From one of the comments on the article: Ryan Kennedy August 6, 2021 at 1:46 am Our apologies for not making this clear. The photovoltaic effect was increased by 1000 times compared to previous output achieved from cells made of ferroelectric crystals, not from prevailing solar cells made of silicon or other conventional materials.
Ok, now we just need to know how ferroelectric crystals compare to conventional solar cells to find out what this "1000x" really means...
Yes, it would be extremely helpful if we knew how they compared to what people are able to purchase today.
For those like me, who didn't get this at first. It's about improving output from ferroelectric solar cells, a specific type of solar cells, which are easier to build than regular ones made of silicon. But they usually aren't as effective as the silicon ones.
I'm not certain about the "easier" part, but with efficiency higher than a semiconductor cell can ever be, this device should draw attention, no matter how hard is it to produce currently.
I did a quick Google for the Power Conversion Efficiency of Barium Titanate based solar cells and they are currently mostly in single-digit percentages [1]. A thousandfold increase would be over 1000%. Unless I'm missing something important, they probably mean 1000x over a super basic BaTiO3 system, not 1000x over the current state of the art.
I mean, do we really need Jupiter as is? Everything Jupiter has done for us with clearing out the trash from the solar system would have been done by a 2nd smaller sun as well.
And I thought we were supposed to reduce global warming ;-)
criticism, snark ?! What are you talking about?! All I am trying to get some numbers, if anyone has them, but it seems amount of unhelpful comments begins to be overwhelming on HN.
Seems like some people are unable to handle actual questions on anything that appears challenging and want to dismiss as being hyper critical and snarky for not just drinking the kool-aid. There was no snarky tone-of-voice in your reply when I read it. Maybe cultural differences? Please, kindly inform me of the output of the power output per m2? Also, is there any information available regarding the durability (lifes…
Honestly, I do not know how much technical my question can be, there is no tone, there is 14 words in total. I was googling and I could not find anything useful so I hoped I could get some answer from some technical person (material science/physic person). In my mind finding those number is the first thing I would do on the test bench, they give you prospect of technology some kind a range you would attract investors. You would have test sample 1X1cm you shine that amount of light and you get output. And then you know this is feasible and can help in future or not... simple as that. Instead I am getting some kind responses like I am talking with emotional teenagers tripping on some cry baby drugs... for heaven sake ... (yes that last is emotional response, I mean seriously what is going on with HN lately it used to be place with tech guys talking tech ...)
I thought solar conversion efficiency was a large fraction already. There's no room for 1000x improvement. Maybe 20%. What is this title talking about?
just look for the qualifier in this case "ferroelectric"
I think the confusion people are having with "Crystal arrangement results in 1,000x more power from ferroelectric solar cells" is that it doesn't have a qualifier like "more power than current ferroelectric solar cells." It only tells you what type the new ones are.
You have to infer that it's comparing new ferroelectric cells to old ferroelectric cells, and not comparing new ferroelectric cells to our typical silicon cells.
But an article doing the latter could be written with exactly the same title.
For those like me, who didn't get this at first. It's about improving output from ferroelectric solar cells, a specific type of solar cells, which are easier to build than regular ones made of silicon. But they usually aren't as effective as the silicon ones.
I'm not certain about the "easier" part, but with efficiency higher than a semiconductor cell can ever be , this device should draw attention, no matter how hard is it to produce currently.
Ah, good to know.
Yes, easier might be not right here, but it sounded like overall they are less complex.
I mean, do we really need Jupiter as is? Everything Jupiter has done for us with clearing out the trash from the solar system would have been done by a 2nd smaller sun as well.
Here we are, trying to improve solar cells to avoid global warming, and dissidents like you want to add a sun to the solar system.
It's not the solar system's fault that the inhabitants of one of the bodies in the system are bad stewards.
Also, if you have 30% effeciency from the light of one sun, wouldn't the additional light also improve the solar cell since there is now more light to get 30% out of? I mean, more is always better, right?
yup, my thoughts exactly. otherwise a 1000x increase in 30%-ish efficient pv silicon-based solar cells would be far above unity
Depends on how you count. If your process is 30% efficient, it wastes 70% of input. If you increase efficiency 1000x, it wastes 70% / 1000 = 0.007% of input, so it's 99.993% efficient.
It could also mean that the ferroelectric cells were harvesting 0.000001% of sunlight, while now they harvest 0.001%.
The fact that no absolute number is given in the article makes me want to boycott it.