Physicists Develop New Significantly More Efficient Solar Cell

[Ron Wagner + 649]

https://scitechdaily.com/physicists-develop-new-significantly-more-efficient-solar-cell/

Hope springs eternal. Harnessing the heat from the sun may be the obvious answer. RCW

[markslawson + 1,042]

On 2/23/2024 at 9:25 AM, Ron Wagner said:

https://scitechdaily.com/physicists-develop-new-significantly-more-efficient-solar-cell/

Hope springs eternal. Harnessing the heat from the sun may be the obvious answer. RCW

As with all of those things it sounds great but I've been looking at this area for decades now and I've lost count of the number of times I've read about "breakthroughs" in solar cell development (including the stories I've written myself). Like all such stories it doesn't saying anything much about the cost of making these improved cells and just how they might stand up to years of exposure in often intense sunlight and (during winter) freezing temperatures, and let's not forget humidity. Suggestions that the current generation of PVs are degrading faster than expected has been blamed, you guessed it, on climate change. Maybe return to this breakthrough in perhaps five years, and see if its anywhere near commercial production. 

[notsonice + 1,080]

19 minutes ago, markslawson said:

As with all of those things it sounds great but I've been looking at this area for decades now and I've lost count of the number of times I've read about "breakthroughs" in solar cell development (including the stories I've written myself). Like all such stories it doesn't saying anything much about the cost of making these improved cells and just how they might stand up to years of exposure in often intense sunlight and (during winter) freezing temperatures, and let's not forget humidity. Suggestions that the current generation of PVs are degrading faster than expected has been blamed, you guessed it, on climate change. Maybe return to this breakthrough in perhaps five years, and see if its anywhere near commercial production. 

breakthroughs slowly translates to better and cheaper

[Ron Wagner + 649]

4 hours ago, markslawson said:

As with all of those things it sounds great but I've been looking at this area for decades now and I've lost count of the number of times I've read about "breakthroughs" in solar cell development (including the stories I've written myself). Like all such stories it doesn't saying anything much about the cost of making these improved cells and just how they might stand up to years of exposure in often intense sunlight and (during winter) freezing temperatures, and let's not forget humidity. Suggestions that the current generation of PVs are degrading faster than expected has been blamed, you guessed it, on climate change. Maybe return to this breakthrough in perhaps five years, and see if its anywhere near commercial production. 

I agree, I have been following the developments also. I am still waiting for thin solar, solar paint, affordable solar roofs, etc. There are hundreds of attempts for every real breakthrough. Do you think reporting on the new  ideas is a waste of time though? I am very curious about any advance itn harnessing heat from the sun or engines etc. It has always seemed to be a very basic force needing more research. 

[Ron Wagner + 649]

4 hours ago, notsonice said:

breakthroughs slowly translates to better and cheaper

I love seeing charts like that. They encourage research and where to look for future progress. Sometimes dead ends suddenly disappear due to new factors, discoveries, sometimes accidental ones. Sometimes brainstorms, or dreams etc. Usually like Edison said: "Success is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. 

Science and technology have advanced so much in the last three centuries it is mind boggling, compared to the entire history prior to that. It is frightening also, considering that we are finding so many ways to accidentally or purposely kill off our species or large percentages of it. 

[notsonice + 1,080]

2 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

I love seeing charts like that. They encourage research and where to look for future progress. Sometimes dead ends suddenly disappear due to new factors, discoveries, sometimes accidental ones. Sometimes brainstorms, or dreams etc. Usually like Edison said: "Success is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. 

Science and technology have advanced so much in the last three centuries it is mind boggling, compared to the entire history prior to that. It is frightening also, considering that we are finding so many ways to accidentally or purposely kill off our species or large percentages of it. 

Ron , I am glad to see you actually are on top of innovation....so many people are afraid of it..........

 

why people try to discredit or downplay the advances  ...well it is just insane

Solar ....and Battery tech these days is just moving fast forward for the good 

Getting useful energy, besides sunlight and warmth ,  from the sun has evaded Human kind for the past 20 million years?

 

and in just the last 10 years it is now economically possible........

Cheap energy everywhere is just a win win win for all of humankind and all living things

[markslawson + 1,042]

10 hours ago, notsonice said:

breakthroughs slowly translates to better and cheaper

Yes it looks impressive doesn't it - but those are ideal ratios and I'm not sure just how much the basic PV cell has changed over the decades despite the research. In any case, we're still left with the problem of cost and degradation and the fact that PVs are still only have an effective output of maybe one fifth of installed capacity, despite all this research and reported breakthroughs, because PV cells peaks at midday and, of course, do not produce at night. Anyway, the research is of interest.   

[notsonice + 1,080]

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

Yes it looks impressive doesn't it - but those are ideal ratios and I'm not sure just how much the basic PV cell has changed over the decades despite the research. In any case, we're still left with the problem of cost and degradation and the fact that PVs are still only have an effective output of maybe one fifth of installed capacity, despite all this research and reported breakthroughs, because PV cells peaks at midday and, of course, do not produce at night. Anyway, the research is of interest.   

 I'm not sure just how much the basic PV cell has changed over the decades despite the research????

 

try to keep up with the times

 

and degradation less and less for the newest panels  for panels installed 25 years ago 1 percent a year

for panels today           .7 percent and their now exists technology to rejuvenate cells in place

In 2022, in their first major finding, the PV Fleet team found a national median loss in performance of 0.75%/year, confirming similar values reported by previous studies that analyzed smaller data sets. Additionally, the new analysis discovered that systems in hotter temperature zones exhibited about twice as much performance loss as those in cooler climates (0.88%/year and 0.48%/year loss, respectively).

Called Advanced Regeneration Technology, the new technique consists of applying intense light and controlled temperature on the solar cells to excite the polysilicon molecules and make them move quickly. This reportedly changed their arrangement and “patches up” the holes caused by light, heat and humidity.Dec 21, 2023

 

 

 

 

 

try to keep up with the times

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

Your graphs are useless. 

1.  Currently: Cost of installation costs as much as the panels.  This cost is not going down. 
2.  Cost of the inverter essentially = cost of the panels that can be tied to it.  This cost is not going down.
3.  Cost of the batteries currently FAR exceeds the cost of the panels and installation. 
4. ~Sorta #4 Cost of panels that can act as your roof are priced--> through the roof eliminating their ability to viably replace roofing making them economically successful.  Solve this, solves a LOT of long term problems. 

Solar is not useful except at the margins without power storage.

Solar for most people in the world is not useful as seasons change dropping power output in half or worse

Maintaining 2 separate power utilities is not economically effective

Power Storage has always been the limiting factor for electricity. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

3 hours ago, notsonice said:

and degradation less and less for the newest panels  for panels installed 25 years ago 1 percent a year

for panels today           .7 percent and their now exists technology to rejuvenate cells in place

In 2022, in their first major finding, the PV Fleet team found a national median loss in performance of 0.75%/year, confirming similar values reported by previous studies that analyzed smaller data sets. Additionally, the new analysis discovered that systems in hotter temperature zones exhibited about twice as much performance loss as those in cooler climates (0.88%/year and 0.48%/year loss, respectively).

Wow you do live in hope don't you - however, although the degradation is still way too high I owe you a partial apology. In fact a closer look at the material shows that the inverters that are the real problem. As for the rest its as footeab says and I explained in the earlier post. PVs don't produce at night, or much in the morning and late in the afternoon no matter how advanced the technology. I notice you didn't bother to respond to that point, mostly because there's simply nothing you can say. PVs have their places but in niche applications. Anyway, everything that can be said has been said, leave it with you. 

See this news item.. 

But it’s not the panels that are driving the trend — it’s the inverters that convert energy from the panels into AC power for the grid.

Many older inverters haven’t lived up to their expected lifespans, with most beginning to fail around the 10-15 year mark, according to Levent Gun, CEO of Ampt, a solar power conversion product manufacturer. To make matters more challenging, most of the manufacturers of these inverters — the companies that were supposed to maintain them and guarantee their performance over time — have gone out of business, Gun said.

“These projects were designed for 20-25 year lifespans, and it’s a well known fact that the first and second generation inverters have a 15-year average lifespan,” said Daniel Liu, who heads research on asset performance benchmarking, cost analysis and valuations at Wood Mackenzie. Like it or not, he said, “the market is going to have to repair a lot of inverters over the next ten years.”

According to projections by Wood Mackenzie, some 23 GW of U.S. solar — residential, commercial and utility-scale — will approach that 15 year benchmark in the next five years. And given the complexity of switching out inverters on some of these early solar installations, some solar equipment dealers recommend knocking out a host of potential upgrades all at once: replacing old panels and wiring with new equipment to maximize efficiencies, or even installing batteries for a solar+storage facility while you’re at it.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

7 hours ago, markslawson said:

Wow you do live in hope don't you

Many older inverters haven’t lived up to their expected lifespans, with most beginning to fail around the 10-15 year mark, according to

The reason is manufacturers LIED to get people to buy their product.  If an inverter is is "rated" as 6kW, in reality this means if you wish it to last past the 10 year mark you MUST never run it past 3KW and then you have to regularly CLEAN its internals(or add heat exchangers and closed ducting), add additional cooling etc.  I have one and it had HORRIFIC reviews of it dying at 5-->7 year mark or so... I bought it(was effectively free), hooked it up and --> No Duh it was dying early.  It was MASSIVELY overheating its power silicon.    As soon as I cut the power throughput, added vast amounts of cooling(never allowing it to reach 100F)and ~turned it into a 2KW unit, it has run just fine and is now ~15+ years old.   Likewise I have added HEATING, yes HEATING to keep the silicon above 50F at all times as the OTHER killer of power electronics is COLD temperatures.   Expansion/Contraction due to heat/cold destroys the substrates of electrical components.     If I could hold its running temp to an even SMALLER range, it would last even longer than average.

No, my setup would never work at a commercial scale.  Or more accurately, it WOULD work at commercial scale, but it would have to be at a MASSIVE scale.

[notsonice + 1,080]

9 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Your graphs are useless. 

1.  Currently: Cost of installation costs as much as the panels.  This cost is not going down. 
2.  Cost of the inverter essentially = cost of the panels that can be tied to it.  This cost is not going down.
3.  Cost of the batteries currently FAR exceeds the cost of the panels and installation. 
4. ~Sorta #4 Cost of panels that can act as your roof are priced--> through the roof eliminating their ability to viably replace roofing making them economically successful.  Solve this, solves a LOT of long term problems. 

Solar is not useful except at the margins without power storage.

Solar for most people in the world is not useful as seasons change dropping power output in half or worse

Maintaining 2 separate power utilities is not economically effective

Power Storage has always been the limiting factor for electricity. 

guess you are too lazy to check out the reality of Solar on a large scale and where it is all heading. And you are an engineer (with a degree) ?????? and you post nothing to back up your BS babble/claims???? 

 

I have never claimed, roof top solar everywhere was an economical solution compared to anything

 

Of course there are fools who think solar on top of their houses, in areas that do not have good consistent sun, will yield cheap or even reasonable cost electricity without grid backup.

 

The true value  of green energy is not just the cost of the producing the electricity.....climate considerations is the driving force behind the Green Agenda.....

 

Newly installed, large scale solar farms is lowest cost source of electricity on the market , battery storage with solar together is now competitive

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/11/05/utility-scale-solar-reaches-lcoe-of-0-028-0-041-kwh-in-the-us-lazard-finds/

 

in 2021, According to the investment bank, utility-scale solar, both thin-film and crystalline silicon, as well as wind have, in the United States, the lowest LCOE of all sources considered, as in last year's report.

The LCOE of unsubsidized large-scale PV based on crystalline silicon is estimated at $0.030-$0.042/kWh and that of grid-parity thin-film solar plants at $0.028-$0.037/kWh. For comparison, in 2020 Lazard reported that crystalline silicon achieved $0.031-$0.042/kWh and thin-film $0.029-$0.038/kWh.

in 2021 Solar-plus-storage with a capacity of 50 MW/200 MWh is estimated to reach $0.085-$0.158/kWh. In the residential segment, solar-plus-storage installations are said to achieve $0.416-$0.621/kWh and for the commercial segment this value is estimated at $0.235-$0.335/kWh.

 

solar plus batteries is on path to become cheaper than anything else in 2026/27 .....in the next 2 or 3 years

which happens to coincide with the total decline of fossil fuels globally from peak fossil fuels today

https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/australia-leads-global-market-for-battery-energy-storage-systems/

 

[TailingsPond + 476]

On 2/24/2024 at 4:40 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Your graphs are useless. 

1.  Currently: Cost of installation costs as much as the panels.  This cost is not going down. 
2.  Cost of the inverter essentially = cost of the panels that can be tied to it.  This cost is not going down.
3.  Cost of the batteries currently FAR exceeds the cost of the panels and installation. 
4. ~Sorta #4 Cost of panels that can act as your roof are priced--> through the roof eliminating their ability to viably replace roofing making them economically successful.  Solve this, solves a LOT of long term problems. 

1.  If the panel price is falling the total cost is falling.  The installation can absolutely be made cheaper.   Flexible roll-out designs, Snap-together designs, drone-assembly, etc.  You just have to think bigger.

2.  Anything electronic, including inverters, can be made cheaper.  This has been shown historically time, and time again.

3.  Who said anything about batteries?  The price of batteries are a separate issue and not even necessarily even relevant as most electricity is used during the day.

4. As mentioned above everything can be made cheaper, especially electronics.  If I told you 30 years ago that everyone would be carrying around a bloody supercomputer phone you would have scoffed.  I was into computers and was paying about $2000 for 4 megabytes of RAM, it required a large case and several fans, used hundreds of watts of power.  New phones have gigabytes of RAM, no fans, fit in you pocket, run off little power, for half the cost.  

Have you seen the new folding ones?

The cost will continue to come down, and believe it or not they do have panel designs that work (a bit) at night.

Edited February 26 by TailingsPond

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

16 hours ago, notsonice said:

guess you are too lazy to check out the reality of Solar on a large scale and where it is all heading. And you are an engineer (with a degree) ?????? and you post nothing to back up your BS babble/claims???? 

 

I have never claimed, roof top solar everywhere was an economical solution compared to anything

 

Of course there are fools who think solar on top of their houses, in areas that do not have good consistent sun, will yield cheap or even reasonable cost electricity without grid backup.

 

The true value  of green energy is not just the cost of the producing the electricity.....climate considerations is the driving force behind the Green Agenda.....

 

Newly installed, large scale solar farms is lowest cost source of electricity on the market , battery storage with solar together is now competitive

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/11/05/utility-scale-solar-reaches-lcoe-of-0-028-0-041-kwh-in-the-us-lazard-finds/

 

in 2021, According to the investment bank, utility-scale solar, both thin-film and crystalline silicon, as well as wind have, in the United States, the lowest LCOE of all sources considered, as in last year's report.

The LCOE of unsubsidized large-scale PV based on crystalline silicon is estimated at $0.030-$0.042/kWh and that of grid-parity thin-film solar plants at $0.028-$0.037/kWh. For comparison, in 2020 Lazard reported that crystalline silicon achieved $0.031-$0.042/kWh and thin-film $0.029-$0.038/kWh.

in 2021 Solar-plus-storage with a capacity of 50 MW/200 MWh is estimated to reach $0.085-$0.158/kWh. In the residential segment, solar-plus-storage installations are said to achieve $0.416-$0.621/kWh and for the commercial segment this value is estimated at $0.235-$0.335/kWh.

 

solar plus batteries is on path to become cheaper than anything else in 2026/27 .....in the next 2 or 3 years

which happens to coincide with the total decline of fossil fuels globally from peak fossil fuels today

https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/australia-leads-global-market-for-battery-energy-storage-systems/

 

You sure do like to put words in peoples mouths they never said nor implied.  Suggest a psychologist for narcissim(its not about you)

And your graphs are a joke.... 4 hour storage with a very short battery life if used this way....  Useless.  But I guess the liars have to start somewhere.  At least the goal posts have moved SLIGHTLY closer to reality.  Before they were claiming LCOE with zero battery storage and pretending this was power even with gargantuan subsidies from government.  Your graph is an absurd joke.  NONE Of those solar farms are without gargantuan subsidies which are NOT reflected in the numbers let alone actual power storage.  Its obvious your BLoomberg BS is a lie as all the wind turbine companies are in bankruptcy even with the gargantuan SUBSIDIES as well. 

What is hilarious is they have cost of gas increasing over last decade... Why?  They are absorbing the peaking power required by the stupid wind/solar which is inefficient and should actually be the cost of the wind/solar, not gas.  Why 2 systems required to operate is NOT a solution. 

[notsonice + 1,080]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

You sure do like to put words in peoples mouths they never said nor implied.  Suggest a psychologist for narcissim(its not about you)

And your graphs are a joke.... 4 hour storage with a very short battery life if used this way....  Useless.  But I guess the liars have to start somewhere.  At least the goal posts have moved SLIGHTLY closer to reality.  Before they were claiming LCOE with zero battery storage and pretending this was power even with gargantuan subsidies from government.  Your graph is an absurd joke.  NONE Of those solar farms are without gargantuan subsidies which are NOT reflected in the numbers let alone actual power storage.  Its obvious your BLoomberg BS is a lie as all the wind turbine companies are in bankruptcy even with the gargantuan SUBSIDIES as well. 

What is hilarious is they have cost of gas increasing over last decade... Why?  They are absorbing the peaking power required by the stupid wind/solar which is inefficient and should actually be the cost of the wind/solar, not gas.  Why 2 systems required to operate is NOT a solution. 

the graphs are not mine.........

 

the figures put forward ( if you bother to look at the info) was for unsubsidized solar

here it is again (try reading it this time)...see the word unsubsidized

The LCOE of unsubsidized large-scale PV based on crystalline silicon is estimated at $0.030-$0.042/kWh and that of grid-parity thin-film solar plants at $0.028-$0.037/kWh. For comparison, in 2020 Lazard reported that crystalline silicon achieved $0.031-$0.042/kWh and thin-film $0.029-$0.038/kWh.

 

just putting forward facts as you are too lazy to back up your BS

 

But I guess the liars have to start somewhere?????? BLoomberg BS is a lie???

you really have a problem with dealing with the truth.........

and you claim you are an engineer?????  and yet you never back up your claims with real facts........

 

 

 

Edited February 26 by notsonice