> As of 2014 multi-junction cells were expensive to produce, using techniques similar to semiconductor device fabrication, usually metalorganic vapour phase epitaxy but on "chip" sizes on the order of centimeters.
by tinglymintyfrsh on 12/19/22, 10:42 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency
(The top is 47.1%)
by martinpw on 12/19/22, 9:00 PM
by sasacocic on 12/19/22, 8:11 PM
by joshspankit on 12/20/22, 2:17 PM
canibuyoneforunderfiftyusd.com
Personally I’d buy most of the products I upvote on HN, but it’s a gamble whether they even have a retail product at all.
by transfire on 12/20/22, 12:23 AM
by yieldcrv on 12/19/22, 11:59 PM
Not sure what benchmark to be excited about here aside from progress for the sake of progress
by moloch-hai on 12/20/22, 2:39 AM
by m0rissette on 12/20/22, 7:41 AM
by beaned on 12/19/22, 8:17 PM