New Photovoltaic Tech Could Rival Silicon-Based Solar Cells (princeton.edu) 87
"While silicon-based solar cells dominate the photovoltaics market, silicon is far from the only material that can effectively harvest electricity from sunlight," notes Ars Technica:
Thin-film solar cells using cadmium and telluride are common in utility-scale solar deployments, and in space, we use high-efficiency cells that rely on three distinct materials to harvest different parts of the spectrum. Another class of materials, which we're currently not using, has been the subject of extensive research: perovskites. These materials are cheap and incredibly easy to process into a functional solar cell. The reason they're not used is that they tend to degrade when placed in sunlight, limiting their utility to a few years. That has drawn the attention of the research community, which has been experimenting with ways to keep them stable for longer.
In Thursday's edition of Science, a research team from Princeton described how they've structured a perovskite material to limit the main mechanism by which it decays, resulting in a solar cell with a lifetime similar to that of silicon. While the perovskite cell isn't as efficient as what is currently on the market, a similar structure might work to preserve related materials that have higher efficiencies.
Their research involved a capping layer that's just a few atoms thick, according to an announcement from Princeton University, calling the resulting solar cell "a major milestone for an emerging class of renewable energy technology... the first of its kind to rival the performance of silicon-based cells, which have dominated the market since their introduction in 1954..."
"The team projects their device can perform above industry standards for around 30 years, far more than the 20 years used as a threshold for viability for solar cells." Perovskites can be manufactured at room temperature, using much less energy than silicon, making them cheaper and more sustainable to produce. And whereas silicon is stiff and opaque, perovskites can be made flexible and transparent, extending solar power well beyond the iconic panels that populate hillsides and rooftops across America....
[Engineering professor/team lead] Loo said it's not that perovskite solar cells will replace silicon devices so much that the new technology will complement the old, making solar panels even cheaper, more efficient and more durable than they are now, and expanding solar energy into untold new areas of modern life. For example, Loo's group recently demonstrated a completely transparent perovskite film (having different chemistry) that can turn windows into energy producing devices without changing their appearance. Other groups have found ways to print photovoltaic inks using perovskites, allowing formfactors scientists are only now dreaming up.
In Thursday's edition of Science, a research team from Princeton described how they've structured a perovskite material to limit the main mechanism by which it decays, resulting in a solar cell with a lifetime similar to that of silicon. While the perovskite cell isn't as efficient as what is currently on the market, a similar structure might work to preserve related materials that have higher efficiencies.
Their research involved a capping layer that's just a few atoms thick, according to an announcement from Princeton University, calling the resulting solar cell "a major milestone for an emerging class of renewable energy technology... the first of its kind to rival the performance of silicon-based cells, which have dominated the market since their introduction in 1954..."
"The team projects their device can perform above industry standards for around 30 years, far more than the 20 years used as a threshold for viability for solar cells." Perovskites can be manufactured at room temperature, using much less energy than silicon, making them cheaper and more sustainable to produce. And whereas silicon is stiff and opaque, perovskites can be made flexible and transparent, extending solar power well beyond the iconic panels that populate hillsides and rooftops across America....
[Engineering professor/team lead] Loo said it's not that perovskite solar cells will replace silicon devices so much that the new technology will complement the old, making solar panels even cheaper, more efficient and more durable than they are now, and expanding solar energy into untold new areas of modern life. For example, Loo's group recently demonstrated a completely transparent perovskite film (having different chemistry) that can turn windows into energy producing devices without changing their appearance. Other groups have found ways to print photovoltaic inks using perovskites, allowing formfactors scientists are only now dreaming up.
It's fucking lead (Score:5, Informative)
It's fucking lead, just drop this stupid idea right now. Biological impact of lead from halide perovskites reveals the risk of introducing a safe threshold. [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So? Encapsulating solar cells is not difficult...
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't click the link, did you?
"Perovskite-based solar cells (PSCs) are on their way to mass commercialization as standalone technology and in tandem with silicon solar cells for both large-scale energy production and portable electronics. Today, the best performing and the more stable PSCs make use of lead salts, which can pollute the environment with a dramatic impact on human health. Even the most rigorous encapsulation and the strictest recycling procedures cannot exclude the risk of leaking halide
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't click the link, did you?
I do have a "bullshit" filter which you seem to be lacking. This is nonsense written obviously written by somebody in deep hysteria. Can be discounted.
Re:It's fucking lead (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But that is a reason for more research, not for "Waaaah! Lead! Run!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At this time, yes. These materials are not ready for production. On the other hand, they have a reasonable change of getting there and research has not stalled. Hence it is worthwhile to invest more into research. It is very much not worthwhile to bet the farm on them. But that is how applied research works: You look at 100 speculative somewhat promising things for the few that will pan out and the few others than will solve some other problem nicely.
And yes, it may happen that they do get good results even
Re: (Score:1)
And how is any of that bullshit? You just seem to want solar power and are willing to dismiss obvious risks.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the most rigorous encapsulation and the strictest recycling procedures cannot exclude the risk of leaking halide perovskites into the environment during the life cycle of solar cells and other optoelectronics.
In other words: if a stupid child uses his slingshot to break your window, that is covered with perovskites, then there is a risk that lead can get into the environment from shards that do not get collected.
Otherwise: there is no risk at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Hail storm, duh. Or really anything else that can damage glass. All it takes is one little hairline crack or fracture and it's a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
No it is not a problem.
As the amount of lead that possible could escape is so low a layman can not even measure it.
Bottom line: the lead is bound in a complex molecule: it can not escape out of glas due to a crack. That is a no brainer.
Re: (Score:1)
Hello self absorbed doofus laying a turd on the internet again.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until you learn how dangerous fecal matter is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you need not look any further than OP for a shit-based internet post.
Transparent? (Score:2)
perovskites can be made flexible and transparent
Presumably, they cannot be made transparent when you want a high-efficiency solar panel. If the panel is letting the light pass through then it isn't converting it into power.
Re: Transparent? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The narrower the frequency band that the material responds to, the less of the sunlight's energy is contained in that band. The broader the frequency band, the less light gets through, i.e. the less transparent the window is at that frequency. Suppose for example that the material generated electricity from bluish light, but let other frequencies pass. Then when you looked out, the sky would look black, as would my car (which happens to be blue).
If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], you'll se
Re: (Score:2)
Have a look at what qualifies as "high-efficiency" in solar cells.
Re: (Score:2)
"Of the light that reaches Earthâ(TM)s surface, infrared radiation makes up 49.4% of while visible light provides 42.3%. Ultraviolet radiation makes up just over 8% of the total solar radiation."
Re: (Score:2)
Visible light, as in visible for the human eye, is a very narrow band.
Most perovskites work in the infra red range ...
Stupidest Environment Idea Yet (Score:5, Interesting)
First seeing as Princeton for some odd reason didn't want to actually say anything about what the solar cells were made of and what was involved in the process, here's the actual paper.
https://www.science.org/doi/10... [science.org]
Abstract
To understand degradation routes and improve the stability of perovskite solar cells (PSCs), accelerated aging tests are needed. Here, we use elevated temperatures (up to 110 Celsius) to quantify the accelerated degradation of encapsulated CsPbI3 PSCs under constant illumination. Incorporating a 2D Cs2PbI2Cl2 capping layer between the perovskite active layer and hole-transport layer stabilizes the interface while increasing power conversion efficiency of the all-inorganic PSCs from 14.9% to 17.4%. Devices with this 2D capping layer did not degrade at 35 Celsius and required >2100 hours at 110 Celsius under constant illumination to degrade by 20% of their initial efficiency. Degradation acceleration factors based on the observed Arrhenius temperature dependence predict intrinsic lifetimes of 51,000 ± 7,000 hours (>5 years) operating continuously at 35 Celsius.
Emphasis mine, but Cesium and Lead somehow don't seem environmentally wonderful or particularly abundant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Emphasis mine, but Cesium and Lead somehow don't seem environmentally wonderful or particularly abundant.
Lead is abundant and cheap. It is a neurotoxin, but it shouldn't be a problem as long as you don't grind up the panels and eat them.
Cesium is not toxic at low levels. It is rare but still 100 times as abundant as silver.
Re: (Score:2)
This will make disposal difficult. It will make damaged panels dangerous; especially ones with hairline cracks that could leech bioavailable halides into groundwater. It took years to get rid of leaded gasoline. How long will it take us to rid ourselves of leaded solar panels?
Re: (Score:2)
So the solar panels will need to be recycled just like the cadmium telluride panels.
Lead doesn't tend to move around very much in the environment. As soon as it finds a sulfide, a sulfate, or a carbonate it's back to being a rock.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not doing a very good job recycling the panels we have already.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not lead is running out
https://www.visualcapitalist.c... [visualcapitalist.com]
As for eating lead, you mean like nobody would eat paint chips?
Re: (Score:2)
First seeing as Princeton for some odd reason didn't want to actually say anything about what the solar cells were made of and what was involved in the process, here's the actual paper.
That is an pretty odd statement, when the paper you linked pretty clearly states from what materials the solar cell is made.
Emphasis mine, but Cesium and Lead somehow don't seem environmentally wonderful or particularly abundant.
That is also an pretty odd statement, as both elements are extremely abundant and cheap, and worke
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not inhaling it or drinking it, what's the problem? These are typically very thin layers anyway, not like lead soldering in plumbing or flashing around chimneys. Mandating recycling would likely go a long way. You likely have lots of these scary compounds in your flat screen TV in similar quantities.
Cost per wattt (Score:2)
Unmentioned is the cost per watt, which is the most important thing. Therefore I conclude there is a lot of work to do on that.
Re: (Score:3)
Aaaagh (Score:3)
Listen, when companies actually start buying perovskite solar cells in a place with good environmental protection then maybe I'll believe they're going to rival or beat current solar cells. Until them I'm bored sick of hearing about them.
Re:Aaaagh (Score:4)
If you don't want to read stories about speculative scientific research, then why are you on Slashdot?
This is news for nerds. If you don't like it, go back to Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to read stories about speculative scientific research, then why are you on Slashdot?
To taunt crypto boosters?
Re: (Score:2)
Until them I'm bored sick of hearing about them.
Sure idiot.
And we are bored sick about idiots like you.
The stuff is always just one more breakthrough away from replacing ...
And what is wrong with that? Dumbass? That is how science, technology and engineering works: you work hard in very fine increments until a fine - probably unexpected - increment gives you the "break through". Stupid idiot. If you can not grasp that: then stop reading articles about it, and don't bother us to bore us with your idiotic un
20 years used as a threshold for viability (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If the panels are cheap enough, a shorter lifetime is acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm no longer easily impressed by sensational news (Score:2)
I remember articles about new rechargeable batteries that would be very durable and had the only problem of requiring gold for their electrodes; but I'm also thinking about some slashdot favorites, such as next generation nuclear reacto
Re: (Score:3)
A big problem I have with utility scale solar is that it is always occupying land that could be used for crops
Experiments with agrivoltaics show that it's not an either-or situation: There are crops that actually benefit from shading and water evaporation reduction, so you can often eat your cake and have it, too.
Also, plenty of land is being used extremely inefficiently even in agriculture alone. Just the 87000 square kilometers questionably dedicated to corn ethanol in the US could power the whole United States with electricity on their own.
Re: (Score:1)
Experiments with agrivoltaics show that it's not an either-or situation: There are crops that actually benefit from shading and water evaporation reduction, so you can often eat your cake and have it, too.
I doubt that moves the needle enough to make solar PV power worth the effort. There's many things that are not an either-or situation. Such as it's not just about needing nuclear power or not, it is how much and what kind. People like you also assume nuclear power comes in one flavor, the kind that will blow up like Chernobyl at any minute.
I post something and there's always some kool-aid drinking and opium smoking brainwashed ignoramus that will come along with some "AHA! You forgot this!" I didn't for
Re:EROEI, watts per square meter, watts per mass (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt that moves the needle enough to make solar PV power worth the effort. There's many things that are not an either-or situation.
And yet you claim
it is always occupying land that could be used for crops
So they ALWAYS take away land from crops, except they don't?
People like you also assume nuclear power comes in one flavor
You have zero idea what I'm like, so I'm not sure where this is heading.
With agri-voltaics there's one problem in that it has not yet been proven to be workable. This is taking cost competitive utility scale solar PV (often barely competitive) and increasing the costs by putting the solar panels up higher, and in some cases making them move so they can adjust how much sun reaches the plants which makes installation even more expensive.
Sure, just like molten salt reactors. Same situation. It may actually be better in the long run to simply install large PV arrays on low-grade land. Considering modern agriculture, we can grow plenty of crops with the soil we have. But if *that* is to be the outcome, what's the problem with "occupying land for crops" if it's not happening? Do you have idea how much rubbish land is out there? There's plenty of brownfields in my lignite-mining neighborhood for sure.
Corn ethanol also means we have a process in place to turn "low value" fuels into "high value" fuels. More corn ethanol and soybean oil on the market means we can stretch the supplies of gasoline and diesel fuel to get more miles
This is just a rubbish argument. Between slightly more miles from your gasoline and diesel supply and outperforming all the electricity generation in the US, how could you possibly go for the former?
This means more fuels for necessities like commercial airlines (cargo and passengers), military, moving people and goods by sea, and so on.
You know what *also* gets you more fuel for airplanes and ships? Completely electrifying your car fleet. And given the vastly higher productivity of PV arrays compared to growing energy crops on the same area, if you're intent on keeping making arguments about how nuclear power plants are amazing because of their high power density per area, you can't argue in favor of corn ethanol and against PV arrays on the same area of land without being hypocritical. In case of corn ethanol vs. large-scale PV arrays, you even have direct competition for land on which you can catch sunlight, so here the power density argument *actually* makes sense for once.
Re: (Score:1)
Completely electrifying your car fleet.
Have you seen the math on how much mining would have to be done for that to happen? Have you any idea the kind of environmental damage that level of battery production would do? Apparently not. We don't have the industrial capacity to electrify our car fleet in any meaningful time frame. Even if we did that still leaves us with all kind of fuels burned for ships, aircraft, trucks, trains, and so on. We need synthesized fuels to solve this problem. Do that and we "electrified" our car fleet by virtue o
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen the math on how much mining would have to be done for that to happen? Have you any idea the kind of environmental damage that level of battery production would do? Apparently not. We don't have the industrial capacity to electrify our car fleet in any meaningful time frame. Even if we did that still leaves us with all kind of fuels burned for ships, aircraft, trucks, trains, and so on. We need synthesized fuels to solve this problem. Do that and we "electrified" our car fleet by virtue of producing gasoline from electricity.
No, thank you, I really don't think that we "need" heavily polluted air in cities, or even polluting it even more if limiting consumption for reasons of global warming goes away. No matter how much you're afraid of extraction of useful resources.
You appear to not grasp the orders of magnitude difference in land use needs between solar PV and nuclear fission. We are seeing somewhere around 10 watts per square meter with solar and somewhere around 1000 watts per square meter with nuclear fission.
What you appear not to grasp is the notion of diminishing returns. If energy crops generate, say, 0.5 watts per square meter, solar generates 10 watts per square meter, and nuclear generates 1000 watts per square meter, then in order to cover the power consumption o
Re: (Score:1)
All I see are insults and straw men. Where's your arguments?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
One straw man is claiming I'm advocating for power density as high as possible at all costs. That's not my argument. You prop that up, knock it down, then claim victory. Just straw men all over the place.
I've seen the math on energy from wind, water, and sun compared to energy from nuclear fission. I'll post those links again:
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
http://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
Those papers show quite clearly that we need nuclear fission power or we face an energy shortage. You can try to clai
Re: (Score:2)
With agri-voltaics there's one problem in that it has not yet been proven to be workable.
It is proven to be "workable" since decades.
What is also proven is: you are living under a rock, you do not even half assed attempt to be up to date with modern technology/knowledge.
Re: (Score:1)
So, your solution to my ignorance is to sling insults?
If agri-voltaics is such a proven technique then why is it still the subject of university studies?
You could take every reply to me as an opportunity to educate, and yet you do not. Not only educate me but anyone else that happens to read your comment. That's what I hope to do as a general rule, educate all that happen along. That does mean being repetitive because I cannot assume the people reading have seen any of my previous posts. You, on the oth
Re: (Score:2)
So, your solution to my ignorance is to sling insults?
I don't sling insults. I state the fact that you are an uneducated idiot. If that insults you: your problem.
If agri-voltaics is such a proven technique then why is it still the subject of university studies?
Oh? If nuclear reactors are such a proven technique why are people still researching them?
Re: (Score:1)
Hi, Anglosphere! Nice to see you come back for more cheer leading.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps we should not be reading articles about perovskite solar panels but rather the farming of whole cakes. Brilliant!
Re: (Score:2)
Experiments with agrivoltaics show that it's not an either-or situation: There are crops that actually benefit from shading and water evaporation reduction, so you can often eat your cake and have it, too.
Or you simply lease out tiny slivers of your farm land for windmills and you get to grow anything you want, have more diversified income and way more power is generated per land area all day long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
By that logic all energy is "free". You see we have gobs of energy under our feet in coal. Only a dimwit would choose to not dig that up, build a bunch of power plants, and burn that coal for heat and light.
Or, we can go further. Only a dimwit would ignore all the free energy locked up in uranium and thorium. All we have to do is dig it up and put it in a nuclear reactor to boil water for heat and light.
Solar power isn't free. It takes a lot of time, labor, energy, land, and raw materials to work. On
Re: (Score:2)
"A big problem I have with utility scale solar is that it is always occupying land that could be used for crops." We have an awful lot of land that's paved (one reason we have more flooding--paved land essentially absorbs zero precipitation, meaning that much more runoff) or covered by buildings (same problem). While it's common to put solar panels on top of roofs, and now often on parking lots, there's no reason roads and driveways couldn't be covered by overhead solar panels. An estimated 18,000 square
Re: (Score:1)
there's no reason roads and driveways couldn't be covered by overhead solar panels
Actually, there's plenty of reasons not to do that.
Cost. How much would it cost to put solar panels over roads versus getting that energy by some other means?
EROEI. How much energy return would this give versus other options?
Then there's things like the panels impeding snow removal, visibility, and so much more. If the sun is blocked from melting off snow and ice then that would have to be removed by other means.
Using the roadway as the solar panel is a very bad idea. Every attempt to make that work has
cadmium and telluride (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe he was daydreaming about skiing...
Really? (Score:2)
"easy to process into a functional solar cell. The reason they're not used is that they tend to degrade when placed in sunlight, "
To say it in the words of the immortal Dread Pirate Roberts: "That puts a damper on our relationship."
Narrow Focus Causes More Waste (Score:2)
Renewable solar energy news always ignores the most important fact: recycling solar panels is problematic. There is not nearly enough infrastructure in place, nor development invested, in recycling these components. Do a search for "solar panel waste", judge for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Now add lead to the mix.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear waste is not-quite-solved-yet (who has long-term-storage already up and operating?) but also not *that* much of a problem, honestly (there's not a lot of it). However, dealing with c-Si solar panels at EoL is trivial in comparison because you're just separating elements, not isotopes (and the elements are mostly separated in the panel anyway). That's no "handwaving"; we know perfectly well what to do with those material streams.
Ah, ok, so I guess I can stop sorting waste. After all all the trouble with plastics, glass, paper is easily solved by "just separating elements", and that's easy, right? All waste is just mostly carbon hydrogen and oxygen. And as you said, "element separation" is trivial, so why worry?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, the answers are:
1. Fossil Fuels. Pretty much everyone except USians agrees that these are worse.
2. Nuclear. Pretty much dead because of the same style safety fearmongering you're trying to spread about PV.
Re: (Score:2)
and the risk of hastening the cooling of the earth's core (and loss of the earth's magnetic field) for Geothermal
Oh, come on. There's no risk of that. Most of the internal heat removed by geothermal energy systems is the product of radioactive decay in Earth's crust. And while the Earth is losing some of the core heat, today it's mostly shielded by the non-convecting mantle. There's pretty much zero risk of geothermal power doing anything to Earth's core.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A) Recycling solar cells is not problematic at all, it basically the same process as manufacturing them - idiot.
B) Solar cells have a warranty of 30+ years, so infrastructure right ow only needs to be available for the very few solar cells produced 20 to 30 years ago
No idea where the funky ANGST about solar cells comes from. You are scared about the "oh, we might have to simply put them into a landfill" more than by climate change and CO2? You must have some serious brain damage.
I still don't get why we do not use ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Environmentally unfriendly production/disposal (Score:2)
Lead. Yes it's relatively abundant so yay for cheap production but when you eventually have to dispose of these what problems will be introduced?
Does no one who's in to renewables think of 'life-cycle'?