Congratulations. Maybe you can answer my query: When Perovskites were first talked about, there was a lot of excitement about them being ultra-thin layer, flexible and could almost be painted on a surface. I'd prefer a dirt cheap, throw 'em anywhere, 15% material, one so cheap you would stick it on N-S-E-W facing roofs and walls and yards. When can I have those please?
Go hard, go far, go for broke. Congratulations and now the work starts. Challenge everything with respect, question everyone who answers Without doubt. Come to your own conclusion while you have the chance to work with guidance. One day you will be on your own .
I bought 8 x 415w solar panels in 2022 , they cost me just over £200 each . I can get the exact same panels today for £76 each including free delivery 😮 .
Guys, go for bifacial solar panels. Efficiency around 30%(both sides,front and back, could generate electricity), and there is even output during cloudy days. Use it as a canopy and use reflective furnitures and mirrors to reflect even more sunlight on the under side
Thanks for the great insight. I bought a single 100w panel in 1997 for $300 including a 100ah alkaline battery. It's amazing the leaps and bounds technology has grown over the years!
What is different here is that Oxford managed to scale up production. Great! But one question you forgot or decided not to ask this boss is the expected lifetime of these perovskite cells as this has been a problem for a long time.
Your question is flawed. The question is, what is the carbon footprint vs energy generation over the life of the panel. If it's better than fossil or nuclear, it is the better option. Secondly, it's a lot cheaper to replace solar panels than it is to build new traditional generators.
@@diggeroldmate8122 Economics plays a role in how quickly these systems will actually be deployed. Which is arguably more important than lifetime CO2 emissions per kWh. So no, the question is not flawed.
The downside is it uses lead as a primary substance. Really not as perfect as some claim. Plus there is the slightly more hopeful technology of photo rectenna which in theory could produce a 70-80% efficient solar cell.
This is arguably THE MOST important breakthrough in sustainable energy production. Nothing I have seen in media and science comes close. This also revolutionises energy for all, especially the Global South, allowing them to leap to their own inexpensive energy production.
absolutely they are not, they lack longevity, their degridation is over 10 x worst than standard pannels. Basically you would be replacing them every 3 to 4 yrs. So its like a sprinter competing against a marathon runner, seeing as PV generation is a long term commitment, the sprinter always looses
@@ewadge This whole thing about pannel efficency is a totally moot point anyways, who cares if you get a 5% increas, on a 400 W pannel, its just 20 watts, its insignificant. Mono crystaline silicone is so cheap these days, if you want more power, buy an extra pannel. The trouble is these days most folks are not mathamatically or scientifically literate enough to even remain sceptical regarding claims, let alone decifering what is important and what isnt. This as it stands is a imature, possibly flawed technology, that has no place in the wider market place. It all feels like a bullshit publicity campaign to generate social pressure, (bit like american pharmacutical adverts) to get this into the market. Who knows what deal the makers of these pannels have struck with this and many other channels.
@@skierpageNo it’s a product development update interview - if you want to stay ignorant watch Midsomer Murders instead - your choice but don’t block the rest of us who want to learn? Sigh…….
@@diggeroldmate8122 because I hoped Oxford PV would reveal actual production panels with actual prices and actual projected degradation data. It's okay that they haven't yet, they may still succeed (I hope they do!), and the interviewer did what she could.
i'd love to see it in small scale... where the space is limited and now you can place 1-2 panels (boat/RV etc) and you potentially could get 2x the output... waiting for it ! :)
I really enjoy your natural presentational skills combined with your obvious intelligence and ability to frame questions in just the right way to illicit the best answers. You are, if I may say, a bloody genius. And it’s true that the camera really loves you too ! Keep it coming. I’ll keep watching. Much respect and many thanks.
I work for the world's largest silicon solar module manufacturer and am excited to see multi-junction cells come to market, soon. I can honestly say, without getting in trouble, that virtually all large module manufacturers are in late development of multijunction cells. Curious what the lifespan of perovskite is now, as that has been the limiting factor.
its still terrible, they are just not talking about it, they are just 1/12 th the lifespan of mono crystaline pannels, so despite been more efficient, perovskite become less efficient than mono crystaline after just 12 months, then they degreade rapdly with a lifespan of around 2.5 rs, compared to 25 to 30 yrs for mono crystaline. but this isnt mentioned anywhere in the video,
I'm looking at this and wondering why the German government has modified the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) - valid from the third quarter of 2024 - in such a way that it becomes as uneconomical as possible for newly constructed solar systems by private individuals for private use in their own homes. Were the "big customers" - also known as energy companies - very helpful in writing the new law?!
Probably lobbying from the energy providers and the fact that we have too much renewable energy in the grid already on some days, especially if solar kicks hard around noon and many PV arrays still facing south to creat the maximum amount of energy during the day to get the most money out of it, at some 20 years ago people we getting 0.40-0.55€/kWh produced and exported to the grid and they get these rates for 20 years, now imagine a 10 kWp array in the early 2000s that would be a little under 100.000€ for you in these 20 years, basically offsetting the cost of the whole system and after that you probably have another 10-20 years of lifetime in the cells left.
It wasn't covered in the video: did they solve the stability and durability problems with perovskites? Last I heard they degrade in direct sunlight, or with temperature and humidity changes you naturally experience when in use. It's all well and good if they have higher efficiency to cost ratio out of the box, but the thing that matters is the average cost per kWh over their warrantied life span. If their increased efficiency drops off within the days, weeks, and months that perovskites historically have then I expect the cost might not work out cheaper over it's life per kWh delivered. So, what is that, and how does it compare to silicon?
I don't think they will answer. I wish there was a service out there that could search all interconnected documents like an engine. That could be useful.
@@colinwiseman I was being polite. It looks better if they provide the answer and self correct. The long term stability issues persist. Feel free to link me to a source saying they last roughly as long as the more standard silicon if I'm wrong? It's a glaring omission from the Oxford PV guy, but I don't blame Everything Electric because this is specific scientific research and I know that's a specialist skill they likely couldn't justify the expense of within the team. The Oxford PV guy likely needs to drum up some funding for their research or potentially people lose their jobs, so it's all aboard the hype train. They likely thought that talking to Oxford PV was expert enough. The problem is that you can't trust the person who stands to benefit from it's success to give an unbiased overview of the technology. This is the problem with channels like "Undecided with Matt Ferrell" and "Two Bit da Vinci". They don't know enough science to be able to tell what is marketing hype and what is reality reliably. You might as well just read the company press release and blindly trust it. Sadly, occasionally, the fully charged group brushes close to this kind of whoopsie; hyping tech with an undisclosed Achilles heel. I suppose you can't cover such a breadth of topics without the odd thing slipping through the net. I think fully charged does far better than the other two channels I mentioned.
A C&EN article from back in 2018 mentioned OxfordPV had developed a stable forumulation and cell layering technique that improved stability in the 1,000s of hours mark. The article mentions that entry point for commercialisation is 10,000 hours mark, with high recyclability, as the OxfordPV panels are focused on commercial use then they may be targetting cases where increased generation over a five to ten year lifespan is beneficial. Particularly with high recyclable panels, this may not suit home generation where long durable panels (15+ years) are more cost effective.
Perovskite can add another 20% in the near term. Then when multiple different layers are used it can get up to about 80% theoretically. Its just picking up parts of the light which silicone does not
As I always say and no pun intended- more power to these guys bringing the next leap forward. Anything above 30% I remember being told a few years back is the dream…..
The buzz about Perokskite cells are going of for quite a while already. When are we getting commercially available Perovskite panels at a comparable price point and longivity as Si?
While I understand that it might appear that percent efficiency is "important", the hard truth is that $ per watt installed and longevity are the 2 single driving factors of solar. Having a solar panel made up of cells that are 29% or even higher efficiency is meaningless to the average homeowner... There's plenty of roof top on most houses to handle a few extra panels.
I’ve been following Perovskite solar for about 10 years. As far as I know the issue was always that Perovskite was prone to degradation. This video didn’t mention anything about this unfortunately. Have these issues been solved?
Perovskite PV cells in development today contain lead which I'm glad was mentioned in the video. However they didn't mention that the lead leaches out of the panels which is really not great. A lot of work is being put into encapsulating the panels to stop the lead getting out, but even if successful it's going to be a problem at end-of-life processing. They also tend to degrade quickly, which is also not great; they have great efficiency when new but that tanks within a few years (as in, service life less than 5 years). No mention if this group has managed to address that. We'll have to wait and see how the economics work, since they didn't discuss costs. Sure, if the levelized cost is lower that's a win, but I'm not going to be celebrating anything until the data is available.
I think that if a random UA-cam commenter knows about it, they know about it. There are strict laws which they would have to follow before they would be allowed to sell them.
@@evilutionltd What laws would those be? I think that if a random UA-cam commenter confidently asserts that a law exists, they should be able to cite it and demonstrate it applies to this product. There may or may not be laws involved, but it's a fact that lead-containing peroskite PV cells have a problem with lead leaching out of them. It's not addressed in the video how, or if, they addressed that problem.
@@Smidge204 Existing Substances Regulation (ESR), EC Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93, Directive 2008/98/EC and PIC Procedure. Look up EU REACH laws. Why would a company go into that much detail in a UA-cam video and publicise intellectual property?
@@evilutionltd It was a trick question, since existing PV panels contain lead and "Fixed-location photovoltaic panel installations" are already blanket exempt from RoHS restrictions. This is how I knew you were talking nonsense; it is not (currently? maybe in the future) necessary to comply with RoHS limits for PV panels used in non-mobile applications, therefore they are already compliant with the law *despite* the known problem of lead leaching out of them. The idea that they must have solved the problem because it would be illegal to sell them otherwise means you don't understand the law (and are hopelessly naive to think no company would ever risk doing anything illegal) As for intellectual property, I never asked for detail; They acknowledge that the product contains lead. If they solved the leaching problem, all they'd have to do is acknowledge that too. Anyone interested in this product will be able to read the Wikipedia page (or god forbid any of the many scientific and industry papers on it) and immediately notice that there is a lead contamination risk, and anyone considering investing in the company or buying their products should then ask how, or if, they manage that risk. A VERY reasonable question.
1:50 it is not PPE, It is a cleanroom suit, designed to protect the wafers and semiconductors from human contaminants and to keep the integrity of the cleanroom itself. You can call it a CPE if you wish.❤👍
Selling first to grid scale solar PV farms is a win-win, as it increases grid level generation and the original silicon PV sells become available on the second hand market for residential and commercial rooftop solar at a lower price than new panels, driving down the cost of new panels.
How do we get Perovskite? Is it ecologically friendly? Are we killing the planet to make it? I'm looking to add PV to my home roof and if the best I can currently get is 29% I'll take it but if there is a development to enhance that to 49% in the short term future should I get the PV installed now or should I wait? Will there be a way to enhance what I currently have? Could I add Perovskite panels to my setup and enhance whistler's there another way that will not kill the planet by replacing what I may have already installed and what are the costs to be like?
If Perovskite is a "film" that overlays a silicon cell, then would there be a market to produce a Perovskite film for a DIY application for existing panels already in use?
@@nickwinn7812 I wasn't referring to this technology as it is in our present day, but more as a technological peal and stick possibility in the future. Yah never know.
Great video and very interesting, I'm all for new technology that can turn around climate change, I drive and EV and love it being cheep to run and maintain, One question I would like to ask is how Solar fields / farms affect the immediate area, If I go to my car when it's been parked in the sun for a few hours I can't touch the body as it's hot, This has raised the air temperature around the car I would imagine even if only by a very small amount, What kind of temperature change will you see around a solar farm and does it help to increase the global warming event by anything at all or does it have a different affect because it's obsorbing the heat and changing the light energy to stored energy and having a cooling effect, It would be interesting to see temperature readings around the solar farm and then at the same time a few miles away, If there's an heating effect of this process then the next question to be answered is how much of Earth surface area can have solar panels before we have thermal run away, Please don't miss understand me as I'm all for it and progress but we need to know now and not after the event.
Not a single mention of thier longevity. If they have figured it out that would be awesome but you think you would have heard about them lasting a lot longer than in the lab settings.
I live in theLas Vegas valley, Nevada, USA. My wife and I RENT our rooftop solar because, when we began using solar we were in our 70s and purchasing rooftop solar would not have been an amount we could possibly amortize unless we live two be 100. Even so, by paying US $100. per monty for rental this year (our rate increases by 3% annually) and a $19. per month unavoidable "grid fee" we are saving many hundreds of dollars every year compared to non-solar neighbors. Only in 2024's hottest months did we pay for any electricity and that amounted to $20. per month on the two hottest months. With a perovskite/silicone laminate solar array of the same size as our current array AND a Li Fe Po battery bank inside on our garage wall we could have easily lived "off grid" and such a high efficiency array would have been worth an outright purchase, even the geezerhood of our lives. Imagine such an array with an LFP battery bank and a high efficiency heat pump air conditioner/furnace. Our HVAC and electric bills would be virtually non-existant! A boy can dream.
I am coming up to a point where I need to convert my home into a smart home, and using solar and heat source. Thus is there a video you have done about how a home user could get the best out of the existing market of products and potentially upgrade patches as things like this technology can be upgraded to?
Each of the solar panels on my roof produces 400 watts. I'm wondering if the same sized panels made of perovskite + silicon could potentially produce 600 watts. If so, that would be an amazing leap.
It would. But if your current cells are 25% efficient, these particular new cells (25.9% efficient) might take them up to 415 watts. Good, but, as he said "incremental".
Maybe you can get it when you're panels have to be replaced. The thing with perovskite they work in a lab condition for a short time they are far away from 30 to 50 years for dual glass panels.
Yes, as others have said, we’ll guess she wasn’t allowed to include longevity as a direct question and receive a direct answer. Surely that’s the key breakthrough. Let’s hope they have solved it, and that’s why they are at this stage of getting it trialled out in the field. Someone is putting money behind this enterprise clearly. Fingers crossed
If it turns out 35% efficient perovskite silicon cells are, say, 50% more expensive than current solar cells, and therefore struggle to be competitive at a commercial / grid level scale, there could still be many very exciting opportunities where energy density per m2 is important. I'm thinking solar PV on EVs and on the wings of battery powered planes, etc.
I would've liked to see them talk about the long-term durability of the perovskite cells, last thing I read said they are now at 15 years until the cells are degraded, compare that to the 30+ years that most silicone cells last and you have a great discrepancy between these two, have they made any advancements in that department?
@jukeseyable even, worse, last thing I've read was 15 or at least working on that, I mean it would be good for the PV industry, they could sell you new panels every 10-20 years, if you actually want to have the maximum amount of power generated, but they need to bring these two Cells closer together in terms of lifetime imo.
not sure where you have read 15 years, as most scientific reports state lifetime in hours, the best figures I have seen that are in propper scientific papers and not press releases, are 3000 hrs for silicon doped perovskite, so less efficient, but more durable . that in the uk would give you around 3 yrs use, so a long way to go. the 15 yrs could be untill total failure, the 3 yr figure 3000 hr is time above 90% of initial capacity
@@LastWish90 the 15 yrs might be an asparational figure for the tech to make them comercially viable, but not actual test results of that the tech is capable of at this time
I think time for economical competitive is not here yet. Also this time we heard nothing about how long life they will have. Will they ever reach 40 years lifetime as silicon cell already have?
In commercial applications, where the higher efficiency makes a tandem panel more cost effective, long term durability is not necessarily the goal. Even silicon only panels will be swapped out before their maximum lifespan is reached as their efficiency will have dropped and replacements/newer technology panels would be more cost effective than keeping the older ones
Why was durability mentioned as one of the key factors, but then not addressed during the interview. The problem with Perovskites has always been with their durability. Has this company addressed the durability issue of the Perovskite materials?
I bought my first solar panel about 30 plus years ago. Payed 350 bucks for 30 watts. That was all the electricity I needed back than to live 24/7 offgrid. Now I live with 380 watts 24/7.
and you still dont because they didnt mention how quickly these pannels degrade, they last just 2.5 to 3 yrs. this is the problem with perovskite, all though they are marginally more efficient than mono crystaline when new, after just 1 yr they are less efficient than mono, and then degrade rapidly to the pint of failure after just 3 yrs. As things stand, at best they are an immature technology. at worst they are a dead end. also solar pannel efficency is a total moot point, its just single figure % gains. so a standard 400 w pannel at most becomes a 420 watt pannel, far better just add an extra pannel, and this is very achievable now as pannels have become so cheap
What advances creativity and the time of the advancement ... an idea may sit on the shelf for generations until someone finds an answer. This cannot be forced. Something may seem minor... then later an idea to improve it becomes grand
0:17 On that chart the "accelerated case" has solar PV deploying a bit shy of 700 GW/year in 2028, we are already there this year. The growth has been tremendous. COP meetings can do whatever they like, they won't solve anything, cheap solar PV on the other hand will.
If it has been mentioned previously, please forgive me. If we can convert more of the suns energy to electricity, this could reduce the heat component, of solar panel operation. This should reduce production degradation as the new panels converts more radiation to electricity rather than heat. Very much looking forward to our ability to capture a wider range of emissions for conversion to electricity 😀
It’s great that a company has done this even better it’s a UK company, but the material is very unstable when exposed to light, no one touches on the longevity of the product but guess we will see in a couple of years. And I do think we are going the route of the car engine here ie BHP sells cars Torque wins races the same is happening here talking about the solar cell which is one cell of a module not the module it’s self! A cell can have a high efficiency but in a module the efficiency is taken down, silicon modules are looking at 24% at the moment so this is getting tasty. Can see an intel tick tick tick tick toc road map
Oxford University - to the lay person they might think that is in the UK and therefore the manufacturing plant would be in the UK - anyone know why we have shipped the manufacturing to Germany?
Subsidies and a joint venture with Meyer-Burger using their equipment. Trying to start new things like this in the UK was simply harder. Plus fortunately it gets around Brexit.
@@beyondzeroemissions Makes me so glad we are going spend £22billion to dig holes to bury carbon. That makes a lot more sense. Sarcasm does not work very well on social media. I will be astonished if the Governments plan to spend £22billion achieves any benefits and is cost effective and works. The American Govt. tried this and no-one even with unlimited resources could make carbon capture and burial work.
@@timmurphy5541 Brexit? OK I guess most of the places I would try selling super efficient solar panels are in Europe. Pretty depressing. Personally I will never forgive David Cameron.
love the way you have covered the history and future in less than 15 mins, also explained a complex subject in an easy to digest format, excellent work everyone!
Is anyone else bothered that Oxford PV have built their production facility in Germany? What is the point in investing in the r&d if the benefits are immediately exported?
In short no, OxfordPV own the most patents for this technology. They may intend to seek a licensing approach rather than manufacturing one (just like ARM does in processor chips). The German plant is relatively small scale in partnership with a German industrial partner with expertise in this space. The panels produced sound like they are destined for assessment at commercial generator partners round the world for assessing in their existing farms under varying real world conditions. If the trials and OxfordPV choose the licensing root this will likely generate more revenue for them, and UK tax take, than manufacturing alone. Plus will accelerate the adoption of tandem panels and so the output from renewables globally.
Neighbours are putting panels on their roof, which has a pitch of only 15 degrees and faces south west. This is in cloudy Gothenburg, Sweden, at a latitude of 57 degrees. How can that be worthwhile?
I make my own solar electricity by replacing silicon cells with flat silvered sheet metal. I form the sheet metal into a standard geometrical shape ( not parabolic) that focuses 100 square feet of sunlight at 600:1 that heats a boiler, that creates dry steam and then I use a turbine to generate ac and dc. Each solar conversion unit costs me about $60. I need only one.
I wish there was more explanation of the difference between fossil fuel and nuke "efficiency" compared to solar & wind efficiency. When we speak of a nuke or coal/gas power station and the efficiencies, we're talking about how much 'fuel' we have to burn to get x amount of electricity. Much of the process loses energy through heat and mechanical and transmission losses - and the associated pollution that goes with that. With solar efficiency the 'fuel' is sunlight and it is only a matter of how many square meters of space you need - the more efficient, the less space your panels take up. If I can fit 1kw of PV on my shed today, then a doubling of efficiency means I can now fit 2kw on my shed. But in neither case was there pollution created in the generating of the electricity, due to 'efficiency' - and - the 'losses' are sunlight, so not losses at all - just failure to capture 100% of the light - whereas with burning 'fuels' the lower the efficiency - the greater the pollution.
The elephant in the room is what to do with degraded solar panels and the associated costs to recycle/dispose of them. In either case the "savings" realized by the use of this technology appears to be offset by the hazardous nature of the materials generated by the "recycling:" of these panels.
Your vehicle of choice is very conservative with energy consumption it can cover the same distance with the same speed with 1/3 of a Tesla model 3. So if Aptera gets realistically 20 km in average with a huge roof and no rear window the roof of a Tesla would be sufficient for maybe 1 km.
Such efficiency of solar panels would allow the production of electric cars with solar charging and even allow light low-speed electric cars to drive directly from the sun.
If I can get 8kw on my roof where a 4kw array used to be - and a 30kwh battery for half what it costs today - then I could be off grid 99.9% of the year - including heating (with Far infrared heating) and the rare occasions I need grid power, could be covered by grid-scale biogas and wind power. But if the 28 million households in the UK ALL had 8kw of PV and a 30kwh battery - then a 'smart grid' could connect them all & connecting the UK's wind fleet would mean there would always be a MASSIVE surplus. But the powers that be don't want "Power to the People" where everyone can generate 99.99% of their own electricity and heating needs - they want big corporate owned arrays, nukes and gas... and to sell us electricity at 28p per kwh, which costs them 1p per kwh to generate + £5 a week just for the grid connection. Renewable energy could be 'Power to the People' - and the authoritarian politicians and corporates (basically the same people) want to use it to enslave humanity still further.
I think its worthwhile to transparently talk about the downsides of tandem. Scalability, cost and reliability comparison with standard silicon solar cells side by side should be discussed. I know more 100M of dollars have been invested into OxfordPV over a decade, and yet Commercial product is still no go... since spot price of PV is so low now below 10cents per W..., i think tandem should be used on specific application that silicon cant be used. I think they shoukd consider more specific application. Perovskite is cheap but rest of the layers that are used to make the device are insanely expensive...... like over 4000usd per gram.. I value breakthrough in science, but climate change is coming too fast.. time to cut some corners to focus on what works or not.
Exactly. We already have all of the tech we need to get to carbon neutral quickly. If we focus on doing that now, we can develop better materials and systems at our leisure after we have achieved that goal.
Does Two Axis solar Tacking improves efficiency 40%? Yes, a two-axis solar tracking system can improve solar panel efficiency by up to 40% compared to fixed panels, as it continuously follows the sun's movement in both the east-west and north-south directions, maximizing the amount of sunlight captured throughout the day. Key points about two-axis solar tracking: Increased energy production: By constantly adjusting to the sun's position, a dual-axis tracker can generate significantly more electricity than a fixed panel system. Movement on two axes: Unlike a single-axis tracker which only follows the east-west movement, a dual-axis tracker also tracks the sun's north-south movement, leading to better overall efficiency. Higher initial cost: While offering greater energy output, dual-axis trackers are generally more expensive to install and maintain due to their complex design with more moving parts
I think multi junction solar panels are great, even better if you live on the equator unfortunately a lot of us don't, I'd suppose we'd have some benefits of being able to use the second junction of these panels around mid summer in the northern hemisphere converting the shorter light wavelengths into usable power as well, in the other three seasons we'd only be generating power from the longer wavelengths as the shortest wavelengths would with the angel of the sun and earth be filtered out by the atmosphere .
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Just got offered a PhD project in studying and discovering new perovskites - super excited to be working on this kind of research
Congratulations. Maybe you can answer my query: When Perovskites were first talked about, there was a lot of excitement about them being ultra-thin layer, flexible and could almost be painted on a surface. I'd prefer a dirt cheap, throw 'em anywhere, 15% material, one so cheap you would stick it on N-S-E-W facing roofs and walls and yards. When can I have those please?
Please note we UA-cam commenters hate you kind of researchers who take funding and produce nothing! So please keep ROI in mind!
Get "excited" but avoid getting "super excited" you''ll have a heart attack.
Go hard, go far, go for broke. Congratulations and now the work starts. Challenge everything with respect, question everyone who answers Without doubt. Come to your own conclusion while you have the chance to work with guidance. One day you will be on your own .
@@michaeljames5936 Perhaps he's a professional studier. Don't expect too much.
I bought 8 x 415w solar panels in 2022 , they cost me just over £200 each . I can get the exact same panels today for £76 each including free delivery 😮 .
I recently got 4x 575W bifacial pv panels for 82€ each, prices have dropped like stones.
Thanks to China.
Buy, buy, buy, … before the EU thinks it needs to tax all the profitability out of them.
Thanks Beijing. 😂 Thanks Subsidy Thanks China Overcapacity .😊
In China 550watt solar panel only $90
Guys, go for bifacial solar panels. Efficiency around 30%(both sides,front and back, could generate electricity), and there is even output during cloudy days. Use it as a canopy and use reflective furnitures and mirrors to reflect even more sunlight on the under side
Thanks for the great insight. I bought a single 100w panel in 1997 for $300 including a 100ah alkaline battery. It's amazing the leaps and bounds technology has grown over the years!
What is different here is that Oxford managed to scale up production. Great! But one question you forgot or decided not to ask this boss is the expected lifetime of these perovskite cells as this has been a problem for a long time.
Bingo.
Your question is flawed. The question is, what is the carbon footprint vs energy generation over the life of the panel. If it's better than fossil or nuclear, it is the better option. Secondly, it's a lot cheaper to replace solar panels than it is to build new traditional generators.
@@diggeroldmate8122 only hydro has a lower carbon footprint than nuclear. both are lower than solar.
@@yt.damian ah no sorry.
@@diggeroldmate8122 Economics plays a role in how quickly these systems will actually be deployed. Which is arguably more important than lifetime CO2 emissions per kWh. So no, the question is not flawed.
Great video...can't wait for the follow-up when this technology hits the consumer market!
A ray of hope in these dark times.
The downside is it uses lead as a primary substance. Really not as perfect as some claim.
Plus there is the slightly more hopeful technology of photo rectenna which in theory could produce a 70-80% efficient solar cell.
Here's a ray of hope stop watching the news
@@larryspinks5533 I'm sure you would love if everyone just dropped out and stopped observing the awful changes.
Thanks so much for taking the time - appreciate it.
This is arguably THE MOST important breakthrough in sustainable energy production. Nothing I have seen in media and science comes close. This also revolutionises energy for all, especially the Global South, allowing them to leap to their own inexpensive energy production.
absolutely they are not, they lack longevity, their degridation is over 10 x worst than standard pannels. Basically you would be replacing them every 3 to 4 yrs. So its like a sprinter competing against a marathon runner, seeing as PV generation is a long term commitment, the sprinter always looses
It *may* revolutionise energy for all, but it's none done it yet - it's about a 2 percentage point (
@@jukeseyableexactly. Nowhere was the longevity issue mentioned in this video.
@@ewadge so maybe this video shouldnt be trusted as a valid source of information, and instead regarded as a sales PR bullshit publication
@@ewadge This whole thing about pannel efficency is a totally moot point anyways, who cares if you get a 5% increas, on a 400 W pannel, its just 20 watts, its insignificant. Mono crystaline silicone is so cheap these days, if you want more power, buy an extra pannel. The trouble is these days most folks are not mathamatically or scientifically literate enough to even remain sceptical regarding claims, let alone decifering what is important and what isnt. This as it stands is a imature, possibly flawed technology, that has no place in the wider market place. It all feels like a bullshit publicity campaign to generate social pressure, (bit like american pharmacutical adverts) to get this into the market. Who knows what deal the makers of these pannels have struck with this and many other channels.
good to see progress
Nice to see a none hype interview , as it means it is going to happen , rather than could happen . More please .
This _is_ a hype interview. You can't buy these panels on the open market, and they're _hoping_ to ship their first salable panels to a customer.
@@skierpageNo it’s a product development update interview - if you want to stay ignorant watch Midsomer Murders instead - your choice but don’t block the rest of us who want to learn? Sigh…….
@@skierpage why did you watch it then unless you're just here to troll?
@@diggeroldmate8122 because I hoped Oxford PV would reveal actual production panels with actual prices and actual projected degradation data. It's okay that they haven't yet, they may still succeed (I hope they do!), and the interviewer did what she could.
@@diggeroldmate8122 I hoped to learn about Oxford PV's panel pricing and durability. Oh well. I hope they succeed.
Imagine a world where you guys could work together, positively interactive wow ❤️👏🏼❤️
i'd love to see it in small scale... where the space is limited and now you can place 1-2 panels (boat/RV etc) and you potentially could get 2x the output... waiting for it ! :)
So, good for your 1st world hobbies? Cool cool.
@@zygmuntthecacaokakistocrat6589 an increasing number of people live on boats and barges in the UK cos houses are ridiculously expensive
@@zygmuntthecacaokakistocrat6589 you think only 1st world countries use boats? I guess let's ignore all the 3rd world fishing countries lol
Thank you young lady for your presentation. I love Solar the Highlander great Lakes USA.😊
I really enjoy your natural presentational skills combined with your obvious intelligence and ability to frame questions in just the right way to illicit the best answers. You are, if I may say, a bloody genius. And it’s true that the camera really loves you too ! Keep it coming. I’ll keep watching. Much respect and many thanks.
*elicit, not illicit drugs.
It also helps that she's very easy on the eye too 😂🤣😂.
This is very interesting and good news I can’t wait to see where this is in two or three years please keep us updated
I work for the world's largest silicon solar module manufacturer and am excited to see multi-junction cells come to market, soon. I can honestly say, without getting in trouble, that virtually all large module manufacturers are in late development of multijunction cells. Curious what the lifespan of perovskite is now, as that has been the limiting factor.
I wonder how many different absorbers can be layered atop each other
its still terrible, they are just not talking about it, they are just 1/12 th the lifespan of mono crystaline pannels, so despite been more efficient, perovskite become less efficient than mono crystaline after just 12 months, then they degreade rapdly with a lifespan of around 2.5 rs, compared to 25 to 30 yrs for mono crystaline. but this isnt mentioned anywhere in the video,
Curious why they didn't mention longevity - wait no, it's because it's so crap!
I'm looking at this and wondering why the German government has modified the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) - valid from the third quarter of 2024 - in such a way that it becomes as uneconomical as possible for newly constructed solar systems by private individuals for private use in their own homes. Were the "big customers" - also known as energy companies - very helpful in writing the new law?!
They removed export remunaration ? Or something else?
Probably lobbying from the energy providers and the fact that we have too much renewable energy in the grid already on some days, especially if solar kicks hard around noon and many PV arrays still facing south to creat the maximum amount of energy during the day to get the most money out of it, at some 20 years ago people we getting 0.40-0.55€/kWh produced and exported to the grid and they get these rates for 20 years, now imagine a 10 kWp array in the early 2000s that would be a little under 100.000€ for you in these 20 years, basically offsetting the cost of the whole system and after that you probably have another 10-20 years of lifetime in the cells left.
They're paid off by the big money (they want to do the installs) on the corporate level
what is the longevity of the combo peroskovite solar cell?
It wasn't covered in the video: did they solve the stability and durability problems with perovskites? Last I heard they degrade in direct sunlight, or with temperature and humidity changes you naturally experience when in use. It's all well and good if they have higher efficiency to cost ratio out of the box, but the thing that matters is the average cost per kWh over their warrantied life span. If their increased efficiency drops off within the days, weeks, and months that perovskites historically have then I expect the cost might not work out cheaper over it's life per kWh delivered. So, what is that, and how does it compare to silicon?
And when they do, they release lead into the environment
I don't think they will answer. I wish there was a service out there that could search all interconnected documents like an engine. That could be useful.
@@colinwiseman I was being polite. It looks better if they provide the answer and self correct.
The long term stability issues persist. Feel free to link me to a source saying they last roughly as long as the more standard silicon if I'm wrong?
It's a glaring omission from the Oxford PV guy, but I don't blame Everything Electric because this is specific scientific research and I know that's a specialist skill they likely couldn't justify the expense of within the team. The Oxford PV guy likely needs to drum up some funding for their research or potentially people lose their jobs, so it's all aboard the hype train.
They likely thought that talking to Oxford PV was expert enough. The problem is that you can't trust the person who stands to benefit from it's success to give an unbiased overview of the technology.
This is the problem with channels like "Undecided with Matt Ferrell" and "Two Bit da Vinci". They don't know enough science to be able to tell what is marketing hype and what is reality reliably. You might as well just read the company press release and blindly trust it.
Sadly, occasionally, the fully charged group brushes close to this kind of whoopsie; hyping tech with an undisclosed Achilles heel. I suppose you can't cover such a breadth of topics without the odd thing slipping through the net. I think fully charged does far better than the other two channels I mentioned.
A C&EN article from back in 2018 mentioned OxfordPV had developed a stable forumulation and cell layering technique that improved stability in the 1,000s of hours mark. The article mentions that entry point for commercialisation is 10,000 hours mark, with high recyclability, as the OxfordPV panels are focused on commercial use then they may be targetting cases where increased generation over a five to ten year lifespan is beneficial. Particularly with high recyclable panels, this may not suit home generation where long durable panels (15+ years) are more cost effective.
Now that makes sense. Swappable in a field is an easy task, akin to painting the forth bridge, but no life jacket needed 😆
Two questions I wish had been asked.
1) Have you overcome the stability issues of perovskite.
2) Have you built in ease of recycling into the product?
Ive got 325 watt panels x13 425 watt x 13 would be great increase but would it be allowed by power company?
I notice they never said what the efficiency of the panels was...!
It's magic! ✨🪄🔮 Just trust them!
@@DixonCyderBusch That seems to be the bottom line!!
Perovskite can add another 20% in the near term. Then when multiple different layers are used it can get up to about 80% theoretically. Its just picking up parts of the light which silicone does not
As I always say and no pun intended- more power to these guys bringing the next leap forward. Anything above 30% I remember being told a few years back is the dream…..
At 8 times the price
He was clearly a very intelligent man but was explaining things simply so that the layperson could understand it easily.
Excellent, as always, but I was hoping to hear more about durability. I thought durability is one of the weaknesses of perovskite solar cells.
Many thanks for this video! 🎉😊
The buzz about Perokskite cells are going of for quite a while already. When are we getting commercially available Perovskite panels at a comparable price point and longivity as Si?
While I understand that it might appear that percent efficiency is "important", the hard truth is that $ per watt installed and longevity are the 2 single driving factors of solar. Having a solar panel made up of cells that are 29% or even higher efficiency is meaningless to the average homeowner... There's plenty of roof top on most houses to handle a few extra panels.
Given more and more people are living in the same area, this calculation rapidly changes in cities.
43% Amazing
...and like Silicons 29%, it will never be achieved, an equivalent amount would be about 34%. And 34% is not so great when you consider 66% is lost.
Can’t wait for this to come to the residential roof top space
Very interesting update on this technology...
Great Episode, thanks
Why can't we get(or absorb) energy from radio Activ waves(from radio Activ waste)?
probably wouldn't equal much energy.
This is our future . I knew this years ago . Light was the key , geo thermal next , fusion next . Too old to get involved , but so thrilled !
To add , part of this is organic .
I’ve been following Perovskite solar for about 10 years. As far as I know the issue was always that Perovskite was prone to degradation. This video didn’t mention anything about this unfortunately. Have these issues been solved?
no, this is why the video ignored them
Perovskite PV cells in development today contain lead which I'm glad was mentioned in the video. However they didn't mention that the lead leaches out of the panels which is really not great. A lot of work is being put into encapsulating the panels to stop the lead getting out, but even if successful it's going to be a problem at end-of-life processing. They also tend to degrade quickly, which is also not great; they have great efficiency when new but that tanks within a few years (as in, service life less than 5 years). No mention if this group has managed to address that.
We'll have to wait and see how the economics work, since they didn't discuss costs. Sure, if the levelized cost is lower that's a win, but I'm not going to be celebrating anything until the data is available.
I think that if a random UA-cam commenter knows about it, they know about it. There are strict laws which they would have to follow before they would be allowed to sell them.
@@evilutionltd What's 'random' about him?
@@evilutionltd What laws would those be? I think that if a random UA-cam commenter confidently asserts that a law exists, they should be able to cite it and demonstrate it applies to this product.
There may or may not be laws involved, but it's a fact that lead-containing peroskite PV cells have a problem with lead leaching out of them. It's not addressed in the video how, or if, they addressed that problem.
@@Smidge204 Existing Substances Regulation (ESR), EC Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93, Directive 2008/98/EC and PIC Procedure. Look up EU REACH laws.
Why would a company go into that much detail in a UA-cam video and publicise intellectual property?
@@evilutionltd It was a trick question, since existing PV panels contain lead and "Fixed-location photovoltaic panel installations" are already blanket exempt from RoHS restrictions. This is how I knew you were talking nonsense; it is not (currently? maybe in the future) necessary to comply with RoHS limits for PV panels used in non-mobile applications, therefore they are already compliant with the law *despite* the known problem of lead leaching out of them. The idea that they must have solved the problem because it would be illegal to sell them otherwise means you don't understand the law (and are hopelessly naive to think no company would ever risk doing anything illegal)
As for intellectual property, I never asked for detail; They acknowledge that the product contains lead. If they solved the leaching problem, all they'd have to do is acknowledge that too. Anyone interested in this product will be able to read the Wikipedia page (or god forbid any of the many scientific and industry papers on it) and immediately notice that there is a lead contamination risk, and anyone considering investing in the company or buying their products should then ask how, or if, they manage that risk. A VERY reasonable question.
I wonder if this multijunction PV can be combined with thermal photovoltaics?
1:50 it is not PPE, It is a cleanroom suit, designed to protect the wafers and semiconductors from human contaminants and to keep the integrity of the cleanroom itself. You can call it a CPE if you wish.❤👍
Selling first to grid scale solar PV farms is a win-win, as it increases grid level generation and the original silicon PV sells become available on the second hand market for residential and commercial rooftop solar at a lower price than new panels, driving down the cost of new panels.
What is the cell voltage of one of these stacked cells?
Can you still use a normal mppt controller with them?
How do we get Perovskite? Is it ecologically friendly? Are we killing the planet to make it?
I'm looking to add PV to my home roof and if the best I can currently get is 29% I'll take it but if there is a development to enhance that to 49% in the short term future should I get the PV installed now or should I wait?
Will there be a way to enhance what I currently have? Could I add Perovskite panels to my setup and enhance whistler's there another way that will not kill the planet by replacing what I may have already installed and what are the costs to be like?
Excellent news. Can you tell us wow how long the perovskite panels will last? Do they last longer or shorter than silicon?
The more efficient panels will help people with smaller roofs!
If Perovskite is a "film" that overlays a silicon cell, then would there be a market to produce a Perovskite film for a DIY application for existing panels already in use?
Exactly how would you get that film onto the silicon of existing solar cells?
@@nickwinn7812 I wasn't referring to this technology as it is in our present day, but more as a technological peal and stick possibility in the future. Yah never know.
How do you get a film under the glass of existing panels?
Amazing 👏 need the upgrade
Great news! Thanks.
I thought I remember hearing that perovskite didn't last as long as existing solar voltaic cells. Any truth in that? Thanks.
Perovskite based solar panels are being produced now in massive scale.
Great video and very interesting,
I'm all for new technology that can turn around climate change,
I drive and EV and love it being cheep to run and maintain,
One question I would like to ask is how Solar fields / farms affect the immediate area,
If I go to my car when it's been parked in the sun for a few hours I can't touch the body as it's hot,
This has raised the air temperature around the car I would imagine even if only by a very small amount,
What kind of temperature change will you see around a solar farm and does it help to increase the global warming event by anything at all or does it have a different affect because it's obsorbing the heat and changing the light energy to stored energy and having a cooling effect,
It would be interesting to see temperature readings around the solar farm and then at the same time a few miles away,
If there's an heating effect of this process then the next question to be answered is how much of Earth surface area can have solar panels before we have thermal run away,
Please don't miss understand me as I'm all for it and progress but we need to know now and not after the event.
Not a single mention of thier longevity. If they have figured it out that would be awesome but you think you would have heard about them lasting a lot longer than in the lab settings.
I live in theLas Vegas valley, Nevada, USA. My wife and I RENT our rooftop solar because, when we began using solar we were in our 70s and purchasing rooftop solar would not have been an amount we could possibly amortize unless we live two be 100. Even so, by paying US $100. per monty for rental this year (our rate increases by 3% annually) and a $19. per month unavoidable "grid fee" we are saving many hundreds of dollars every year compared to non-solar neighbors. Only in 2024's hottest months did we pay for any electricity and that amounted to $20. per month on the two hottest months.
With a perovskite/silicone laminate solar array of the same size as our current array AND a Li Fe Po battery bank inside on our garage wall we could have easily lived "off grid" and such a high efficiency array would have been worth an outright purchase, even the geezerhood of our lives.
Imagine such an array with an LFP battery bank and a high efficiency heat pump air conditioner/furnace. Our HVAC and electric bills would be virtually non-existant! A boy can dream.
This will be an amazing thing to see when they are available to fit on my roof.
I am coming up to a point where I need to convert my home into a smart home, and using solar and heat source. Thus is there a video you have done about how a home user could get the best out of the existing market of products and potentially upgrade patches as things like this technology can be upgraded to?
Each of the solar panels on my roof produces 400 watts. I'm wondering if the same sized panels made of perovskite + silicon could potentially produce 600 watts. If so, that would be an amazing leap.
It would. But if your current cells are 25% efficient, these particular new cells (25.9% efficient) might take them up to 415 watts. Good, but, as he said "incremental".
Maybe you can get it when you're panels have to be replaced. The thing with perovskite they work in a lab condition for a short time they are far away from 30 to 50 years for dual glass panels.
Spelling error in the diagram at 3:40 - "perovskite" not "pervoskite".
Probably a politician that said the quiet part out loud. Nice catch.
Can't they tune something to fill up the green part of the spectrum?
Yes, as others have said, we’ll guess she wasn’t allowed to include longevity as a direct question and receive a direct answer.
Surely that’s the key breakthrough. Let’s hope they have solved it, and that’s why they are at this stage of getting it trialled out in the field.
Someone is putting money behind this enterprise clearly.
Fingers crossed
they havnt solved it
@@jukeseyablethen let's hope it is like half price or even lower so we can change it every 3 years
@@trexeyesonly55 as my late father used to say, live in hope, die in want
"Lets hope". If they had cracked this problem I'm sure they'd be singing from the rooftops about it, not ignoring it.
You could shift light wavelength to make it more efficient
If it turns out 35% efficient perovskite silicon cells are, say, 50% more expensive than current solar cells, and therefore struggle to be competitive at a commercial / grid level scale, there could still be many very exciting opportunities where energy density per m2 is important. I'm thinking solar PV on EVs and on the wings of battery powered planes, etc.
Who makes 35% efficient panels...I'll give you a clue, NO ONE.
They will get cheaper won't they, as manufacturing increases.
I’m also thinking RV rooftops, where space is also highly limited.
I would've liked to see them talk about the long-term durability of the perovskite cells, last thing I read said they are now at 15 years until the cells are degraded, compare that to the 30+ years that most silicone cells last and you have a great discrepancy between these two, have they made any advancements in that department?
not 15, 1.5
@jukeseyable even, worse, last thing I've read was 15 or at least working on that, I mean it would be good for the PV industry, they could sell you new panels every 10-20 years, if you actually want to have the maximum amount of power generated, but they need to bring these two Cells closer together in terms of lifetime imo.
not sure where you have read 15 years, as most scientific reports state lifetime in hours, the best figures I have seen that are in propper scientific papers and not press releases, are 3000 hrs for silicon doped perovskite, so less efficient, but more durable . that in the uk would give you around 3 yrs use, so a long way to go. the 15 yrs could be untill total failure, the 3 yr figure 3000 hr is time above 90% of initial capacity
@@LastWish90 the 15 yrs might be an asparational figure for the tech to make them comercially viable, but not actual test results of that the tech is capable of at this time
Hi! Can someone tag me the timecode of what degradation time of this panels? Twice watched and not see it in interview
The fact they didn't mention it tells you all you need to know.
I think time for economical competitive is not here yet.
Also this time we heard nothing about how long life they will have. Will they ever reach 40 years lifetime as silicon cell already have?
In commercial applications, where the higher efficiency makes a tandem panel more cost effective, long term durability is not necessarily the goal. Even silicon only panels will be swapped out before their maximum lifespan is reached as their efficiency will have dropped and replacements/newer technology panels would be more cost effective than keeping the older ones
Why was durability mentioned as one of the key factors, but then not addressed during the interview. The problem with Perovskites has always been with their durability. Has this company addressed the durability issue of the Perovskite materials?
I bought my first solar panel about 30 plus years ago.
Payed 350 bucks for 30 watts. That was all the electricity I needed back than to live 24/7 offgrid. Now I live with 380 watts 24/7.
Thanks for the clear explanation
That was a great explanation. I didn't understand the potential of perovskite until now. Mind blown 🤯
The potential to poison generations with lead?
and you still dont because they didnt mention how quickly these pannels degrade, they last just 2.5 to 3 yrs. this is the problem with perovskite, all though they are marginally more efficient than mono crystaline when new, after just 1 yr they are less efficient than mono, and then degrade rapidly to the pint of failure after just 3 yrs. As things stand, at best they are an immature technology. at worst they are a dead end. also solar pannel efficency is a total moot point, its just single figure % gains. so a standard 400 w pannel at most becomes a 420 watt pannel, far better just add an extra pannel, and this is very achievable now as pannels have become so cheap
What I would like to know is how will these perform on cloudy days.
Did I hear lead (rhymes with dead)? Is that safe?
Bring them on!!!!!!!!
This sounds great.
What advances creativity and the time of the advancement ... an idea may sit on the shelf for generations until someone finds an answer. This cannot be forced. Something may seem minor... then later an idea to improve it becomes grand
Brilliant episode! Crystal-clear (arf arf), and great that Oxford is the source of such important innovation.
0:17 On that chart the "accelerated case" has solar PV deploying a bit shy of 700 GW/year in 2028, we are already there this year. The growth has been tremendous. COP meetings can do whatever they like, they won't solve anything, cheap solar PV on the other hand will.
If it has been mentioned previously, please forgive me.
If we can convert more of the suns energy to electricity, this could reduce the heat component, of solar panel operation. This should reduce production degradation as the new panels converts more radiation to electricity rather than heat.
Very much looking forward to our ability to capture a wider range of emissions for conversion to electricity 😀
You can visit someone building triple junction gallium arsenide cells for satellites, they are even more efficient. Probably cost 100x though...
Very well-produced and informative video! Thanks.
It’s great that a company has done this even better it’s a UK company, but the material is very unstable when exposed to light, no one touches on the longevity of the product but guess we will see in a couple of years. And I do think we are going the route of the car engine here ie BHP sells cars Torque wins races the same is happening here talking about the solar cell which is one cell of a module not the module it’s self! A cell can have a high efficiency but in a module the efficiency is taken down, silicon modules are looking at 24% at the moment so this is getting tasty. Can see an intel tick tick tick tick toc road map
You never mentioned how the panel does when it gets hot. Most panels output degrade as the temperature increases.
I like that it isn't based on some super rare mineral. The value of the discovery is definitely proportional to the scale of deployment.
But don't perovskite crystals decay in sunlight or have they fixed this.
Oxford University - to the lay person they might think that is in the UK and therefore the manufacturing plant would be in the UK - anyone know why we have shipped the manufacturing to Germany?
Efficency
subsidy to promote new technology in this space from German governmnent.
Subsidies and a joint venture with Meyer-Burger using their equipment. Trying to start new things like this in the UK was simply harder. Plus fortunately it gets around Brexit.
@@beyondzeroemissions Makes me so glad we are going spend £22billion to dig holes to bury carbon. That makes a lot more sense. Sarcasm does not work very well on social media. I will be astonished if the Governments plan to spend £22billion achieves any benefits and is cost effective and works. The American Govt. tried this and no-one even with unlimited resources could make carbon capture and burial work.
@@timmurphy5541 Brexit? OK I guess most of the places I would try selling super efficient solar panels are in Europe. Pretty depressing. Personally I will never forgive David Cameron.
love the way you have covered the history and future in less than 15 mins, also explained a complex subject in an easy to digest format, excellent work everyone!
Excelente.
Saludos 👋
Is anyone else bothered that Oxford PV have built their production facility in Germany? What is the point in investing in the r&d if the benefits are immediately exported?
In short no, OxfordPV own the most patents for this technology. They may intend to seek a licensing approach rather than manufacturing one (just like ARM does in processor chips). The German plant is relatively small scale in partnership with a German industrial partner with expertise in this space. The panels produced sound like they are destined for assessment at commercial generator partners round the world for assessing in their existing farms under varying real world conditions. If the trials and OxfordPV choose the licensing root this will likely generate more revenue for them, and UK tax take, than manufacturing alone. Plus will accelerate the adoption of tandem panels and so the output from renewables globally.
Neighbours are putting panels on their roof, which has a pitch of only 15 degrees and faces south west. This is in cloudy Gothenburg, Sweden, at a latitude of 57 degrees. How can that be worthwhile?
I make my own solar electricity by replacing silicon cells with flat silvered sheet metal.
I form the sheet metal into a standard geometrical shape ( not parabolic) that focuses 100 square feet of sunlight at 600:1 that heats a boiler, that creates dry steam and then I use a turbine to generate ac and dc.
Each solar conversion unit costs me about $60.
I need only one.
I wish there was more explanation of the difference between fossil fuel and nuke "efficiency" compared to solar & wind efficiency.
When we speak of a nuke or coal/gas power station and the efficiencies, we're talking about how much 'fuel' we have to burn to get x amount of electricity. Much of the process loses energy through heat and mechanical and transmission losses - and the associated pollution that goes with that.
With solar efficiency the 'fuel' is sunlight and it is only a matter of how many square meters of space you need - the more efficient, the less space your panels take up. If I can fit 1kw of PV on my shed today, then a doubling of efficiency means I can now fit 2kw on my shed. But in neither case was there pollution created in the generating of the electricity, due to 'efficiency' - and - the 'losses' are sunlight, so not losses at all - just failure to capture 100% of the light - whereas with burning 'fuels' the lower the efficiency - the greater the pollution.
Super awesome. Can't wait to see all the progress over the years.
The elephant in the room is what to do with degraded solar panels and the associated costs to recycle/dispose of them. In either case the "savings" realized by the use of this technology appears to be offset by the hazardous nature of the materials generated by the "recycling:" of these panels.
Pitty it is not being manufactured in the UK
Hoping the team work with Aptera motors to put this on automotive. With Aptera design, solar powered automotive is possible.
Your vehicle of choice is very conservative with energy consumption it can cover the same distance with the same speed with 1/3 of a Tesla model 3.
So if Aptera gets realistically 20 km in average with a huge roof and no rear window the roof of a Tesla would be sufficient for maybe 1 km.
Mega interesting!!!
Such efficiency of solar panels would allow the production of electric cars with solar charging and even allow light low-speed electric cars to drive directly from the sun.
If I can get 8kw on my roof where a 4kw array used to be - and a 30kwh battery for half what it costs today - then I could be off grid 99.9% of the year - including heating (with Far infrared heating) and the rare occasions I need grid power, could be covered by grid-scale biogas and wind power.
But if the 28 million households in the UK ALL had 8kw of PV and a 30kwh battery - then a 'smart grid' could connect them all & connecting the UK's wind fleet would mean there would always be a MASSIVE surplus.
But the powers that be don't want "Power to the People" where everyone can generate 99.99% of their own electricity and heating needs - they want big corporate owned arrays, nukes and gas... and to sell us electricity at 28p per kwh, which costs them 1p per kwh to generate + £5 a week just for the grid connection.
Renewable energy could be 'Power to the People' - and the authoritarian politicians and corporates (basically the same people) want to use it to enslave humanity still further.
I think its worthwhile to transparently talk about the downsides of tandem. Scalability, cost and reliability comparison with standard silicon solar cells side by side should be discussed. I know more 100M of dollars have been invested into OxfordPV over a decade, and yet Commercial product is still no go... since spot price of PV is so low now below 10cents per W..., i think tandem should be used on specific application that silicon cant be used. I think they shoukd consider more specific application.
Perovskite is cheap but rest of the layers that are used to make the device are insanely expensive...... like over 4000usd per gram..
I value breakthrough in science, but climate change is coming too fast.. time to cut some corners to focus on what works or not.
Exactly. We already have all of the tech we need to get to carbon neutral quickly. If we focus on doing that now, we can develop better materials and systems at our leisure after we have achieved that goal.
Does Two Axis solar Tacking improves efficiency 40%?
Yes, a two-axis solar tracking system can improve solar panel efficiency by up to 40% compared to fixed panels, as it continuously follows the sun's movement in both the east-west and north-south directions, maximizing the amount of sunlight captured throughout the day.
Key points about two-axis solar tracking:
Increased energy production:
By constantly adjusting to the sun's position, a dual-axis tracker can generate significantly more electricity than a fixed panel system.
Movement on two axes:
Unlike a single-axis tracker which only follows the east-west movement, a dual-axis tracker also tracks the sun's north-south movement, leading to better overall efficiency.
Higher initial cost:
While offering greater energy output, dual-axis trackers are generally more expensive to install and maintain due to their complex design with more moving parts
Do not forget using quantum dots and structures!
Remarkable indeed. this might end all these silly wars going around in the world
People will continue to fight over land, other resources than energy, and control.
Sunpower has been 21.5 % efficient for over 2 years. They also have the longest warranty. 20 years at 80% or better.
lol warranty...
buy used, then buy more if they don't work.
I think multi junction solar panels are great, even better if you live on the equator unfortunately a lot of us don't, I'd suppose we'd have some benefits of being able to use the second junction of these panels around mid summer in the northern hemisphere converting the shorter light wavelengths into usable power as well, in the other three seasons we'd only be generating power from the longer wavelengths as the shortest wavelengths would with the angel of the sun and earth be filtered out by the atmosphere .
The thing is up in the north we get much longer days in summer and they don't wear out as quickly because it doesn't get as hot
@ReinhardSchuster that's handy, how well do they perform in the winter.
@@adam-g7crq depends on the weather