Comments on: Easy-To-Manufacture, Thin-Film Solar Cell With Higher Than 15% Conversion Efficiency Created From Perovskites

By: mds

mds — Tue, 08 Oct 2013 19:08:00 +0000

Correction:
Said:
“It looks to me like multi-junction PV is the only one that has improved it’s efficiency at anywhere close to this perovskite PV material.”
Meant to say:
“It looks to me like multi-junction PV is the only one that has improved its’ efficiency at anywhere close to the rate this perovskite PV material has been improved.”
It’s the rate of improvement in the efficiency that is remarkable. They only just came with the idea to use this stuff a few years ago. Already they are at 15%. If it commercializes this easily and if its stable enough …wow!

By: mds

mds — Tue, 08 Oct 2013 05:18:00 +0000

Exactimundo! Steady as she goes. We’re progressing two years behind the Germans. We’ll make it just fine.

By: mds

mds — Tue, 08 Oct 2013 05:17:00 +0000

Correction:
Said:
“It looks to me like multi-junction PV is the only one that has improved it’s efficiency at anywhere close to this perovskite PV material.”

Meant to say:
“It looks to me like multi-junction PV is the only one that has improved its’ efficiency at anywhere close to the rate this perovskite PV material has been improved.”
It’s the rate of improvement in the efficiency that is remarkable. They only just came with the idea to use this stuff a few years ago. Already they are at 15%. If it commercializes this easily and if its stable enough …wow!

By: jaybee

jaybee — Mon, 07 Oct 2013 20:47:00 +0000

Hmmm, now if we could just mature the cost of installation a bit and make widespread adoption an affordable venture for many more passionate solar pv people

By: mds

mds — Mon, 07 Oct 2013 16:49:00 +0000

btw I looked up the rate of efficiency improvement for other Solar PV chemistries on the Wikipedia chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Best_Research-Cell_Efficiencies.png
It looks to me like multi-junction PV is the only one that has improved its’ efficiency at anywhere close to this perovskite PV material. Add to that the fact you might be able to multi-layer it will cSi and you officially have a breakthrough, a major breakthrough. If this makes it past economic and technical wickets to production, we’ll have an astonishing improvement. Big IF, but still amazing!

By: mds

mds — Mon, 07 Oct 2013 16:47:00 +0000

Who’s arguing? We’re discussing, reaching a new and better consensus. (Besides, it’s fun discussing the tactics for the winning game and we are winning.) Don’t get jaded about these Solar PV breakthroughs. They may, or may not, make it to the market, but they demonstrate there is still plenty of potential for improvement in the cost effectiveness of Solar PV. This is very important because it is good evidence that Solar PV will continue to improve well past the current tipping point. Solar PV is bringing a disruptive change to electric power generation, nothing less.

For anyone worried we might move backwards in this effort, forget it. Solar PV will only be moving forward, slower or faster, but forward.

btw I looked up the rate of efficiency improvement for other Solar PV chemistries on the Wikipedia chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Best_Research-Cell_Efficiencies.png
It looks to me like multi-junction PV is the only one that has improved it’s efficiency at anywhere close to this perovskite PV material. Add to that the fact you might be able to multi-layer it will cSi and you officially have a breakthrough, a major breakthrough. If this makes it past economic and technical wickets to production, we’ll have an astonishing improvement. Big IF, but still amazing!
Embrace it! I command you!

By: JamesWimberley

JamesWimberley — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 12:57:00 +0000

We should stop arguing since we agree on the essentials.

By: mds

mds — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 02:18:00 +0000

Thanks, sorry to be so agressive. I have a little passion for the Solar PV revolution. I’m sure you’ve never noticed that.
Good? Bob, we’re talking Solar PV here! It’s effing GREAT!
chao

By: mds

mds — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 02:15:00 +0000

You’re just going to rain on my parade aren’t you?
Yes, I know all that. It is still a banged breakthrough! …and it MIGHT make it to production. pppththththtttt!

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sat, 05 Oct 2013 23:10:00 +0000

I suppose we need to add a qualifier to “mature”. I think solar is mature enough to make widespread installation cost effective. I don’t disagree that the final “maturity” of solar in terms of efficiency and cost is somewhere in the future.

There are a number of potential advances coming. That means that over time electricity will get cheaper and it will take less money to replace fossil fuels.

It’s all good….

By: mds

mds — Sat, 05 Oct 2013 22:38:00 +0000

No, I disagree, “maturity” means to me that it’s cost effectiveness is leveling out and the technical improvements have most been squeezed out. Nothing could be further from the truth for Solar PV. We are not talking about some minor mitigation in cost by using Solar PV instead of fossil fuels. We’re actually talking about Solar PV blowing away almost any of the other competition. End-of-grid wise in a few areas right now. Source-of-gird too in some markets right now. End-of-grid AND source-of-grid throughout most of the globe in the not-to-distant future. Not parity. Half the cost of other alternatives or less (with the possible exception of wind) in areas with reasonable solar resources, which is most of the populated world. Sorry, I’m rambling again. I think this is an important argument for Solar PV. This idea that Solar PV is about as cost effective as it’s going to get now is balderdash and you should watch that you do not help perpetuate this foolish idea. The bogus “Breakthrough Institute” is already working that area of FUD for you. Look it up. With respect for both of you on this, and please let me know if you think I’m wrong, please watch your step on this.

As to “good enough already”, absolutely! I’m in violent agreement with both of you there. “Never let better be the enemy of good.” You’ll sit around doing nothing the rest of your life if you do that. Conversely, never let good enough be the enemy of great… although that later is less important because it that tends to take care of itself.

I respectfully suggest that both those views are equally important and equally valid.

This is good evidence AGAIN that Solar PV will continue to become more cost effective. We can and should start saving money by using less fossil fuels RIGHT NOW, but we will benefit even more in the near future.

Sorry, but THIS IS A BREAKTHROUGH guys! Maybe it never makes it to the market, maybe it does make it. In either case, it PROVES Solar PV can still do better in the future.
Off to earn my daily bread. I’ll check in later. Cheers!

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sat, 05 Oct 2013 21:17:00 +0000

Maturity does not mean a cessation of growth. It just means “good enough, even if it doesn’t get better”.

I’m with James. Our PV technology is good enough. China is installing for around $1/watt. Do that in the US (and we can) and we greatly drop the cost of peak hour electricity, pulling down the overall cost of grid electricity. That, in my book, is “good enough”.

Obviously, better will not be chased out of town.

Some friends of fossil fuels use the “let’s wait for better technology” in an attempt to slow down the movement away from fossil fuels. There’s no reason to wait.

By: JamesWimberley

JamesWimberley — Sat, 05 Oct 2013 20:56:00 +0000

Possibly me. But what I´ve been saying is that we don´t *need* new cell technologies for the energy transition, in response to a common PR meme for ¨breakthrough¨ announcements. They will of course be very welcome if they do come.

It´s very interesting that the Oxford researchers (my alma mater!) are already getting commercially competitive efficiency from a new process they admit not to understand very well.

By: Jouni Valkonen

Jouni Valkonen — Sat, 05 Oct 2013 19:54:00 +0000

there are similar solar (and battery) breakthrough articles posted in Cleantechnica about once per month. There are no special wowness in this particular article.

Good ideas are very rarely leading into actual commercial product.

By: mds

mds — Sat, 05 Oct 2013 19:05:00 +0000

I wonder is this stuff holds up better under high heat over decades of use. 8% amorphous silicon PV has some problems there. Might make the stick-on PV rolls and PV shingles much more viable …big maybe for now.

By: mds

mds — Sat, 05 Oct 2013 18:06:00 +0000

Normally I’d agree, but IF this is stable under accelerate sun exposure tests AND IF it is competitively cheap to produce at volume, THEN you should see this on the market in a few short years.
Consider the market now. The largest and most successful CdTe producer, First Solar, is producing ThinFilm panels that are 13% efficient. FSLR hopes to make 15% panels by 2015. Of course, the 15% perovskite is a cell, not a panel and a percent or so will be lost in-between. …and it is from the lab not from production. Solar Frontier, the leader in CIS/CIGS, is at 14.5% panels now, at probably a higher production cost than FSLR. (Although who really knows, they ain’t talkin that I’ve seen.)
You may be right. Those are big IFs and more often they get bigger, not smaller. Still Solar PV is a fast growing market with huge max potential. I don’t think any of the Solar PV technologies have improved this rapidly. This is a real eye opener. I’m sticking with my wow for now ;-).
This is one of the reasons I read this junk. Very, very exciting.
Who was it that was commenting that Solar PV has already reached maturity as an energy technology. Expect no more new improvements? Yeh, right! Too cool!
I’m nominating this for post of the year.

By: dcard88

dcard88 — Sat, 05 Oct 2013 14:02:00 +0000

My guess is current think film (the 15′ lengths) are about 8% so this would allow them to double the output when they start mfg in a couple years.

By: Jouni Valkonen

Jouni Valkonen — Sat, 05 Oct 2013 07:48:00 +0000

it is extremly long way from university research paper to actual commercial product. So do not wow yet.

By: mds

mds — Sat, 05 Oct 2013 06:15:00 +0000

Wow! Incredible! How stable? 30 years stable?
Lets see: 22% N type cSi layered on/under 15% perovskite …for maybe >30% efficiency at maybe very low cost. Wow! When?