@@nathansuko Don't delay your purchase waiting for technology that may never arrive. "About to hit the market" and then at the end speaks of why they aren't about to hit the market.
something that nobody has on their radar is, that these perovskite solar cells are much better in winter because they expand the light spectrum to higher frequencies that do not suffer that much. the loss in winter is more in the infrared spectrum. that means when a normal 500W panel goes down to 50W on a bad winter day, a 500W perovskite panel might only go down to 75W
Not on their radar because they live in sunny warm places. I wonder what two bit would be touting if he lived in northern states or any province in Canada. Solar is pretty lame when there is only direct sun light 60% of the time and daylight only 10 hours a day for 4 months of the year, when you need the most power for heat and light. I'll take nuclear power any day.
@@markwhatzhisface3331 i live in austria, where we use solar, hydro and wind. a perfect mixture. we have a nuclear power plant that was made decades ago. it was never switched on. nuclear power is also more expensive than solar+hydro+wind. our nuclear powerplant is now a museum. people from all over the world are visiting it. austrians are very proud that this nuclear power plant has never been switched on.
The main advantage of Perovskite is that it can be vacuum deposited on top of a glass- silicon solar panel and share the glass substructure without adding significant weight, also because Perovskites absorb light at frequencies that silicion cells don't and via versa a tandem perovskite/silicon solar panel is vastly more effcient with little extra cost.
To be fair, the 2% extra is the starting point and will likely keep improving with time, but with that said, there's no real reason for you to upgrade any time soon, so by the time you get to upgrading, the tech likely will have improved a lot. In any case, we only need one company to release these to market and prove that it works for the floodgates to open up that many rivals will quickly do the same, with that, the tech will quickly start to advance and the price point will start to come down, and for now, the problem is that it's still in the lab.
It'll only be a 2% gain for now because it's basically the first generation of commercial perovskite panels. Commercial silicon panels won't go much further than perhaps 25% on their own. But the potential to reach 34% with tandem perovskite/silicon panels IS a major difference and it'll probably become availablele long before you have to replace the ones you have now. I'm sure that by then you'll appreciate a cheaper, smaller system.
@@claudiaroy9455 2 years old. Im in the UK though so at the very worst I only get a couple of months of that intensive hot sun that panels don’t like, 6 months of perfect sun with wind cooling and the remainder being pretty much worthless. My panels should easily last their predicted lifespan and then some.
My solar panels lasted about one year until one of the microinverters fried. I had gotten out of the habit of checking the individual module output so it was 6 months (including most of summer) before I realized it. It got replaced under warranty, and I'm told it's nearly unheard of but, I would suggest checking that your microinverters are still producing every week or two.
I lost one of my micro inverters after having my system for only about a year and a half. It was down for about 6 months as well, but only because it was a discontinued model and they had to wait for some return stock or something to give me a replacement. I used the replacement they gave me to fix it but I went ahead and bought another one refurbished spare on eBay so now if one goes down I'll just replace it myself LOL
Removing a few panels in a home system has a tiny effect on overall price you will be quoted. The main costs are the sales cycle, engineering, permitting, transport, getting a crew on site, same inverter, nearly the same wire, nearly the same racking, etc. Perovskites will be good when they mature but pushing them as an up-front cost saver in anything but commercial scale is the wrong direction.
It all depends on the degradation factor. Regular silicon last 30-40 years at reduced output. How fast is the perovskite degradation? If I had limited space and was expecting better panels to be available in 15years, and the cost being right. Then perovskite makes sense. If I have plenty of space I would prefer ones that last longer, but all comes down to price and effort installing. So many things can change very soon.
Benefits to pervoskites has always been in cost of manufacturing. Well it was! The extra efficiency is just icing on the cake. I remember hearing when I first learnt about them eventually we should be able to print it for dirt cheap. If they can get rid of the degradation problem. Yet maybe since basic pervoskites cannot be used, and it requires some alloy or combination of materials. Maybe the companies are shifting to sell them as a more efficient panel, but keeping the cost.
@@dianapennepacker6854 It's a great point. However, as we've seen lately, normal panels are already quite cheap and getting cheaper. Every day, they contribute less to the total cost of the system, and the entire installation cost and other hardware is what's making up the bulk of what we pay. So, basically, the cost of the panel itself is becoming less of an issue. But, as stated in the video, since installation costs, which make up the bulk of the total cost, are proportional to the number of panels, reducing the number of panels does strongly impact the total cost. That's why efficiency matters so much. More efficiency = fewer panels for the same output power. In the end, cost is what most people care about anyway, not efficiency itself, since we have virtually unlimited solar energy shining down on Earth. However, perovskites also have other benefits, particularly that they don't suffer from the supply chain bottleneck around silver that silicon panels do, and that you can make them extremely thin and flexible, and that they can transform more scattered light than silicon panels (so they work better in the shade than silicon panels), and more.
That's a fascinating topic! Envobyte share a opinion Perovskite solar cells have shown great promise, but their durability has been a major hurdle. These new breakthroughs could be a game-changer for the future of solar energy.
0:15 x100 more efficient than current solar cells 1:20 It 25% vs 20% that solar cells have Can anyone explain the Math here? How could x100 times more efficient result in just 5% increase... Also how can it be x100 more efficient ? The max could be x5 , unless it gets energy from other sources... Even 100% more efficient would be 40% and not 25%...
"unlock cell efficiencies 100 times higher than current commercial cells". cell efficiency is about how many inefficiencies have been work out in the actual manufacturable products. if a panel is in theory able to output 30% of the sunlight as energy at absolute best, due to the laws of physics. and your product outputs 20%, then you will try to come up with news ways to improve the efficiency of your panel. You may improve that 20% to 20.05%. thats a tiny improvement. going from 20% to 25% is a 5 percent point increase vs a 0.05 percentage point increase. so your improvement in efficiency was way better, 100 times better. 0.05 vs 5
The real problem isn't Solar panels. It's Storage. The price of solar comes down anyway. With or without these cells. It's the grid that's the problem. We need to ramp battery production like crazy.
There's an additional savings potential: eliminating roofing cost by integrating roofing duties into the panel structure would save the cost of a roof. A system with some walking pathways between panels. After 20 yrs with some decrease in output, you'd save again for another decade (or longer)with not having to replace the roof again. That's $25g in total savings. Savings continue when you replace panels with what is effectively a free roof.
Good point. I think that sunlight probably degrades a roof far more than rain does, so one would think that solar panels would significantly increase the life of asphalt or cedar roofing shingles. Also, I live in an attic suite in a detached house. The house is 100 years old, and has very poor insulation. Summers are brutally hot in my place. I'm thinking that having a 4-inch gap (or whatever it is) between any solar panels and the roof alone would do a great deal to help cool my place in the summer!
Some researchers just devised alumina coated quantum dots for increased efficiency and durability, but if they can combine that with perovskite solar cells then they have a very exceptional type of solar cell.😊
The US is SO inefficient for Solar. I put 30 panels = 9KW system on my roof for AUD $ 14.5k = USD $ 10k and he talks of $ 30,000 for his 30 panels. He pays $ 850 per panel for installation. I had 2 people for a day and they installed 30 panels with inverter and website linked in and it was ONE DAY ONLY.
Hypothetically, if these panels could last even 10-15 years, probably wouldn’t make economic sense for a house. But might make sense for automotive applications. Imagine an Aptera that they currently claim could get 40 miles of range a day. If you could get that range to 60+ miles you’ve got something even more impressive. I’m excited to see the future 😊
You've made my day... No, My Month! Finally a great product that I / we get to buy and use! Well, OK... Not yet . After watching till the end, I believe (at about 70 yrs old) I will not be able to see these on my roof. : (
@@PerspectiveEngineer sure. but we are so far from the theoretical limit right now that theres such big improvements being worked on that it seems like a bad time to spend a large amount of money on them. they are a terrible investment when better panels wil be out. there will come a point when the potential improvements we can make to the technology are tiny. so tiny the money required to make the improvements wont be worth doing them, so the technology will peak and that will then be a good time to buy.
I think the best advice would be to go for whatever you have available now. Good and tested is better, unless you have a small roof that won't cover your house's energy needs
Shorter time-spans but increased efficiency seems like a good way to go considering how much solar tech is improving each year. If you invest in a 30-year tech, you're locked into an old system for 30 years. If your tech is only 20 years, it will likely bring savings and efficiency by swapping then. I think the main issue may be installation costs. If it's possible to re-use the mounting system, so swapping panels is maybe only 50% of first installation, that would be great. If solar panels in 20 years have innovated a new, cheaper way to mount them (which I hope they will), again, this would make it worth it. If installation costs are the same, then it may complicate the calculations.
The elephant in the room isn't the cost of the panel or the efficiency; it's the $850 of installation cost per panel. Breaking that down, being generous, it's probably $150 for mounting hardware and inverters and the rest is what the contractor is charging for labor, so $700 per panel for labor. Over 30 panels, that's $21000. There is clearly room for that number to be lower. I mean you watched them install it, how many man-days was used for the work? Again being generous, maybe 4 man-days? It's literally just someone climbing onto a roof a couple dozen times with a load and screwing it down; it's less labor than installing an actual roof. How much does someone need to charge for 4 man-days of labor and run a profitable business? Maybe $5k? Installers are treating early adopters as a gold mine; they are charging what the market will bear factoring in govt incentives and local electricity rates to get a decent ROI. If they charged a fair price of $5k, bringing the total cost of a 12000W system to $14k and a breakeven ROI of less than 2 years, everyone would sign up. The problem with solar isn't for lack of breakthroughs over existing panels. The problem is the market and competitive landscape of installers to charge a fair price for an honest day's work.
absolutely right...we gotta get that cost down, because when you break it out, you realize the solar panel itself is SO affordable... its the install that is expensive.
@@TwoBitDaVincihow has Australia solved this problem? I know they get their panels cheap from China without tariffs and so forth but is there anything that they're doing better on the install side? I know permitting and connecting is so much easier there than it is here
@@Preciouspink What you think I've never been on my roof? You think daring to climb up onto a roof justifies a $16k upcharge? I can get a brand new roof installed on my townhouse for $5k, materials included. How are roofers able to do a similar kind of labor without ripping you off?
@@TwoBitDaVincione good thing is in the developing world solar panels are becoming more economically viable since the materials are relatively cheap and labor is also cheap. Obviously cheap labor is always a controversial topic, but the point remains 🤷♂️ more solar panels seems like a better thing than less solar panels
The key words are at the very beginning "will release". Let's wait and see if (a) they will release and (b) they will in business in 5 years. Also, they "will be cheaper" I will wait as $20k is still way too much - that's 5-6 years of electricity consumption
Then there are the hybrid solar elect and direct (thermal) panels. The Si cells lose efficiency when the get hot or cold, so the direct collection helps keep the Si cells in their optimum performance thermal range. Including perovskites would certainly make for a niche device. Bringing down the cost of the transfer switch, charge controller, battery pack, etc will help quite a bit, too.
15 years vs 25 at significant cost savings seems preferable to 25 year panels depending on the cost/KWh of the power utility in your area. Panel efficiency (and energy storage solutions) continue to improve. Much of that improvement is incremental but small improvements in efficiency and/or cost of production compounded over the course of 15 years are significant. As electricity rates continue to rise, the capital cost of the panels themselves pays for itself quicker than ever.
To clarify their are no Perovskite solar cells on the market. Their are TANDUM Silicon/Perovskite panels being commercialized. The efficiency boost is coming from the Tandum nature of the cell. Perovskites main advantage is that it is easier to make a tandum cell with because it can litterally be sprayed onto a Silicon cell as a final manufacturing step rather then having to essentially make 2 whole silicon cells.
If you're talking about industrial-level installations at ground level, yes, these would undoubtedly have a drastic effect on nature. The question is, will this effect be worse than the effects of global warming currently caused by our heavy reliance on fossil fuels? I doubt it. Still, your point is well taken. My guess is that a whole new ecosystem will develop underneath vast acreages covered in solar panels. In deserts like the southwestern United States, such ecosystems might possibly sustain more life than the current, exposed deserts, which are only sparsely populated. But there's no doubt in my mind that the existing ecosystem would be severely damaged. If you're talking about panels placed strictly on the roofs of houses and commercial buildings, I doubt that the effects of this kind of installation on the natural world would be significant--apart from lessening our dependence on fossil fuels, which to me is a clear benefit. Almost everything alive inside the footprint of a modern building is destroyed at the time of construction. At least, everything alive that lives above ground.
The 40% dual-layer panels are much more likely to be used where space is at a premium and worth the reduced durability and higher cost - e.g. transportation (ships and trains) and camping etc
Aptera has designed their Solar EV to have user replaceable solar panels. They're advertising 40 miles of range on solar alone. If perovskite panels were used instead that could be 50 miles, or 86 miles on tandem panels! If they're cheap and easy to replace, panels that last as little as 2 or 3 years could be practical.
With 20% efficiency panels available for just ~$70 for a 350-400W panel with 20-30 year warranties, i don't really see the costs of the actual panels being a main limiting factor. I think these new cells are mostly suited to space & weight constrained applications, great to see progress nonetheless though 😁
Installation is roughly 1/2 the cost, so if peroskite cells longevity is 1/3 silicon, they would have to be roughly 3X more efficient and way less expensive to make it a better deal.
Cheaper and simpler solar panel can be built diy at home using glass passivated diodes … make a simple wooden frame and just twist together such diodes (like BYV27 any voltage) in series. With 40 of them in series I can get 14-16v midday sunny summer day and 7-8v when is cloudy … they only need to receive solar rays from any angle. Compared to any other solar panels this diodes panels are way smaller and lighter and can generate way more electric energy than any solar panel on market, just hook up some super/ultra capacitors and dump in batteries if you like or run your inverter. If you still want a better output, use optocoupler with darlington transistors to increase amperage.
@@laughinggas5281 of course you never heard of this … it is an experiment I’ve made a month ago to enhance capabilities of my water battery … and it does 👍🏼 Then, I thought what if I use just diodes alone and I found out they work as I said. Anyway idea of using large strings of diodes in series is not new at all, I only discovered that glass passivated diodes generate electricity when they are exposed to solar rays … they are way cheaper than solar panels and I recommend using them without pcb to keep them naturally cooled … I have described this type of electric generation on few forums open source to make sure greedy don’t try to patent and suppress knowledge. This is based on pn junction existing in every diode which in this case is encapsulated in passivated glass and enhance solar energy absorption creating a similar effect where a peltier or sebeck is employed … it is somehow much simplified arrangement of Arie Melis deGeus patent with electrets (made with teflon) and solar radiation capture … and there is real power output with the right calculus and proper tech we can make pretty small “panels” in range of KW output using a buget under £100/panel or even under £20 if certain quantities of required components are bought straight away. It is quite simple and requires no skills to make such a panel at home … just use a picture frame and glass passivate diodes and see yourself 😉
It may make sense in a ground mount, but the changes in NEC (2yr release cycle) over a theoretical 12yrs period could make replacement even more expensive to meet code on the next install. A 25yr panel locks you in in a grandfathered way without having to make changes. Depends though, I'm not aware of any DC to AC inverter lasting 25+ years that is current residential grade.
The problem isn't panel cost or even efficiency, I'll put as many panels up as I can fit regardless. The issue is cost of install! Panels could be damn near free and the installers will still charge a mint in my experience. I'm about to move someplace where installation is more competitive but I'm still hearing quotes that are not "cheap" particularly if you include batteries - which I will want eed. If there was a way to repurpose EV batteries in a way that your insurance company and inspectors would be okay with that would help a TON. I'll still put panels on my new place, I'll do batteries too, but price is not going to be much influenced by panel cost. Everything else including labor is what hits us these days
Bifacial panels are quite higher efficiency compared to traditional single sided PV. They need to be put strategically to maximize their potential. Then about solar tracking can really improve solar electricity production. I live near equator and some people with solar tracker have shown an improvement almost 100% compared to standard fixed installation. Yeah, you're getting double the watt-hour in a single day when you do solar tracking. Surely some of those energy being spent to work the tracking motor and electricity, but that's almost nothing compared to what you're getting. Around equator you can even get away with single axis solar tracking I guess and they're still very efficient 😁 Currently I'm not using solar tracker because even with standard current PV technology and fixed installation already generate enough electricity for me to use without the need to turn on utility line 24/7 and I still have a lot of space to spare should I want to add more panels in the future.
The normal price of a Trina 430W bi-facial is about 90 EURO. Anything different means the government is adding import taxes. The *biggest* cost of solar power are not the panels. It's not even the amount of copper cable. It's the footing. Footing is about 1...2x the price of a panel per panel. Inverters costs close to nothing. This used to be different. My first panels were 250 euro a piece for 230Wpp. I got my panels basically for free with my off grid container installation. (3xVictron MP2 5000, victron mppt, all cabling and disconnects and everything according to specs including installation). But the footing of the panels would majorly up the price. So they are actually lying on the ground until my house is build and I can move the installation.
Calculate the cost of mounting the panels vs the cost of buying more panels and leaving them all flat. The latest thing with bifacials though is to just mount them vertical.
Yum I love lead, having slowly degrading lead bromide panels on the roof I directly collect my drinking water from definitely sounds worth a slight increase in efficiency for a few months lol. Cool tech though
I learned in geology that crystal growth relies on imperfections. I can only conclude this was 'bs' or they are growing crystals through plasma deposition.
You said to do it, so, here's goes... From 20% to 25% is 20% better. So from 30k to 20k is not the same as from 25k to 20k unless the price falls by some 25% or so, too... And of the things last 40 years or whatever.
What if... Perovskite sheets were made that you could fit and replace on top of your existing silicone panels? That would basically double your output. That would also allow your current system to be easily scalable. Just a thought...
One of the complaints I've heard leveled against solar panels is that people replace them early, chasing higher efficiency. I nearly fell into the trap with my 12-year-old system. If this irrational behavior is included, the shorter life span of perovskites becomes less significant.
do the calculations at the end account for what you said about panels reducing to 80% of their original output...? seems like that would also be pretty significant factor to account for. but also doesnt that mean the perovskite can keep going after however many years? they dont just suddenly completely die, do they? i thought you said the same thing about them, that the amount of year stated is the point at which they drop to 80% output? or did i just mishear that?
I love the idea of solar but wouldn't it make it a pain to change your roof shingles once it is installed. You would have to pull it all off and reinstall. That is a lot of $$$.
I felt the same way. But when your roof is ready for replacement, do the solar panels; if you live in a climate where solar is feasible you won’t regret it. BTW, my accountant made the new roof, removal of trees that were shading the planned solar panels, and the solar system all part of the federal tax 30% credit. My roof is lifetime metal. My last piece of advice is to get the biggest system you can imagine needing. If you ever get an EV or change to Electricity for your heat , cooling, or hot water tank you’ll be glad you have the big system.
I am new to the topic of solar (as well as that of owning a house) but It feels like lasting 10 years as opposed to 25 might not be that bad in this fast moving space. The problem might be that the initial cost is still too high for your calculations. What I mean is that in 10 years there might be much better technology available that is not just cheaper but also more efficient. While you would still be "stuck" with your old panels trying to recuperate for the initial investment somebody with shorter lived panels would be moving to the next thing.
You touched on the lifespan of a roof in the beginning but didn't include it in your final cost analysis. A 17 year panel lifespan would be a better match for asphalt shingles (replace both at the same time), whereas you'd want 30+ years out of panels installed on a standing seam steel roof. The latter is also less maintenance as the racking usually just clamps onto the roof (no holes) vs screwing into shingles and having to rely on sealants.
I wonder how long a delta pro can last plugged into Paragon's smallest glassblowing kiln. If it's more than 3 hours, I might consider one instead of wiring a breaker to a shed.
Anything that gives us more energy. Is always a good thing, especially that something that works better in the winter. All of us that have solar panels have always had this problem in the fact that we get nowhere near the amount of energy that we want during the winter and you know this. George Davis
What about quantum dots solar panels boasting an impressive efficiency of up to nearly 67 %? Is the technology still considered too far ahead to even mention in this type of videos?
Please do not forget that solar panels right only cost like 20% of the final money spent on an installation. Most money is spent on red tape and labor to install them.
Lead could potentially be a problem, because it is such a terrible poison. There is no safe lower limit for lead in the human body - it is strongly toxic at ANY level (and neurotoxic at that, meaning it attacks nerves and the brain, causing behavioral issues, violent tendencies and loss of intelligence), and this is particularly true in children. Of course, as long as the lead is bound up in the solar cell everything will be dandy (as long as production doesn't pollute - although sloshing solutions around in the video clips included makes me concerned), but then there's the possibility of fire. If the panels ever burn, the lead would be released and go up into the air with the hot gases generated by the fire, to later come down somewhere. One could make the case I guess that the amount of lead will be so tiny (active solar cell thickness only a fraction of a human hair), spread over such a large area, that any lead released this way would be dwarfed by naturally occurring sources. And I assume people will make that argument too, so we'd better make sure it truly is that way. Because using terrible compounds just because they're convenient for us isn't a good thing - lead additives in petrol vehicle fuel made piston engines run smoothly for decades and decades and that was super convenient for us - and lead buildup in people was also instrumental in causing the inner city violent crime spike seen in many major cities during the 1980s. This isn't speculation, this has been scientifically established by for example how plotting a curve from lead levels in peoples' blood matches the curve in inner city crime rates, rising before the 1980s, peaking during the decade, and then declining as unleaded petrol became the norm. A similar issue exists with so-called quantum dot flat panel video displays and TVs, which use cadmium in the quantum dot doping material. Cadmium is also a horrible heavy metal and a serious environmental toxin if released into the wild.
It depends, but as always its not as simple as your example, where perovskies cells just dies after 15 years. You mention that over 30% efficiency could be made with tandem cells of normal solarcells. So what happens in these cases, after the 15 years? 0% from perovskies, but still 23% from silicon? or 0% from both? What about silicons gradual degrading? Will this perovsky tandem cell structure "protect" them more, and their degration will therefor be lower? For me personaly, i would go for max amount of cells my roof supports. The more of the year, my solarcells could cover my loads, the better. saving 25-30% is nothing vs being less depending on the grid, and have more time where they cover your needs. As one already wrote, perovski cells potential works better in winter, so maybe this sandwitch design is just the one we need.
the only way these will be a thing is if they can last as long as a Si panel. Si panels degrade but they approach 50% at 100years, and that is a complete guess with little information, we just do not know if they will even degrade that much. Sunpower is now warrantying to 25 years at 92 %. They might be a thing for specialized applications that do not last long anyways, and need max power outpt, ie mobile power needs. But it seems very limited.
0:16 "... PV cell efficiencies 100x higher than current commercial cells" So 100 x 20% efficiency = 2000%, so yielding 20x more power output than input ?!
Knowing how solar companies operate, I'd imagine that the solar bros would just charge the same for the same size system, and then pocket all the new savings on the perovskites
TwoBit, you threw out a number which stunned me. Did you actually say that buying electricity from your local utility costs $.35/kwh? I am a retired EE guy living in the land of hydro (PNW), where electricity is dirt cheap ($.03/kwh) and I know that the rest of the country pays a lot more. But how can a middle income consumer or a business survive paying rates like that?
I don't understand why some of you guys won't paint your roof white or use white colour material. It reduce the heat gain significantly right? And in turn will help reduce energy usage for cooling system.
I am more interested in Perovsites ability to convert heat into power rather than light either in industrial processes for waste heat use or as a tandem cell for solar panels.
Check out the EcoFlow DELTA Pro 3: bit.ly/3XbUj4T & Save Using my CODE: 24EFDCTBDV
Which 400w panels are you using on your house?
How does that compare to a Powerwall 2?
any update on these Perovskites?
Still in development. Got it. Just like solid state batteries, superconductors, and fusion.
Yeah, don't wait for the next big thing.
great things take time. be patient
@@marginbuu212 No one appreciates cynicism
@@marginbuu212 news of the future. Hope it happens soon 🙌🏻
@@nathansuko Don't delay your purchase waiting for technology that may never arrive. "About to hit the market" and then at the end speaks of why they aren't about to hit the market.
something that nobody has on their radar is, that these perovskite solar cells are much better in winter because they expand the light spectrum to higher frequencies that do not suffer that much. the loss in winter is more in the infrared spectrum.
that means when a normal 500W panel goes down to 50W on a bad winter day, a 500W perovskite panel might only go down to 75W
Not on their radar because they live in sunny warm places. I wonder what two bit would be touting if he lived in northern states or any province in Canada. Solar is pretty lame when there is only direct sun light 60% of the time and daylight only 10 hours a day for 4 months of the year, when you need the most power for heat and light. I'll take nuclear power any day.
@@markwhatzhisface3331 i live in austria, where we use solar, hydro and wind. a perfect mixture.
we have a nuclear power plant that was made decades ago. it was never switched on. nuclear power is also more expensive than solar+hydro+wind.
our nuclear powerplant is now a museum. people from all over the world are visiting it.
austrians are very proud that this nuclear power plant has never been switched on.
@@stefanweilhartner4415 I love this story! Merits its own video. Thanks for sharing!
75W is awful anyway
@@erykczajkowski8226 yes, but this is the reality for one month in a year.
The main advantage of Perovskite is that it can be vacuum deposited on top of a glass- silicon solar panel and share the glass substructure without adding significant weight, also because Perovskites absorb light at frequencies that silicion cells don't and via versa a tandem perovskite/silicon solar panel is vastly more effcient with little extra cost.
and i'm sure they won't charge much more for it/s
My panels are 23% efficient and have a minimum of 23 years left in them, I won’t be changing to Perovskite for an extra 2% anytime soon.
To be fair, the 2% extra is the starting point and will likely keep improving with time, but with that said, there's no real reason for you to upgrade any time soon, so by the time you get to upgrading, the tech likely will have improved a lot.
In any case, we only need one company to release these to market and prove that it works for the floodgates to open up that many rivals will quickly do the same, with that, the tech will quickly start to advance and the price point will start to come down, and for now, the problem is that it's still in the lab.
@@InimitaPaul how old are your panels?
It'll only be a 2% gain for now because it's basically the first generation of commercial perovskite panels. Commercial silicon panels won't go much further than perhaps 25% on their own. But the potential to reach 34% with tandem perovskite/silicon panels IS a major difference and it'll probably become availablele long before you have to replace the ones you have now. I'm sure that by then you'll appreciate a cheaper, smaller system.
@@claudiaroy9455 2 years old. Im in the UK though so at the very worst I only get a couple of months of that intensive hot sun that panels don’t like, 6 months of perfect sun with wind cooling and the remainder being pretty much worthless. My panels should easily last their predicted lifespan and then some.
@@Israel_Two_Bit If the panels provide the same power for a significantly smaller panel I will change my tune as my available space is limited.
One of the first advertisements I found useful. I’m learning solar by doing. Starting with one panel and one LiFePO4 battery and an inverter.
If traditional solar cells are 20% efficient, how can any panel be 100 times more efficient?
they can't
100% more than 20% would be 40%.
@@MysteriousSoulreaperwhich is only 10x the efficiency NOT 100x! Which would be 1000watts from 100watts of sun
100 times HIGHER not 100% more 😧(first minute of vid)
@@doubleooh7337not if you invent a solar panel that taps into the energy of the quantum vacuum and rewrite a few laws of physics. Simple.
Thanks!
My solar panels lasted about one year until one of the microinverters fried. I had gotten out of the habit of checking the individual module output so it was 6 months (including most of summer) before I realized it. It got replaced under warranty, and I'm told it's nearly unheard of but, I would suggest checking that your microinverters are still producing every week or two.
I lost one of my micro inverters after having my system for only about a year and a half. It was down for about 6 months as well, but only because it was a discontinued model and they had to wait for some return stock or something to give me a replacement. I used the replacement they gave me to fix it but I went ahead and bought another one refurbished spare on eBay so now if one goes down I'll just replace it myself LOL
5% may look like a small uptick in efficiency per cell, but in large quantity usage, it is quite a lot when convert to volt and amp.
This is like any technology. A little increase here and there adds up with the end product.
Removing a few panels in a home system has a tiny effect on overall price you will be quoted. The main costs are the sales cycle, engineering, permitting, transport, getting a crew on site, same inverter, nearly the same wire, nearly the same racking, etc. Perovskites will be good when they mature but pushing them as an up-front cost saver in anything but commercial scale is the wrong direction.
Dope. Love seeing the calculations in the video Ricky!
It all depends on the degradation factor. Regular silicon last 30-40 years at reduced output. How fast is the perovskite degradation? If I had limited space and was expecting better panels to be available in 15years, and the cost being right. Then perovskite makes sense. If I have plenty of space I would prefer ones that last longer, but all comes down to price and effort installing. So many things can change very soon.
Benefits to pervoskites has always been in cost of manufacturing. Well it was!
The extra efficiency is just icing on the cake.
I remember hearing when I first learnt about them eventually we should be able to print it for dirt cheap.
If they can get rid of the degradation problem.
Yet maybe since basic pervoskites cannot be used, and it requires some alloy or combination of materials. Maybe the companies are shifting to sell them as a more efficient panel, but keeping the cost.
@@dianapennepacker6854 It's a great point. However, as we've seen lately, normal panels are already quite cheap and getting cheaper. Every day, they contribute less to the total cost of the system, and the entire installation cost and other hardware is what's making up the bulk of what we pay. So, basically, the cost of the panel itself is becoming less of an issue. But, as stated in the video, since installation costs, which make up the bulk of the total cost, are proportional to the number of panels, reducing the number of panels does strongly impact the total cost.
That's why efficiency matters so much. More efficiency = fewer panels for the same output power. In the end, cost is what most people care about anyway, not efficiency itself, since we have virtually unlimited solar energy shining down on Earth.
However, perovskites also have other benefits, particularly that they don't suffer from the supply chain bottleneck around silver that silicon panels do, and that you can make them extremely thin and flexible, and that they can transform more scattered light than silicon panels (so they work better in the shade than silicon panels), and more.
That's a fascinating topic! Envobyte share a opinion Perovskite solar cells have shown great promise, but their durability has been a major hurdle. These new breakthroughs could be a game-changer for the future of solar energy.
0:15 x100 more efficient than current solar cells
1:20 It 25% vs 20% that solar cells have
Can anyone explain the Math here? How could x100 times more efficient result in just 5% increase...
Also how can it be x100 more efficient ? The max could be x5 , unless it gets energy from other sources...
Even 100% more efficient would be 40% and not 25%...
@@LiranBarsisa Yeah. That got me immediately.
"unlock cell efficiencies 100 times higher than current commercial cells".
cell efficiency is about how many inefficiencies have been work out in the actual manufacturable products.
if a panel is in theory able to output 30% of the sunlight as energy at absolute best, due to the laws of physics. and your product outputs 20%, then you will try to come up with news ways to improve the efficiency of your panel. You may improve that 20% to 20.05%. thats a tiny improvement. going from 20% to 25% is a 5 percent point increase vs a 0.05 percentage point increase. so your improvement in efficiency was way better, 100 times better. 0.05 vs 5
The real problem isn't Solar panels. It's Storage. The price of solar comes down anyway. With or without these cells. It's the grid that's the problem. We need to ramp battery production like crazy.
There's an additional savings potential: eliminating roofing cost by integrating roofing duties into the panel structure would save the cost of a roof. A system with some walking pathways between panels. After 20 yrs with some decrease in output, you'd save again for another decade (or longer)with not having to replace the roof again. That's $25g in total savings. Savings continue when you replace panels with what is effectively a free roof.
Good point. I think that sunlight probably degrades a roof far more than rain does, so one would think that solar panels would significantly increase the life of asphalt or cedar roofing shingles.
Also, I live in an attic suite in a detached house. The house is 100 years old, and has very poor insulation. Summers are brutally hot in my place. I'm thinking that having a 4-inch gap (or whatever it is) between any solar panels and the roof alone would do a great deal to help cool my place in the summer!
I do believe these types of panels will be the future. All good things come in small steps.
Good video, Ricky. Exciting tech.
A perovskite-silicon tandem solar thermal module would be amazing.
Thanks for a terrific channel
Some researchers just devised alumina coated quantum dots for increased efficiency and durability, but if they can combine that with perovskite solar cells then they have a very exceptional type of solar cell.😊
Your USD 30k solar panel system cost around 15k in Europe! Why???
@@lumtavon1952 I believe it’s the total install. He said it was $150 a panel, so I assume the rest is inverter, permits and labor to install.
4:26 'out in the sun, day and night' 😄
haha! mixing metaphors!
They are tho :)
Ha ha! Good catch.
The US is SO inefficient for Solar. I put 30 panels = 9KW system on my roof for AUD $ 14.5k = USD $ 10k and he talks of $ 30,000 for his 30 panels. He pays $ 850 per panel for installation. I had 2 people for a day and they installed 30 panels with inverter and website linked in and it was ONE DAY ONLY.
First time i heard about these solar cells, looks like interesting technology but needs more research, another great video :)
Hypothetically, if these panels could last even 10-15 years, probably wouldn’t make economic sense for a house. But might make sense for automotive applications. Imagine an Aptera that they currently claim could get 40 miles of range a day. If you could get that range to 60+ miles you’ve got something even more impressive. I’m excited to see the future 😊
You've made my day... No, My Month! Finally a great product that I / we get to buy and use!
Well, OK... Not yet . After watching till the end, I believe (at about 70 yrs old) I will not be able to see these on my roof. : (
bruh whenever I think of setting up solar, new breakthroughs emerge
It's called progress, it's called adapting to new things that's what we do that's why humans are special.
And not the short bus kind
@@PerspectiveEngineer sure. but we are so far from the theoretical limit right now that theres such big improvements being worked on that it seems like a bad time to spend a large amount of money on them. they are a terrible investment when better panels wil be out.
there will come a point when the potential improvements we can make to the technology are tiny. so tiny the money required to make the improvements wont be worth doing them, so the technology will peak and that will then be a good time to buy.
I think the best advice would be to go for whatever you have available now. Good and tested is better, unless you have a small roof that won't cover your house's energy needs
Shorter time-spans but increased efficiency seems like a good way to go considering how much solar tech is improving each year. If you invest in a 30-year tech, you're locked into an old system for 30 years. If your tech is only 20 years, it will likely bring savings and efficiency by swapping then. I think the main issue may be installation costs. If it's possible to re-use the mounting system, so swapping panels is maybe only 50% of first installation, that would be great. If solar panels in 20 years have innovated a new, cheaper way to mount them (which I hope they will), again, this would make it worth it. If installation costs are the same, then it may complicate the calculations.
probably meant 100% more efficient. 20% to 40%
The elephant in the room isn't the cost of the panel or the efficiency; it's the $850 of installation cost per panel. Breaking that down, being generous, it's probably $150 for mounting hardware and inverters and the rest is what the contractor is charging for labor, so $700 per panel for labor. Over 30 panels, that's $21000. There is clearly room for that number to be lower. I mean you watched them install it, how many man-days was used for the work? Again being generous, maybe 4 man-days? It's literally just someone climbing onto a roof a couple dozen times with a load and screwing it down; it's less labor than installing an actual roof. How much does someone need to charge for 4 man-days of labor and run a profitable business? Maybe $5k? Installers are treating early adopters as a gold mine; they are charging what the market will bear factoring in govt incentives and local electricity rates to get a decent ROI. If they charged a fair price of $5k, bringing the total cost of a 12000W system to $14k and a breakeven ROI of less than 2 years, everyone would sign up.
The problem with solar isn't for lack of breakthroughs over existing panels. The problem is the market and competitive landscape of installers to charge a fair price for an honest day's work.
absolutely right...we gotta get that cost down, because when you break it out, you realize the solar panel itself is SO affordable... its the install that is expensive.
@@TwoBitDaVincihow has Australia solved this problem? I know they get their panels cheap from China without tariffs and so forth but is there anything that they're doing better on the install side? I know permitting and connecting is so much easier there than it is here
Yeah,why don’t you go up there?
@@Preciouspink What you think I've never been on my roof? You think daring to climb up onto a roof justifies a $16k upcharge? I can get a brand new roof installed on my townhouse for $5k, materials included. How are roofers able to do a similar kind of labor without ripping you off?
@@TwoBitDaVincione good thing is in the developing world solar panels are becoming more economically viable since the materials are relatively cheap and labor is also cheap. Obviously cheap labor is always a controversial topic, but the point remains 🤷♂️ more solar panels seems like a better thing than less solar panels
The key words are at the very beginning "will release". Let's wait and see if (a) they will release and (b) they will in business in 5 years. Also, they "will be cheaper" I will wait as $20k is still way too much - that's 5-6 years of electricity consumption
THANKS 🙏 RICKY for sharing the future possibilities💚💚💚
Then there are the hybrid solar elect and direct (thermal) panels. The Si cells lose efficiency when the get hot or cold, so the direct collection helps keep the Si cells in their optimum performance thermal range. Including perovskites would certainly make for a niche device. Bringing down the cost of the transfer switch, charge controller, battery pack, etc will help quite a bit, too.
In Australia we could get a 12kw system for less than a third of that 30k
15 years vs 25 at significant cost savings seems preferable to 25 year panels depending on the cost/KWh of the power utility in your area. Panel efficiency (and energy storage solutions) continue to improve. Much of that improvement is incremental but small improvements in efficiency and/or cost of production compounded over the course of 15 years are significant. As electricity rates continue to rise, the capital cost of the panels themselves pays for itself quicker than ever.
Sharing the LCOE calculator seems like a great idea!
Maybe we can just make the Perovskite layer replaceable, and adapted it to current panels as well. That would be a true win all around, right?
To clarify their are no Perovskite solar cells on the market. Their are TANDUM Silicon/Perovskite panels being commercialized. The efficiency boost is coming from the Tandum nature of the cell. Perovskites main advantage is that it is easier to make a tandum cell with because it can litterally be sprayed onto a Silicon cell as a final manufacturing step rather then having to essentially make 2 whole silicon cells.
Question: If we cover a vast area with solar panels, will there be an imbalance in nature?
If you're talking about industrial-level installations at ground level, yes, these would undoubtedly have a drastic effect on nature. The question is, will this effect be worse than the effects of global warming currently caused by our heavy reliance on fossil fuels? I doubt it.
Still, your point is well taken. My guess is that a whole new ecosystem will develop underneath vast acreages covered in solar panels. In deserts like the southwestern United States, such ecosystems might possibly sustain more life than the current, exposed deserts, which are only sparsely populated. But there's no doubt in my mind that the existing ecosystem would be severely damaged.
If you're talking about panels placed strictly on the roofs of houses and commercial buildings, I doubt that the effects of this kind of installation on the natural world would be significant--apart from lessening our dependence on fossil fuels, which to me is a clear benefit. Almost everything alive inside the footprint of a modern building is destroyed at the time of construction. At least, everything alive that lives above ground.
I LOVE this channel!
The 40% dual-layer panels are much more likely to be used where space is at a premium and worth the reduced durability and higher cost - e.g. transportation (ships and trains) and camping etc
Perhaps when the top layer degrades the silicon under it continues as before?
Aptera has designed their Solar EV to have user replaceable solar panels. They're advertising 40 miles of range on solar alone. If perovskite panels were used instead that could be 50 miles, or 86 miles on tandem panels! If they're cheap and easy to replace, panels that last as little as 2 or 3 years could be practical.
I would be excited to see if the perovskite panels work better during cloudy days which we experience half the time here in the mountains of NC.
@@jamesriggi2323 according to other comments , they are better during the winter than regular panels, so it may be a good option 👍🏻
I'm just concerned about reroofing in 25 years. The cost of removing and reinstalling must really give a big hit to your total overall cost.
Do it today then, it will be cheaper now!
Might make sense on products that only have a limited life, like a calculator or on a car, RV or a phone case until they work out the longevity issue
Lunchbox planer on a backup power supply! What a champ, even smaller genes would go to idle or stall with larger woodworking tools.
That beard grew fast man😂✌️👍👌
With 20% efficiency panels available for just ~$70 for a 350-400W panel with 20-30 year warranties, i don't really see the costs of the actual panels being a main limiting factor.
I think these new cells are mostly suited to space & weight constrained applications, great to see progress nonetheless though 😁
There was a story I read this week about Canon going into perovskite production next year.
While efficiency is good, installing models (panels) is
Installation is roughly 1/2 the cost, so if peroskite cells longevity is 1/3 silicon, they would have to be roughly 3X more efficient and way less expensive to make it a better deal.
Cheaper and simpler solar panel can be built diy at home using glass passivated diodes … make a simple wooden frame and just twist together such diodes (like BYV27 any voltage) in series. With 40 of them in series I can get 14-16v midday sunny summer day and 7-8v when is cloudy … they only need to receive solar rays from any angle.
Compared to any other solar panels this diodes panels are way smaller and lighter and can generate way more electric energy than any solar panel on market, just hook up some super/ultra capacitors and dump in batteries if you like or run your inverter. If you still want a better output, use optocoupler with darlington transistors to increase amperage.
I've never heard of this. Do you have a video somewhere one can look at
@@laughinggas5281 of course you never heard of this … it is an experiment I’ve made a month ago to enhance capabilities of my water battery … and it does 👍🏼 Then, I thought what if I use just diodes alone and I found out they work as I said. Anyway idea of using large strings of diodes in series is not new at all, I only discovered that glass passivated diodes generate electricity when they are exposed to solar rays … they are way cheaper than solar panels and I recommend using them without pcb to keep them naturally cooled … I have described this type of electric generation on few forums open source to make sure greedy don’t try to patent and suppress knowledge.
This is based on pn junction existing in every diode which in this case is encapsulated in passivated glass and enhance solar energy absorption creating a similar effect where a peltier or sebeck is employed … it is somehow much simplified arrangement of Arie Melis deGeus patent with electrets (made with teflon) and solar radiation capture … and there is real power output with the right calculus and proper tech we can make pretty small “panels” in range of KW output using a buget under £100/panel or even under £20 if certain quantities of required components are bought straight away.
It is quite simple and requires no skills to make such a panel at home … just use a picture frame and glass passivate diodes and see yourself 😉
It may make sense in a ground mount, but the changes in NEC (2yr release cycle) over a theoretical 12yrs period could make replacement even more expensive to meet code on the next install. A 25yr panel locks you in in a grandfathered way without having to make changes. Depends though, I'm not aware of any DC to AC inverter lasting 25+ years that is current residential grade.
The problem isn't panel cost or even efficiency, I'll put as many panels up as I can fit regardless. The issue is cost of install! Panels could be damn near free and the installers will still charge a mint in my experience. I'm about to move someplace where installation is more competitive but I'm still hearing quotes that are not "cheap" particularly if you include batteries - which I will want
eed. If there was a way to repurpose EV batteries in a way that your insurance company and inspectors would be okay with that would help a TON. I'll still put panels on my new place, I'll do batteries too, but price is not going to be much influenced by panel cost. Everything else including labor is what hits us these days
Bifacial panels are quite higher efficiency compared to traditional single sided PV.
They need to be put strategically to maximize their potential.
Then about solar tracking can really improve solar electricity production.
I live near equator and some people with solar tracker have shown an improvement almost 100% compared to standard fixed installation.
Yeah, you're getting double the watt-hour in a single day when you do solar tracking.
Surely some of those energy being spent to work the tracking motor and electricity, but that's almost nothing compared to what you're getting.
Around equator you can even get away with single axis solar tracking I guess and they're still very efficient 😁
Currently I'm not using solar tracker because even with standard current PV technology and fixed installation already generate enough electricity for me to use without the need to turn on utility line 24/7 and I still have a lot of space to spare should I want to add more panels in the future.
The normal price of a Trina 430W bi-facial is about 90 EURO. Anything different means the government is adding import taxes.
The *biggest* cost of solar power are not the panels. It's not even the amount of copper cable. It's the footing. Footing is about 1...2x the price of a panel per panel.
Inverters costs close to nothing.
This used to be different. My first panels were 250 euro a piece for 230Wpp.
I got my panels basically for free with my off grid container installation.
(3xVictron MP2 5000, victron mppt, all cabling and disconnects and everything according to specs including installation).
But the footing of the panels would majorly up the price. So they are actually lying on the ground until my house is build and I can move the installation.
Calculate the cost of mounting the panels vs the cost of buying more panels and leaving them all flat. The latest thing with bifacials though is to just mount them vertical.
Closed captioning was on when I launched this video. It called you Tube It Da Vinci.
Fixed, 😊
@@claudiaroy9455 I thought it was kind of cool, since you're broadcasting on the "Tube" and all.
cant wait to hear more about these prof skypes
@@ge2719 😂
Yum I love lead, having slowly degrading lead bromide panels on the roof I directly collect my drinking water from definitely sounds worth a slight increase in efficiency for a few months lol.
Cool tech though
Well, lead bateries are recycled, so recycling the lead from the panels is possible.
I learned in geology that crystal growth relies on imperfections. I can only conclude this was 'bs' or they are growing crystals through plasma deposition.
You said to do it, so, here's goes...
From 20% to 25% is 20% better.
So from 30k to 20k is not the same as from 25k to 20k unless the price falls by some 25% or so, too...
And of the things last 40 years or whatever.
30 year panel at 80% is already good enough. We just have to get more efficient with the home products.
What if... Perovskite sheets were made that you could fit and replace on top of your existing silicone panels? That would basically double your output. That would also allow your current system to be easily scalable. Just a thought...
One of the complaints I've heard leveled against solar panels is that people replace them early, chasing higher efficiency. I nearly fell into the trap with my 12-year-old system.
If this irrational behavior is included, the shorter life span of perovskites becomes less significant.
do the calculations at the end account for what you said about panels reducing to 80% of their original output...? seems like that would also be pretty significant factor to account for. but also doesnt that mean the perovskite can keep going after however many years? they dont just suddenly completely die, do they? i thought you said the same thing about them, that the amount of year stated is the point at which they drop to 80% output? or did i just mishear that?
I love the idea of solar but wouldn't it make it a pain to change your roof shingles once it is installed. You would have to pull it all off and reinstall. That is a lot of $$$.
I felt the same way. But when your roof is ready for replacement, do the solar panels; if you live in a climate where solar is feasible you won’t regret it.
BTW, my accountant made the new roof, removal of trees that were shading the planned solar panels, and the solar system all part of the federal tax 30% credit. My roof is lifetime metal.
My last piece of advice is to get the biggest system you can imagine needing. If you ever get an EV or change to Electricity for your heat , cooling, or hot water tank you’ll be glad you have the big system.
I knew my prostate needed some sunshine
I am new to the topic of solar (as well as that of owning a house) but It feels like lasting 10 years as opposed to 25 might not be that bad in this fast moving space. The problem might be that the initial cost is still too high for your calculations. What I mean is that in 10 years there might be much better technology available that is not just cheaper but also more efficient. While you would still be "stuck" with your old panels trying to recuperate for the initial investment somebody with shorter lived panels would be moving to the next thing.
My solar plan for 41 panels is going to cost 98,000! Should I wait til these are available?
You touched on the lifespan of a roof in the beginning but didn't include it in your final cost analysis. A 17 year panel lifespan would be a better match for asphalt shingles (replace both at the same time), whereas you'd want 30+ years out of panels installed on a standing seam steel roof. The latter is also less maintenance as the racking usually just clamps onto the roof (no holes) vs screwing into shingles and having to rely on sealants.
I wonder how long a delta pro can last plugged into Paragon's smallest glassblowing kiln. If it's more than 3 hours, I might consider one instead of wiring a breaker to a shed.
Anything that gives us more energy. Is always a good thing, especially that something that works better in the winter. All of us that have solar panels have always had this problem in the fact that we get nowhere near the amount of energy that we want during the winter and you know this.
George Davis
I'll believe when I see it😂
We seem to get a Perovskite Breakthrough every few months now.
If you can't buy it, then it's not a real product.
Still not as bad as the weekly new battery breakthroughs.
But its still a Breakthrough. And that's all the video is claiming it to be...see 10:00 You stated nothing new sir.
An interesting possibility is that these panels might be able to recover performance with a laser or other directed energy treatment.
Yet another 'nearly ready' perovskite vid.
30 x $150 is only $4000. How on earth did you end up paying $40,000?
What about quantum dots solar panels boasting an impressive efficiency of up to nearly 67 %? Is the technology still considered too far ahead to even mention in this type of videos?
Please do not forget that solar panels right only cost like 20% of the final money spent on an installation. Most money is spent on red tape and labor to install them.
Can you multi-layer bandwidth tuned perovskites?
Lead could potentially be a problem, because it is such a terrible poison. There is no safe lower limit for lead in the human body - it is strongly toxic at ANY level (and neurotoxic at that, meaning it attacks nerves and the brain, causing behavioral issues, violent tendencies and loss of intelligence), and this is particularly true in children. Of course, as long as the lead is bound up in the solar cell everything will be dandy (as long as production doesn't pollute - although sloshing solutions around in the video clips included makes me concerned), but then there's the possibility of fire.
If the panels ever burn, the lead would be released and go up into the air with the hot gases generated by the fire, to later come down somewhere. One could make the case I guess that the amount of lead will be so tiny (active solar cell thickness only a fraction of a human hair), spread over such a large area, that any lead released this way would be dwarfed by naturally occurring sources. And I assume people will make that argument too, so we'd better make sure it truly is that way. Because using terrible compounds just because they're convenient for us isn't a good thing - lead additives in petrol vehicle fuel made piston engines run smoothly for decades and decades and that was super convenient for us - and lead buildup in people was also instrumental in causing the inner city violent crime spike seen in many major cities during the 1980s. This isn't speculation, this has been scientifically established by for example how plotting a curve from lead levels in peoples' blood matches the curve in inner city crime rates, rising before the 1980s, peaking during the decade, and then declining as unleaded petrol became the norm.
A similar issue exists with so-called quantum dot flat panel video displays and TVs, which use cadmium in the quantum dot doping material. Cadmium is also a horrible heavy metal and a serious environmental toxin if released into the wild.
Does 25% efficiency in solar collection equate to a 25% reduction in summer cooling costs?
It depends, but as always its not as simple as your example, where perovskies cells just dies after 15 years. You mention that over 30% efficiency could be made with tandem cells of normal solarcells. So what happens in these cases, after the 15 years? 0% from perovskies, but still 23% from silicon? or 0% from both? What about silicons gradual degrading? Will this perovsky tandem cell structure "protect" them more, and their degration will therefor be lower?
For me personaly, i would go for max amount of cells my roof supports.
The more of the year, my solarcells could cover my loads, the better. saving 25-30% is nothing vs being less depending on the grid, and have more time where they cover your needs.
As one already wrote, perovski cells potential works better in winter, so maybe this sandwitch design is just the one we need.
the only way these will be a thing is if they can last as long as a Si panel.
Si panels degrade but they approach 50% at 100years, and that is a complete guess with little information, we just do not know if they will even degrade that much. Sunpower is now warrantying to 25 years at 92 %.
They might be a thing for specialized applications that do not last long anyways, and need max power outpt, ie mobile power needs. But it seems very limited.
Sounds like 2026 is gonna be lit!!
With solar power 😂😂
Lead is a no-go. We have to find something better than lead, and I bet it will be more efficient too.
0:16 "... PV cell efficiencies 100x higher than current commercial cells"
So 100 x 20% efficiency = 2000%, so yielding 20x more power output than input ?!
Isn’t this like the third video about the future of solar panels? lol and it’s always like years away.
Knowing how solar companies operate, I'd imagine that the solar bros would just charge the same for the same size system, and then pocket all the new savings on the perovskites
Hardly 100x more efficiient
@@chrisc62 I couldn’t make the maths work either…
Nothing like having a degrading lead roof over my home. What could possibly go wrong?
I would love to put solar panels on my roof. But... I just spent $12,000.00 on a new roof and i'm afraid of having screws drilled into it.
TwoBit, you threw out a number which stunned me. Did you actually say that buying electricity from your local utility costs $.35/kwh?
I am a retired EE guy living in the land of hydro (PNW), where electricity is dirt cheap ($.03/kwh) and I know that the rest of the country pays a lot more. But how can a middle income consumer or a business survive paying rates like that?
I don't understand why some of you guys won't paint your roof white or use white colour material.
It reduce the heat gain significantly right?
And in turn will help reduce energy usage for cooling system.
I wonder how well of an image sensor Perovskite can be considering it's more sensitive and doesn't absorb infra-red like silicon...
These new cells could be better for solar tiles. The extra efficiency would justify covering ur whole roof
I am more interested in Perovsites ability to convert heat into power rather than light either in industrial processes for waste heat use or as a tandem cell for solar panels.