Likewise. I wonder when to buy thou. I guess incompatibility isn't a problem but shall check. I also want the smaller sizes to fit on my small house boat
It also means that if in winter you harvest the waste heat for hot water, space heating and clothes drying you reduce energy consumption from another area. That is a distinct possibility.
Though for most householders money is the limiting factor rather than roof area. A panel that makes 50% more but which costs 100% more is only an advance for a very limited set of applications.
40% efficiency solar cells would definitely make solar electric vehicles much more viable for lots of folks out there. Right now it seems that the typical range gain from adding solar cells to a vehicle is about 10-20 miles per day, but doubling current efficiency would bring it up to 20-40 miles per day, which I believe would cover most people's commutes. Very hope inspiring tech. I'm glad to hear that this one actually came to fruition. I hope the technology continues to improve too.
10-20 miles in the best possible conditions with direct sunlight, for a small fortune that would cost to apply them to the entire surface of the vehicle. it's never going to be worth it unless for super light vehicles designed specifically for the purpose of maximizing solar energy.
Currently the price per panel is much lower than the price per panel mounting equipment. You pay more for 2 aluminium profiles that you have to screw on your panel to connect it to your roof. So needing less panels is always better. Because the mounting is extremely expensive, not the panels.
The panels are still spendy for most people. I'm not contesting that the cost of installation, just saying that the panel price still matters quite a bit. One thing I'd like to see is the creation of a better installation system for CdTe thin film panels. With their light weight, there's no need for them to use the same mountings as silicon panels. We could dramatically reduce the costs of installation for thin film panels with a little effort. (I am not an engineer, so this isn't something I can contribute, but I do think it's something that should be done.)
@@cripdykehere in South Africa there has been a significant drop in panel prices. A Canadian Solar 550w panel currently costs less than $100. The mounting system costs roughly $50 per panel, labour to install each panel comes to roughly $30 and PV cabling, connectors, fuses etc works out to $20 per panel. So the panel is cheap compared to the rest.
There seems to be a lot of talk about panel efficiency but for most people the priority is price per Watt. A cheaper less efficient panel makes more sense than a more expensive more efficient one. If roof space is the limiting factor then Watt/m2 is the key factor. Rarely discussed in the voltage of panels, it is easy to be over voltage on your inverter before you reach the max Wattage. I have been off-grid with Solar for 6 years - videos of my setup on my channel
I suppose there are teams working to produce cheaper panels, and teams preparing the next generation of more efficient panels. Progress happens in 2 fronts, just like we see in electronics
@@srpenguinbr Different solutions for different problems. For satellites you want maximum output for as little weight as possible, while also having to deal with the different enviroment. So it's probably a bit more than just two fronts.
@@srpenguinbr probably so, but it seems strange that nobody talks about the cost, which has the effect of keeping consumers in the dark about what they should be paying when they get a supply and fit quote. Here in Thailand we can pay as low as ฿5/W = £0.11 = $0.15 for PV panels. That's why I have 20kW of PV
"There seems to be a lot of talk about panel efficiency but for most people the priority is price per Watt." Agree, but you have to consider the total price per watt, including installation labor. Even if a more efficient panel is more expensive per watt to manufacture, it may still end up cheaper per watt in the end if fewer panels to install results in less labor costs for the installation.
My 4kw system was also the maximum amount of panels that would fit on my roof, in ten years it's more than paid for itself ..even though I recently did have to get a new inverter (which wasn't cheap), I really don't understand why people are still being slow to have systems installed. It makes damn good sense even for those who only interested IN money and investments and don't care about the planet or global warming..... and even more so if they can increase the panels, efficiency by so much more.
Depends on your circumstances and the Country you live in I guess. I'm UK based, I've got 15 x 395w panels, 5k inverter and an 8.2kwh home battery. Payback in 6-7 years. Cost £10,300 all in. I didn't need to get a loan, but if near the end of my payback period the inverter or battery goes, you are back to square one in terms of ROI. Bear in mind I didn't need to take out a loan, otherwise the payback period would have been 8.5 years... Many variables, and many Countries now charging YOU for exporting to the grid...
Some people live in LIsted buildings and are not allowed panels at all......even though they are now quite unobtrusive and there's a "climate emergency".
Electricity to cheap here it would cost me payments for 35 years to pay for system with quotes I got here. Since most systems only rated to work 30 years I would be out money.
I think you might end up getting less panels and more (battery) storage, so you don't have to deliver to the grid as the advantages of that are going to be reduced over time.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191 Well, they only reported the degradation to 97%. That can't necessarily be extrapolated 10x (compare: Li-Ion batteries lose the first ~3% quickly and then slow down).
Fascinating video, Dave. Always appreciate your technology updates. And I notice you correctly use "micrometre" instead of "micron", which is officially obsolete. One hint, though; your pronunciation is for "micrometer", which is a measurement device. The pronunciation of the metric subunit of the "metre" is MY-kroh-mee-ter, much like MILL-ee-mee-ter. Cheers, mate! 😊
Haha, micron is definitely not obsolete and is the preferred term to use where I come from which, not surprisingly, is the manufacturing, engineering, and manufacturing of those damned measurement instruments that people confuse with the new-fangled unit name. (Numerous publications and textbook publishers have resisted changing over as well for the same reason.) "Micron is also shorter and well known. Nope, call me old-fashioned, but "micron" is the much better, less confusing term And I support all efforts to resist this change. The world has enough ambiguity as it is, there's absolutely no reason to add more.
@@punditgiYes, I understand. You must forgive me for ranting on as I have to deal with the confusion every day and I'm evidently more sensitive about it than I should be. 😁
I read many concerns about the longevity of perovskite panels, but if they are dirt cheap, that might not be much of an issue.. just have them removed and install new ones (which are probably better as well), the old ones should then be recycled, so the materials can be used to make new solar panels.
i think they're not going to be dirt cheap (at least not anytime soon) because they're going to be silicon-perovskite combination, LCOE can be lower than regular ones because they converts more sun light into electricity
I hope development continues because they are certainly viable for specific applications. But even if their reliability is improved, I doubt they will ever reach the amazing reliability and manufactured cost of current solar cells whose prices are still falling. Three problems: Their manufacture requires adding additional layers which requires a more complicated and expensive manufacturing process. These additional layers decrease the cell's thermal conductivity which complicates cooling issues. Their weather-resilient protection requires more expensive UV transparent glass or a plastic that is as durable glass.
The biggest issue is that with that capture it heats op the panel much more, which diminishes the efficiency of the visible light conversion. That's why it pays off more to reflect IR and just capture high energy radiation.
did you miss the part where the smoothness of the tandem cells was a huge barrier that has only recently been figured out? single layer solar cells already exist, but you arent going to get anything multilayered in paint if the current research is literally into how to apply a layer we already understand to another layer we already understand.
I would have thought that price efficiency is more important: if I have $10,000 to spend on solar panel energy, the critical question becomes which technology offers the most kilowatts for my $10,000? That, to me and I think many typical consumers, is the most critical question, and industry-leading raw efficiency numbers don't mean a thing if the price per kilowatt is more.
You're excellent use of the a banger at the beginning is you farming view time. I know this because I had to watch 2 minutes twice cuz I was laughing so hard.
Just wanted to say that I have really been enjoying your channel for a few years now. Would have really liked to have seen you last month here, in the Vancouver, Canada area last month at the Everything Electric Show sponsored by BC Hydro. Don't know if you have come to Canada before but if not, it's a great place to visit. Keep up the great work!!
Great video! I really like the way you present the material - everything is clear, understandable and professional. Keep making us happy with your work!🐹🌲🙊
Skulduggery I tell you! It is strange that having, as we do, a massive fusion generator (our Sun) only eight light minutes away, that we can't use it to power everything (apart from life on earth). What would the Vogons say?
i mean, we kind of do petroleum and coal are stored and compressed solar energy, just with the unfortunate side effect of also having carbon dioxide compressed and stored along with the energy and it makes a lot of sense to use pre-stored solar energy.... except for the whole carbon dioxide thing :|
@@ItWasSaucerShaped My favorite stored energy is geothermal. Those new drilling techniques that use microwaves to vaporize rock have really made great progress. When we can drill deep enough to produce superheated steam anywhere on the planet, I think even solar and wind will become niche power generating technologies and everything on earth will be geothermal. Fusion reactors, besides being non-existent, are already giant, expensive dinosaurs vis-à-vis earth. But the research is important because they will come in very handy in deep space.
Is space efficiency the most critical factor, watt/m^2? Or is it more cost efficiency, i.e. watt/£ of install. Is the production/install process going to be significantly cheaper to make a big impact. I often wonder if the much less space efficient polymer solar printing and paint process are something to get more excited about, where the production/installation cost is so much cheaper you can use it every where.
That's my luck. Made research in quantum dot cell to save the world... not working good enough, tech ended up Q-led in monitor. Made research in organic photovoltaic to save the world... not working good enough, tech ended up in OLED monitor. Made research in Perovskite cell and... stopped thinking that "will end up like the other two broken dreams displayed on monitor" and abandoned research for private sector.. Now 10 years later... Those are working -_-
@@ahenchan5422 Miss typed two times Organic PV. First Perovskite were also pretty nasty. With lead inside and GHB as solvent for deposition. So definitely different from the OPV I was doing before with most of the material that were perfectly biocompatible.
You look so much like my mom’s brother, my son and I are freaking out, watching your video. My mom and her family are American but primarily of English descent, having come over in the 1800’s . Just crazy.
Energy efficiency only makes sense to talk about if you are running out of space, and we are not nearly close to that. Far more important is cost per watt, including installation. More efficient cells are more compact, so less installation for the same power, but it doesn't matter if the cells are not cost competitive. The most important question is whether a technology can be cheap.
Installation costs are a massive part of the overall costs though. Both have to be weighted against each other. As usual, a new technology costs more, with declining costs over time. All that has to be taken into account.
Good point, plenty of desert wasteland, cropland, and canals waiting for panels. The end of life of the product also matters a lot. The industry keeps making stuff that become forever trash, can't be remade into more, that is stupid. We can't cover the world in garbage in the process of going electric.
That's true but new tech always starts out expensive and then become cheaper over time. Efficiency is a major issue for small, mobile applications and for homes with limited roof space.
@@HoboGardenerBen That seems like a terrible idea. One reason being the massive amounts of vibrations which the panels would have to withstand, from being a part of a bike-frame. You're better off having solar at home and through your public municipality, which you could then fast-charge with.
The description of what happens when the sunlight hits the material reminds me of batteries. It seems that it could be an actual chemical reaction from the sunlight that causes the material to change and kind of rust giving off electrans but once it's rusted then it doesn't produce as well. ???? I am not sure if that is correct just my thoughts. The silicone panel probably work very different but they also eventually decay in the sun too. I say this because I live in Florida and the sun is very strong here. I like experiments with solar technologies to try to optimize efficiency for example here in Florida having a way to cool a panel improve thier efficiency a lot. They also can last a bit longer although the sun eats them away eventually. Said to much. Great video thank you 😊
The world need long lasting solar. Panels. The efficiency is not to important if they need replacing in 20 to 30 years.. We need increase solar in next few years. Not replacing existing systems...Make solar last ober 50 years
The serious problem with these perovskite panels is they don't last nearly as long as normal panels and they are quite fragile compared with normal panels.
Once batteries get longer operational lives and become cheaper, this new PV technology will be great. For now, grids don't have enough storage and are becoming unstable due to excess PV feed in power. Here in Australia, we might actually see negative feed in tariffs soon.
Topcon n type bifacial solar panels has 24-25%, plus, if to trust pdf they can get up to 30% of energy from the back side. Like, 600W panel became almost 800W one, claiming in this case 35% efficiency 🤔 And if it will be placed in front of white surface?
You might want to do a video on the Axially Graded Index Lens being developed at the Stanford U. Precourt Institute for Technology. The lens is an optical concentrator. It is claimed to output spots 3 times brighter than incoming light. They also claim that it can capture 90% of the light hitting its surface. This captured light would include not only direct light but also diffuse light that is scattered by the atmosphere and weather such as on cloudy days.
Hi there, thanks for all the wonderful videos you put out. I just saw an interesting new BESS technology using organic material to store electricity. I don't know if this is clickbait or something more revolutionary.
Higher efficiency is great. I'm limited to a 5kW inverter though. All that extra electricity I sell back to the grid can't even make up for the fixed connection fee.
For general use what matters is annual Whr / $. Conversion % only matters more when space is tightly constricted such for solar boosted vehicles. Even on a house roof it's not worth paying a premium for higher % because you can always top up from the grid.
You know climate youtube got some of the brightest minds out there, on the great jokes they serve, like Dave do here, and Rollie over at Climate Town 😄💚
When talking about PV efficiency improvements, two other factors become of interest: price and longevity. One can not take as given that those two remain still when efficiency is improved. Propably there are no mentions with the scientific news, but it would be nice if the other two economic factors were visited more often when presenting efficiency records. The volume of utilization is an outcome of efficiency, longevity and cheap price combined.
There are already low cost commercially available mass produced PV panels at the same efficiency of the Oxford PV panels, not 20% lower as you detailed in the video. 25% regular panels will be available Q1 next year. Hopefully Oxford PV and other perovskite producers will accelerate the efficiency improvements as I doubt they are cost competitive at the moment.
If Perovskite can be doped on / in Silicon solar panel, then maybe that market will thrive!!! It's about the valence level when mixing two or more materials together to improve efficiency. Valence level is about electron transfers between those materials when heated. Thermoelectric panels to capture heat as well light works out more better... but nuclear batteries have a source emitter without any reliance on the sun to provide energy!! Just a thought...😮😮😮😮😮😮😮
As a proud owner of a PV system on my roof which's electricity is intended to be used directly, I'd like to amend that the absolute efficiency under ideal conditions (direct sunlight) is pretty much irrelevant for me personally: In summer I already get multiple times the amount of electricity I can meaningfully use, but when its cloudy, days are short and electricity consumption is higher (winter!), I'm very much interested in higher yields. Looking at the spectra of the Perovskite-Silicon cells shown in the video I get the impression that for diffuse light, their efficiency is unfortunately not much better than current cells, because the Perovskite seems to primarily take advantage the UV spectrum (which is not present under diffuse light conditions)? I would be delighted to be wrong in this case...
I took the NASA fig of 340 w sq m as correct. That's close to 250w on a 6*4 panel. We expect approx 1 Kw for four panels in July. This seems to allow for little improvement in converting sunlight.
The more tech we can use, the better. Even if it has some downsides (e.g. shorter lifespan), it still can work plenty well for ground-mounted utility scale arrays. And if it's not from silicone, it might be easier to recycle afterwards... I am optimistic. Thanks for the update, positive news are rare these days.
One layer is a traditional solar cell so the recycling issue is more complex not less complex. That said, the good news is that it's not that bad just to bury them in a landfill. For even a 20-year lifetime the mass per year is still very low. Lower than most stuff that ends up in a landfill. Definitely a few orders of magnitude less than single use plastic and don't get me started on disposable diapers and kitty litter. 😁
While I can't be of any help about the chemical or structural (delamination caused by temperature cycling) effects of elevated temperatures, I do know that it's more problematic to cool the cells because the extra layers reduce the cell's thermal conductivity.
Ha! I'm looking outside on this miserable UK October morning & my solar array is producing zip, nada, nichts. For the next six months it matters not one jot whether my panels are 40% efficient or 20% because twice bugger all counts for nowt!
Great stuff but please note that a mi-CROM-eter is a G-clamp like device used to accurately measure components whereas Micro-Meter is the 10 to the minus 6 metre measurement scale.
Spruce Pine mines have all their operations cut out and roads flooded out by hurricane Helene. Spruce Pine district is one of the largest suppliers of high-purity quartz, the raw material for silicon. This will lead to serious shortage of the semiconductors and PV.
I have a question to just have a think. The solar panels look quite blackish to me, so they must absorb huge amounts of solar light lengths and they convert about 25 % of the light to create electricity (the best panels). The question is what happens to the other 75%?. Are they emitted back to space or do they warm up the atmosphere around the solar panels quite more efficiently then say the sand and rocks of the desert those panels are installed upon?
Like a new Covid strain success means outcompeting the dominant technology. 20% greater efficiency won’t win if the panel costs 20% more. Thus, the barrier to entry is reaching a scale where production cost falls below existing tech. It’s a high barrier. That’s why we are still using the same design (roughly) from 20 years ago.
It is not correct that 24.5% is something like 20% better than commercially available panels. Aiko has 460 Wp panels that between 23.8 and 24 % efficiency. These cost about 80 Euro in the Netherlands (end customer price). Longi just released a larger (230cm long) 650Wp+ panel with 24.5% efficiency. 20% above competition would mean that the competition only had 20% efficiency. That is way outdated.
Great video! I don know why but this reminds me of Luis Pasteur quest during his time. Perhaps the researcher will stumble on what will be a huge discovery? Im just having a think!
Correct me if im wrong, but i think we've had multi-junction solar cells for quite awhile, getting > 40%. The problem is the cost and reliability; these problems seem to be continuing.
Based on 600 hours use, this does seem to be a very short guarantee of efficacy for perovskite on silicon. I'd like to see this measured over a longer time period so we can have more confidence that these numbers can be sustained. The extra processing required needs to be justifiable over the full lifecycle of the tech.
I think that as wonderfull as this spray process sounds there may be that there is a bit of "hopium " involved. That is OK I think ,as hope should spring eternal and what else motivates us to move forward, but there is more work to be done here. If panels are "illuminated" energeticaly for say 10 hours a day, then 97% of original efficiency at 600 hours equals 97% degradation at 60 days, and that is a long way from from the twenty year percentage of degradation warranty on my newly installed solar panels. What happens at 1 year, 5years, 10 years? At twenty years will the spraye processed panels be as efficient or more or less efficient than the ones I have now?
It´s good to see one of these ¨miracle solutions¨ actually hit the market for a change :) But if the panels are made in the EU, why is the US the first market for them?
The Spruce Pines (north caroline) quartz* manufacturing has been shut down but is more likely to affect computer chips than solar. Just FYI, unless someone says it's going to shut down solar panels. *(99.999999% pure quartz wafers).
9:33 So that means after roughly 3 years they only have 50% of their initial performance left and a mere 11% after 10 years (assuming an average light exposure of 12h/day). Not really sustainable, is it?
Yes but look what they do in Australia. Firstly they gave incentives to get everyone to have solar and feed back to the grid. They introduced planning laws to prohibit gas for new homes and now they charge you extra for feeding too much solar back to the grid
recyclability is not really that important, specially if it's at the cost of panel durability. modern solar panels are made to last more than 30 years already, and even after 30 years they still produce plenty of energy. if you can make them easier to recycle without affecting durability, then sure, but modern panels already can be recycled, it's just a lot more expensive then mining new raw materials. but it would be even better if we found ways to continue using old panels, just like we should find ways to continue using old batteries for as long as they still work.
No, that's not "all that matters". When you're comparing it to coal as a source of electricity, you need to consider all the people and other animals getting sick or dying from the air pollution, the mountains of toxic coal ash, the massive, ongoing destruction of the environment while we continually mine massive quantities of coal. With solar panels, the material requirements are minimal. Infinitesimal, in comparison to coal. At the end of their useful life, decades in the future, they can be harmlessly buried. So what. I know, "Reeee, it's not 'sustainable'!!!" BFD. Coal is killing us.
@@incognitotorpedo42They are easily modified into standard roofing material. But yes, burying them in landfills is easily justified because their 30-year lifetimes make their mass per year relatively low. Orders of magnitude lower than most anything else you put in a landfill. Add another order of magnitude or two when you consider single use plastic and don't even get me started on disposable diapers and kitty litter...
30% efficiency means 50% more energy than my 20% efficiency panels which means a huge improvement to my quality of life in winter :)
it also means less panels on the roof for the same power production which I like
@@fireball75677 OR more power from the same roof !
Likewise. I wonder when to buy thou. I guess incompatibility isn't a problem but shall check. I also want the smaller sizes to fit on my small house boat
It also means that if in winter you harvest the waste heat for hot water, space heating and clothes drying you reduce energy consumption from another area. That is a distinct possibility.
Though for most householders money is the limiting factor rather than roof area. A panel that makes 50% more but which costs 100% more is only an advance for a very limited set of applications.
Thanks for making sense of many things .... in a light and humorous way
40% efficiency solar cells would definitely make solar electric vehicles much more viable for lots of folks out there. Right now it seems that the typical range gain from adding solar cells to a vehicle is about 10-20 miles per day, but doubling current efficiency would bring it up to 20-40 miles per day, which I believe would cover most people's commutes. Very hope inspiring tech. I'm glad to hear that this one actually came to fruition. I hope the technology continues to improve too.
10-20 miles in the best possible conditions with direct sunlight, for a small fortune that would cost to apply them to the entire surface of the vehicle. it's never going to be worth it unless for super light vehicles designed specifically for the purpose of maximizing solar energy.
@@danilooliveira6580 Like the Aptera Sol
keep eye on graphene solid state ev batteries,, goal is 600 miles, extremely fast charge and less prone to fires.
😑
I certainly wish this idea well, but for now the added weight gain and overall vehicle reliability penalty really cancels out any benefits.
Currently the price per panel is much lower than the price per panel mounting equipment.
You pay more for 2 aluminium profiles that you have to screw on your panel to connect it to your roof.
So needing less panels is always better. Because the mounting is extremely expensive, not the panels.
The panels are still spendy for most people. I'm not contesting that the cost of installation, just saying that the panel price still matters quite a bit.
One thing I'd like to see is the creation of a better installation system for CdTe thin film panels. With their light weight, there's no need for them to use the same mountings as silicon panels. We could dramatically reduce the costs of installation for thin film panels with a little effort. (I am not an engineer, so this isn't something I can contribute, but I do think it's something that should be done.)
@@cripdykehere in South Africa there has been a significant drop in panel prices. A Canadian Solar 550w panel currently costs less than $100. The mounting system costs roughly $50 per panel, labour to install each panel comes to roughly $30 and PV cabling, connectors, fuses etc works out to $20 per panel. So the panel is cheap compared to the rest.
Got it right just after 13 tries - got me. Thank you for your great work
Great video. Wish I had you as a teacher at school. If it reaches the market and effeciency claims are correct, this is hugely exciting.
There seems to be a lot of talk about panel efficiency but for most people the priority is price per Watt. A cheaper less efficient panel makes more sense than a more expensive more efficient one. If roof space is the limiting factor then Watt/m2 is the key factor. Rarely discussed in the voltage of panels, it is easy to be over voltage on your inverter before you reach the max Wattage. I have been off-grid with Solar for 6 years - videos of my setup on my channel
I suppose there are teams working to produce cheaper panels, and teams preparing the next generation of more efficient panels. Progress happens in 2 fronts, just like we see in electronics
@@srpenguinbr Different solutions for different problems. For satellites you want maximum output for as little weight as possible, while also having to deal with the different enviroment.
So it's probably a bit more than just two fronts.
Yes.
@@srpenguinbr probably so, but it seems strange that nobody talks about the cost, which has the effect of keeping consumers in the dark about what they should be paying when they get a supply and fit quote.
Here in Thailand we can pay as low as ฿5/W = £0.11 = $0.15 for PV panels. That's why I have 20kW of PV
"There seems to be a lot of talk about panel efficiency but for most people the priority is price per Watt."
Agree, but you have to consider the total price per watt, including installation labor. Even if a more efficient panel is more expensive per watt to manufacture, it may still end up cheaper per watt in the end if fewer panels to install results in less labor costs for the installation.
Good stuff. I did a course on solar some years ago and perovskites were the most efficient.
My 4kw system was also the maximum amount of panels that would fit on my roof, in ten years it's more than paid for itself ..even though I recently did have to get a new inverter (which wasn't cheap), I really don't understand why people are still being slow to have systems installed. It makes damn good sense even for those who only interested IN money and investments and don't care about the planet or global warming..... and even more so if they can increase the panels, efficiency by so much more.
Depends on your circumstances and the Country you live in I guess.
I'm UK based, I've got 15 x 395w panels, 5k inverter and an 8.2kwh home battery.
Payback in 6-7 years. Cost £10,300 all in.
I didn't need to get a loan, but if near the end of my payback period the inverter or battery goes, you are back to square one in terms of ROI.
Bear in mind I didn't need to take out a loan, otherwise the payback period would have been 8.5 years...
Many variables, and many Countries now charging YOU for exporting to the grid...
As soon as I can get a quote that will pay itself off in 10 years, I’m in. But our electricity here is cheap and the companies are shady, so I wait.
Some people live in LIsted buildings and are not allowed panels at all......even though they are now quite unobtrusive and there's a "climate emergency".
Electricity to cheap here it would cost me payments for 35 years to pay for system with quotes I got here. Since most systems only rated to work 30 years I would be out money.
Progress like this makes my day..
I planning to install solar panel in October’2025. 40% efficiency means not only zero energy bills but also a way of earning. 😎💵
The government won't like you making profits, taxes incoming!
@@peterpeter-ft7df Harsh truth 😭
I think you might end up getting less panels and more (battery) storage, so you don't have to deliver to the grid as the advantages of that are going to be reduced over time.
That is so cool I hope the green public get to use it as soon as possible
I am looking forward to longevitiy data on these new PV cells that make use of Perovskite as they go through their service life.
Even if you assume that sunlight is only intense for 6 hours a day, that was only 100 days. We want an least 3000 days, minimum.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191 Well, they only reported the degradation to 97%. That can't necessarily be extrapolated 10x (compare: Li-Ion batteries lose the first ~3% quickly and then slow down).
Great show Dave. Keep up tbe great work
Fascinating video, Dave. Always appreciate your technology updates. And I notice you correctly use "micrometre" instead of "micron", which is officially obsolete. One hint, though; your pronunciation is for "micrometer", which is a measurement device. The pronunciation of the metric subunit of the "metre" is MY-kroh-mee-ter, much like MILL-ee-mee-ter. Cheers, mate! 😊
7:57 7:59
Haha, micron is definitely not obsolete and is the preferred term to use where I come from which, not surprisingly, is the manufacturing, engineering, and manufacturing of those damned measurement instruments that people confuse with the new-fangled unit name. (Numerous publications and textbook publishers have resisted changing over as well for the same reason.) "Micron is also shorter and well known. Nope, call me old-fashioned, but "micron" is the much better, less confusing term And I support all efforts to resist this change. The world has enough ambiguity as it is, there's absolutely no reason to add more.
@@2ndfloorsongs I mean officially obsolete per the BIPM.
@@punditgiYes, I understand. You must forgive me for ranting on as I have to deal with the confusion every day and I'm evidently more sensitive about it than I should be. 😁
@@2ndfloorsongs No worries, mate! 😃
I read many concerns about the longevity of perovskite panels, but if they are dirt cheap, that might not be much of an issue.. just have them removed and install new ones (which are probably better as well), the old ones should then be recycled, so the materials can be used to make new solar panels.
i think they're not going to be dirt cheap (at least not anytime soon) because they're going to be silicon-perovskite combination, LCOE can be lower than regular ones because they converts more sun light into electricity
Wouldn't it be amazing if no product was allowed in the market until the whole process, down to its recyclability was designed and implemented?
Today installation costs more than the panels for residential applications
I hope development continues because they are certainly viable for specific applications. But even if their reliability is improved, I doubt they will ever reach the amazing reliability and manufactured cost of current solar cells whose prices are still falling. Three problems: Their manufacture requires adding additional layers which requires a more complicated and expensive manufacturing process. These additional layers decrease the cell's thermal conductivity which complicates cooling issues. Their weather-resilient protection requires more expensive UV transparent glass or a plastic that is as durable glass.
How is low voltage of wide spectrum cells a problem when one can put them in series?
Thanks for providing the links to the research papers.
Thank you for another fine report for me to view.
I hope to see the day when solar panels capture infrared light that change would be amazing, I'm sure someone is working on it
Infrared light doesn't produce much voltage, unfortunately.
The biggest issue is that with that capture it heats op the panel much more, which diminishes the efficiency of the visible light conversion. That's why it pays off more to reflect IR and just capture high energy radiation.
Yep, hybrid PV and thermal, aka PVT
yeah UV not IR @@GBOAC
I'm waiting for my perovskite solar paint.
University of Washington has been printing P cells on plastic film for over a decade.
did you miss the part where the smoothness of the tandem cells was a huge barrier that has only recently been figured out? single layer solar cells already exist, but you arent going to get anything multilayered in paint if the current research is literally into how to apply a layer we already understand to another layer we already understand.
I would have thought that price efficiency is more important: if I have $10,000 to spend on solar panel energy, the critical question becomes which technology offers the most kilowatts for my $10,000? That, to me and I think many typical consumers, is the most critical question, and industry-leading raw efficiency numbers don't mean a thing if the price per kilowatt is more.
You're excellent use of the a banger at the beginning is you farming view time. I know this because I had to watch 2 minutes twice cuz I was laughing so hard.
Just wanted to say that I have really been enjoying your channel for a few years now. Would have really liked to have seen you last month here, in the Vancouver, Canada area last month at the Everything Electric Show sponsored by BC Hydro. Don't know if you have come to Canada before but if not, it's a great place to visit. Keep up the great work!!
Many Thanks for this informative video.
This is fantastic news! Thanks for keeping us up to date on all the latest green tech Dave!
Thanks
Did you know that you can write to the authors of scientific papers and ask for a copy? They are normally very happy to provide a copy for free.
Great video! I really like the way you present the material - everything is clear, understandable and professional. Keep making us happy with your work!🐹🌲🙊
Explain your interest and experience in batteries please
@@TinaKrack I like batteries too. They make toys work.
@@TinaKrack oops, I forgot to add cute emojis
@@TinaKrack why take comments away?
@@TinaKrack stop!
Here's hoping! How wonderful this will be when we can get tandem cells working everythere they are viable 🙂
Skulduggery I tell you!
It is strange that having, as we do, a massive fusion generator (our Sun) only eight light minutes away, that we can't use it to power everything (apart from life on earth).
What would the Vogons say?
Mostly harmless. 😂
😂😂
The Vogons, to the detriment of all sentient beings, have probably written an uncountable number of seemingly endless poems about it.
i mean, we kind of do
petroleum and coal are stored and compressed solar energy, just with the unfortunate side effect of also having carbon dioxide compressed and stored along with the energy
and it makes a lot of sense to use pre-stored solar energy.... except for the whole carbon dioxide thing :|
@@ItWasSaucerShaped My favorite stored energy is geothermal. Those new drilling techniques that use microwaves to vaporize rock have really made great progress. When we can drill deep enough to produce superheated steam anywhere on the planet, I think even solar and wind will become niche power generating technologies and everything on earth will be geothermal. Fusion reactors, besides being non-existent, are already giant, expensive dinosaurs vis-à-vis earth. But the research is important because they will come in very handy in deep space.
Amazing to see research actually get to market. So many damp squibs.
Is space efficiency the most critical factor, watt/m^2?
Or is it more cost efficiency, i.e. watt/£ of install.
Is the production/install process going to be significantly cheaper to make a big impact.
I often wonder if the much less space efficient polymer solar printing and paint process are something to get more excited about, where the production/installation cost is so much cheaper you can use it every where.
That and Add the Frequency of the Sun Back bright Idea,
Superb as ever. Thank you.. Wish I could make it to Farnborough.
That's my luck.
Made research in quantum dot cell to save the world... not working good enough, tech ended up Q-led in monitor.
Made research in organic photovoltaic to save the world... not working good enough, tech ended up in OLED monitor.
Made research in Perovskite cell and... stopped thinking that "will end up like the other two broken dreams displayed on monitor" and abandoned research for private sector..
Now 10 years later... Those are working -_-
you paved the way for those discoveries
Science is a crap-shoot. I applaud your honest efforts. Really, that's the best anyone can do.
Organic PV may well be working as you say. With your experience though, you surely know that Perovskite is not organic. It even says so in the video.
@@ahenchan5422 Miss typed two times Organic PV. First Perovskite were also pretty nasty. With lead inside and GHB as solvent for deposition. So definitely different from the OPV I was doing before with most of the material that were perfectly biocompatible.
Next time aim got get rich instead.
Great video. The graph backgrounds always make me want to wash my screen :)
You look so much like my mom’s brother, my son and I are freaking out, watching your video. My mom and her family are American but primarily of English descent, having come over in the 1800’s . Just
crazy.
Energy efficiency only makes sense to talk about if you are running out of space, and we are not nearly close to that. Far more important is cost per watt, including installation. More efficient cells are more compact, so less installation for the same power, but it doesn't matter if the cells are not cost competitive. The most important question is whether a technology can be cheap.
Installation costs are a massive part of the overall costs though. Both have to be weighted against each other.
As usual, a new technology costs more, with declining costs over time.
All that has to be taken into account.
Good point, plenty of desert wasteland, cropland, and canals waiting for panels. The end of life of the product also matters a lot. The industry keeps making stuff that become forever trash, can't be remade into more, that is stupid. We can't cover the world in garbage in the process of going electric.
I am interested in solar ebikes so the most efficient panel would be great there, limited real estate. But it also needs to be tough
That's true but new tech always starts out expensive and then become cheaper over time. Efficiency is a major issue for small, mobile applications and for homes with limited roof space.
@@HoboGardenerBen That seems like a terrible idea. One reason being the massive amounts of vibrations which the panels would have to withstand, from being a part of a bike-frame. You're better off having solar at home and through your public municipality, which you could then fast-charge with.
The description of what happens when the sunlight hits the material reminds me of batteries. It seems that it could be an actual chemical reaction from the sunlight that causes the material to change and kind of rust giving off electrans but once it's rusted then it doesn't produce as well. ???? I am not sure if that is correct just my thoughts. The silicone panel probably work very different but they also eventually decay in the sun too. I say this because I live in Florida and the sun is very strong here. I like experiments with solar technologies to try to optimize efficiency for example here in Florida having a way to cool a panel improve thier efficiency a lot. They also can last a bit longer although the sun eats them away eventually. Said to much. Great video thank you 😊
BRING IT !
Brilliant as always.
How did you comment 9 days ago? This video was shared yesterday. I'm so confused
@@ChoompMedia I guess the answer would be that paying members get to see the videos earlier?
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ the ENTIRE lifecycle of the solar cells needs to be considered ….. birth , installation , use ( including hail ) , Recycle
40%?! Daaaaaaaang that's gonna be nice when we get them out.
Any increase in the technology is great as long as it is not done at the cost of the environment!
Finally!
The world need long lasting solar. Panels. The efficiency is not to important if they need replacing in 20 to 30 years.. We need increase solar in next few years. Not replacing existing systems...Make solar last ober 50 years
A company that makes panels that last 50 years and sell cheap perhaps at $100 will quickly go out of business.
The serious problem with these perovskite panels is they don't last nearly as long as normal panels and they are quite fragile compared with normal panels.
Once batteries get longer operational lives and become cheaper, this new PV technology will be great. For now, grids don't have enough storage and are becoming unstable due to excess PV feed in power.
Here in Australia, we might actually see negative feed in tariffs soon.
Dear David, thank you for your next THINK, Some of the standard SOLAR PV producers deliver SOLAR panels with 24% efficiency.
Topcon n type bifacial solar panels has 24-25%, plus, if to trust pdf they can get up to 30% of energy from the back side. Like, 600W panel became almost 800W one, claiming in this case 35% efficiency 🤔 And if it will be placed in front of white surface?
Hey now, I do actually remember talking about perovskites earlier
Haha I recognized the cube in the thumbnail as perovskite. Been watching so many vids on this topic 😊
You might want to do a video on the Axially Graded Index Lens being developed at the Stanford U. Precourt Institute for Technology. The lens is an optical concentrator. It is claimed to output spots 3 times brighter than incoming light. They also claim that it can capture 90% of the light hitting its surface. This captured light would include not only direct light but also diffuse light that is scattered by the atmosphere and weather such as on cloudy days.
Great video. Thanks.
Thanks
Interested to see degrade over time, 600 hr time frame is very short test. Current panels run for approx over 45k hours of light under warranty.
Hi there, thanks for all the wonderful videos you put out. I just saw an interesting new BESS technology using organic material to store electricity. I don't know if this is clickbait or something more revolutionary.
Higher efficiency is great. I'm limited to a 5kW inverter though. All that extra electricity I sell back to the grid can't even make up for the fixed connection fee.
What a pleasant fella
Thanks. Free fusion FTW.
For general use what matters is annual Whr / $. Conversion % only matters more when space is tightly constricted such for solar boosted vehicles. Even on a house roof it's not worth paying a premium for higher % because you can always top up from the grid.
You know climate youtube got some of the brightest minds out there, on the great jokes they serve, like Dave do here, and Rollie over at Climate Town 😄💚
When talking about PV efficiency improvements, two other factors become of interest: price and longevity.
One can not take as given that those two remain still when efficiency is improved.
Propably there are no mentions with the scientific news, but it would be nice if the other two economic factors were visited more often when presenting efficiency records.
The volume of utilization is an outcome of efficiency, longevity and cheap price combined.
Amazing!!
There are already low cost commercially available mass produced PV panels at the same efficiency of the Oxford PV panels, not 20% lower as you detailed in the video. 25% regular panels will be available Q1 next year. Hopefully Oxford PV and other perovskite producers will accelerate the efficiency improvements as I doubt they are cost competitive at the moment.
If Perovskite can be doped on / in Silicon solar panel, then maybe that market will thrive!!! It's about the valence level when mixing two or more materials together to improve efficiency. Valence level is about electron transfers between those materials when heated. Thermoelectric panels to capture heat as well light works out more better... but nuclear batteries have a source emitter without any reliance on the sun to provide energy!! Just a thought...😮😮😮😮😮😮😮
Amazing 😊
For the ones 'ON SALE' in the USA what's the $/W?
Awesome to hear about the research :)
And how long do they last?
@@godfreypoon5148 yes. $/lifetime Wh please :)
As a proud owner of a PV system on my roof which's electricity is intended to be used directly, I'd like to amend that the absolute efficiency under ideal conditions (direct sunlight) is pretty much irrelevant for me personally: In summer I already get multiple times the amount of electricity I can meaningfully use, but when its cloudy, days are short and electricity consumption is higher (winter!), I'm very much interested in higher yields. Looking at the spectra of the Perovskite-Silicon cells shown in the video I get the impression that for diffuse light, their efficiency is unfortunately not much better than current cells, because the Perovskite seems to primarily take advantage the UV spectrum (which is not present under diffuse light conditions)? I would be delighted to be wrong in this case...
Thank you for your pronunciation. It made me feel good.
I took the NASA fig of 340 w sq m as correct. That's close to 250w on a 6*4 panel. We expect approx 1 Kw for four panels in July. This seems to allow for little improvement in converting sunlight.
The more tech we can use, the better. Even if it has some downsides (e.g. shorter lifespan), it still can work plenty well for ground-mounted utility scale arrays. And if it's not from silicone, it might be easier to recycle afterwards...
I am optimistic.
Thanks for the update, positive news are rare these days.
One layer is a traditional solar cell so the recycling issue is more complex not less complex. That said, the good news is that it's not that bad just to bury them in a landfill. For even a 20-year lifetime the mass per year is still very low. Lower than most stuff that ends up in a landfill. Definitely a few orders of magnitude less than single use plastic and don't get me started on disposable diapers and kitty litter. 😁
How does excessive heat buildup affect perovskite tandem/silicon panels?
While I can't be of any help about the chemical or structural (delamination caused by temperature cycling) effects of elevated temperatures, I do know that it's more problematic to cool the cells because the extra layers reduce the cell's thermal conductivity.
@@2ndfloorsongs Thank you
thanks
Ha! I'm looking outside on this miserable UK October morning & my solar array is producing zip, nada, nichts. For the next six months it matters not one jot whether my panels are 40% efficient or 20% because twice bugger all counts for nowt!
Good content. #Subscribed
As a First Solar investor, I have two words to consider-- cost and warranty.
Great stuff but please note that a mi-CROM-eter is a G-clamp like device used to accurately measure components whereas Micro-Meter is the 10 to the minus 6 metre measurement scale.
Whenever you cite research in China I’m both hopeful yet skeptical. When will it be available for verification?
Skeptical only when you have a thick skull and too blind to see the EV and green energy dominance of China
Spruce Pine mines have all their operations cut out and roads flooded out by hurricane Helene. Spruce Pine district is one of the largest suppliers of high-purity quartz, the raw material for silicon. This will lead to serious shortage of the semiconductors and PV.
Does the solar panel still have a 25+ year life?
Very interesting. How do we make them last 25+ years?
I have a question to just have a think. The solar panels look quite blackish to me, so they must absorb huge amounts of solar light lengths and they convert about 25 % of the light to create electricity (the best panels). The question is what happens to the other 75%?. Are they emitted back to space or do they warm up the atmosphere around the solar panels quite more efficiently then say the sand and rocks of the desert those panels are installed upon?
Like a new Covid strain success means outcompeting the dominant technology. 20% greater efficiency won’t win if the panel costs 20% more. Thus, the barrier to entry is reaching a scale where production cost falls below existing tech. It’s a high barrier. That’s why we are still using the same design (roughly) from 20 years ago.
I love to see the progress, it's 20 years late, but thankfully people are eager to push past the limits
It is not correct that 24.5% is something like 20% better than commercially available panels. Aiko has 460 Wp panels that between 23.8 and 24 % efficiency. These cost about 80 Euro in the Netherlands (end customer price). Longi just released a larger (230cm long) 650Wp+ panel with 24.5% efficiency. 20% above competition would mean that the competition only had 20% efficiency. That is way outdated.
Paying for access to scientific publications with Patreon money 😎
Great video! I don know why but this reminds me of Luis Pasteur quest during his time. Perhaps the researcher will stumble on what will be a huge discovery? Im just having a think!
Correct me if im wrong, but i think we've had multi-junction solar cells for quite awhile, getting > 40%. The problem is the cost and reliability; these problems seem to be continuing.
About schokley-qeussier: Why not use most of the light and as for the low voltage add the cells in series, so the voltage adds onto each other
Based on 600 hours use, this does seem to be a very short guarantee of efficacy for perovskite on silicon. I'd like to see this measured over a longer time period so we can have more confidence that these numbers can be sustained. The extra processing required needs to be justifiable over the full lifecycle of the tech.
I think that as wonderfull as this spray process sounds there may be that there is a bit of "hopium " involved. That is OK I think ,as hope should spring eternal and what else motivates us to move forward, but there is more work to be done here. If panels are "illuminated" energeticaly for say 10 hours a day, then 97% of original efficiency at 600 hours equals 97% degradation at 60 days, and that is a long way from from the twenty year percentage of degradation warranty on my newly installed solar panels. What happens at 1 year, 5years, 10 years? At twenty years will the spraye processed panels be as efficient or more or less efficient than the ones I have now?
Cool.
Buy me some and a bag of groceries.
Yes' got it! But does it still contain Silver?
It´s good to see one of these ¨miracle solutions¨ actually hit the market for a change :)
But if the panels are made in the EU, why is the US the first market for them?
The Spruce Pines (north caroline) quartz* manufacturing has been shut down but is more likely to affect computer chips than solar. Just FYI, unless someone says it's going to shut down solar panels.
*(99.999999% pure quartz wafers).
Another step on the way.
9:33 So that means after roughly 3 years they only have 50% of their initial performance left and a mere 11% after 10 years (assuming an average light exposure of 12h/day). Not really sustainable, is it?
The potential efficiency gains of this technology are very impressive, but the questions over durability cast a very dark shadow over it.
❤❤❤❤❤Dave❤❤❤❤
Emergency....need Dave to debunk climate bs stories ❤
Yes but look what they do in Australia. Firstly they gave incentives to get everyone to have solar and feed back to the grid. They introduced planning laws to prohibit gas for new homes and now they charge you extra for feeding too much solar back to the grid
Imagine bifacial perovskite panels. This really would be quite an improvement in high latitudes in winter.
All that matters is how is the respectability. We don't need super powerful solar panels what we need is solar panels that are easily recyclable
We want both, of course: super powerful solar panels that are easily recyclable. And cheap, too.
All that matters is that we respect them, show them we care. Respectability is what I really look for in a solar panel in 2024.
recyclability is not really that important, specially if it's at the cost of panel durability. modern solar panels are made to last more than 30 years already, and even after 30 years they still produce plenty of energy. if you can make them easier to recycle without affecting durability, then sure, but modern panels already can be recycled, it's just a lot more expensive then mining new raw materials. but it would be even better if we found ways to continue using old panels, just like we should find ways to continue using old batteries for as long as they still work.
No, that's not "all that matters". When you're comparing it to coal as a source of electricity, you need to consider all the people and other animals getting sick or dying from the air pollution, the mountains of toxic coal ash, the massive, ongoing destruction of the environment while we continually mine massive quantities of coal. With solar panels, the material requirements are minimal. Infinitesimal, in comparison to coal. At the end of their useful life, decades in the future, they can be harmlessly buried. So what. I know, "Reeee, it's not 'sustainable'!!!" BFD. Coal is killing us.
@@incognitotorpedo42They are easily modified into standard roofing material. But yes, burying them in landfills is easily justified because their 30-year lifetimes make their mass per year relatively low. Orders of magnitude lower than most anything else you put in a landfill. Add another order of magnitude or two when you consider single use plastic and don't even get me started on disposable diapers and kitty litter...