Perovskite Solar Cells — What This Breakthrough Needs To Get To Market
Originally published on Solar Love.
Varun Sivaram, Samuel Stranks, and Henry Snaith have written an article for Scientific American about the wonders of perovskite solar cells, which are capable of stunning achievements in the laboratory. Sivaram says, ” [M]any of us believe this is the field’s biggest breakthrough since the original invention of the solar cell sixty years ago.” Why is that?
According to Vox, “In the future, solar power won’t just come from bulky blue panels on rooftops. The solar panels of tomorrow will be transparent, lightweight, flexible, and ultra-efficient. We’ll be able to coat shingles or skylights or windows with them — and it’ll all be as cheap as putting up wallpaper.” One principal advantage they have over conventional solar technology is that they can be engineered to react to many different wavelengths of light. That lets them convert more of the sunlight that strikes them into electricity.
Wow! That is some pretty exciting stuff. Why don’t we have perovskite solar panels right now? One answer is, there is often a huge difference between performance in the lab and performance in the real world. Another thing is that many perovskite solar cells use lead as a principal ingredient. And they deteriorate rapidly in the presence of moisture. Silicon solar cells may be clunky, but they last 25 years or more.
Siravam says that very few scientists are working on solutions to these problems. Instead, they are devoting their efforts to establishing new solar cell efficiency records in the lab. Why? Because new records make for good headlines and headlines are what get their scholarly articles published in leading scientific journals. Basic research goes largely unreported because it’s not sexy enough. If you are a scientist today, your number one priority is getting published. Applied research just has to wait.
Another phenomenon Sarivam talks to Vox about is what he calls the barrier vs bridge dilemma. Current technology can act as a bridge to new technology or as a barrier to its acceptance. One barrier is that manufacturers have invested billions to create the factories that make silicon-based solar panels, and they need time to recoup their investments.
He explains it this way: “As silicon-focused companies scale up their manufacturing operations and create economies of scale, it becomes even more difficult for smaller competitors without scale to enter the market — even if they have a technology that, down the road, could have far superior cost and performance.”
Sarivam suggests that lithium-ion batteries may be another example of technology that presents a barrier to more sophisticated batteries currently under development. The investment required to build a lithium-ion factory — like the $5 billion Tesla is investing in its Gigafactory outside Reno — will take decades to amortize. Until then, manufacturers have a strong incentive not to make it easy for new technologies to gain a foothold in the marketplace.
New technology has to bridge two so-called “Valleys of Death” during the development cycle before it reaches market viability. Sarivam thinks the proper role of government is to provide a bridge for those perilous times.
“Then there’s enabling the bridge, which can be done by addressing the two valleys of death for new technologies. The first valley of death is basic research and protoyping. Public support for R&D is just a slam dunk. The other is demonstration support, which is crucial. The government fills the gap where private investors are too risk-averse — from scaling the technology up from a prototype to pilot scale to factory scale. And that involves making some pretty large and risky investments.”
He uses the recent example of Solyndra, a solar panel maker that burned through a half-billion-dollar government loan and then went bankrupt. He thinks that money would have been better spent if it was parceled out in smaller amounts to 10 companies pursuing new technology solutions. He adds that 80% of the money allocated by the US Department of Energy today for solar panel research is funding efforts to improve existing silicon solar panels. Only 20% is being used to promote research on new technology like perovskites. He would like to see that ratio reversed.
Pubic policy also has a direct impact on the electrical energy industry. Monopoly models that worked well for 100 years may now be acting as barriers to innovation. Perhaps a re-examination of that policy is in order. The biggest problem is that conventional utility companies have trillions of dollars invested in generating plants and grid infrastructure. They are not going to simply write that investment off. Any plan to reorganize the energy marketplace will have to offer a solution to that thorny problem.
Taken all together, there are a number of factors conspiring to delay or derail new technology, even though it may be orders of magnitude more cost effective and efficient. Are perovskites the answer to man’s quest for abundant, affordable renewable energy? It’s going to take a lot of people working together in both the public and private sectors to find out.
Note: Varun Sivaram is now the Douglas Dillon Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
CleanTechnica Holiday Wish Book
Our Latest EVObsession Video
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
It’s called refaceting the industry needs to learn it. If the gigaplant isn’t complete, and tech is available, make the next wing a next gen battery method, it isn’t that hard.
As to current coal/nuclear/nat gas infrastucture refacet the buildings into warehouses, greenhouses, grain mills, local storm shelters, walmarts, WHATEVER.
Traditionalism is suffocating us as a species along side our fellow Earthlings(nature). I say get in line or be beneath the tank treads of progress. Innovators need to Nut up, and we need to reprioritize everything from monetary allocation, to industrial ethics and fines, to the to-and-fro groundhogs day many call a life. It’s all broken, and it may be a bit painfull at first but we need to relocate the bone.
Caveat: The GigaFactory does not depend on a particular chemistry. It depends only on packaging and such other mundane assembly requirements of standard cell manufacturing. Now if a new manufacturing method is found, that could have some implications.
Also, this is the first GigaFactory. Tesla estimates that thousands of these are necessary to fill the demand for utility storage and EVS worldwide. The market is just too huge to shut out a newcomer with something to offer.
Tesla has a large, growing market demand. Its a leader. But the market is not yet mature.
As far as existing utilities is concerned, their stranded assets are no different from stranded pay phones or film cameras. If the technology changes….
that non-existent chemistry (Ha!) is dependent on a packaging platform and chemistry hat is inherently limiting. These claims about (Tesla) 5,000 cycles is a joke. When put though a 100% DoD test by a world renowned and respected lab earlier this year, they cycled only 12.5% (400 cycles) of claimed cycle life
Does Tesla claim 5,000 cycles at 100% DOD?
What, exactly, do they claim?
For the daily cycled PowerWall Tesla warrants the unit for ten years. That’s 3,650 under-warranty cycles. Tesla does not take the pack to 0% nor do they discharge their EVs to zero.
exactly, what happens when the Powerpack is put to the test for a 4 hour range they are targeting? 1:2 ratio to achieve any meaningful life. Installation costs are 35-50% of capex and warranty is 5% of capex. That adds up to a very expensive battery. I am just saying Tesla was specifically called out for the cycle life of its battery. Lack of functional range makes for a lest cost effective battery
And I asked you to provide a link. Links to Tesla’s claims and the DoD test, please.
I’m increasing the link requests.
just did
No. You gave me a cycle test for Tesla’s car batteries, not grid storage batteries and no link to Tesla’s claim.
Furthermore, does it strike you funny that they got only 400 cycles out of the EV batteries when we’ve got ModSs with 60k miles showing small degradation?
60,000 / 250 miles = 240 cycles.
lets not parse the application use here same batteries
No, let’s have an honest exchange of information.
these tests are for battery storage not cars. Please read the article when I post. A car battery test will have only gone to 80%, but a storage would go to 100%
bink, you just pulled that claim of your rear end and it smells like it.
nope, go back and read the article it discusses tests for car batteries being at 80% and not 100% plus I know how storage batteries are tested
Copied from your link…
“He and his colleagues therefore put a large number of lithium-ion battery cells under a particularly stressful test, fully charging and discharging the batteries to 0%,
Read more: http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/kit-test–some-battery-cells-last-five-times-longer-than-others_100018517/#ixzz3f3GC2P23‘
no go back and read, no one is discussing the level of stress because in grid applications they will be stressed to that level and stop cherry picking trying to make an argument
Take a device designed to be discharged only to 20% of empty and discharge it down to 0% and you kill the warranty.
there you go now is tesla guaranteeing 100% discharge ? if no than you have to account for extra cost for the required kWh above the 80% 50% from oversizing
100% of 7kWh and 100% of 10kWh.
Did you not read the spec page I linked?
they claim 5000 cycles. it should have a 0-100 (SOC). You do know this affects the economics right?
Give me a link, please.
http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/kit-test–some-battery-cells-last-five-times-longer-than-others_100018517/#ixzz3ZxMHb1FH
80% capacity fade in 400 cycles. No lithium battery extrapolated out beyond 7000 cycles (lithium titanate), at 50% SOC Tesla extrapolates out to 1150 cycles or (3.6 yrs) this does not account for calendar life and other operating conditions affecting battery life. notice the discussions about safety as well.
From your link –
“Gutsch did offer detailed information on one particularly successful model, the Tesla battery. It only lasted 400 cycles. “This battery is built specifically for use in a car,”
Tesla, I believe, uses a different cell chemistry for EVs and storage.
Now, a link to Tesla’s storage cycle claims?
nope it does not,. how is Tesla going to manufacture different batteries at the giggafactory i think not (no economies of scale) Lets face it the test has spoken
No the test has not spoken if it didn’t test the Powerwall/Powerwhatever cells.
And it was a flawed test if it took the DoD to 100% when DoD is limited to 80% (20% remaining) in real world applications.
bob give it a rest in real world utility and commercial energy applications the optimal operating parameters of the battery are 100-0% SOC. Anytime you have to over size the battery (even 20%) that is additional expense and simply quoting a per kWh for pricing is not legitimate unless you can determine the amount of kWh’s X;s unit pricing
No bink, I will not give it a rest.
You listen up. I’m serious.
You’ve posted false information about batteries before. You’ve posted about a failure of lithium-ion batteries in a Florida test but failed to inform people that the batteries were badly abused by placing them in a closed container if full Florida sunshine. They were cooked.
After I called you on that FUD you have repeated it.
Now you’re seemingly smearing batteries once more.
We are very aware that you have financial interests in vanadium flow batteries. Putting one and one together our calculator finds Troll.
You want to participate in discussions here? Then be truthful. Otherwise you will be banned.
—
” a rest in real world utility and commercial energy applications the optimal operating parameters of the battery are 100-0% SOC”
That’s bullshit and you know it. In the real world devices are used within their design specs. A motor rated for 4,000 RPM is not run at 6,000.
You want to calculate an accurate cost of storage? That’s legit. Then use 80% of nameplate for a battery that needs to stay above
20% minimum discharge.
how can i put this, you do not get to cherry pick what is relevant and SOC is relevant in any application, much much more in grid utility applications and there is noting I have posted that has been false. It is not abuse when battery manufacturers are making coat claims that cannot be verified. the per kWh claim is made but then they don’t tell you how many hours of required capacity to get to the true cost of the system, You are not the authority here. You ask utility any utility operator what is the optimal; SOC operating range they would like to have on their system and to the man they will say 100%
binnk – you running two accounts now? I know how to ban both.
You supposedly know something about batteries and storage. If you are in anyway competent they you should know the rating for the Powerwall that is designed for daily cycling.
What utility operators would like and what a particular technology can offer are two different things.
Abuse anything and you shorten its life.
thanks for making my point the powerpack or powerwall does not dictate grid services. other chemistry has no problem wiht that 100% SOC and goes to point of the article about current technology being a barrier
It’s about the cost of storing a kWh of energy over the life of the battery. That a particular chemistry is best discharged to only 20% or 30% of full does not impact the lifetime storage cost. It’s part of the formula.
not true it does impact the life time cost of the system you cannot ignore available capacity and come to an accurate life cost of system you must account for the cost of the additional unusable capacity and stop using 80% because it does not extrapolate out to 10 years
Let’s try this. I’ll copy data from the Tesla page…
“7 kWh $3,000
For daily cycle applications
Warranty 10 years”
Power 2.0 kW continuous, 3.3 kW peak”
http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall
7 kWh is usable. Daily. For a minimum of 10 years.
like i said you do not understand at nominal output of 2kW over 3.5 hours tells me you are limiting SOC to 50%,
Please explain to me, in the clearest English of which you are capable, how 2 kWh + 2 kWh + 2 kWh + 1 kWh = 3.5 kWh.
If that isn’t what you trying to say, and understanding you is a challenge, then explain how you derive a 50% SOC for the 7 kWh Powerwall. Where do you find the information that the ‘box’ contains 14 kWh of cells?
At the 2015 shareholder meeting Elon said that continuous & peak power for the PowerWall would be raised to 5 kW / 7 kW based on consumer request / feedback with no change in the warranty.
So far they haven’t reflected that on their web page so it may be a “soon coming”.
Bink, the majority of users will not be using the batteries in this matter. And the Powerwall is built to have self regulating preservation systems which operate optimally in different conditions.
Tesla is betting on the percentage of batteries which will breach the warranty and require replacement. Not only that but 5-8 years from now when the battery needs replacing their cost will be 25-35% lower.
They’re betting on their future, not on a lack of failure, it’s economics. They’ll grow enough to easily hold the small economic strain of replacement. It’s math, and size, it’s all about the long run.
So all your doubts and post are void, the warranties will be upheld and just be a simple bit of breakage to a then immense conglomerate. Get it?
i am not talking about the powerwall in particular the economics are not there anyway. i am referring to Tesla entry into the utility market where it will be used in that manner and then some. This is not the most cost effective battery for grid applications as far as warranties go that is a joke a utility can just ask for this thing to be removed
Let’s see if any utility companies buy and install any Tesla units past a limited number needed to test them out.
Bob does not mean anything to me if they do. Utilities are not the smartest people when it comes to this stuff. I know been talking to them for going on five years about storage
Having read your comments on this and other sites I’m pretty convinced that the people running utilities are a lot smarter than are you.
That’s my opinion.
you got it (opinion) but with this stuff no, you dont have an understanding of the basic concepts of grid operations and grid storage and so not surprised
The basics of grid operation:
Keep the lights on.
Use as much direct supply as possible as long as it pencils out. When it doesn’t then turn to stored power.
Each “hunk” of storage will operate like a black box. Put a certain amount of electricity in, take a certain amount out. Consider the cycle life. Use the cost of ownership over the life of the ‘black box’. Calculate cost of storage. Pick the least expensive as long as it meets your output needs.
bob this is the real world not stuff you cut and paste. , generators are doing all types of duty cycles while pushing out power and energy. ancillary services come to mind and this is where storage helps and not hurt baseload and can avoid the cost of building a combined cycle or peaker, so it is not the last resort. ramping for frequency regulation, volt support and a host of other ancillary services lower the heat rate for baseload and therefore efficiencies , and they dont like it , its called generation optimization and benefits the overall system you have no idea
That’s gibberish. Do you ever proofread what you post?
again not educated about it so dont expect for you to understand
No, I am educated. One of my undergrad majors was English. I know gibberish when I see it.
It would be appreciated if you take the time to use punctuation correctly, start sentences with a capital letter and end with a period. Your inability to write clear posts cast a lot of doubt on the technical correctness of anything you say.
I’d say vanadium flow is best for utility application personally.
lower LCOS (life cost ownership of system) by a long shot. lithium industry warranty for grid applications 5%, install cost is 35%of capex due to complexity. A VRB will replace a combined cycle and combined turbine in a single facility.
Aquion AHI = already commercialized and ramping up production. You or I can actually buy them for about $490 / kwh. They’re claiming to hit half that price in 2 years. They’re not sure of the actual lifespan but lab test have shown very little degradation over 5000 cycles and their officially stated lifespan is 3000 cycles at 100% DOD. I’d say they should probably be higher on the list than several potentially viable in the future batteries. Just my 2 cents though.
Nice, their 28.4 kWh ‘Module'(M100-L028P) looks pretty promising. Only 3000 100% discharge 6000 50%. Long enough for my life time though if I only use under 30kWh a month, maybe share it with a neighbor or 2.
Thanks for bringing this company to my attention.
Lead-acid batteries have been used in utility applications for a long time. Anyone who cycles their VRLAs down to 0% on a regular basis is going to be disappointed at the liftetime.
Or nearly any battery to 0% for that matter.
my point is a VRB can cycle to 100% dod and not degrade or fail. Production stack has cycled almost 15,000 times and still going. VRB installation in Japan has cycled 200,000 times deep and shallow over a 3 year period no degradation
That’s wonderful. So get busy selling VRBs to utilities and you’ll be the next billionaire.
Vanadium-Redox has been around for 25 years; the need for energy storage is much, much older.
The failure of that tech to capture the market or displace lead-acid or sodium-sulfur or zinc-bromine or whatever, is not Elon’s fault and he’s chosen not to make it his problem.
Yep, the chemistry is different. Just like Elon said. “The powerwall battery chemistry is different from the car battery”. It is Nickel Manganese Cobalt for the high cycle 7 kwh, 5000 cycle battery. The 10 kwh is Nickel Cobalt aluminum and has 1000-1500 cycles. We really need to get this clear. The daily cycle battery is entirely different chemistry.
lets get it straight they are both Tesla batteries the old NMC and the newer NCA both used in the Tesla car. there is nothing new here. I am referring to the powerpack they are both junk
http://www.livescience.com/50726-how-tesla-home-batteries-work.html
There is no useful information in the page you linked.
That page does not address the type of cell chemistry used for storage. It does not state cycle life and DoD.
What ? the whole article is about the powerwall, the powerpack is the same type of battery, unless you come up with something that sates differently do not dismiss. you know the chemistry are the same as what they have used in the past. there is no game changer here in terms of what tesla is using in regards to longevity or cell cost
Help me find the cycle life in that article.
—
“Right now, Tesla Energy is using a different battery chemistry for energy storage than for Tesla Motors’ cars (though they say they’ll both be made at the Gigafactory).”
https://www.purewatercraft.com/thinking-about-energy-storage-using-lithium-ion-batteries/
I have seen a statement on another site which talked about the different battery chemistry used for storage and for EVs. I haven’t located it yet.
OK, bink/binnk, I did your homework for you. From Tesla’s Q1 2015 conference call-
“There is two applications which are quite different. One is backup power, or peak-up — the equivalent, on a utility scale of like a peaker plant, which is a high-energy application. And there is the daily cycler application. There are different chemistries, depending upon what you have.
The backup power chemistry is quite similar to the car, which is a nickel cobalt aluminum or a cathode. The daily cycling control constituent is nickel manganese cobalt. It’s quite a lot of manganese in there.
(Notice the different chemistries.)
One is meant for, call it maybe 60 or 70 cycles per year. And the other one is meant for daily cycling — daily deep cycling, so it’s 365 cycles a year.
The daily cycler one, we expected to be able to daily cycle for something on the order of 15 years. Obviously warranty period would be a little bit less than that. We expected to be something that’s in the 5000-cycle range capability.
Whereas the high-energy pack is more like around the maybe, depending on how it’s used, anywhere from 1000 to 1500 cycles. That’s — they have comparable to calendar lives.”
http://www.thestreet.com/story/13142191/4/tesla-motors-tsla-earnings-report-q1-2015-conference-call-transcript.html
EV cycle life, “the high-energy pack”, from 1,000 to 1,500 cycles. If it is not abused, which the car’s battery management system does not allow.
But what the linked study did. Abused the cell and then reported only 400 cycles.
guess which one is in the Powerpack (high energy) a peak application optimal SOC is 100-0 % otherwise you have to oversize the battery and that required additional kWh’s have to be used to get to the true cost of the battery. So you only made my point. the NCA is being used for the Powerpack and the NCM is used for the daily. Wow it took you awhile but you finally got it. The daily cycle battery is not being discharged to 100% or even 80% it is limited to under 50% the evidence is the kW output
No, you made that point up rather than showing us that you are a big enough person to admit a mistake.
The test you cited that claimed failure after 400 cycles was a badly designed test but you did not reveal that.
The cost of the 7kWh Powerwall is what it is. Divide that cost by 7 to get the cost per kWh.
This may help.
“Similar to a mechanical device that wears out faster with heavy use, so also does the depth of discharge (DoD) determine the cycle count. The shorter the discharge (low DoD), the longer the battery will last. ,If at all possible, avoid full discharges and charge the battery more often between uses.
Partial discharge on Li-ion is fine.”
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries
Yes, thanks. I checked that site a few minutes back. Unfortunately they gave data for 50% DoD and total discharge, but not 80% down/20% remaining.
Here’s another interesting tidbit…
The weight of the weekly 10kWh and daily 7kWh are the same.
220 lbs / 100 kg
The sizes are the same as well.
http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall
This suggests that both have the same number of cells. One allows deeper cycling which uses up the batteries sooner.
different chemistry remember . its a 18650 cell you expect it to be different ?
18650 is a size, bink. Surely you know that?
AA is a size. There are all sorts of capacities for rechargeable AA cells.
yeah i know that is why i put the question mark
by whose standards ?
I see you already got the gang up in arms again, so no need for me to chime in.. was just browsing all of this and had a big wide smile on my face.
Citations please.
Does anyone in this discussion group doubt for a minute that Tesla DOES NOT expect some failures in battery longevity ?
The Tesla Guarantee L@@KS like a superb advertising campaign, promise the battery life, build public Trust and Acceptance, and Honor the warrantee with Fast Service !
Any problems with the batteries will be an entry in a C.P.A.s statement in 5 years well after the cash flow is well established !
than simply quoting cost per kWh is not honest. Usable capacity is not being talked about. If SOC is limited to 50% than a 7kWh battery is limited to 3.5 kWh’s of usable capacity or 3.5 kW’s of usable power for 1 hour (hmm sounds familiar) if you going to be honest than be honest. Real cost $3,000 divided by 3.5 = $857 kWh
“Powerwall is available in 10kWh, optimized for backup applications or 7kWh optimized for daily use applications.”
http://www.teslamotors.com/presskit
You know that the ‘daily cycle’ Powerwall is rated for 7kWh of daily cycling.
You be honest.
Thread you’re hanging by is fraying….
you be honest what is the power output? I don’t know how you consider yourself an authority when simple math is beyond you. 7kWh hours with an output of 3 kW is how many hours of capacity, just over two right (that is assuming 100% availability of capacity) but we don’t assume that we assume 50% as you so elegantly put it
A capacity of 7kWh and a maximum 3.5 kW output means a sustained maximum output for 2 hours.
100% of that stated 7kWh capacity is available. The cells inside the daily cycle Powerwall likely add up to something more like 10kWh. (That ring any bells for you?)
What point are you trying to make? Just throwing stuff against the wall hoping something sticks?
now you are guessing, different chemistry remember. i have not seen the 3,5 output it was originally 2 than 3. what does that tell you is going on here? My point is dishonesty on the part of tesla. the real per kWh cost of this battery at nominal output is $1,500
Took a look at the Tesla page –
“2.0 kW continuous, 3.3 kW peak”
http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall
7kWh capacity at 2kWh continuous would mean 3.5 hours output.
That does not sound right to me .
Powerwall Spec say: Power2.0 kW continuous, 3.3 kW peak max, 3.3 kW peak (surge) 1-5sec? 3.3 kW peak is timed and limited.
Bob where did you get that 3.5kw information from?.
Without digging back through the mess of comments I think that is what bink posted and I accepted his number. Later I looked at Tesla’s website.
The power wall does have heat issue, with liquid thermal control, limited 92% efficiency, that efficiency drop off and shutdown before 43°C. The high voltage could be an issue 350 – 450 volts, but study done on other types of high voltage sealed battery show shorter lifetime (5 years) batteries operating at 110 V or higher system voltages, again there no published results on the effects of higher end volts (powerwall).
2.0 kW continuous, 3.3 kW peak, there no publish data yet, that also will drop off at Operating Temperature .
The 7 kWh for daily cycle applications 10 kWh for backup applications @ 92 % or less? there no data for 7kw or 10kw.
There still a big question on what this battery can deliver, with little information.
Can you show me a link that state the full 7kw, or 10kw?
You mean Tesla’s spec page?
http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall
bink, I’ve read through your 16 posts that you have written so far and have not found anything of interest in them. Basically misdirection and lies of knowledge you do not have. I’m hoping very much that Bob bans you for trolling.
Though I hope flow batteries that you apparently are invested heavily are successful in the future it does not give you the right to try to destroy the competition with crap. If anything if you want flow batteries to succeed here you need to present good information.
whatever you are not credible, explain the power output and the quoted kWh price they don’t jive
There are many ways to explain it. You claim to be such a high level expert that knows so much yet you can’t see any ways in which Tesla’s packs could work?! Tesla’s pack is a black box. For all we know a 100% depletion is not even close to 100% depletion but something that cuts off power at the “100%” mark. In reality the black box has much more capacity so that it can deliver as promised by the warranty.
Now please go away. I do not appreciate reading through pages of your trolling.
the kw output gives it away. go get educated
Don’t you get tired of getting beat up all the time with your bad links and faulty logic? Every time you come around you leave battered. Instead go somewhere like Forbes or Fox News and spread your crap. With their mental abilities you’d be like a god.
not battered at all i know i am dealing with some who are less educated than i in this area. you still have not stated whether i am wrong about the real kwh cost based on kw output and your logic
binky, so basically you don’t know what a black box is do you? (You gave it away when you started asking stupid followup questions.)
really Ivor I do but I hardly read your writings it took alot for me to respond
the smile just turned into a big fat grin.. post of the day!
🙂
I actually feel bad about my posts. I was annoyed at having bothered to read binks latest attempts to troll. I tell myself I will not respond to him again. I’ll see how well that goes…
Sorry to point this out Ivor but I at times find the lengths to which Mr.Wallace carries on to seek the roots of obviously illogical conversations Equally Trolling.
As a moderator he practically polices the site and in a crusade of correction narrows other’s potential perspective through a lens befitting to his own. He lacks a progressive mindset, he praises the sure thing, and loves to doubt those beyond his grasp in either ethics or a specific field.
In hoping for a ban you’re only encouraging what appears to me to be a stolid bully of sorts.
If I never saw another comment from him as well it would be just as welcome if not more than that same course for bink.
Life’s a bitch….
And then we die.
Don’t take it too personal, just one man’s opinion.
I’m sure in your youth you’ve had similar view of an authoritative figure. It happens.
Not me. I’ve scheduled an “up-taking”.
Just waiting on the spaceship in my PJs… ;o)
Yes, and I’ll more than likely live to the era or organ replacement, synthetic blood transfusions, and borderline immortality.
It’s pretty common to engineer stuff (that won’t kill people) up to less than a 100% reliability point but drop a bit below if more would be saved than it would cost to pay out some warranty claims.
That said, one way or another a buyer should expect to get the warrantied cycle life. One way or another.
As an agéd and experienced person, I put the odds of perovskite PV replacing silicon for large-scale power production at ~20%, i.e. really substantial but far from a certainty. High temperature superconductivity is an example of a practically miraculous discovery, with really large basic and applied research investment (and tremendous enthusiasm from the researchers) over the past 25 years, which has so far found use only in niche commercial applications because it usually does not solve more problems than it creates. In the past year there has been the beginning of an understanding of what’s going on in the perovskites; another few years of hard work are in order here before one decides for a massive scale-up of the applied research.
nice
No mention of Dyesol. Interesting.
Great article! A perfect example is what Edison / GE did with fluorescent lighting. Or chrevron with ovionics. Business has no use of virtues: “invisible hand”. It’s the rube of mankind.
Solar to H/O storage is the best but it will ruin the energy industries and decentral the resource. The key is conversion of em fields to usable wavelengths in a cost effective manner.
Heat to steam to turbine is like washing a car widow with niagra falls
25 years more for Silicon