20% more powerful perovskite solar panels enter commercial use(oxfordpv.com)
oxfordpv.com
20% more powerful perovskite solar panels enter commercial use
https://www.oxfordpv.com/news/20-more-powerful-tandem-solar-panels-enter-commercial-use-first-time-us
154 comments
In my previous comment elsewhere that got flagged, I said, among other things, that the only clean sources of energy are nuclear and water.
Solar panels are generally pretty toxic to the environment. Even the silicon panels contain lead.
There's a pretty dark side to renewables that not many want to see.
https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die...
Solar panels are generally pretty toxic to the environment. Even the silicon panels contain lead.
There's a pretty dark side to renewables that not many want to see.
https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die...
> the only clean sources of energy are nuclear and water
> Solar panels are generally pretty toxic to the environment
Nuclear waste is famously clean and Three Gorges Dam has caused the Earth to alter its rotation.
Lunch is not free and never will be free. Part of the problem is pretending that it is or that my one true solution will solve all the problems of the world.
> Solar panels are generally pretty toxic to the environment
Nuclear waste is famously clean and Three Gorges Dam has caused the Earth to alter its rotation.
Lunch is not free and never will be free. Part of the problem is pretending that it is or that my one true solution will solve all the problems of the world.
Yes, technically there is nothing that is 100% clean. But with nuclear and water, you more or less control the area of contamination and you don't have a permanent production of toxic waste that goes everywhere and is impossible to get out of the environment again.
I have heard 4th generation nuclear is pretty clean.
I have heard 4th generation nuclear is pretty clean.
Has the war in Ukraine changed your perspective at all? A stray missile could irradiate all of Europe; no other form of energy can lead to such widespread damage. Perhaps mega-hydro projects, but the damage there is at least localized.
No one develops 4th generation nuclear simply because nuclear waste is a minuscule problem. On grand scale, even with all the security measures, it's actually pretty easy and cheap to just bury all the nuclear waste. So it's not really worth to recycle it, or make 4th gen reactors.
> I have heard 4th generation nuclear is pretty clean.
You heard wrong. 4th generation nuclear doesn't actually exist anywhere but on paper.
I hear nuclear fusionand perpetual motion machines are pretty clean.
You heard wrong. 4th generation nuclear doesn't actually exist anywhere but on paper.
I hear nuclear fusionand perpetual motion machines are pretty clean.
This is considered 4th gen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTR-PM
The relevant point is that the waste from renewables is dominated by mundane things like glass, plastic, aluminum, and steel.
This means it's pertinent to ask: is the quantity of waste from renewables important compared to the quantity of these produced by society in general?
And the answer is "no". So the problem of dealing with such waste has to be dealt with anyway by society; the waste of renewable energy sources just increments the problem slightly.
This is different from nuclear energy, which introduces an entirely new kind of waste not produced by society in general.
This means it's pertinent to ask: is the quantity of waste from renewables important compared to the quantity of these produced by society in general?
And the answer is "no". So the problem of dealing with such waste has to be dealt with anyway by society; the waste of renewable energy sources just increments the problem slightly.
This is different from nuclear energy, which introduces an entirely new kind of waste not produced by society in general.
The thing is that nuclear research has been stiffled for decades. It is possible to create nuclear reactors that consume their own waste.
Nuclear boosters can't seem to produce economical power, but they sure seem to be able to crank out the excuses.
A great deal of time and money was spent on nuclear reactors that destroy actinides. The conclusion is it's considerably more expensive than the nuclear technology we have now. That's why it's not being done.
A great deal of time and money was spent on nuclear reactors that destroy actinides. The conclusion is it's considerably more expensive than the nuclear technology we have now. That's why it's not being done.
Imagine if starting in the 1950's we'd spent on the money we spent on nukes on solar instead.
Could you explain why you consider nuclear power to be more clean than wind? That seems counterintuitive to me.
Wind turbines do not produce a lot of energy in total so you need a lot of them.
Thousands of tons of concrete are poured into the soil for the foundation of one wind turbine, and the foundation is likely never removed, creating ecological implications.
And wind turbines also can not be recycled and go to landfills.
With nuclear energy, the newest 4th generation reactors are closed systems that consume their own nuclear waste, so there is no final disposal problem.
Thousands of tons of concrete are poured into the soil for the foundation of one wind turbine, and the foundation is likely never removed, creating ecological implications.
And wind turbines also can not be recycled and go to landfills.
With nuclear energy, the newest 4th generation reactors are closed systems that consume their own nuclear waste, so there is no final disposal problem.
I can't talk to a comparison, but wind turbines have a finite lifespan and leave a lot of fibreglass behind. We're a lot better at piling it up than actually bothering to recycle. We can but virgin materials are cheaper and GRP isn't fun to process.
Almost certainly better than nuclear though, right?
Almost certainly better than nuclear though, right?
If this is about the lead in the solder then this is a huge nothingburger.
Solar panels are assembled with tin-silver-copper solder.
Hydroelectricity causes pollution. Flooding a piece of land causes more conversion of metallic mercury to organic methylmercury.
> Increased methylmercury concentrations in water and fish have been detected after flooding of soils associated with reservoir creation (e.g. for hydroelectric power generation)
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylmercury#Environmental_so...
> Increased methylmercury concentrations in water and fish have been detected after flooding of soils associated with reservoir creation (e.g. for hydroelectric power generation)
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylmercury#Environmental_so...
Yeah, lead is never good news because there is no level of exposure that isn't considered unhealthy. To quote the above wiki page:
> hybrid perovskites are very unstable and easily degrade to rather soluble compounds [...], which significantly increases their potential bioavailability and hazard for human health
Even if we're super careful about how we install and interact with substances like these ourselves, once we put it in our living environment it's going to come back to us the long way around through the food chain.
From the main wiki article on lead [0]:
> Lead has no confirmed biological role, and there is no confirmed safe level of lead exposure.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#Biological_effects
> hybrid perovskites are very unstable and easily degrade to rather soluble compounds [...], which significantly increases their potential bioavailability and hazard for human health
Even if we're super careful about how we install and interact with substances like these ourselves, once we put it in our living environment it's going to come back to us the long way around through the food chain.
From the main wiki article on lead [0]:
> Lead has no confirmed biological role, and there is no confirmed safe level of lead exposure.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#Biological_effects
I'd rather use 20% more land than revisit the "woops, lead everywhere thanks to energy" of the 20th century.
> revisit the "woops, lead everywhere thanks to energy" of the 20th century
That seeeeems unlikely to me. We know the dangers of lead now, and it is treated much more carefully. It's absolutely good to be aware of, but I don't think we're going to make the same mistake.
Also worth considering that coal & garbage-fueled plants output lead directly into the atmosphere[1], so if these help take coal plants offline, it's still a gain even if they aren't perfect.
[1] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/abs/10.1289/isee.2021.P-143
That seeeeems unlikely to me. We know the dangers of lead now, and it is treated much more carefully. It's absolutely good to be aware of, but I don't think we're going to make the same mistake.
Also worth considering that coal & garbage-fueled plants output lead directly into the atmosphere[1], so if these help take coal plants offline, it's still a gain even if they aren't perfect.
[1] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/abs/10.1289/isee.2021.P-143
> We know the dangers of lead now, and it is treated much more carefully.
Like we don't cover our roofs with solar panels made from lead crystals.
Like we don't cover our roofs with solar panels made from lead crystals.
We knew the dangers of lead when we put it into gasoline. We let industry leaders gaslight us into thinking it wasn't something to worry about.
No need to blame faceless corporations. The inventor was famously complacent about it.
Facing a crowd of journalists, inventor Thomas Midgley Jr. poured a lead additive over his hands and then proceeded to inhale its fumes for about a minute. Unfazed, he said, “I could do this every day without getting any health problems whatsoever.”
Soon afterward, Midgley needed medical treatment.> I'd rather use 20% more land
This could actually be a pretty massive issue in theory on its own, though. We really need to be covering/converting parking spaces and reusing existing land waste.
This could actually be a pretty massive issue in theory on its own, though. We really need to be covering/converting parking spaces and reusing existing land waste.
I've been told that in France large car parks have to have covered areas with solar panels on top.
The lead is contained within a solid panel, it's not like we're burning in our gasoline that pumps it into the air. As long as the panels are recycled I don't see the issue.
These panels will be used in utility scale projects which might be in areas prone to freak hail storms. Such a storm could pulverize the panels and the melting hail or rain could wash the leaded debris onto the ground below it. That can eventually make its way into the water table. Damaged panels in the rain/snow can have the same effect. Another scenario are hybrid farms where runoff from leaking or damaged panels could make its way directly into the food chain. Fires will melt and destroy panels and enable the lead to enter the ground and air. You also assumes every panel will be properly recycled and seeing how much illegal dumping exists to save a dollar I have little hope of a completely closed system.
So yeah, I see issues.
So yeah, I see issues.
Not all perovskite cells use lead, and there's nothing about the composition of those panels on the article.
> Not all perovskite cells use lead, and there's nothing about the composition of those panels on the article.
That does not mean we should dismiss the issue.
That does not mean we should dismiss the issue.
>lead is never good news because there is no level of exposure that isn't considered unhealthy.
Brass has lead in it. That's a lot of doorknobs, faucets, and zippers touched every day.
Brass has lead in it. That's a lot of doorknobs, faucets, and zippers touched every day.
"Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass
Plumbing brass has traditionally contained high levels of lead, but it's not supposed to anymore, except for things intended for non-drinking-water purposes, which unfortunately includes outdoor water spigots.
I wouldn't be shocked in doorknobs had lead in them beyond trace amounts, but it isn't guaranteed.
Plumbing brass has traditionally contained high levels of lead, but it's not supposed to anymore, except for things intended for non-drinking-water purposes, which unfortunately includes outdoor water spigots.
I wouldn't be shocked in doorknobs had lead in them beyond trace amounts, but it isn't guaranteed.
Not sure what you mean. That it's okay to be exposed to lead because it exists in existing objects?
Another breathless press release on perovskite technology from Oxford PV. The press release's claim of "reducing the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE)" (compared to what?) is sufficiently vague that my BS detector started twitching.
Let's look at the state-of the art: The most carefully done research article I could find (2022, written with authors from Oxford PV, so take it with whatever size NaCl dose is appropriate): https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/se/d2se0...
Surely, since this study relied heavily on empirical data, they would have used empirically measured degradation rates in their models? Well, nope. Check out these gems:
"Oxford PV succeeded in mitigating stability-related deficits and aims at providing future buyers of their modules with the industry-standard 25 year performance guarantee." So, _aims at_.
"Due to the proven stability improvements [_citation needed_], no distinction is made between the PST [perovskite-on-silicon tandem] and SHJ [silicon heterojunction] modules with regard to the degradation rate." So, they ASSUME the exact same degradation rate as silicon heterjunction solar cells.
Sure, if the degradation rates are truly equal (or even, not terribly worse for PST) then I would believe. But the claim of lower LCOE today (compared to SHJ? they don't say) needs some more evidence, because this is an extraordinary claim in my opinion.
Let's look at the state-of the art: The most carefully done research article I could find (2022, written with authors from Oxford PV, so take it with whatever size NaCl dose is appropriate): https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/se/d2se0...
Surely, since this study relied heavily on empirical data, they would have used empirically measured degradation rates in their models? Well, nope. Check out these gems:
"Oxford PV succeeded in mitigating stability-related deficits and aims at providing future buyers of their modules with the industry-standard 25 year performance guarantee." So, _aims at_.
"Due to the proven stability improvements [_citation needed_], no distinction is made between the PST [perovskite-on-silicon tandem] and SHJ [silicon heterojunction] modules with regard to the degradation rate." So, they ASSUME the exact same degradation rate as silicon heterjunction solar cells.
Sure, if the degradation rates are truly equal (or even, not terribly worse for PST) then I would believe. But the claim of lower LCOE today (compared to SHJ? they don't say) needs some more evidence, because this is an extraordinary claim in my opinion.
Presumably the utility wouldn’t have purchased these panels if they weren’t priced appropriately. If you’re asking if Oxford can make these profitably, the answer is an obvious “no” because this is part of an initial production run meant to prove the product in the field.
Presumably, but I wonder - people also said the Walgreen's deal with Theranos was proof the technology must work as advertised, but we all know how that worked out.
The fact that I can't find any lifetime data on these panels is what I find really disturbing - that is the #1 problem with perovskite-based cells, and if they really have solved the degradation problem they would be shouting it from the rooftops and publishing their data. Every claim they make about cost hinges on the details of the degradation curves.
I'm not the only one who knows this to be the case, BTW: From https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/05/24/perovskites-move-into...
" “None of these companies can guarantee the stability of their modules for 25 years,” said Jülich’s Ding. Despite promising results in the laboratory, the durability of perovskite solar cells remains a challenge – both alone and in tandem devices. There is a lack of concrete information from the manufacturers, as well as a lack of measurement data from long-term outdoor use or standards for tough tests that simulate real-life loads of up to 25 years."
I'd love to be wrong, but my prediction is there will be a one-time buy, and the news will go quiet about this. Perovskite has a niche, but it isn't ready for utility-scale solar.
The fact that I can't find any lifetime data on these panels is what I find really disturbing - that is the #1 problem with perovskite-based cells, and if they really have solved the degradation problem they would be shouting it from the rooftops and publishing their data. Every claim they make about cost hinges on the details of the degradation curves.
I'm not the only one who knows this to be the case, BTW: From https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/05/24/perovskites-move-into...
" “None of these companies can guarantee the stability of their modules for 25 years,” said Jülich’s Ding. Despite promising results in the laboratory, the durability of perovskite solar cells remains a challenge – both alone and in tandem devices. There is a lack of concrete information from the manufacturers, as well as a lack of measurement data from long-term outdoor use or standards for tough tests that simulate real-life loads of up to 25 years."
I'd love to be wrong, but my prediction is there will be a one-time buy, and the news will go quiet about this. Perovskite has a niche, but it isn't ready for utility-scale solar.
I'm against lead but I'm curious why people don't complain about brass?
I wonder what's the degradation of these panels.
Relevant details:
>The 72-cell panels, comprised of Oxford PV’s proprietary perovskite-on-silicon solar cells, can produce up to 20% more energy than a standard silicon panel. They will be used in a utility-scale installation
>Oxford PV has been developing and working to commercialise this technology since 2014, with a recent module efficiency record of 26.9%.
>The 72-cell panels, comprised of Oxford PV’s proprietary perovskite-on-silicon solar cells, can produce up to 20% more energy than a standard silicon panel. They will be used in a utility-scale installation
>Oxford PV has been developing and working to commercialise this technology since 2014, with a recent module efficiency record of 26.9%.
This is very exciting! My understanding[1] is that silicon panels have largely hit their max efficiency, and further improvements will come from using new materials. Perovskite panels are the next up coming down the research pipeline, so it's very cool to hear those are moving out of the research phase and actually hitting production. I expect perovskite-based panels will have years of efficiency gains, just like silicon did, as we continue to explore even more efficient new materials. Great stuff!
[1] Mostly from listening to the Skeptic's Guide podcast, which frequently covers green energy research.
[1] Mostly from listening to the Skeptic's Guide podcast, which frequently covers green energy research.
As someone who worked on advanced solar in the 2008-2014 timeframe and later did a PhD in photonic materials, I have learned to heed the old adage "Never bet against silicon".
The cost of silicon solar modules is projected to drop below 10cents/Watt this year and will keep dropping. The major cost of solar is now the installation and grid interconnect. Since these cells have serious problems with lifetime (years at best vs decades for silicon), all indications are that they will be much more expensive at the system level.
In my opinion the major barrier to solar adoption is not efficiency but integrated operation. For instance, my roof has enough area to support a 20kW system, but the utility will only let me put up a 4kW array due because they can't accept the extra energy and stay profitable. This business model problem is not related to efficiency but the result of resistance to distributed energy strategies from utilities who can't understand how to avoid bankruptcy and move away from a centralized power plant based grid.
The cost of silicon solar modules is projected to drop below 10cents/Watt this year and will keep dropping. The major cost of solar is now the installation and grid interconnect. Since these cells have serious problems with lifetime (years at best vs decades for silicon), all indications are that they will be much more expensive at the system level.
In my opinion the major barrier to solar adoption is not efficiency but integrated operation. For instance, my roof has enough area to support a 20kW system, but the utility will only let me put up a 4kW array due because they can't accept the extra energy and stay profitable. This business model problem is not related to efficiency but the result of resistance to distributed energy strategies from utilities who can't understand how to avoid bankruptcy and move away from a centralized power plant based grid.
> the utility will only let me put up a 4kW array due because they can't accept the extra energy and stay profitable.
Transmission congestion might be a more important issue than profitability: "Avoiding the congestion is essential for a competitive electricity market and is one of the toughest problems of its design." [1]
The course of Damien Ernst [2] gives an excellent overview of all the challenges related to decentralized electricity markets.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_congestion
[2]: https://damien-ernst.be/teaching/elec0018-1-energy-markets/
Transmission congestion might be a more important issue than profitability: "Avoiding the congestion is essential for a competitive electricity market and is one of the toughest problems of its design." [1]
The course of Damien Ernst [2] gives an excellent overview of all the challenges related to decentralized electricity markets.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_congestion
[2]: https://damien-ernst.be/teaching/elec0018-1-energy-markets/
Yes this is major component of what I mean by profitability. The utilities spend vast sums on grid equipment and transmission lines that they pay for over decades through bond offerings. The grid is designed to distribute electricity from centralized generation stations to distributed customers (a "mainframe" like model). They support the capital cost of this infrastructure (debt payments) and maintenance on the equipment through their per kWH rates.
An example of this is that, where I live, some depreciated hydro assets produce power at $0.0025/kWh but the electricity rate is $0.11-0.14/kWh. It is not unusual for the majority of the cost of electricity be in debt and equipment maintenance rather than generation.
If I generate electricity on my roof then the utility is screwed from both ends, they must credit me way more than it costs them to generate their own electricity, and feeding electricity into a grid not designed for it adds further wear and tear to the components. Their revenue goes down and their costs go up.
Unsurprisingly, given their sunk costs and the prospect of defaulting on huge bond obligations, they will not permit me to install a rooftop array that will generate more than 40% of my usage, even if paired with large battery systems.
An example of this is that, where I live, some depreciated hydro assets produce power at $0.0025/kWh but the electricity rate is $0.11-0.14/kWh. It is not unusual for the majority of the cost of electricity be in debt and equipment maintenance rather than generation.
If I generate electricity on my roof then the utility is screwed from both ends, they must credit me way more than it costs them to generate their own electricity, and feeding electricity into a grid not designed for it adds further wear and tear to the components. Their revenue goes down and their costs go up.
Unsurprisingly, given their sunk costs and the prospect of defaulting on huge bond obligations, they will not permit me to install a rooftop array that will generate more than 40% of my usage, even if paired with large battery systems.
This. I worked for what in our deregulated market is called a "distribution company" (owning the transmission from the HV lines to the meter at your home), and can absolutely attest to what enslavedrobot has said. The funding model for getting electricity from A to B was predicated on assumptions that you could amortize the high capital costs over multi-decades. Which is all fine until distributed generation (rooftop solar) exploded in a time-frame much smaller than expected. Tbh my personal view is that the writing was on the wall large enough for anyone with eyes willing to see to start planning accordingly, but true to form, most companies just tried resisting the change.
I thought infeed limits were all about protecting the grid from power surges; what can an enlightened utility do differently? Battery storage would double the cost of community-generated solar, so even an enlightened utility might be unprofitable taking non-dispatchable power from homeowners, no?
Prices per panel may be dropping but that’s didn’t stop a major panel installer to quote me over $100k for 18kW system with two Tesla batteries. (The installer was not Tesla).
How can one take advantage of cheap panels and have quality work done on the roof?
How can one take advantage of cheap panels and have quality work done on the roof?
A lot of it has to do with permitting, building codes, and lack of competition. In Australia deregulation has led to pricing well below 1AU$/W installed. If we could adapt what worked there prices would come down like crazy.
In Australia an 18kW system.installed with two 10kW/h Tesla batteries should run under $30,000 AUD installed. That's somewhere in the vicinity of $23,000 USD.
I've been looking at upgrading my rooftop solar in Australia, since we have had 5kW on the roof for close to 15 years now. Ill put away the pennies for a few more years and pull the trigger at a similar time to when we get our first EV / PHEV with V2G.
I've been looking at upgrading my rooftop solar in Australia, since we have had 5kW on the roof for close to 15 years now. Ill put away the pennies for a few more years and pull the trigger at a similar time to when we get our first EV / PHEV with V2G.
Interesting. I'm going off of what I've read and looking up quotes like these: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/commercial-solar/pricing/15kw...
Why is your system so expensive? Storage?
Why is your system so expensive? Storage?
The new Tesla Powerwall 3 is $13,600
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/powerwall-3-launch/
Two of those is $27,200 minus installation and some solar panels to feed them (but the PW3 does have 3x 6.6kW solar MPPTs built-in unlike previous ones, so all you need to do is connect the panels directly to the PW3 and then the PW3 to your home).
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/powerwall-3-launch/
Two of those is $27,200 minus installation and some solar panels to feed them (but the PW3 does have 3x 6.6kW solar MPPTs built-in unlike previous ones, so all you need to do is connect the panels directly to the PW3 and then the PW3 to your home).
> How can one take advantage of cheap panels and have quality work done on the roof?
Teach your kids how the blue collar trades are a better deal than a college degree, wait a decade or two, and contractor labor prices should be reasonable again.
Teach your kids how the blue collar trades are a better deal than a college degree, wait a decade or two, and contractor labor prices should be reasonable again.
The 4Kw limit should be on the infeed and not the solar panel capacity.
You could put 10Kw worth of panels up just limit the output to 4Kw. Now you have a more stable 4Kw feed.
Yeah, my dad has that setup. Over provisioned panels so he still can get max output more of the year. Not to the amount you suggest, but his inverter can safely have about 20% more input than output.
He bought used panels so the actual input may be a little lower than rated (though it doesn’t seem much lower), but he says he sees some ads for new panels nearly as cheap as he paid for used ones 5 years ago.
He bought used panels so the actual input may be a little lower than rated (though it doesn’t seem much lower), but he says he sees some ads for new panels nearly as cheap as he paid for used ones 5 years ago.
Is it or is it becoming profitable to have more power on the roof, but dedicated to local use? What local use? Local battery? Bitcoin mining? Aluminum plant (jk)?
Really hope to see battery technology making the same nosedives in price
With solid state batteries finally hitting production, I'm betting we'll see just that. The more common materials alone will make huge strides once scale-up pains are over
Do you have suggestions for the utilities on how to move away from a centralized grid, avoiding bankruptcy and also providing the same level of reliability as the last few decades?
The only supply side outage that comes to my mind is the Texas cold snap messing with the gas plants.
The only supply side outage that comes to my mind is the Texas cold snap messing with the gas plants.
It's a tough problem. Trillions of dollars of utilities bonds (mostly owned by pension funds) and a century of regulatory barriers make change hard. The problem is similar to the task of reforming the medical system.
The strategy that I like is to build out distributed systems in "non-integrated areas". These are locations that are not served by the grid and often have a tiny local grid that provides high cost electricity (~1$/kWh). These areas represent test beds for distributed energy tech and might be a place where de-costing and scaling strategies could be developed.
Another strategy is to wait for baby boomers to die. :)
The strategy that I like is to build out distributed systems in "non-integrated areas". These are locations that are not served by the grid and often have a tiny local grid that provides high cost electricity (~1$/kWh). These areas represent test beds for distributed energy tech and might be a place where de-costing and scaling strategies could be developed.
Another strategy is to wait for baby boomers to die. :)
With 4-5 MW batteries in the shape of shipping containers are already now available and rated for 6-10k cycles before much degradation. I think local neighborhood storage near consumption should become common in the near future. Of course electricity distribution companies etc will drag their feet specially in the US with their captured markets and near monopolies.
Do you have a link to an OEM with the 6-10k cycle spec?
State of the art moves quickly not long ago projects were budgeting for new batteries every 5 years in order to be able to meet energy guarantees
State of the art moves quickly not long ago projects were budgeting for new batteries every 5 years in order to be able to meet energy guarantees
Perhaps neighborhood level energy storage and an increase in energy transmission costs.
It's very unlikely that a centralized grid will go away, society wants 100% energy availability 100% of the time. So like everything else, people are just going to have to pay for it. The same way you pay for schools even if you don't have kids or pay for roads even if you don't have a car.
It's very unlikely that a centralized grid will go away, society wants 100% energy availability 100% of the time. So like everything else, people are just going to have to pay for it. The same way you pay for schools even if you don't have kids or pay for roads even if you don't have a car.
How much does this efficiency affect levelised battery-backed electricity cost? And how much of the final price is installation, storage, land cost, maintenance and all these other overheads.
My impression is that when the sun shineth, raw solar is almost too cheap to meter... But everything else costs money.
My impression is that when the sun shineth, raw solar is almost too cheap to meter... But everything else costs money.
To me it seems hard to justify use of perovskite panels (outside of niche use cases where high-efficiency is important like space exploration) when they use so many toxic materials (and silicon panels have no such problems and are dirt cheap). Just building more silicon panels seems like a better plan.
Yeah, that's 100% a problem worth calling out and fixing. But we really do need efficiency gains in solar panels, and silicon is maxed out. Figuring out how to make perovskite more workable is absolutely worth the effort, and commercializing it is a crucial step for that.
Do we need efficiency gains? Like more is better, but in the US, land is cheap in many areas. A panel that is 5% better, but degrades faster might not be an economic win for a commercial power plant.
As panels are getting cheaper, labour cost becomes dominant. Higher efficiency means less panels means less labour per watt.
To combine two posts together
> when they use so many toxic materials ... but degrades faster
At some point, we need to consider that "labour cost becomes dominant" is absolutely irrelevant if the external costs we're completely ignoring at enormous.
> when they use so many toxic materials ... but degrades faster
At some point, we need to consider that "labour cost becomes dominant" is absolutely irrelevant if the external costs we're completely ignoring at enormous.
> Do we need efficiency gains? Like more is better, but in the US, land is cheap in many areas.
Yes. Anything that lets us offline coal plants faster will save lives. Assuming all else is equal, it's literally free energy. Why wouldn't you want that? What a bizarre question.
> A panel that is 5% better, but degrades faster might not be an economic win for a commercial power plant.
Obviously you have to multiply efficiency by longevity. If that equation didn't work out, they wouldn't be commercializing it.
Yes. Anything that lets us offline coal plants faster will save lives. Assuming all else is equal, it's literally free energy. Why wouldn't you want that? What a bizarre question.
> A panel that is 5% better, but degrades faster might not be an economic win for a commercial power plant.
Obviously you have to multiply efficiency by longevity. If that equation didn't work out, they wouldn't be commercializing it.
It is as free as nuclear, or water generated. The infrastructure must be installed and maintained. Panels, their cleaning, changing failed/broken, inverters, cables, batteries (eventually).
Right now it is mandatory to install in Germany after a major roof renovation. Turns out the typical small home electric needs are about 1000 EUR per year, the installation of a solar system is about 25000. I do not see what is free…
Right now it is mandatory to install in Germany after a major roof renovation. Turns out the typical small home electric needs are about 1000 EUR per year, the installation of a solar system is about 25000. I do not see what is free…
Did I imagine that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. And then the price of energy in Germany shot through the roof as Russia stopped exporting.
The electrical needs of most homes is fairly fixed. The price of that electricity can change at any time. So why 1000€ and not 5000€.
The electrical needs of most homes is fairly fixed. The price of that electricity can change at any time. So why 1000€ and not 5000€.
After the initial invasion prices went up, now going down again. Also Germany has extremely expensive electric energy.
for 1000 euro electricity 25k solar system??
You should not come above 1,5€ per Wp of solar. so for a 4500wp system, 6750€ and that is a high price and will provide more energy than consumed.
You should not come above 1,5€ per Wp of solar. so for a 4500wp system, 6750€ and that is a high price and will provide more energy than consumed.
Yes. Should is the key word. As the government pushes lots of people to install solar, prices soar… also my house is particularly bad for solar (roof parts looking exactly west-east) so I install double of what will be used. Also high roof, so according to regulations, all house has to be with scaffolds around. Just that+permits+ connection to the grid by a “meister” costs around 5k… German efficiency is called…
We are discussing an increase in solar panel efficiency, not the concept of solar energy itself.
> Assuming all else is equal, it's literally free energy. Why wouldn't you want that? What a bizarre question.
Sure, but assume all else is not equal, and suddenly energy has costs again. Why is "free energy" the default assumption? What a bizarre assertion.
Sure, but assume all else is not equal, and suddenly energy has costs again. Why is "free energy" the default assumption? What a bizarre assertion.
If one panel gives you 20% more energy than another for the same cost, then the 20% extra costs $0 when compared to the other panel.
Sure, but again... If that panel gives you 20% more energy for a different cost, than the extra 20% is not free energy.
I'd have assumed a tandem perovskite on silicon panel probably costs more than a traditional silicon one. Do you disagree?
I'd have assumed a tandem perovskite on silicon panel probably costs more than a traditional silicon one. Do you disagree?
Well, the article under discussion is about the tech being commercialized, so presumably they believe it is cost competitive at least in some scenarios.
The... uh... manufacturer's press release? That's your basis for "it's literally free energy"?
I don't understand why you're so hung up on the idea that 120 units for the same cost as 100 units means you get 20 units for free when comparing the two options.
Here, I'll spell it out a bit more:
Assume the mfr is not lying and the panels are 20% more efficient.
Assume that in order to commercialize a new product, it must be cost competitive with existing options. Otherwise no one would choose it, and it would not be commercialize-able.
Therefore, it is a reasonable position to assume that the new panels will give 20% more energy for about the same cost.
This is all hand-wavey, and it is of course possible the commercialization will fail. But until that happens, I think it's pretty cool that we have new tech coming to the market that's showing significant efficiency improvements!
Here, I'll spell it out a bit more:
Assume the mfr is not lying and the panels are 20% more efficient.
Assume that in order to commercialize a new product, it must be cost competitive with existing options. Otherwise no one would choose it, and it would not be commercialize-able.
Therefore, it is a reasonable position to assume that the new panels will give 20% more energy for about the same cost.
This is all hand-wavey, and it is of course possible the commercialization will fail. But until that happens, I think it's pretty cool that we have new tech coming to the market that's showing significant efficiency improvements!
I have no problem with the math, I take issue with your assumptions to get there, namely that these panels will be anywhere near cost-competitive with traditional panels. I hinted earlier that this new panel is manufactured by taking a traditional one and slapping a perovskite cell onto it, so you are assuming this whole tech is literally free.
I think this is amazing tech too, but you're maintaining "this is free energy" with zero evidence outside of a press release that does not mention cost. I'm sorry, this isn't hand-wavey, it's flat-out misinformation. If you have actual information on pricing, please share it.
I think this is amazing tech too, but you're maintaining "this is free energy" with zero evidence outside of a press release that does not mention cost. I'm sorry, this isn't hand-wavey, it's flat-out misinformation. If you have actual information on pricing, please share it.
> Assuming all else is equal, it's literally free energy.
When comparing silicon and perovskite (and probably any other material) this is a bad assumption. Since this is a bad assumption, the rest of your position falls apart.
When comparing silicon and perovskite (and probably any other material) this is a bad assumption. Since this is a bad assumption, the rest of your position falls apart.
> Yes. Anything that lets us offline coal plants faster will save lives. Assuming all else is equal, it's literally free energy.
I agree with that. But all else is not equal. The more efficient panels are much more expensive than the regular panels (and there are no signs of this changing any time soon). Cheaper regular panels (and prices are still falling) are more helpful. Aside from which, panels are already cheap enough for cheap energy. It's energy storage costs (and availability of storage technology in general) that are the blocker at this point.
> Obviously you have to multiply efficiency by longevity. If that equation didn't work out, they wouldn't be commercializing it.
I suspect they won't be commercialised for grid-scale power plants. They'll likely be used in space, and perhaps on things like boats and RVs where space is also at a premium.
I agree with that. But all else is not equal. The more efficient panels are much more expensive than the regular panels (and there are no signs of this changing any time soon). Cheaper regular panels (and prices are still falling) are more helpful. Aside from which, panels are already cheap enough for cheap energy. It's energy storage costs (and availability of storage technology in general) that are the blocker at this point.
> Obviously you have to multiply efficiency by longevity. If that equation didn't work out, they wouldn't be commercializing it.
I suspect they won't be commercialised for grid-scale power plants. They'll likely be used in space, and perhaps on things like boats and RVs where space is also at a premium.
> The more efficient panels are much more expensive than the regular panels (and there are no signs of this changing any time soon).
I'm pretty confident we'll be replacing silicon panels with another, more efficient tech before long. Something will bust through silicon's efficiency barrier. It may or may not be perovskite-based panels, who knows, buit I still think it's exciting to see the research & gains in this area. It's great to have more options coming online.
I'm pretty confident we'll be replacing silicon panels with another, more efficient tech before long. Something will bust through silicon's efficiency barrier. It may or may not be perovskite-based panels, who knows, buit I still think it's exciting to see the research & gains in this area. It's great to have more options coming online.
There are space limited use cases which would benefit from higher efficiency such as cars and yachts. Yachts are nearly able to cruise entirely on solar.
> But we really do need efficiency gains in solar panels
why?
why?
Because we're already past midnight on the climate catastrophe clock, and every gain counts. If we get a 20% jump in solar panel efficiency, that means we can offline coal plants even more quickly.
Producing more cheap panels is much better solution than waiting for more expensive, more efficient panels that aren't available now. I'm surprised someone who is concerned about catastrophe wants to wait. Solar panels are cheap enough that big installations are putting them on the ground than making mounts. There is plenty of ground.
There are places where more efficient panels would be useful. With rooves, where if spending effort to mount them then might be worth using more efficient panels. Or the flexible panels might be easier to mount.
There are places where more efficient panels would be useful. With rooves, where if spending effort to mount them then might be worth using more efficient panels. Or the flexible panels might be easier to mount.
Man! This thread is setting a record for Strawmen Per Second
> Producing more cheap panels is much better solution than waiting for more expensive, more efficient panels that aren't available now. I'm surprised someone who is concerned about catastrophe wants to wait.
Huh? Can you point out where I said we should wait?
Huh? Can you point out where I said we should wait?
It was rhetorical cause you obviously don't. But you are arguing for the slower, more expensive option. Current panels are faster and cheaper. The efficiency doesn't really matter for utility solar.
It is unlikely that perovskite panels will ever get cheap enough for efficiency gain to matter unless there is some breakthrough in production. Current solar panels have too much of a head start.
It is unlikely that perovskite panels will ever get cheap enough for efficiency gain to matter unless there is some breakthrough in production. Current solar panels have too much of a head start.
> But you are arguing for the slower, more expensive option
No I'm not. I'm not arguing for anything. I'm excited to have more options for solar deployments! If the best option for a current time & deployment is silicon, then great! Use silicon! If perovskite does nothing more than put price pressure on silicon to get even cheaper, then that's great, too! I'm excited about green technologies :)
> It is unlikely that perovskite panels will ever get cheap enough for efficiency gain to matter unless there is some breakthrough in production
We'll see! We're pretty good at making improvements. Will perovskite see the same amazing price drop that silicon has? I don't know, but I'm excited to see the first step in that possible path happening.
No I'm not. I'm not arguing for anything. I'm excited to have more options for solar deployments! If the best option for a current time & deployment is silicon, then great! Use silicon! If perovskite does nothing more than put price pressure on silicon to get even cheaper, then that's great, too! I'm excited about green technologies :)
> It is unlikely that perovskite panels will ever get cheap enough for efficiency gain to matter unless there is some breakthrough in production
We'll see! We're pretty good at making improvements. Will perovskite see the same amazing price drop that silicon has? I don't know, but I'm excited to see the first step in that possible path happening.
Solar panels will continues to be installed at a breakneck pace for likely another decade or more. So the sooner we get more efficient panels, the sooner they can be installed rather then the less efficient ones. It's very straight forward what they were saying.
> It's very straight forward what they were saying.
This thread has been a wild exercise in people tripping all over their own feet in their huge rush to educate me that a new technology is not some flawless miracle device, lol.
This thread has been a wild exercise in people tripping all over their own feet in their huge rush to educate me that a new technology is not some flawless miracle device, lol.
We still have more than enough empty roof space in suburbia to power everything for everyone and more for $0 (after installation).
Armchair comment. Roofs are about the worst place. All the working at heights safety issues, the wide diversity of roof plans, the small size of individual roofs, the cost and difficulty of maintenance, and on and on.
The real move here is to roll them out in fields mostly unusable for other purposes. These days, you can put up an entire field installation in a day or two. Getting them onto roofs requires a whole lot more effort for a whole lot less capacity.
Furthermore you can take a shortcut by mounting them either flat on the ground (dead simple) or vertically (no worries about dust or snow) (use them as a fence). The loss of efficiency might be marginal, depending on your latitude and weather.
This is the first I’ve heard of perovskite so I have no idea: are the cited toxicity issues fixable? Or are they inherent to the chemistry of this class of panels? How do we decide how much extra short term toxicity is acceptable? Do we do that blindly without theoretical/empirical results that demonstrate a better end state?
I'm no expert here, either. Lead is regulated pretty carefully these days, so I have to think if this was a deal-killer, then it would've killed the deal already. This conversation has the feel to me of internet armchair commenters insisting they know more than the experts. Shrug.
That regulation is part of the reason why these panels cost more to produce. I doubt they will ever go down in price due to that.
My understanding is that there could in theory be perovskites that don't contain the toxic materials. But all known perovskites that are suitable for PV panels do happen to contain them.
Am I wrong in assuming that a 20% efficiency increase in a 25% efficient cell means 5% more energy gained (25*1.2), so a total of 30% efficiency, in relation to the 100% of solar energy which reach the cells?
I know these have theoretically higher efficiencies at the cost of longevity, but I am curious if there is anything else that makes them desirable. Are they cheaper to make?
Having lead really sours my take on them. Everything from production to deployment to recycling gets worse.
Having lead really sours my take on them. Everything from production to deployment to recycling gets worse.
These apparently use tin instead of lead.
https://www.internationaltin.org/oxford-pv-moving-toward-nex...
https://www.internationaltin.org/oxford-pv-moving-toward-nex...
It is described as being "tin-using" which means there could still be lead. Towards the end of the article it even states that a competing panel uses tin-lead which can be described as "tin-using".
[1] is a press release from the original result that has been developed, and specifically refers to replacing lead with tin, with the purported reason to produce a lead-free cell for easier commercialisation (due to the concerns over lead). I chose to share the other link originally because it was newer.
[1] https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-05-01-lead-out-tin-cheap-sola...
[1] https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-05-01-lead-out-tin-cheap-sola...
Who cares?
The panels themselves are basically free.
The mounting system and the inverter are the expensive part.
The panels themselves are basically free.
The mounting system and the inverter are the expensive part.
You need fewer mounting systems if the production per panel is higher. It's one of the major things you can do to reduce costs, panel efficiency gains mean you need to mount fewer panels.
If 20% more power is produced per panel, you need 5/6 as many panels your project is straight up 16% cheaper.
If anything, your statement about the panels being free and the balance of system and installation cost being expensive make efficiency improvements even more impactful.
The main historical issue with perovskite cells is damage and lifetime, which again directly relate to how many times you need to do these big capital investments. If they last twice as long you need to deal with half as much installation and mounting work over the lifetime.
If 20% more power is produced per panel, you need 5/6 as many panels your project is straight up 16% cheaper.
If anything, your statement about the panels being free and the balance of system and installation cost being expensive make efficiency improvements even more impactful.
The main historical issue with perovskite cells is damage and lifetime, which again directly relate to how many times you need to do these big capital investments. If they last twice as long you need to deal with half as much installation and mounting work over the lifetime.
And labour.. I just got an offer to cover two houses next to each other and the scaffolding is 15k CHF.
Even if the panels were 2x the efficiency, it wouldn't make renting the scaffolding, or getting workers on site any cheaper.
we have a """problem""" of physical labor being too expensive. I put it in question marks as I have no solution (I don't want to rob people of their primary income source), but it's really getting out of hand.
I had two spigots installed on an already there pipe, on two ends. 1100 chf. material cost was 400, the rest is labor at 125/h.
So I just tend to learn a lot of this stuff from YouTube, but obviously I do a lot worse job than someone doing this for years as a living.
I had two spigots installed on an already there pipe, on two ends. 1100 chf. material cost was 400, the rest is labor at 125/h.
So I just tend to learn a lot of this stuff from YouTube, but obviously I do a lot worse job than someone doing this for years as a living.
This isn't 20% cheaper—it's 20% more efficient. Do they require 20% mounting systems or inverters? If not, you're getting more power without increasing the spending, regardless of which part is the expensive part.
I'd totally believe that more power requires more expensive inverters, but on its own, your comment doesn't make sense.
I'd totally believe that more power requires more expensive inverters, but on its own, your comment doesn't make sense.
These solar panels are probably much more expensive than the standard Mono-Si ones right now, they lack scale of production.
Sure, but the GP's premise was that the panels were effectively free.
I agree that they're sure to have a price premium, and reliability will need testing...
I agree that they're sure to have a price premium, and reliability will need testing...
I'm pretty sure he was talking about the standard mono-SI ones, so (in his opinion) having 20% more efficiency doesn't matter much.
Mounting system doesn't have to be very expensive. But the mounting labor is. Which is why the mounting hardware does end up costing a lot, because anything to save labor time is usually a good tradeoff.
Inverters are also very cheap nowadays. The most expensive part of a solar installation is labour.
But real estate is not free.
I’d love to swap out my panels for 20% more in the same space if it’s practical.
I’d love to swap out my panels for 20% more in the same space if it’s practical.
Heh, I read this as "20% more ... enter commercial use" which was much more surprising.
Fixed installations don't need more efficiency. We have plenty of room as is. The price per watt is more relevant and even that has become trivial, as installation costs trump panel cost. We mostly need more panels installed everywhere.
If the panels are 20% more efficient, wouldn't you need to install 20% less of them?
As an aside to the topic, that's not quite how the maths would work. If the panels were 100% more efficient, you wouldn't need 100% less of them
If the panels were 20% more efficient, you'd want 1 -1/1.20 = 16.7% less of them.
If the panels were 20% more efficient, you'd want 1 -1/1.20 = 16.7% less of them.
Yes, but that only becomes a win if the new panels cost less than 20% more than existing ones.
If they cost less than 20% more _total_, including installation costs, which is interesting because it means the higher the installation costs in a particular area the more likely it is to be worth the added cost of the more efficient panels (which presumably aren't more difficult to install than traditional panels).
Efficiency could lower labor costs potentially. Physically less panels to set up.
Bingo. Same exact cost of labor, 20% more power.
Found on the internet: The average efficiency of domestic solar panels is between 18% and 24%. So let's assume 20%.
20% more powerful then means a 24% efficiency.
According to Wikipedia: As of 2024, the world record for solar cell efficiency is 47.6%, set in May 2022 by Fraunhofer ISE, with a III-V four-junction concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) cell.
20% more powerful then means a 24% efficiency.
According to Wikipedia: As of 2024, the world record for solar cell efficiency is 47.6%, set in May 2022 by Fraunhofer ISE, with a III-V four-junction concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) cell.
The linked press release already cites an overall efficiency of 24%. Did you purposely scour the internet just to avoid reading it?
Yes. Old cells are 20%, new cells are 24%.
To me, this means that the new cells are 4% more efficient.
To their marketing team it means that they are 20% more powerful.
Edit: Got it, the marketing team is accurate.
To me, this means that the new cells are 4% more efficient.
To their marketing team it means that they are 20% more powerful.
Edit: Got it, the marketing team is accurate.
I'm afraid you are wrong, what you are referring to are percentage points [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage_point
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage_point
Perfect. Thanks!
They are certainly both 20% more efficient and 20% more powerful. Let's say that a certain size panel gets 100W of insolation. If you move from 20W to 24W then you are generating 20% more power from the same amount of insolation, so you are 20% more efficient.
People seem to treat percentages differently from other numbers, when all it means is "divide by 100." Nobody complains when you say going from 9% to 18% is "doubling in efficiency" but if you say it is "100% more efficient" or "200% as efficient" then people complain.
People seem to treat percentages differently from other numbers, when all it means is "divide by 100." Nobody complains when you say going from 9% to 18% is "doubling in efficiency" but if you say it is "100% more efficient" or "200% as efficient" then people complain.
If you were going to buy these, you'd find you need 20% fewer panels (of the same area) to generate the same amount of power.
Sounds like the marketing team is right about this one.
Sounds like the marketing team is right about this one.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Your 4% are not percent, but percentage points. The marketing team is right about this one.
4 / 20 = 0.2 aka 20 percent.
Does 24% efficient mean that 76% of the suns radiation is being either reflected or turned into heat (or something else)? To ask another way, if panels were 100% efficient (I know this is not possible), what would that be like?
Captured solar energy always eventually gets turned back into heat. The solar panel might temporarily convert it to another form, but eventually, it'll be turned back to waste heat after all is said and done. So the net for energy absorption is basically if the solar panel was a very dark, highly absorptive color. Which, of course, much of the earth is already covered in, such as the roofs that many solar panels already sit on.
If the panels were 100% efficient, the heat would just move around and none of the energy would be radiated back to space, so it would be similar to a Vantablack level of absorption of energy.
If the panels were 100% efficient, the heat would just move around and none of the energy would be radiated back to space, so it would be similar to a Vantablack level of absorption of energy.
The panels are dark, so I guess that 76% is mostly converted to heat. So you may ask what is the contribution to global heating. I've read that enough panels to power society would only subtract 0.1% from Earth's albedo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perovskite_solar_cell
N.b the long section on lead toxicity concerns.