The music has to be added for the algorithm to bind this video together with other trending vids. Using trending sounds specifically gets taught to RUclipsrs
@Fae_Winter no it doesn't, same as electromagnetic gears, it keep dummies from having reliable cars which doesn't need maitance and service, there are thousands of those technologies
My solar panels have cut my monthly electric bill from 400 per month to just 60eur per month. Moreover, I get credited with generation at 70% the market rate and I over generate by about 25%. Based on this, I’ll make my initial investment back in two years, and it’ll add the equivalent value of the panels to my home. If this is what 30% efficiency gives me, so be it. I’ll be net zero in electric costs in just 2 years!
I’m the full interview he was talking about solar panels powering a car completely. Not a house. He then said that solar panels on a van would be better because it has a bigger surface area
That would not happen here. The big electricity companies are allowed to scam people who have invested in solar. The buy back system is so low that electricity companies are offering 5p to 7 p per kilowatt hour exported. That is criminally low when you think of the repayments on loans and the rental on the roof. Solar is efficient ani was generating around 29.5 KWH per day at certain times of the year. I used to use every bit of energy generated on our roof. That way we had electricity paid up front and we did not export anything . This denied the big companies their attempts to take private investors ‘ energy whilst paying a pittance for it. We will not use solar on our new house because the rewards are so poor and will not until big electricity companies pay the market price for it. I was recently told by my Conservative MP that it was a policy supported by government to subsidise research into the development of solar. I expect electricity companies to use their enormous profits to pay for that part of the market instead of raking back payments from investors who are supporting the energy business by being scammed out of a commercial rate for subsidised and surplus energy sold back into the grid. This government should be ashamed of itself. You have just lost my vote, right there!
That sounds great&all, but solar panels wear over time they are horrible for the environment. When they go bad where are they going to be dumped right next to the EVs damaged & totaled vehicles with the ir batteries...
@@brucemangy Sure! But when heat is useful, it's usually because the sun is weaker (ex: Canada in winter). Also heat is dispersed across all panels and if the panel is inside, there's a loss associated to that too. There are certainly ways to increase efficiency, but gains will be marginal. I expect more progress on the cost-reduction front in the near future than on the conversion efficiency front. But I'll be glad (and quite impressed!) if proven wrong in the future.
Average solar panel has 15% efficiency. A 20% efficient panel is already as nice as u can get without paying out your ass for something that works 10% better occasionally
@@pepegapenguinp4405as nice as you can get right now… also theres other variables we can innovate. For a lot of people space is not the issue(medium sized roof is usually more than enough), so just making panels cheaper with the same efficiency is an improvement all by itself
Around 30% is the theoretical limit, for Si-based semiconductors, that's what he said. Commercial modules are in the 20-24%-range now, might get up to around 28% or so.
30% even as a limit, is pretty great. I mean, 1kW/m^2 by 0.30 is 300W/m^2. So with an array of say 15m^3 roughly you can expect a maximum output of what like 5kW. So four good hours of sunshine and an energy storage system and you can power 20kWh household. Of course not every day is sunny, but usually you’ll get more than four hours of sunlight. One can always compensate for climate or latitude with more panels. 30% if the technology is cheap and available and will last a decent time, will solve most of the worlds energy problems.
And then a few month later max efficiency went up by 80% (30ish to 50ish) because they added a second layer of different crystals to catch other wavelength.
@@dojoparsnip9905Costs are very likely to go down as they usually do with technology. See your computer, mobile phone, batteries, cars, electronics ...
They've done 5 multilayer junctions to get over 46% but it's not really your typical commercial scale silicon as it's very finicky in manufacturing. Commercial silicon wafers (tandem cells ) can be produced wayy faster than multi junction layered cells
Just Elon talking out of his arse like usual - about something he doesn't really understand beyond what he read in a Wikipedia entry before going on the show.
Thing is that solar panels generally sit at around 21.5% efficiency today fresh off the assembly line and then quickly drop to ~18.5% efficiency due to a process have only recently started to understand and remedy, so assuming the maximum you can reasonable achieve is 30% that's a 62% increase over 18.5% and a 39.5% improvement over 21.5%, which is fairly significant. 30% is more of your end goal and it will take us a while to get there with convensional solar pannels, but it does show thare is a long way to go. Also with these paintable solar materials there is the possibly of because able to paint multiple levels with each with a different material which lets certain wave lengths through and absorbs others so that you can absorb turn more of that light into electricity.
Bro I do door 2 door sales for solar and people always say they’re against solar because it’s only at “30% efficiency” when they don’t even know what that means like bro it’ll cover 100% of your power though and it’s cheaper. (If it’s a qualified home for it)
I've lived in an off grid solar house for eighteen years. As soon as you put the disclaimer on the end of your statement I knew you were a "salesman". You can provide 100% of a home's needs until you get 4 cloudy days in a row then all your sales bullshit goes straight up the chimney.
True, that does happen. However I should’ve stated that it’s 100% of your KW usage. And net metering your power companies credits should cover the lack of production of cloudy days. IF the companies don’t lie about offset, local power companies permitting/net metering and a lot more. So many sketchy companies.
Pervoskite solar cells (if/when they stable for comercial applications) should be able to get more than 30% for a similar/better price than Silicon. But even in such a future I can imagine the 500W rated PV panels currently with Silicon solar celles (could only maybe double in power to @1MW for the same size - which is usually more than 2 square meters- with perovskite solar cells)
So many technologies that claim to be the new better and cheaper version never make it out of the lab because they never find a way to mass produce cheaply.
Elon isn't the only one saying this. A better comparison is Moore's Law. The main issue is true, but for computers, we either make other areas more efficient or we lined up alternatives, such as cloud or quantum computing. We either make other areas of the solar panel more efficient, or we can find something else than silicon. (For solar silicon based solar, it is called Shockley-Queisser Limit.)
The difference is that Edison said that because he was making money on DC. That comparison would work if Edison said that DC WOULDNT work, not that it would. Your comparison is ass backwards.
Ironically it was Tesla that proved him wrong and is probably rolling over in his grave with one of the richest men in the world making a fortune off his name
Earth gets hit by ~1380W per square meter. The atmosphere removes a bit, but 1kW/sqm is a solid estimate for a surface perpendicular to the sun. That's the limit any solar panel can get without playing tricks like using mirrors to concentrate more surface area. There are a couple of different technologies around with different efficency ratings from 20% to 40%, but the latter are only available in a lab. There are also inherent physical limitations, so it's unlikely any technology will ever allow going over 50%.
Also, I believe panels today get energy from a very limited wavelength of light. If you could harness energy from more a wider spectrum of light, you could get get higher efficiency
youre wrong though. Silicon collects energy from a very wide spectrum of light, but it doesnt utilise the high energy photons(UV) as well as the low energy ones(NIR). Tandem cells addresses this by having different junctions effective at harnessing different parts of the spectrum.
Single layer solar cells are designed for a specific wavelength (based on the layer thickness). Photons with less energy don't free an electron and don't generate any electricity. Photons with more energy still generate only a single electron, so their extra energy is not used. The situation can be improved by creating cells with multiple layers, each with a different thickness. This now mostly used in space (upto 4 layers!) , both because cost is less of an issue in space and because sunlight has a wider spectrum in space. Maybe we will see 2-layer residential cells some day.
ruclips.net/video/qMhdpWMDp04/видео.html Bro can you ask him please, what about the new Omuamua transparent Technic in solar energy power?????????? ✨🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
Exactly he is saying the solar panels waste 70 percent of the energy of the sun and they only collect 30 percent of it meaning it’s not efficient but still 30 percent free electricity is better than nothing 😂
@@randybobandy9828 you can still store the power in a solar battery. What Elon was saying is that you can only receive 30% of the total solar energy applied to a given surface area.
A whole story/critique culminating in the disclaimer that silicon systems top out at 30% efficiency. Slight reference to another system which is totally unaffordable, but no mention of other R&D tackling this exact problem. We will easily surpass 30% efficiency within 10 years. In fact, we already have too much renewable power for our 20th century grids. The true challenge lies in upgrading current infrastructure capacity and finding affordable grid level energy storage solutions.
The analogy about tech I like in these examples is the fact it took roughly 70yrs from the Wright bros to landing on the moon... so, he's technically currently correct... however 🤔...
You spend more energy making/maintaining the panels than you get back "Green" energy is a scam The only truly cleaner energy is nuclear. And if you dont buy into the whole carbon bullshit organic burning is also cleaner and part of the natural cycle
@@KT_255 but why should we build a solar plant when we can easily set up it onto the roof. If every single people uses solar onto their roof i think that's enough to fulfill the residential demand.
A South Korean company has made a groundbreaking achievement as they unveiled the world's first production line dedicated to perovskite-silicon tandem solar cells. These innovative solar cells have the potential to boost efficiency by 50-75% compared to standard solar panels.
Still not much better. A 50% boost from 22% is only 33%. Also, those are nowhere near as cost-effective as current 22% cells. Even more - the lifespan is nowhere near conventional 22% cells.
I'm sure solar technology will be more efficient, we just don't know how yet. Tomas Edison said 12v DC was the way to go and then Nicola Tesla came with AC current wich seemed impossible
Dont compare those two things.. its silly to say because somebody said something wasnt possible in the past and it was tht means it applies to something else entirely
It will get more efficient. Even if current materials are at their limit at some point we will make a new discovery or a composite that is can do a much better job. Tesla did exactly that with batteries so it's rather silly of him to say this about solar. Or it might be intentional to try and hold back research so he can get there first.
They probably wont. That being said solar roofs are still not as efficient as the panels. If we can make them as efficient and a little bit cheaper and more accessible than I can see us building vertical solar roofs instead of flat roofs. They also cover a lot more surface area and are more aestetic. Some law and regulation would also be needed for that to happen though. We are decades away in my opinion.
Maybe one day you will get 120% efficiënt panels. Meanwhile we never managed to push heat Engines to much over 50% after centuries. Some things just have limits
And yet we just came up with a Discovery and demonstration of a non-silicon-based solar panel, that it’s much cheaper to make, and has higher efficiency! Solar panels have not picked out yet
@@t3hpwninat0r No it won't cause the energy cannot be stored on a mass scale. On a private home sure but never on a nation or global scale. Solar is very low on Energy harvest factor or even negative. I mean it costs more energy to produce then it will ever generate.
@@nekronox2055 distributed storage is mass scale. power storage can be built in factories and then bought, delivered to and installed in homes, businesses, at charging stations and in other factories in addition to power generation facilities. the grid is far more resilient if there are sources of power to draw from all over the grid compared to a few really big power stations. mass production of power storage units = mass scale power storage.
Umm,solar efficiencies will never increase.? That has to be the dumbest statement by a smart person I’ve heard recently. Material science will eventually produce much higher efficiently solar cells. Why is everyone intentionally misinforming everyone else?
If you concentrate light of higher frequencies adequately mixed and juxtaposed you can " probably" contain light of lower frequencies and even compress them / expand them. Humans need to grow beyond outdated electron/ photons etc.
I already know how to make them more efficient. Gold nano particles as nanoelectrodes suspended in an organic SAM. Worked on a project like that as an organic chemistry researcher for an academic… he was too old to bring it to market. He was a physical chemist and avoided organic chem like the plague, like most analytical and p-chem folks… the projected numbers were something like 30-31% increase in efficiency. That was in 2009. I still remember everything about that project. It was obscenely easy… materials chemistry/science is the easiest of the chemistries and a ton of fun.
Solar panel requires brightness for maximum output, if it gets hot its efficiency drops. Solution cool the solar panel with an integrated water layer thus getting electricity and low grade heat from the panel.
Well he is wrong as he is living in a box of $ . Solar Magnification/Concentration can achieve some things which needs investments from people like Elon
@@DylanPrice-ig9rl you clearly don’t understand being a billionaire doesn’t mean you’re an expert in that field. Especially when it comes to creating new technology, that’s often done by people with very specific knowledge on that topic and highly experienced. Elon doesn’t know shit he just pays for the knowledge of others and then resells it. Elon is nothing but a glorified salesman. I’ll also add they already are beyond 30% limit and have a new limit of 45.3% with tandem perovskite cells vs the traditional silica based ones
In western Australia people put solar cells on their homes and put excess electricity back into the grid which they get payed for by the gov , the gov has large batteries which they store the electricity, this dramatically reduces the use of fossil fuels used .
One of the many things I love about Elon is that he doesn't give you pie-in-the-sky horse crap, he just talks to you very plainly and tells you what the deal is. He doesn't over sensationalize any idea. He has an aggressively even-keeled temperament that I also admire.
... except for HyperLoop. And colonizing Mars. That's all cool sounding, but it's just stupid. HyperLoop because achieving and maintaining a vacuum like that over any distance is energy intensive and vulnerable to any seismic activity or simple water table shifts -- you'd have to build the entire tunnel inside an active adjustment system that supported it and maintained perfect alignment. At 700mph, there is no chance of stopping in time if a breach occurs even 35 miles ahead. That money would do 100x more for us by having reliable medium speed rail. Mars is silly because living on Mars would take perfect execution to just barely support a small number of people, and we can't even do it right on a practically perfect testbed that tries to self-correct. Mars can't support a sufficient atmosphere, it will never have enough solar flux, it will never block lethal radiation. Musk should fund ocean exploration if he wants to be ground-breaking.
@@ericpmoss it is easy for a pedantic skeptic to pick part two ideas out of many dozens, and declare himself clearheaded enough to see deficiencies that others have not yet thought about. Sometimes in the pursuit of certain technologies, is it necessary to push human thinking far in advance of the actual need. And lastly, the people who say it cannot be done should really step aside and let the people who are doing it get things moving. It has been rightly said, “without a vision, the people die.” And colonizing Mars is not to say “to hell with earth,” and that entire way of thinking is all wrong. Who says we can’t do both?
He's a lot worse. There are many people dead because of his lies. And his "lidar is a dead end" comment is extremely sketchy. Lidar sensors cost more than cameras, but lidar measures distance and nothing else, so a lidar based autopilot will never think a shadow is a wall.. A tesla might
Scientist or not.. he's the guy with the money for paying for actual scientists to do the work developing new things or furthering development on current things. We need about 100 more like him to do just what he is doing.. centralize and bankroll research and development.
Surprisingly, he's actually mostly correct. There are more efficient solar panels, but those are prohibitively expensive and always will be. For most use cases, it just doesn't matter. Would you want to pay twice as much for a solar panel that gives you 21% efficiency compared to one with 20%, all other factors like expected lifetime being equal? It's normally much easier to just add another panel for that price and double the produced energy.
@@benjaminlamey3591recycling a few solar panels is literally nothing if you compare the sheir amount of fossil fuels you would be using to power your home for 30 years…
@@666t yep, but you have to oblige them to give out the money for it, and they will never start until you force it trhough. cause it will always be cheaper to throw them into the neighbour´s yard ...
ruclips.net/video/qMhdpWMDp04/видео.html Bro can you ask him please, what about the new Omuamua transparent Technic in solar energy power?????????? ✨🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
He is right for once. It's called the But no problem, even at "only" 30% we can easily cover all our needs - it means that a square meter can produce up to 300 watts of power. What we can not do and never will be able to is power a car with solar energy only while driving.
Keep in mind that 30% efficiency is the theoretical limit of single junction (essentially single layer) silicone photovoltaic panel, if you somehow able to make multi junction photovoltaic panel with 36 to 40 layer of photovoltaic cell you can get efficiency up to 72%. Photovoltaic cell are estimated to have max theoretical efficiency of 85% with infinite junction cell.
Yes, we know the limits of solar cells very well. If you talk about efficiency in terms of power in vs power out, we do top out at 30%. However, we are creating organic solar cells that don't use silicon and other non-renewable resources that are cheaper and easier to mass produce. So, if you look at efficiency in terms of cost per power unit, we have plenty of room for improvement. The biggest issue with organic solar cells is their longevity, about 3-5 years.
The theoretical maximum efficiency of silicon PV is about 32% per junction. That's it's physical limit. It is possible to make multi-junction PV cells, but those become far more expensive quickly, the more junctions added. Other materials than silicon would have different maximum efficiencies, but regardless of efficiency, nobody is going to get out more energy than Sun sends down, which is about a kW per square meter under ideal conditions.
There is a Solar panel that not only produce electricity but also produce hot water. They were basically stick heat pipes and heat pump. The heat pump move the heat to somewhere else like hot water tank. This method doesn't make solar panel produce more electricity by raising it's efficiency but it makes produce more by not make it overheat and also produce heat water.
This guy just amazes me to no end. It's unusual for a person to know this level of knowledge in one area, this guy has similar depths of knowledge in so many areas
Do you suggest that those who do have these energy panels that they should get the Teflon battery charger? At my previous home we didn't need it. But here at my new place, and because of the constant change of weather, it looks like I might. I am still not quite sure yet.
The sunlight to electricity flow conversion efficieny doesn't need to get better, it just has to keep getting cheaper and cheaper per unit area covered and we'd see more and more deployment. Any increase in conversion efficiency will be a bonus if you have the infrastructure well designed and drop-in replacements as needed/desired.
I made a cell that produces energy, not just by photons, but also infrared and thermal temperature differences. It will produce energy at night, in extreme cold and heat. Easy to make
I was a yard sale in Pasadena and this guy pulls up in this little car and and we were all excited about seeing his car because it ran on SOLAR AND BATTERY ONLY!! He worked at JPL and he made it himself
He makes the efficiency seem likes its the only factor in a solar panel. A wind turbine with bad efficiency on a windy night is going to produce more energy than a solar panel with bad efficiency. Plus, 30% efficiency is actually pretty good compared what it used to be.
A compamy called swift solar just got to 40% efficiency. Its not silicone but thats a good thing. Its a matter of time before its 100% and 1 little solar panel can manage a household. But the giant corporations like exxon are trying their best to slow it down.
What’s the per square meter power generation capacity of solar panels ? Can we make more electricity with little panels now ? Just curious answer if anyone is familiar with it
Yes, thank you Master, thank you very much. Thank you very much. I know I was traveling to who is particularly the rich who went to NASA and a lot of things because there are a lot of things like that and looking at the line the stars and looking at the stone of the stars on NASA and a lot of things .
I mean, if the circuit was somehow a super conductor the efficiency would skyrocket, but we don't have the technology for a room temp super conductor yet.
you just need more PV to make up for its inefficiance- but i saw today that one groups exp[eriments found up to 60% ! and the best way to create energy is to reduce our use of it!
can a magnifier like a lens make more concentrated beam of photons? I know it would create heat in the process and that kills the eff of the pv cell but could there be a passive cooling system to prevent that or convert that heat into usable energy some how? Is there some sort of physical limitation that would prevent this or is this designed not to do this for cost reasons?
Even with lower efficiency they still have the advantage of adaptability. They can be put in far more places and much closer to people. They can be incorporated into buildings and other structures. You can't put a coal or nuclear power plant on top of a house. They're great for self sufficiency too. Not to mention all the smaller applications like yard lights and calculators. Even my remote can recharge with solar. Solar panels have more than earned their place in the energy sector.
Yeah I used to be all about the solar panels until I figured out that hydroelectric fuel recycling centers and septic tanks because then we get our electricity off of recycling or waste and cleaning our air land and water, it's way more efficient. And yeah if you were playing Cupid that's exactly what we need to link people on is hobbies and interests so you want to go do things together so great job!
Everybody seems to be so concerned with the efficiency in order to have an excuse to bad mouth it, and say it's not worth buying right now, but in actuality it's almost as efficient as a car that people will gladly plunk down $50,000 for.
GaAs is predominantly just substrate though. It's not _inherently_ better for solar panel cells. Cost is rapidly coming down though, so if there are improvements to be had for mass production solar panels with real longevity, we will find out fairly soon. There are other things we csn do to improve efficiency of the energy capture side of a solar energy system, but most of them are active systems that "consume" more energy than the improvement it enables, "generate". What could help in a fairly immediate and moderate cost way, is improving surface treatment and ease of maintenance. A dusty or dirty solar panel has quite severe reduction in efficiency, but they can be very difficult for the average home owner to clean regularly, and the environment isn't kind to their surface clarity over time.
It is more about getting production faster and costs down because there is plenty of warehouse roofs and empty space in barren lands to provide daytime electricity to the whole world.
Why can’t it be more efficient? (I’m somehow pretty sure it can and will..everything can be improved upon…everything…it just takes someone to find the keys..)..
TIME OUT, PAUSE: we can make diamonds, but we can't concoct gallium arsenide? rendering it cheap? and what about instead of batteries ... (I suffer from memory loss, so help me out) the instant batter thing. I am not an engineer, why i know this, i don't know.
Efficiency is only a function of size with solar panels. A 30% 100 watt panel is only smaller than a 20% 100 watt panel. Price and quality are all that really matters. More efficient panels only helps people with limited roof space like RV’s or small houses. Not enough space on a vehicle to really make solar powered cars effective. Now semi trailers…they can have a decent amount. Might help.
They have solar panels that reach 50-60% efficiency now, they just aren’t commercially available, not sure if they can even mass produce them tbh, but they exist at least.
We are currently working on better solar panels. Problem is, they aren't solar city tech so he will say it cant get better to keep sales up. You know, we are only like a decade away from synthetic photosynthesis. The goal is to make more efficient electricity this way.
Increase the stupid music noise more, it isn't enough.
i think muslim music is ass
It's no less stupid tan what they're saying.
@@audioandscifibooks3170 What part of anything said in this entire video was stupid…? Haha what? 🙄
@@audioandscifibooks3170suits that you dabble in science fiction and not in actual science
The music has to be added for the algorithm to bind this video together with other trending vids. Using trending sounds specifically gets taught to RUclipsrs
70% background music 30% solar efficiency
Hahaha
Hahaha
Hahaha
FR 💀
We did it
Check polish 🇵🇱invention
I like how Elon throws out "triple junction gallium arsenide" all nonchalant.
It's used in satellites....
Its illegal for average people to use them
Because he's tried them already...😂
@@dejowadasad fact 😢 But I guess it keeps the dummies from gettin a hold of them.
@Fae_Winter no it doesn't, same as electromagnetic gears, it keep dummies from having reliable cars which doesn't need maitance and service, there are thousands of those technologies
Rogan is asking Musk about putting solar on cars, and he is explaining that cars dont have enough surface area to be worth it.
Not enough power generated to run the car, but it might extend the range enough to get to the next charge point.
@@andrewhoneywell5244 If the next charge point is a block away.
Your comment served the purpose you put it on for.😂
You don't have a enough surface
Wow! Glad you pointed that out.
My solar panels have cut my monthly electric bill from 400 per month to just 60eur per month. Moreover, I get credited with generation at 70% the market rate and I over generate by about 25%. Based on this, I’ll make my initial investment back in two years, and it’ll add the equivalent value of the panels to my home. If this is what 30% efficiency gives me, so be it. I’ll be net zero in electric costs in just 2 years!
I’m the full interview he was talking about solar panels powering a car completely. Not a house. He then said that solar panels on a van would be better because it has a bigger surface area
Until your battery and solar panels die. Creating more toxic waste then 100 years of nuclear. Oh, and you'll need to buy new ones.
That would not happen here. The big electricity companies are allowed to scam people who have invested in solar. The buy back system is so low that electricity companies are offering 5p to 7 p per kilowatt hour exported. That is criminally low when you think of the repayments on loans and the rental on the roof. Solar is efficient ani was generating around 29.5 KWH per day at certain times of the year. I used to use every bit of energy generated on our roof. That way we had electricity paid up front and we did not export anything . This denied the big companies their attempts to take private investors ‘ energy whilst paying a pittance for it. We will not use solar on our new house because the rewards are so poor and will not until big electricity companies pay the market price for it. I was recently told by my Conservative MP that it was a policy supported by government to subsidise research into the development of solar. I expect electricity companies to use their enormous profits to pay for that part of the market instead of raking back payments from investors who are supporting the energy business by being scammed out of a commercial rate for subsidised and surplus energy sold back into the grid. This government should be ashamed of itself. You have just lost my vote, right there!
That sounds great&all, but solar panels wear over time they are horrible for the environment. When they go bad where are they going to be dumped right next to the EVs damaged & totaled vehicles with the ir batteries...
Ok one question. How long does the panel keep its maximum power capacity. Minimum usage compared to maximum usage?
It's very hard to harvest the sun's energy without dissipating some as heat. 30% efficiency is already pretty good.
unless you ALSO use the heat? think about it, we use electricity to heat stuff :/
@@brucemangy Sure! But when heat is useful, it's usually because the sun is weaker (ex: Canada in winter). Also heat is dispersed across all panels and if the panel is inside, there's a loss associated to that too. There are certainly ways to increase efficiency, but gains will be marginal. I expect more progress on the cost-reduction front in the near future than on the conversion efficiency front. But I'll be glad (and quite impressed!) if proven wrong in the future.
As long as it can run the inverters you in there going strong.
Inverter running at 95 % or more efficiency
@@SolarMicrogrid The plasmic combabulator is also great with 93.5 R/sqm
Actually 30 percent panels if as cheap as the 20 percent ones is a nice jump.
Would be a 50% jump...
@@PhilippHager-dm5ytDuh.
Average solar panel has 15% efficiency. A 20% efficient panel is already as nice as u can get without paying out your ass for something that works 10% better occasionally
@@pepegapenguinp4405as nice as you can get right now… also theres other variables we can innovate. For a lot of people space is not the issue(medium sized roof is usually more than enough), so just making panels cheaper with the same efficiency is an improvement all by itself
@@kaliningradtoczechrepublic8162true, and you can gave them on cars, they just want to hold the technology
30%? That’s phenomenal. I remember when 17% was the target.
17% is what most panels are.. nobody sells a 30% panel. Most you will see right now is 22%
Around 30% is the theoretical limit, for Si-based semiconductors, that's what he said.
Commercial modules are in the 20-24%-range now, might get up to around 28% or so.
33% panels are produced by Samsung 😏
30% even as a limit, is pretty great. I mean, 1kW/m^2 by 0.30 is 300W/m^2. So with an array of say 15m^3 roughly you can expect a maximum output of what like 5kW.
So four good hours of sunshine and an energy storage system and you can power 20kWh household.
Of course not every day is sunny, but usually you’ll get more than four hours of sunlight.
One can always compensate for climate or latitude with more panels.
30% if the technology is cheap and available and will last a decent time, will solve most of the worlds energy problems.
@@emilchandran546i even think we surpassed that already with combined panels that also use the heat to warm up water
And then a few month later max efficiency went up by 80% (30ish to 50ish) because they added a second layer of different crystals to catch other wavelength.
at what cost?
Exactly!
@@dojoparsnip9905Costs are very likely to go down as they usually do with technology. See your computer, mobile phone, batteries, cars, electronics ...
They've done 5 multilayer junctions to get over 46% but it's not really your typical commercial scale silicon as it's very finicky in manufacturing. Commercial silicon wafers (tandem cells ) can be produced wayy faster than multi junction layered cells
Just Elon talking out of his arse like usual - about something he doesn't really understand beyond what he read in a Wikipedia entry before going on the show.
Thing is that solar panels generally sit at around 21.5% efficiency today fresh off the assembly line and then quickly drop to ~18.5% efficiency due to a process have only recently started to understand and remedy, so assuming the maximum you can reasonable achieve is 30% that's a 62% increase over 18.5% and a 39.5% improvement over 21.5%, which is fairly significant.
30% is more of your end goal and it will take us a while to get there with convensional solar pannels, but it does show thare is a long way to go.
Also with these paintable solar materials there is the possibly of because able to paint multiple levels with each with a different material which lets certain wave lengths through and absorbs others so that you can absorb turn more of that light into electricity.
Bro I do door 2 door sales for solar and people always say they’re against solar because it’s only at “30% efficiency” when they don’t even know what that means like bro it’ll cover 100% of your power though and it’s cheaper. (If it’s a qualified home for it)
Except most solar sales men say it will cover 100% of their power but then in reality its not even close and then they stop answering the phone.
I've lived in an off grid solar house for eighteen years. As soon as you put the disclaimer on the end of your statement I knew you were a "salesman". You can provide 100% of a home's needs until you get 4 cloudy days in a row then all your sales bullshit goes straight up the chimney.
True, that does happen. However I should’ve stated that it’s 100% of your KW usage. And net metering your power companies credits should cover the lack of production of cloudy days. IF the companies don’t lie about offset, local power companies permitting/net metering and a lot more. So many sketchy companies.
The clip is a little cut and he was talking about running a car with solar panels.
Pervoskite solar cells (if/when they stable for comercial applications) should be able to get more than 30% for a similar/better price than Silicon. But even in such a future I can imagine the 500W rated PV panels currently with Silicon solar celles (could only maybe double in power to @1MW for the same size - which is usually more than 2 square meters- with perovskite solar cells)
500W x 2 = 1kW
Rectennae can reach efficiencies of 90-95%.
I believe they reach 32.5% not going to help us much.
So many technologies that claim to be the new better and cheaper version never make it out of the lab because they never find a way to mass produce cheaply.
@@outisnemo8443no they cant.
I need 70% more cowbell on that Music
Elon saying solar energy can't get more efficient sounds as convincing as Edison saying DC is the future.
Elon isn't the only one saying this.
A better comparison is Moore's Law.
The main issue is true, but for computers, we either make other areas more efficient or we lined up alternatives, such as cloud or quantum computing.
We either make other areas of the solar panel more efficient, or we can find something else than silicon. (For solar silicon based solar, it is called Shockley-Queisser Limit.)
The difference is that Edison said that because he was making money on DC. That comparison would work if Edison said that DC WOULDNT work, not that it would. Your comparison is ass backwards.
No what he's saying is that at the moment there is nothing conceivable.
No, Elon is saying the maximum efficiency is limited with the current silicon materials.
Ironically it was Tesla that proved him wrong and is probably rolling over in his grave with one of the richest men in the world making a fortune off his name
What if we find a better material than silicone or gallium, I mean "someday" is quite long.
Earth gets hit by ~1380W per square meter. The atmosphere removes a bit, but 1kW/sqm is a solid estimate for a surface perpendicular to the sun. That's the limit any solar panel can get without playing tricks like using mirrors to concentrate more surface area. There are a couple of different technologies around with different efficency ratings from 20% to 40%, but the latter are only available in a lab. There are also inherent physical limitations, so it's unlikely any technology will ever allow going over 50%.
We shall see
And heat reduction
@@nadsenoj8719😂😂😂 wow, you really believe your country is any better? Were you dropped on your head as a child? And several times since?
Um those are elements... We arent finding something better
Also, I believe panels today get energy from a very limited wavelength of light. If you could harness energy from more a wider spectrum of light, you could get get higher efficiency
No u can't 😅
youre wrong though. Silicon collects energy from a very wide spectrum of light, but it doesnt utilise the high energy photons(UV) as well as the low energy ones(NIR).
Tandem cells addresses this by having different junctions effective at harnessing different parts of the spectrum.
Single layer solar cells are designed for a specific wavelength (based on the layer thickness). Photons with less energy don't free an electron and don't generate any electricity. Photons with more energy still generate only a single electron, so their extra energy is not used. The situation can be improved by creating cells with multiple layers, each with a different thickness. This now mostly used in space (upto 4 layers!) , both because cost is less of an issue in space and because sunlight has a wider spectrum in space. Maybe we will see 2-layer residential cells some day.
@@jwstolk
In the future we'll use optical rectennae instead, 90-95% efficiency.
ruclips.net/video/qMhdpWMDp04/видео.html
Bro can you ask him please, what about the new Omuamua transparent Technic in solar energy power??????????
✨🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
Correct, but he also said that a solar panel surface area the size of Nevada could power the Earth.
The question was about efficiency. The one you referred to was not in regards of efficiency but production to demand.
Exactly he is saying the solar panels waste 70 percent of the energy of the sun and they only collect 30 percent of it meaning it’s not efficient but still 30 percent free electricity is better than nothing 😂
Ya bit whatsbthe point if you can't store the power
@@randybobandy9828 you can still store the power in a solar battery. What Elon was saying is that you can only receive 30% of the total solar energy applied to a given surface area.
Of the storage problem was solved then we could …but that’s the biggest problem…especially seasonal storage
A whole story/critique culminating in the disclaimer that silicon systems top out at 30% efficiency. Slight reference to another system which is totally unaffordable, but no mention of other R&D tackling this exact problem.
We will easily surpass 30% efficiency within 10 years. In fact, we already have too much renewable power for our 20th century grids. The true challenge lies in upgrading current infrastructure capacity and finding affordable grid level energy storage solutions.
he's explaining that the technology is as good as its ever going to get and its time to power the world with solar already
The analogy about tech I like in these examples is the fact it took roughly 70yrs from the Wright bros to landing on the moon... so, he's technically currently correct... however 🤔...
Most solar panels today are still at around 21% efficiency. Not yet there
Can’t power world with solar. Period. Wind either! Nuclear is clean and safe and produces the power we need.
Stack multiple layers.. Its alled perovskites, future of solar power basically
It's not as good as it's ever going to get though, not even close
20% is good enough, we don't pay for the other 80% in sunlight anyway.
We do pay for the extra 80% space consumption tho
Ok
You spend more energy making/maintaining the panels than you get back
"Green" energy is a scam
The only truly cleaner energy is nuclear. And if you dont buy into the whole carbon bullshit organic burning is also cleaner and part of the natural cycle
@@KT_255 but why should we build a solar plant when we can easily set up it onto the roof. If every single people uses solar onto their roof i think that's enough to fulfill the residential demand.
It is. Amd cover the roads with rooves and u cover a lot of that.
A South Korean company has made a groundbreaking achievement as they unveiled the world's first production line dedicated to perovskite-silicon tandem solar cells. These innovative solar cells have the potential to boost efficiency by 50-75% compared to standard solar panels.
Whats the cost?
They will never come to market because they are prohibitively expensive to scale.
Still not much better. A 50% boost from 22% is only 33%. Also, those are nowhere near as cost-effective as current 22% cells. Even more - the lifespan is nowhere near conventional 22% cells.
I'm sure solar technology will be more efficient, we just don't know how yet.
Tomas Edison said 12v DC was the way to go and then Nicola Tesla came with AC current wich seemed impossible
How much research was done at that time? Not much! Of course there was big room for improvement.
Dont compare those two things.. its silly to say because somebody said something wasnt possible in the past and it was tht means it applies to something else entirely
It will get more efficient. Even if current materials are at their limit at some point we will make a new discovery or a composite that is can do a much better job. Tesla did exactly that with batteries so it's rather silly of him to say this about solar. Or it might be intentional to try and hold back research so he can get there first.
Solar panels CAN and WILL become more efficient!
They probably wont. That being said solar roofs are still not as efficient as the panels.
If we can make them as efficient and a little bit cheaper and more accessible than I can see us building vertical solar roofs instead of flat roofs. They also cover a lot more surface area and are more aestetic.
Some law and regulation would also be needed for that to happen though. We are decades away in my opinion.
You achieve as far as you believe. If nobody persisted we wouldn't have what we have today
Maybe one day you will get 120% efficiënt panels.
Meanwhile we never managed to push heat Engines to much over 50% after centuries. Some things just have limits
@@kapytanhookthings change, limits too. Ppl would never believe it's possible to have this level of tech, so..
I would love to sit and talk with this guy for a while!! Love intelligent people!!
You would do better to listen to what he has to say about science and technology, you would learn a lot more.
And yet we just came up with a Discovery and demonstration of a non-silicon-based solar panel, that it’s much cheaper to make, and has higher efficiency! Solar panels have not picked out yet
but even if we didn't, 20% efficiency is enough to replace all fossil fuels with renewables in less than a decade AND be profitable while doing it
@@t3hpwninat0r No it won't cause the energy cannot be stored on a mass scale. On a private home sure but never on a nation or global scale. Solar is very low on Energy harvest factor or even negative. I mean it costs more energy to produce then it will ever generate.
@@nekronox2055 distributed storage is mass scale. power storage can be built in factories and then bought, delivered to and installed in homes, businesses, at charging stations and in other factories in addition to power generation facilities. the grid is far more resilient if there are sources of power to draw from all over the grid compared to a few really big power stations. mass production of power storage units = mass scale power storage.
We are already ready to eliminate fossil fuels. The only thing stopping us is corporate interests.
Umm,solar efficiencies will never increase.? That has to be the dumbest statement by a smart person I’ve heard recently. Material science will eventually produce much higher efficiently solar cells. Why is everyone intentionally misinforming everyone else?
If you concentrate light of higher frequencies adequately mixed and juxtaposed you can " probably" contain light of lower frequencies and even compress them / expand them. Humans need to grow beyond outdated electron/ photons etc.
Am i the only loving the new calming update on Elon?
I already know how to make them more efficient. Gold nano particles as nanoelectrodes suspended in an organic SAM. Worked on a project like that as an organic chemistry researcher for an academic… he was too old to bring it to market. He was a physical chemist and avoided organic chem like the plague, like most analytical and p-chem folks… the projected numbers were something like 30-31% increase in efficiency. That was in 2009. I still remember everything about that project. It was obscenely easy… materials chemistry/science is the easiest of the chemistries and a ton of fun.
Solar panel requires brightness for maximum output, if it gets hot its efficiency drops.
Solution cool the solar panel with an integrated water layer thus getting electricity and low grade heat from the panel.
yes its about finding the proper pv subtrate at the lowest cost he addressed something beyond obvious
I like his honesty instead of him telling us he is working on some new tech. He tells it like it is.
Well he is wrong as he is living in a box of $ .
Solar Magnification/Concentration can achieve some things which needs investments from people like Elon
I live off grid and I got around that 30% “problem” by just having more panels. So it’s not a problem.
🤣 wouldn’t rely on Elon for solar advice of expectations of future solar products to exceed 30%
Quality vs Cost
We will see....i bet they hit 40 per cent within a few years. Maybe AI will unlock more efficiency.
U aint gonna take advise from a man knws multiple billionairs let alon millionaires big clever peoplet then more fool urself rip to ur life 😂😂
@@DylanPrice-ig9rl you clearly don’t understand being a billionaire doesn’t mean you’re an expert in that field. Especially when it comes to creating new technology, that’s often done by people with very specific knowledge on that topic and highly experienced. Elon doesn’t know shit he just pays for the knowledge of others and then resells it. Elon is nothing but a glorified salesman.
I’ll also add they already are beyond 30% limit and have a new limit of 45.3% with tandem perovskite cells vs the traditional silica based ones
he said " for a silicone system " . i would not rely on people who cant get the details right.
Remember when ibm made a computer the size of a bedroom and they thought it could never get smaller?
Pepperidge farms remembers.
Well that’s kind of why he said “for a silicone system”. The door is left open.
The first time elon make sense and talked facts too bad he is no more
In western Australia people put solar cells on their homes and put excess electricity back into the grid which they get payed for by the gov , the gov has large batteries which they store the electricity, this dramatically reduces the use of fossil fuels used .
He's said no but there are tech companies working on it
One of the many things I love about Elon is that he doesn't give you pie-in-the-sky horse crap, he just talks to you very plainly and tells you what the deal is. He doesn't over sensationalize any idea. He has an aggressively even-keeled temperament that I also admire.
... except for HyperLoop. And colonizing Mars. That's all cool sounding, but it's just stupid. HyperLoop because achieving and maintaining a vacuum like that over any distance is energy intensive and vulnerable to any seismic activity or simple water table shifts -- you'd have to build the entire tunnel inside an active adjustment system that supported it and maintained perfect alignment. At 700mph, there is no chance of stopping in time if a breach occurs even 35 miles ahead. That money would do 100x more for us by having reliable medium speed rail. Mars is silly because living on Mars would take perfect execution to just barely support a small number of people, and we can't even do it right on a practically perfect testbed that tries to self-correct. Mars can't support a sufficient atmosphere, it will never have enough solar flux, it will never block lethal radiation. Musk should fund ocean exploration if he wants to be ground-breaking.
@@ericpmoss it is easy for a pedantic skeptic to pick part two ideas out of many dozens, and declare himself clearheaded enough to see deficiencies that others have not yet thought about. Sometimes in the pursuit of certain technologies, is it necessary to push human thinking far in advance of the actual need. And lastly, the people who say it cannot be done should really step aside and let the people who are doing it get things moving. It has been rightly said, “without a vision, the people die.” And colonizing Mars is not to say “to hell with earth,” and that entire way of thinking is all wrong. Who says we can’t do both?
There's already 50 % efficient solar panels but they're very expensive.
Ummm… He just said you can get better but it’s expensive!
just make 3 silicon panels instead. it's cheaper and easier and the prices of 50% ones will come down by the time your silicon ones need replacement.
No there is not possible
@@wickedleeloopy2115 Not with silicone panels .Anything is possible.
@@bobguy6542 even the "not cheap" panels are cheaper than importing fossil fuels like gas and coal
Can we stop treating this dude like he's a scientist he's essentially Steve Jobs reincarnated so chill
He's a lot worse. There are many people dead because of his lies. And his "lidar is a dead end" comment is extremely sketchy. Lidar sensors cost more than cameras, but lidar measures distance and nothing else, so a lidar based autopilot will never think a shadow is a wall.. A tesla might
@Myrzghe 100%. Steve Jobs IMHO was equally as much of a bad person just in his own sneaky way he's just dead so no more further damage from him
What Elon is saying is actually correct.
Scientist or not.. he's the guy with the money for paying for actual scientists to do the work developing new things or furthering development on current things.
We need about 100 more like him to do just what he is doing.. centralize and bankroll research and development.
@@uoabigailleveystop believing the deep state lol
ive never heard how a photopanel works put so simply and eloquently.....
Forget efficiency for what is in the sky everyday, what we need is make it cheaper for adaptation into building and infrastructure
Musk is wrong. We've already done this lol.
Surprisingly, he's actually mostly correct. There are more efficient solar panels, but those are prohibitively expensive and always will be. For most use cases, it just doesn't matter. Would you want to pay twice as much for a solar panel that gives you 21% efficiency compared to one with 20%, all other factors like expected lifetime being equal? It's normally much easier to just add another panel for that price and double the produced energy.
As a ref
Cars around 20-40% efficiency
30% is pretty dang good
@@unaffiliated_x9279 not in your best imagination is there a diesel engine that is 70% efficient, anywhere on earth.
@@lylestavast7652 you're correct. I deleted my post
this guy is truly amazing that he can explain that in plain english
I would venture to say probably 50% or more of Americans don’t know what a photon is
Pretty interesting because this is like several years old and he didn't say the same thing on the latest JRE.
For mobile or ???
220v or 330v not
Propala investicija solar ...
wait until Solars life span runs out we are going to sit with a very big waste problem.
yes and no, it could be recycled, but it is for sure more expensive than stacking them in a corner ...
Recycling will be cheaper with scale
@@benjaminlamey3591recycling a few solar panels is literally nothing if you compare the sheir amount of fossil fuels you would be using to power your home for 30 years…
@@666t yep, but you have to oblige them to give out the money for it, and they will never start until you force it trhough. cause it will always be cheaper to throw them into the neighbour´s yard ...
ruclips.net/video/qMhdpWMDp04/видео.html
Bro can you ask him please, what about the new Omuamua transparent Technic in solar energy power??????????
✨🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
It's amazing how he is literally an expert in everything g there is to know. He really is Tony stark
Elons got everyone fooled
This video's music to content ratio comes in at about 30% - same a solar panels - GENIUS!
He is right for once. It's called the But no problem, even at "only" 30% we can easily cover all our needs - it means that a square meter can produce up to 300 watts of power.
What we can not do and never will be able to is power a car with solar energy only while driving.
Keep in mind that 30% efficiency is the theoretical limit of single junction (essentially single layer) silicone photovoltaic panel, if you somehow able to make multi junction photovoltaic panel with 36 to 40 layer of photovoltaic cell you can get efficiency up to 72%.
Photovoltaic cell are estimated to have max theoretical efficiency of 85% with infinite junction cell.
Yes, we know the limits of solar cells very well. If you talk about efficiency in terms of power in vs power out, we do top out at 30%. However, we are creating organic solar cells that don't use silicon and other non-renewable resources that are cheaper and easier to mass produce. So, if you look at efficiency in terms of cost per power unit, we have plenty of room for improvement. The biggest issue with organic solar cells is their longevity, about 3-5 years.
The theoretical maximum efficiency of silicon PV is about 32% per junction. That's it's physical limit. It is possible to make multi-junction PV cells, but those become far more expensive quickly, the more junctions added. Other materials than silicon would have different maximum efficiencies, but regardless of efficiency, nobody is going to get out more energy than Sun sends down, which is about a kW per square meter under ideal conditions.
There is a Solar panel that not only produce electricity but also produce hot water. They were basically stick heat pipes and heat pump. The heat pump move the heat to somewhere else like hot water tank.
This method doesn't make solar panel produce more electricity by raising it's efficiency but it makes produce more by not make it overheat and also produce heat water.
Well then clearly we should tear all the coal plants down and go with solar. Seems like a great idea 🙄
Big question is will the price get a lot better.
This guy just amazes me to no end. It's unusual for a person to know this level of knowledge in one area, this guy has similar depths of knowledge in so many areas
Elon saying what was censored for decades. Thanks big man. 👍
Do you suggest that those who do have these energy panels that they should get the Teflon battery charger? At my previous home we didn't need it. But here at my new place, and because of the constant change of weather, it looks like I might. I am still not quite sure yet.
The sunlight to electricity flow conversion efficieny doesn't need to get better, it just has to keep getting cheaper and cheaper per unit area covered and we'd see more and more deployment. Any increase in conversion efficiency will be a bonus if you have the infrastructure well designed and drop-in replacements as needed/desired.
I made a cell that produces energy, not just by photons, but also infrared and thermal temperature differences. It will produce energy at night, in extreme cold and heat. Easy to make
I was a yard sale in Pasadena and this guy pulls up in this little car and and we were all excited about seeing his car because it ran on SOLAR AND BATTERY ONLY!! He worked at JPL and he made it himself
Curious.. If the black panel heats up in the sun and lose efficiency, could they somehow be white or silver to mitigate that effect?
Where can I get the full interview?
He makes the efficiency seem likes its the only factor in a solar panel. A wind turbine with bad efficiency on a windy night is going to produce more energy than a solar panel with bad efficiency. Plus, 30% efficiency is actually pretty good compared what it used to be.
A compamy called swift solar just got to 40% efficiency. Its not silicone but thats a good thing. Its a matter of time before its 100% and 1 little solar panel can manage a household. But the giant corporations like exxon are trying their best to slow it down.
Plus, some places are cloudy a lot. Limits on effectiveness. Solar panels work in some sunny areas though.
The argument for silicon based PV panels not going beyond 30% is valid. But other material could take them further.
What’s the per square meter power generation capacity of solar panels ? Can we make more electricity with little panels now ? Just curious answer if anyone is familiar with it
Ah yes, triple gun junction gallium arsenide
Yes, thank you Master, thank you very much. Thank you very much. I know I was traveling to who is particularly the rich who went to NASA and a lot of things because there are a lot of things like that and looking at the line the stars and looking at the stone of the stars on NASA and a lot of things .
They said tvs wouldn't get better either.
I mean, if the circuit was somehow a super conductor the efficiency would skyrocket, but we don't have the technology for a room temp super conductor yet.
you just need more PV to make up for its inefficiance- but i saw today that one groups exp[eriments found up to 60% ! and the best way to create energy is to reduce our use of it!
Whats the link to the main interview
can a magnifier like a lens make more concentrated beam of photons? I know it would create heat in the process and that kills the eff of the pv cell but could there be a passive cooling system to prevent that or convert that heat into usable energy some how? Is there some sort of physical limitation that would prevent this or is this designed not to do this for cost reasons?
Even with lower efficiency they still have the advantage of adaptability. They can be put in far more places and much closer to people. They can be incorporated into buildings and other structures. You can't put a coal or nuclear power plant on top of a house. They're great for self sufficiency too. Not to mention all the smaller applications like yard lights and calculators. Even my remote can recharge with solar. Solar panels have more than earned their place in the energy sector.
Yeah I used to be all about the solar panels until I figured out that hydroelectric fuel recycling centers and septic tanks because then we get our electricity off of recycling or waste and cleaning our air land and water, it's way more efficient. And yeah if you were playing Cupid that's exactly what we need to link people on is hobbies and interests so you want to go do things together so great job!
Elon Musk is a talking genius! He speaks and Joe is really, really impressed! Wow Wow! 😮😮😮OMG! photon semi conductor electron 😮😮😮Genius!!!
Love all this Honesty
Thanks Rlin you made my day.
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Everybody seems to be so concerned with the efficiency in order to have an excuse to bad mouth it, and say it's not worth buying right now, but in actuality it's almost as efficient as a car that people will gladly plunk down $50,000 for.
GaAs is predominantly just substrate though. It's not _inherently_ better for solar panel cells. Cost is rapidly coming down though, so if there are improvements to be had for mass production solar panels with real longevity, we will find out fairly soon. There are other things we csn do to improve efficiency of the energy capture side of a solar energy system, but most of them are active systems that "consume" more energy than the improvement it enables, "generate".
What could help in a fairly immediate and moderate cost way, is improving surface treatment and ease of maintenance. A dusty or dirty solar panel has quite severe reduction in efficiency, but they can be very difficult for the average home owner to clean regularly, and the environment isn't kind to their surface clarity over time.
They can cut the silicone thinner now and that makes it cheaper with the same output.
It is more about getting production faster and costs down because there is plenty of warehouse roofs and empty space in barren lands to provide daytime electricity to the whole world.
Same with internal combustion engine, around 33% max. Like 35% is amazing. The Chinese are doing great engineering feats. We should be mindful.
lol where do the chinese come into this
Why can’t it be more efficient? (I’m somehow pretty sure it can and will..everything can be improved upon…everything…it just takes someone to find the keys..)..
Surprisingly similar to light dependent reaction photosynthesis. Interesting.
single junction cells are limited to 30% by their design, but 4 junction concentrator solar cells have achieved 47% efficiency.
TIME OUT, PAUSE: we can make diamonds, but we can't concoct gallium arsenide? rendering it cheap?
and what about instead of batteries ... (I suffer from memory loss, so help me out) the instant batter thing.
I am not an engineer, why i know this, i don't know.
Efficiency is only a function of size with solar panels. A 30% 100 watt panel is only smaller than a 20% 100 watt panel. Price and quality are all that really matters. More efficient panels only helps people with limited roof space like RV’s or small houses.
Not enough space on a vehicle to really make solar powered cars effective.
Now semi trailers…they can have a decent amount. Might help.
What can improve is the efficiency of the machines powered by Solar. For example the LED light bulb versus incandescent light bulb.
Exactly why radiant energy is needed.
They have solar panels that reach 50-60% efficiency now, they just aren’t commercially available, not sure if they can even mass produce them tbh, but they exist at least.
He asked "someday" and you answered "based on technology we have right now, no."
We are currently working on better solar panels. Problem is, they aren't solar city tech so he will say it cant get better to keep sales up.
You know, we are only like a decade away from synthetic photosynthesis. The goal is to make more efficient electricity this way.