Technology

59378 readers

3580 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

203

Oxford scientists are generating solar power without panels (electrek.co)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 43 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Wow though - 27% is no small feat

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

27% is just matching the efficiency of current solar panels though.

So unless it's significantly cheaper there may not be a point here.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago

27% is the highest PV efficiency we have achieved with our first round of solar-electric generation. It has taken generations of reiteration to get there.

It's a really impressive feat for this new material to start at 27% efficiency. Of course it has drawbacks but everything does. I wonder if we'll be using perovskite based solar in 80 years

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

One of the main advantages here is that this can be applied to almost any surface because of how thin it is.

From the article:

We can envisage perovskite coatings being applied to broader types of surfaces to generate cheap solar power, such as the roofs of cars and buildings and even the backs of mobile phones. If more solar energy can be generated in this way, we can foresee less need in the longer term to use silicon panels or build more and more solar farms.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Back of a cell phone won't work because people put those into bulky cases.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

So put it on the case with one of those wireless charging coils in the case, or at absolute worst, a tiny, tiny connector that plugs into your USB-C port

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

Dang, too bad there aren't insanely smart engineers who have figured out how to make your little hand rectangle go brrrrr to figure out a way to make it work.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But if you have to stack the layers to get the 27% efficiency then it's no longer thin. :)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

It might not be as thin as before, but is several microns of thickness not thin?
It was nice if they gave more details about exactly how thick it is at 27% efficiency though.
I'll look around to see if I can find more information about it.

Edit: And by the way, I'm actually not aware of any 27% solar panels currently in production.
Other than the ones Ofxord PV has recently begun manufacturing (established by the same Prof. leading this research).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Just quoting the article:

"from around 6% to over 27%, close to the limits of what single-layer photovoltaics can achieve today."

But I guess it depends too on how many layers we're talking about which isn't specified.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You're misrepresenting what they say:

During just five years of experimenting with our stacking or multi-junction approach, we have raised power conversion efficiency from around 6% to over 27%, close to the limits of what single-layer photovoltaics can achieve today.

We believe that, over time, this approach could enable the photovoltaic devices to achieve far greater efficiencies, exceeding 45%.

"6% to over 27%" isn't the range of what they can achieve now. 6% efficiency was where the technology was at 5 years ago, and now they get 27%.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)

For sure. Coat buildings with this and we all win

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

And if they coat the insides too we’ll have free energy forever!