Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Crystal arrangement results in more power from ferroelectric solar cells

pv-magazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 86 posts

Re: Crystal arrangement results in more power from ferroelectric solar cells

#71

Post by smolder »

nine_k wrote: post #42
k__ wrote: post #25

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.

Reading the article and the comments... No, these are not more efficient than silicon cells. They took an inefficient, simpler to produce PV material and found a way to dramatically increase its efficiency on certain wavelengths of light. It's still worse than silicon panels overall.

Re: Crystal arrangement results in more power from ferroelectric solar cells

#72

Post by NiceWayToDoIT »

nine_k wrote: post #47
NiceWayToDoIT wrote: post #2

What is: Power output per m2? Durability (life span)? Production cost? At least theoretical ...

They don't cite power output, but cite current output: 17 mA / cm² under full sun, pretty impressive if you ask me. The key promise of this approach is "more efficient that silicon can even theoretically be". Overcoming the Shockley limit is the key finding.

Thank you, is there any way we could find out what is probable life span, is it more durable (hailing/dust/corrosion) or less than silicon crystal? From time to time it would be nice if we had AMA on HN like on Reddit for the research team.

Also mA does not says much if we do not have voltage, and I am not sure what full sun means as in Africa full sun can mean 4.5 and 6.5kWh per m2 while in Europe we can get between 1 and 2.5kWh per m2 or radiation.

Re: Crystal arrangement results in more power from ferroelectric solar cells

#74

Post by MichaelZuo »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #67

The 1000x efficiency headline is from Figure 4 of the source PDF: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/7/23/eabe42... Units are Amps per miliwatt on the Y axis and electron volts on the X axis. The black BTO line has a minimum of around 1x10^-10 at 2.8 eV, which is the energy of a photon in 450 nm blue light, and the red SBC222 line has a minimum of around 1x10^-7. Yes, the difference between 10^-10 and 1…

A 1000x improvement on a baseline 1000000x worse makes sense. I was wondering for a bit how a PV cell could break conservation of energy. The article has quite a clickbait title.

Re: Crystal arrangement results in more power from ferroelectric solar cells

#75

Post by edgyquant »

RobertoG wrote: post #38
dylan604 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'd be twice (>1<2) the energy

Re: Crystal arrangement results in more power from ferroelectric solar cells

#76

Post by edgyquant »

stacks_on_stack wrote: post #62
dylan604 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I know your comment is in jest, but in point of fact the additional heat from another star would almost certainly reduce the efficiency of the panels.

Can you explain why?

Re: Crystal arrangement results in more power from ferroelectric solar cells

#78

Post by [deleted] »

RobertoG wrote: post #38
dylan604 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Crystal arrangement results in more power from ferroelectric solar cells

#79

Post by tomcam »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #67

The 1000x efficiency headline is from Figure 4 of the source PDF: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/7/23/eabe42... Units are Amps per miliwatt on the Y axis and electron volts on the X axis. The black BTO line has a minimum of around 1x10^-10 at 2.8 eV, which is the energy of a photon in 450 nm blue light, and the red SBC222 line has a minimum of around 1x10^-7. Yes, the difference between 10^-10 and 1…

That explanation was a tour de force. Thank you. You’ve done your good deed for the day!

Re: Crystal arrangement results in more power from ferroelectric solar cells

#80

Post by wiz21c »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #67

The 1000x efficiency headline is from Figure 4 of the source PDF: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/7/23/eabe42... Units are Amps per miliwatt on the Y axis and electron volts on the X axis. The black BTO line has a minimum of around 1x10^-10 at 2.8 eV, which is the energy of a photon in 450 nm blue light, and the red SBC222 line has a minimum of around 1x10^-7. Yes, the difference between 10^-10 and 1…

I absolutely don't understand all the physics but are "barium titanate" and "strontium titanate" rare stuff ?
Post reply on HN