Thank you to the Oxford PV team for sharing your work with me! And thank you to Opera for sponsoring this video. Click here opr.as/Opera-browser-DrBenMiles to upgrade your browser for FREE!
So let me ask what I think is the obvious question regarding perovskites: To my knowledge, the biggest problem to solve with its durability is that they break down under exposure to sunlight. Is it a specific frequency (for any given perovskite) that causes it to break down? If it's a frequency that's outside the useful range for perovskites and silicon, could a filter layer "just"* be stacked on top of it to block the offending frequency band? I understand that ideally we want to convert it _all_ into electricity, but if the cell can't use it then blocking it can't hurt much. *I acknowledge that "why don't you just" is the single most infuriating thing a professional can hear from someone who has no understanding of the complexities the professional deals with on a daily basis. I use that wording here as a casual idiot who really knows barely more about solar panels than presented by RUclips's various science communicators. Thanks, Les
I watched the entire video, and seem to have missed the explanation of why perovskite photovoltaics in the hands of Oxford PV "just changed everything". Are they rendered suddenly practical from a cost or durability breakthrough? Can anyone time stamp this moment in the video? Or is this just another click bait featurette without a payoff? Edit: At 16:32 there is mention of "additional layers of packaging are needed to take a lab material and turn it into a material that can survive in the real world." Is this the breakthrough that "changed everything"? No other group of people, aside from Oxford PV, figured out this extra layers approach? That seems a bit incredible.
Yeah, bit misleading how he promotes 20% increase compared to silicon (20->24%). But then the 28%->24% decrease in efficiëncy due to protective material is almost talked about as negligible.
So in other words this video is clickbait given 22% panels have been on the market for an age and 24% is an incremental efficiency gain not a breakthrough. Thanks, no need to waste my time on the rest of what I already know.
Framing videos like this is so obnoxious. TL;DW: their cells are 20% more efficient. Not 20% of the sun's energy more, but 20% of the efficiency of conventional solar cells, aka less than 5% more of the sun's energy. And it's not like we couldn't reach this efficiency before, or even do much better, but simply that reaching it wasn't cost effective.
@@boltvanderhuge8711 yeah it feels dumb. pretending a dual layer 1m square is comparable to a single layer 1m square feels disingenuous. if the dual layer square is more efficient than 2 1m squares, then we're getting somewhere
Ah thanks for TLDW. I think for the next 20 years, we perhaps don't even need a more efficient cell, in the sense of a cell that captures more solar power per unit of footprint area, because we aren't anywhere near close to saturating possible solar installation footprint. Instead we need cells which are cost effective in terms of total lifetime output per unit of cost, high endurance, and not too difficult to recycle into new raw material.
So what? The title is accurate (sorry you assumed anything), and it's interesting on how solar cells work. I love this channel but it has a dedicated hard-core hate group. Go away if you don't like the channel. Why watch?
For a roof installation, when you take the cost of scaffolding, wiring, inverter, roof frames, labour, and profit, a solar panel that is 40% more expensive (for example) might only push the costs up by 20%. People doing price comparisons often often miss this point. The panals are only part of the overall system installation costs. Throw a home battery in and the costs work even more in favour of more efficient cells.
Which is why it's more efficient for an industry to produce energy rather than individual residences. Industry can save on costs, materials, and carbon expenditure using economies of scale. We shouldn't care how the electricity is produced. We should only care that our power outlets deliver reliable power. Electricity should be produced by industry using nuclear, solar cells, geothermal, or elephants jumping on trampolines. Regardless of how it's done it won't make a difference to us as long as it's green.
I think about this a lot. Humans have hardly really ever had enough extra to always build the ideal solution. What we have now is because of sacrifice. For all or most history. Roads, houses, Schools, farms, entire cities just kind of happen over time. Then having 20 20 hindsight. We can see the best. They even know at the time there are ideal or better ways, and there are realistic levels of perfection that are attained. That just always leaves people either catching up with stuff as it breaks, fixing it, and still theres growth. It would always be best to put the best possible roofing system on your house, so in an ideal world the ones who would live there in the future never even worry about a roof leak and it lasts forever and makes the rest of the house last forever. That is always choice. But, not always possible. That I think is a problem that can be addressed and it could help advance human progress if it is. But you are right. it's true. The Wires for the system add tons of cost.Don't cheap out if you have the choice. Think If one is to get the best wiring, it costs a lot more. Just that is a huge efficiency thing. and cost thing. Wire gauge. We need to get a taste for how much energy our bodies can make and use and then compare it to our machines. That's why we get weaker and weaker and now barely resemble our ancestors, allegedly. We are just out of touch with how much energy we use, feel we deserve, or how much energy is ACTUALLY needed to be alive and happy and healthy and why we use so much more. Sent using energy. Sorry. Also have you heard of phase change materials insulation.
@@Sim-q9t That's an INCREDIBLY reductionist look at history. The longest lived empires, buildings, cultures, and even Religions all have historical evidence of a MUCH larger amount of care put into planning for that perfection PRIOR to execution. A comparison of cultures has been done by a few dozen Master's students (Ty Jstor) correlating how deeply a culture valued planning, efficiency, and mastery to the longevity of that culture(each focused on a different one, or collection of these traits, but the over arching theme is surprisingly common) It isn't hard to guess which direction the trends pointed. The more you plan out prior to execution, the longer you, your creation, and your very society survive. It's incredibly stark.
@@potato9832yes and no. Yes there are advantages to massive solar farms, but you also have to take into account land value and energy losses getting the power where it needs to go. Likewise, distributed power generation feeding into a smart grid will be less susceptible to power outages. Solar on every roof combined with distributed storage batteries would be a very robust system and reliability of power is valuable as well. Weighing the costs vs benefits of different approaches gets complicated quickly.
@@TrickyNekro We're all, with bated breath, looking forward to you publishing your scientific advancement that shows these _obvious_ amateurs how it's done.
@@LilMissMurder3409 Solar thermal already can achieve 60% efficiency. Geothermal is also a possible path. One could also combine the two. I don't need do anything. Edit: with btw the problem of energy storage almost solved in the same facilities. Existing technology can be used, produces far less e-waste, don't produce anywhere near the green house effect through self-heating etc. etc. etc.. So yes, 4% max at best possible scenario for current PV for use on earth and not maybe niece space applications is totally and utterly.... Pathetic!
@@terryhayward7905 Yes, 1 Htz = 1 oscillation per second, and so he was famous for doing a task per second. It's not only a not funny joke, it isn't even a joke, just idiots managing to correlate two things.
@@blucat4Terry laughs when he hears wordplay that requires rudimentary scientific knowledge to understand. He laughs in the hope other people will say "why are laughing Terry?" And he can then dazzle them with his "elite knowledge" that most 12 year old high school students know. 🤓
With all the negativity i see on twitter, and the selfishness I see of world leaders, Im so grateful to even PEER into the work these people do. I really lifts my spirits and hopes for the future. Brilliant minds such as these should be the ones lifting and leading us to better lives.
@@vinny142 Absolutely! It’s truly inspiring to see such brilliant minds pushing the boundaries of what’s possible. While negativity can often overshadow the great work happening in the world, it's these groundbreaking advancements in solar efficiency that remind us of the incredible potential humanity has to create a brighter future. Let's celebrate the innovators and visionaries who are leading the charge toward sustainable energy solutions! Together, we can shine a light on hope and progress!
@vinny142 just because someone is good a science doesn't mean you would be a good politician. Brains are but one part of what makes a good leader. A leader that listens to expertise and is smart enough to weigh the pro/cons is what is important for a leader.
I would've liked to hear more about the toxicity / sealing efficacy. The ability to mass produce is one thing, but it would've been useless without an effective resistance to degradation.
@@autohmae still, Cadmium and Lead have been banned for good reason, so introducing these to an open market would have to overcome SIGNIFICANT hurdles. And for good reason, humans suck at keeping toxic stuff in check once they distribute it in use, see lead in electronics and Cadmium in batteries.
@@DooMMasteR I don't think safety was the main reason in this case, we are talking about films and layers in solar panels humans don't really interact with directly and it's not like people will DIY solar panels to try and build state of the art panels either.
@@DooMMasteR It's almost like putting lead in fuel and have it belching out of every exhaust pipe for decades might have something to do with it.... Lead pewter, water pipes, and paint are also very common historic sources of lead contamination. Lead is bad, and hould be avoided where at all possible, but putting a tiny amount in solar panels (assuming their particular secret forumla does) is not exactly a panic button moment.
10:30 I'm not sure what Dr. Chris Case was thinking when he said "superconductors are used to cool MRI systems". No. The MRI machine is cold so that the superconductors stay cold. They need to be cold so that they maintain their induced magnetic fields. The magnetic fields are necessary in order for the MRI to penetrate object ( humans) in order to see inside them. In other words, "cryogenic fluids like liquid nitrogen are used to cool superconductors, and they are what make MRI machines possible"
"High Temperature" distinguishes superconductors that need to be colder than liquid nitrogen and those that can be high enough temperature that liquid nitrogen is can cool them.
I love the quote “the sun has never raised its price”. So if that’s true and the tech to convert it to electricity keeps getting cheaper, things don’t look so bleak after all.
Things are going to get really bad. It's not as bleak as it could be as decarbonization is entirely within our means. The problem is the political will to do it and the fact that we've already waited too long. There are areas of the Earth which will be rendered uninhabitable already. It's just a question of how MUCH of the planet we're going to loose access to.
@@dynamicworlds1 Also .... all the idiots forgetting about the billions of people forced to migrate into other countrys ... maga is already getting a meltdown because of mexicans
@@dynamicworlds1We're likely to lose Florida soon, just because of home insurance. Large parts of the dry West also, but there the cities will survive because they exclude wildfires.
The great extinction event known as 21st and 22nd centuries? There are certainly hard times ahead, but if we can solve energy, that frees up a lot of resources to solve the other problems.
Thanks for the video. As an environmental engineer, battling the planet's climate difficulties, it's good to know other (more complicated) fields are doing their damndest for humanity's future. Looking at the comments, a lot of folks clearly already have ALL of the answers (or more likely watched a video of someone else telling them 😂) but for a lot of us grafting outside and either not smart enough to get a lab job, or too busy applying it practically to read and study, this has been very positive and helpful news. Thanks.
To be fair that was a flexible prototype, not the one they actually produce.
19 дней назад+6
I would bet that many of the first prototypes have been tested in military and spaceflight applications and this is where the first year or two of production will go.. A company in Texas is making double sided panels in the 22% range and I don't see it taking long for fabs to get up to production levels maybe a year before the volume is up to retail levels.. If they can get the cost down and lifespan up in two years I would consider adding a bank of these in place of the 300 watt panels I have now as afternoon energy production..
For those who know nothing about glove boxes: If you do ever visit a lab with one, don't don't actually give it a vigorous high five. (But if you must, make sure somebody records a video to entertain the rest of us.)
Dr. Chris Case is an ENGINEER not a physicist. Please give us engineers more due for the technology we develop. Of course we cannot work without the contributions of physicists but the converse is also true.
And also they treat inventors as if they don't know anything about science. Actually, I think science is mostly a recap of history of inventions. Every invention leads to a new theory.
Science discovers what is possible, engineering discovers what is practical... with enough education that can be one person even if they are two different tasks.
When I was a teenager I remember watching James Burke's Connections. He explained how throughout history we build our knowledge on what others have done in the past. I'm happy to say he is rebooting his series again. Of all the accomplishments we have made our ability to learn through language is the one traits that we should cherish most because if we didn't none of the things we have today would exist. Your channel rocks!
Summer 2024 DIY 14 KW system installed. Despite a modest understanding of the physics the tech has a almost magic feel. Having control over only a tiny fraction of the suns power is rather amazing, far more power than a small campfire and way more useful.
The only mention I heard of a resolution of the problem of the delicacy of the material was "layers of additional packaging," which is rather a vague reference considering it is the most challenging issue with perovskites.
silicon cell efficiency >27% and module efficiency >25% already being mass produced, not the 18-20% limit you said in the video 8:30, it's actually much higher than that.
@@koaasst we installed about 35 000 PV panels and through two last years they raised from 20.5% up to 20.8% through the 4 types of PVs from 400Wp up to 550Wp - mostly because of size changes (all Risen Solar company) /calculated from standard measurement environment with perpendicular light with intensity of 1000W/m2 - then any deviation from that, lowers efficiency drastically = clouds, fog, tilt, dust .... /
Sadly, I'll still have to categorize this under "We'll never hear from this again" until there's actual evidence that this will be used commercially within an acceptable time frame.
Thank you for the wonderful video! Perovskite solar cells certainly look like they'll be a key technology in our future, so it's a good idea to understand how they work as completely as we can.
I love this. Everybody has been talking about this company for years (well, since 2017), it's great to have a progress report this detailed and well presented.
Thank you so much for these really informative, professionally delivered programmes. The occasional subtle humorous asides are also welcome! I have recently been investigating solar marine propulsion and your information is invaluable. Anything to do with PV energy generation, battery science, electric motors for boats is welcome. I'm very happy to be able to send a financial donation as well. Great value for money!
Type 0 is such an arbitrary measure, in particular because early humans used way more energy than just their camp fires. All the energy that fell on the earth and was absorbed by the plants that the humans or their animals would then eat, for example
Most plants and animals were unavailable to humans for usage, early humans used a very small part of said energy. Even then plants absorb a very small part of the light energy that falls on their leaves and when animals eat said plants they absorbed a small part of the energy stored in those plants. When humans ate said animals they again absorbed a very small part of the energy stored in those animals. So, the total energy absorbed through eating was(still is) an extremely small part of the total energy coming from the sun(and all of this not accounting for the fact that most solar energy falls on ocean water where mostly nothing lives). There is also the fact that gaining energy through eating limits how said energy can be used compared to getting it in form of something like fire or electricity for example, so this would decrease the available energy even more. All in all, yeah early humans used more energy than produced by their camp-fires but it wasn't that much more than what type-0 predicts.
roasting marshmallows at yellowstone, or other lava spots. Cavemen. Luxury levels of energy just freely out in the open. Maybe their descendants are free energy guys. ha.
The value for Type 0 is just repeating the pattern established for the higher levels, but going down. The jump from Type 2 to Type 3 is 10^26 to 10^36. To make the scale continuous, Sagan changed the value for Type 1 from 10^17 to 10^16, which left Type 0 at 10^6.
These peoples full time occupation is solving a common problem for humanity. Every breakthrough, big or small, is tremendously valuable. I don't really understand the haters...
I highly appreciate that you do those kind of videos based on visiting the research places and interviewing the people instead of articles. Makes this whole video way more interesting.
New subscriber here. I don't usually comment, but this was an exceptionally well-made video. I enjoyed the history aspect as well as the science explanation behind how solar works paired with the visual representations. Keep it up!
Dr Miles, you are a scientist and that explains your conviction that the commercial stage of the Oxford technology is more desirable than waiting for the perfect cell. Actually, there are two aspects to this commercialisation. First, the pervoskite/silicon cells will be considered in terms of power output per dollar and selected or rejected in comparison with the other cells in the market. Secondly, the worry of investors will be that one of the other technologies, and there are many of them, will reach the market with a greater power output and at the same or lower cost. If this happens, the investment in plant and team will collapse. This is not an unusual problem for business projects. Something similar is happening in the field of electric vehicle battery technology.
The company now can try to focus more on production rather than pure research, delivering revenues and profit, then start feeding research from customers rather than investors. As economic efficiency can became more interesting. On top of that, two concepts are missing from this... communication. 1: lifecycle compared to standard silicon cells. 2: recycle cost and efficiency compared to standard silicon cells. Deliver more energy? Seems so. It's actually better than silicon in long term? Answer is not here.
Perovskite coated silicon solar panel is the smartest business choice. Since you don't have to build Si-panel, just source it from other companies, then clean it and coat it nicely. I know "just" here sounds undermining, but the difficulty of doing that could be tedious. And from the graph in 15:41 I think you can't add more than that one layer, only leave a room for a new Perovskite in place of Si. I think, they still have to keep a layer of Si at the bottom even with new Perovskite material, it seems to help stabilize the structure.
@@jeremymanson1781 No one is talking about this. They are always some great breakthrough when in fact it's some nonsense. Edison had a breakthrough after many attempts. He didn;t boast about his attempts but his success.
@@TemplarX2Yes the hype is very annoying. If you look further, some of the hype is journalists getting carried away and some is straight up hype by the researchers, maybe because they are trying to prevent their investors from losing faith in them. The fact is the vast majority of attempts to innovate fail. The failures are an important part of finding out where the blind alleys are or where to focus to overcome the reason for failure. Even in ordinary business, 9 out of 10 business start ups fail. Failure is necessary.
I strongly believe that perovskite cells are the future. Once manufacturing processes are refined and the most ideal compounds found, I think it won't be too hard to layer up a few layers of this into >50% efficient solar panels cost effectively. This means far less mined material since the power density is drastically increased. That's what's important, because raw material will be the limiting factor to increasing solar power. Energy will become cheaper as we deploy more, which will make manufacturing cheaper, but you can't turn energy into matter (well, not practically). So being efficient with resources, especially if we can make them recyclable, will be hugely important.
FYI, 2e+18 as you indicate in brackets at 00:22 is 2 million terawatt not 200K terawatt as you've indicated. So either the large number needs updating or your scientific notation needs updating.
@@alienwalk so pointing out a critical error in a scientific video equates to having an attitude for you haha 😂 don't think you realize how significant the 2 numbers are from one another but okay 👍
i feel like the threshold for being a type 1 civilisation should be alot lower, like, being a civilization that is actively harnessing loads of energy without destroying their home planet (which is actually achievable using today's technology, and alot more nuclear).
In my opinion, the definition for type one makes sense because it matches the definition for the rest of the levels. If we redefined it to match our level it wouldn't have the symmetry of the current definition in my opinion
@@jamesleishman8025Yes, but I don't think it is a positive to harness the total energy of a planet. Destroying a planet to do so is stupid. Totally darkening a star and destroying Earth's ecosystem is also stupid. The scale is not an absolute measure. It is more of a guideline.
The Hertz joke earned my sub lol. I would be curious to see in the future how these early perovskite cells degrade. If they are still putting out at least 80% of designed output in 25 years, I would consider them a decent investment. If they manage 90%, I would consider that a massive success.
@@TonyFisher-lo8hh According to first google result, silicone degrades at 0.3-0.5% per year, depending on environment. After 25 years, that means the average is likely still producing in the range of 80-90% of original rating.
@@kstricl The silicon degradation is well documented, but past reports have been much less optimistic for perovskite. The outstanding question (poorly addressed here) is the perovskite long-term reliability.
I would think the "defect tolerance" should help in that regard. Especially if initial production still works to reduce the defects rather than cheap out. I could easily see a bunch of cheap panels flooding the market where early degradation is ignored for both legitimate and cynical reasons. For example, why incur the cost of polishing the perovskite layer if in 5-10 years a much more advanced product will be available and reasonably affordable to replace the panel? In such a case, it could be argued you're better off gearing production toward a stopgap mentality than a durability one. Or, on a silicone-free panel, perhaps production can become cheap enough that longevity is far less of an issue. Of course, that carries the added benefit of repeat business, and all the cynical intentions that come with it. And then there's what to do with the old panels. Probably suck up landfill space like iPhones. But the underlying question is still how stable these layers are over time, of course.
I don't understand why the pyrovskite doesn't need the same perfection in the crystal structure that the silicon does? You mention that "obviously" it still needs to be tuned, but how is that obvious when you just went over how the defects in the crystalline structure of this compound doesn't matter?
Surely you understand that any can't or doesn't is can't yet or doesn't yet? I mean of course it doesn't matter yet. They get it working is what matter, finetuning comes after knowing how it works! Isn't that kinda obvious?
@@dragon67849 Yeesh. What an immature and egotistical response. Every sentence is just tones of "Duh, you f-ing idiot."? Pathetic. Grow up, kid. The person simply asked a question. I hope you're not raising/f-ing up a child of your own with this kind of ego/asshole attitude...
@@pedro_mab i wouldn't call that an explanation he just kind of says it is and glosses over it. I'm genuinely curious why this material is exempt from the physical requirements demanded by silicon, and he doesn't address this. I've watched it twice could u post a time stamp?
This video reminds me of an idea I’ve always had about how we could harness light more efficiently. Imagine a structure, like a cube or sphere, designed to trap and direct all light it touches into a material that absorbs and transforms it entirely into usable energy. Not just solar panels as we know them today, but something capable of cooling spaces by converting excess heat into electricity, acting like a self-contained generator that could wirelessly transmit energy to nearby devices. It’s fascinating how humanity is progressing with innovations like perovskites, yet it feels like we’re just scratching the surface of what’s possible. If we could perfect the way we capture and guide light-maximizing absorption and minimizing losses-it could redefine energy generation entirely. The future isn’t just about capturing more energy, it’s about doing it smarter and seamlessly integrating it into our lives. Isn’t that the true leap toward a Type 1 civilization?
Well. Ben, you did well in explaining this to a MBA guy like me. Since I understand it now.. I’m fully into it ❤❤ Thanks also for including all the scientists behind it. These findings don’t just grow on trees. Thanks!!!
Thank You !! I learned a lot on the history. Even from your ad. on Opera ! I must watch this several times to pick up the parts my future self missed !!
I've read that silicon cells degrade from about 22 to the stated 18% rather quickly. For the layered cells, will the silicon aiming at a different wavelength have a similar degradation, and what does the expected curve for the provoskovites look like? Basically, how long will they last?
What you're saying about degradation from 22% to 18% states a degradation to ~80% of initial effectiveness. Data collected from existing photovoltaic solar panels tells us that it takes anywhere from 20 to 25 years to degrade to 80%. Not so rather quickly in my opinion :) As to perovskites solar cells there is no real world data but in labs they mostly had crap life span.
That would be insanely much. Most manufacturers guarantee you 80-90% remaining power output after 20-35 years. Most degradation is caused by atom migration, where e.g. Oxygen or Nitrogen migrate into the P-N-Boundary and create leaks. The packaging and preparation of the cells in modern modules has improved a lot, so that the issues has mostly become a non issue. We have "in that regard bad" modules from 1997 running and they still show just very VERY little degradation by age, though one module degraded faster due to mechanical damage.
Perovskites are still a lab experiment, but given the amount of real world operation problems with them I would say they wouldn’t last more than a year and would not be used anywhere except for aerospace.
It's not that quick. A typical solar installation is rated to last thirty years, after which the panels will have degraded to maybe 80%-ish of their original capacity and are due for replacement. The replacement is fairly cheap, as the rest of the system is in place - electronics, cabling, mounting brackets and such - so it's just a matter of sending someone up on the roof to un-bolt the old panels and bolt new ones in their place.
More efficient but as mentioned deteriorates more rapidly. It can be protected from some things. But one thing that can't be avoided that causes it to deteriorate is sunlight - LOL ...Seriously, a big downer for a solar cell, but I guess they have solved that?
When a comparable modern day panel is the same weight as a simple material like sheet metal or alupanel used in cars or trailers the world will change drastically!!
weight of the panel isn't the real problem.. here in the UK solar radiation in total delivers between 7kWh/m2/day in summer and 700Wh/m2/day in winter. Currently the most efficient cars (Teslas) can manage about 4miles per kWhr. Assuming 2m2 available area that means in summer the maximum you could achieve is 28miles per day, and in winter 2.8miles per day. On average over a year you'd do well to achieve 14miles per day. Now reduce that by 70% (30% panel efficiency) and you get 9miles per day in summer and 0.9miles per day in winter. The way to make that work in reality is to make cars vastly lighter and more aerodynamic. What you get is something like the Aptera, which has been "close to production" for rather a long time, it's very interesting, but the problem isn't just the solar panels.
dude you speak so methodically slow, that i was able to listen to you in the background and talk to my friend on video call who was speaking louder and faster and it overwhelmed my senses.
Still think that optical rectennas could get way better result at some point in the future. It still tons of issues to overcome and manufacturing could be problematic but potential efficiency around 80% sounds worth trying to solve that riddle.
It would be interesting to learn how long these new cells last and how recyclable they are. Recycling doesn't sound like a big deal until you realise that current panels only last 20 years before they have to be replaced. Every panel that you see being installed today will have to be recycled 20 years from now. In the Netherlands we current get 400.000 new rooftop installations a year and that number will grow. That means that in 20 years time we'll have 400.000 old rooftop installations that need replacing and recycling every year. That's 4mln panels a year. That's a problem.
Current panels last rather 25 to 30 years. The EU and the members have or should have already laws that adress recycling plus there are already PV recycling companies for "normal" silicon PV panels across Europe. But yeah, i agree that there are still questions to be answered how recycling friendly those new ones will be and how long they last.
Kardashev's scale is about consumption but does not account for efficiency. For example, in the '70s we used incandescent lighting but nowadays we use LED lighting, so we have become more efficient in e.g. lighting a room with the same lighting intensity but at a fraction of the previously used amount of consumption. So there is a need to redefine this scale incorporating efficiency as well.
Don't forget to allow for Jevons paradox though - an increase in the efficiency with which a resource is used can result in a counterintuitive increase in the utilisation, because new uses which were previously not viable become worthwhile and there is less pressure to conserve. LED lighting does provide the same light at a fraction of the energy, but that also mean the lights might be left running continuously rather than turned off any time the room is empty. Or that the LEDs might now be used to construct large-scale light shows and advertising displays.
I was working on PV's in the 90's here in Australia, our group held at the time the (in lab only) maximum efficiency record, (and not much lower than today), this work is very infesting.. Particularly your take on cost, reliability, and eff%, the engineering Vs 'perfection', a case where good enough is good enough.
that is a point - if we consider nowadays prices of PVs then it is much cheaper to add a few m,ore panels than make a frame to give them better orientation to the sun (pricewise). We were covering even northern sides of roofs, because of dirt cheap panels (sun hits them only around the noon in summer - it was for cooling system, which utilizes this seasonal gain). We put them flat on roof without bothering about frames, because it adds weight to roof (to level it is not possible to make installation there), lowers coverage and make installation twice expensive (frame cost and installation cost). so... compromises
efficiency is great and all, but the real energy gainer would actually be applying these kinds of systems. we are currently vastly underusing solar panels, so solar panels that are even 100% more efficient wouldn't make that much difference in overall power production.
100% efficient solar panel would be something then it would be very viable, todays panels are around 20-23% efficient, at 100% that would be 1000w per sq metre, tho plenty of people buy it id say dependy on country
@@MrRacerhacker "100% efficient solar panel would be something then it would be very viable," And it would be invisible because all the light that falls on it would be transformed to electricity. Are you AI?
@@vinny142 no just bit tired do agree 100 aint viable but tho would be alot more usefull at 80-90% tho myself run 3kw myself in the nordics work well but also got some space for it
I absolutely love your videos, but something about this one was particularly exciting. I have loved science all my life but am still only a peon in the world of science. Thank you for making it understandable and intriguing at a peon level. I’m excited to pass along this information. - An old, old teacher
To add some extra detail into this that wasn't included, the main thing stopping mass production isn't just the rapid degradation in real-world conditions. It's that the current most efficient perovskite that we have uses lead as a main component. Added WITH the rapid degradation when exposed to some UV wavelengths and moisture you have a disaster with lead leaching into some peoples main sources of drinking water
That energy scale where a civilization harnesses all their suns energy is silly though. If we turned all the energy that hit our planet into electricity, then we'd live on an ice rock
If we had the technology to do that we would allocate some of it to keeping our world nice and comfortable. In fact, we'd end up making even more of the planet habitable than it is today. Think about it, if we had the tech to use all the energy coming from the sun it would be a piece of cake to direct it to where we want it to go.
It doesn't say turn it all into electricity it says control it all. If you had a dyson sphere you could easily program it/design it to leave the very small portion of energy/light leaving the sun that actually hits the planet in question alone and let it through the dyson sphere's network. Also a dyson sphere capable civilization could just use dyson tech in solar systems with no planets with desireable habitable conditions. And only use partial dyson rings in their home system. Given the area of our sun for instance, you could host untold billions or trillions in a structure the size of a dyson sphere.
If you turn sunlight into electricity, that electricity eventually turns back into heat. If anything we'd overheat the planet by absorbing too much sunlight.
The Kardashev scale never made much sense to me. We don't even know what would happen to the solar system if we blocked just 1% of the sun's energy and converted it to our needs artificially, let alone 100% of it. If the temperature on Earth was 2 degrees hotter or cooler, then life on Earth would change drastically. That's how delicate nature is. We shouldn't think this balance is only important here on Earth.
@@Duminasion bruh, average temperature, bruh. It's currently around 15 degrees Celsius. If it moved 5 degrees lower, we'd probably be starting to move towards an ice age. 5 degrees hotter, and many areas around the equator would become like the Sahara desert, and many islands and shores would come under water. Not sure what 2 degrees difference would look like, but definitely different than now. That's all I'm saying.
1:30 I saw you said "Unlike nuclear fusion, this now works", Check out the Helion Laser powered Nuclear Fusion. It uses Magnetics to contain everything in the fusion process, and concentrates laser energy all in 1 point to make the fusion happen. They made PROFIT in the amount of energy output. That is HUGE.
Cool. I’ve have personally measured some of these cells and can confirm according to ANSI standards, we’ve reached 43%. And yeah it’s quite impressive. I can’t speak for the cost or robustness though
43% is maximum in theory. But it was never measured. Maximum till now was about 33% (STC) higher than 40% measured only under concentrated light conditions (CSTC). So I believe you have measured 43% but not under realistic conditions. 🤔 ANSI you mean ASTM?
For Hertz, the phenomena is called "The Compton Effect". It applies not only to Electrons around a nucleus but also those in transis. It is most notable in-transit.
Actually, a lab in Australia did figure out how to get an other frequency to generate power, even if very small amount of power. Also we are harnessing much more from the sun, the fossil fuel and wind are all powered by the sun after all, but indirectly.
The thing with designen/programming/creating the perfect solution is: Your idea most likely does not survive the contact with the real world. That is why iterating works better. Not because its more efficient to iterate vertically but because the problem that needs to be solved is so complicated when looked at its full scale.
Thank you to the Oxford PV team for sharing your work with me! And thank you to Opera for sponsoring this video. Click here opr.as/Opera-browser-DrBenMiles to upgrade your browser for FREE!
Ty! What is the lifetime of the panels? Science is essential, but cost will make it or break it, meaning in this case longevity.
Only one task each second .. that was a good one ...
So let me ask what I think is the obvious question regarding perovskites:
To my knowledge, the biggest problem to solve with its durability is that they break down under exposure to sunlight.
Is it a specific frequency (for any given perovskite) that causes it to break down? If it's a frequency that's outside the useful range for perovskites and silicon, could a filter layer "just"* be stacked on top of it to block the offending frequency band? I understand that ideally we want to convert it _all_ into electricity, but if the cell can't use it then blocking it can't hurt much.
*I acknowledge that "why don't you just" is the single most infuriating thing a professional can hear from someone who has no understanding of the complexities the professional deals with on a daily basis. I use that wording here as a casual idiot who really knows barely more about solar panels than presented by RUclips's various science communicators.
Thanks,
Les
I watched the entire video, and seem to have missed the explanation of why perovskite photovoltaics in the hands of Oxford PV "just changed everything". Are they rendered suddenly practical from a cost or durability breakthrough? Can anyone time stamp this moment in the video? Or is this just another click bait featurette without a payoff?
Edit:
At 16:32 there is mention of "additional layers of packaging are needed to take a lab material and turn it into a material that can survive in the real world." Is this the breakthrough that "changed everything"? No other group of people, aside from Oxford PV, figured out this extra layers approach? That seems a bit incredible.
Never let perfection get in the way of good enough.
To save to 20 min: New best efficiency is 24% now (at 16:25).
24? Not much.
Yeah, bit misleading how he promotes 20% increase compared to silicon (20->24%). But then the 28%->24% decrease in efficiëncy due to protective material is almost talked about as negligible.
So in other words this video is clickbait given 22% panels have been on the market for an age and 24% is an incremental efficiency gain not a breakthrough. Thanks, no need to waste my time on the rest of what I already know.
damn THANKS for the timer, the first ads-minute was awfull...
Which is just a clickbait advertisement for the greatly over-hyped under-performing perovskite cells that have crappy life-cycles.
Framing videos like this is so obnoxious. TL;DW: their cells are 20% more efficient. Not 20% of the sun's energy more, but 20% of the efficiency of conventional solar cells, aka less than 5% more of the sun's energy. And it's not like we couldn't reach this efficiency before, or even do much better, but simply that reaching it wasn't cost effective.
But the physical limit for efficiency of single layer cells sits at c.30%. As such it’s unclear that we could go much better before.
@Adam-pt3cb these aren't even single cells though; they're a layer on top of a traditional cell
@@boltvanderhuge8711 yeah it feels dumb. pretending a dual layer 1m square is comparable to a single layer 1m square feels disingenuous. if the dual layer square is more efficient than 2 1m squares, then we're getting somewhere
Ah thanks for TLDW.
I think for the next 20 years, we perhaps don't even need a more efficient cell, in the sense of a cell that captures more solar power per unit of footprint area, because we aren't anywhere near close to saturating possible solar installation footprint. Instead we need cells which are cost effective in terms of total lifetime output per unit of cost, high endurance, and not too difficult to recycle into new raw material.
So what? The title is accurate (sorry you assumed anything), and it's interesting on how solar cells work. I love this channel but it has a dedicated hard-core hate group. Go away if you don't like the channel. Why watch?
For a roof installation, when you take the cost of scaffolding, wiring, inverter, roof frames, labour, and profit, a solar panel that is 40% more expensive (for example) might only push the costs up by 20%. People doing price comparisons often often miss this point. The panals are only part of the overall system installation costs. Throw a home battery in and the costs work even more in favour of more efficient cells.
Which is why it's more efficient for an industry to produce energy rather than individual residences. Industry can save on costs, materials, and carbon expenditure using economies of scale.
We shouldn't care how the electricity is produced. We should only care that our power outlets deliver reliable power. Electricity should be produced by industry using nuclear, solar cells, geothermal, or elephants jumping on trampolines. Regardless of how it's done it won't make a difference to us as long as it's green.
@@potato9832theoretically it's true in terms of efficiency but decentralisation give also another advantages
I think about this a lot. Humans have hardly really ever had enough extra to always build the ideal solution. What we have now is because of sacrifice. For all or most history. Roads, houses, Schools, farms, entire cities just kind of happen over time. Then having 20 20 hindsight. We can see the best. They even know at the time there are ideal or better ways, and there are realistic levels of perfection that are attained. That just always leaves people either catching up with stuff as it breaks, fixing it, and still theres growth. It would always be best to put the best possible roofing system on your house, so in an ideal world the ones who would live there in the future never even worry about a roof leak and it lasts forever and makes the rest of the house last forever. That is always choice. But, not always possible. That I think is a problem that can be addressed and it could help advance human progress if it is.
But you are right. it's true. The Wires for the system add tons of cost.Don't cheap out if you have the choice. Think If one is to get the best wiring, it costs a lot more. Just that is a huge efficiency thing. and cost thing. Wire gauge. We need to get a taste for how much energy our bodies can make and use and then compare it to our machines. That's why we get weaker and weaker and now barely resemble our ancestors, allegedly. We are just out of touch with how much energy we use, feel we deserve, or how much energy is ACTUALLY needed to be alive and happy and healthy and why we use so much more. Sent using energy. Sorry.
Also have you heard of phase change materials insulation.
@@Sim-q9t That's an INCREDIBLY reductionist look at history. The longest lived empires, buildings, cultures, and even Religions all have historical evidence of a MUCH larger amount of care put into planning for that perfection PRIOR to execution. A comparison of cultures has been done by a few dozen Master's students (Ty Jstor) correlating how deeply a culture valued planning, efficiency, and mastery to the longevity of that culture(each focused on a different one, or collection of these traits, but the over arching theme is surprisingly common)
It isn't hard to guess which direction the trends pointed. The more you plan out prior to execution, the longer you, your creation, and your very society survive. It's incredibly stark.
@@potato9832yes and no. Yes there are advantages to massive solar farms, but you also have to take into account land value and energy losses getting the power where it needs to go.
Likewise, distributed power generation feeding into a smart grid will be less susceptible to power outages.
Solar on every roof combined with distributed storage batteries would be a very robust system and reliability of power is valuable as well.
Weighing the costs vs benefits of different approaches gets complicated quickly.
TLDR; 24% with packaging. 28% in lab.
So what... Max 4% more than regular panels? Pathetic!
And 0% at economic production.
@@sectokia1909 so this isn't a "step change" at all. Bullshit clickbait video
@@TrickyNekro We're all, with bated breath, looking forward to you publishing your scientific advancement that shows these _obvious_ amateurs how it's done.
@@LilMissMurder3409 Solar thermal already can achieve 60% efficiency. Geothermal is also a possible path. One could also combine the two. I don't need do anything.
Edit: with btw the problem of energy storage almost solved in the same facilities.
Existing technology can be used, produces far less e-waste, don't produce anywhere near the green house effect through self-heating etc. etc. etc..
So yes, 4% max at best possible scenario for current PV for use on earth and not maybe niece space applications is totally and utterly.... Pathetic!
"Famous for doing only 1 task each second" Now I need to clean the coffee off my screen.
I literally read your comment exactly as he said that out loud and thank goodness I wasn't drinking coffee.
It wasn't that funny.
@@blucat4 If it wasn't funny, you didn't understand the joke.
@@terryhayward7905 Yes, 1 Htz = 1 oscillation per second, and so he was famous for doing a task per second. It's not only a not funny joke, it isn't even a joke, just idiots managing to correlate two things.
@@blucat4Terry laughs when he hears wordplay that requires rudimentary scientific knowledge to understand. He laughs in the hope other people will say "why are laughing Terry?" And he can then dazzle them with his "elite knowledge" that most 12 year old high school students know. 🤓
that joke about only completing tasks at one cycle per second really hertz...
Yeah, it hurts by the Anglo-Saxons.. not by the Germans 😊
With all the negativity i see on twitter, and the selfishness I see of world leaders, Im so grateful to even PEER into the work these people do. I really lifts my spirits and hopes for the future. Brilliant minds such as these should be the ones lifting and leading us to better lives.
Are you AI?
@@vinny142 Absolutely! It’s truly inspiring to see such brilliant minds pushing the boundaries of what’s possible. While negativity can often overshadow the great work happening in the world, it's these groundbreaking advancements in solar efficiency that remind us of the incredible potential humanity has to create a brighter future. Let's celebrate the innovators and visionaries who are leading the charge toward sustainable energy solutions! Together, we can shine a light on hope and progress!
Twitter is dead... X is fascist...
lol you really are AI. Looking forward to our lovely future
@vinny142 just because someone is good a science doesn't mean you would be a good politician. Brains are but one part of what makes a good leader. A leader that listens to expertise and is smart enough to weigh the pro/cons is what is important for a leader.
I would've liked to hear more about the toxicity / sealing efficacy. The ability to mass produce is one thing, but it would've been useless without an effective resistance to degradation.
It's pretty simple reason they didn't: because they don't want their competitors to know.
@@autohmae still, Cadmium and Lead have been banned for good reason, so introducing these to an open market would have to overcome SIGNIFICANT hurdles.
And for good reason, humans suck at keeping toxic stuff in check once they distribute it in use, see lead in electronics and Cadmium in batteries.
@@DooMMasteR I don't think safety was the main reason in this case, we are talking about films and layers in solar panels humans don't really interact with directly and it's not like people will DIY solar panels to try and build state of the art panels either.
@@autohmae I mean, you don't eat batteries or PCBs either and still.. stuff ends up in places it should not. RoHS is pretty comprehensive nowadays.
@@DooMMasteR It's almost like putting lead in fuel and have it belching out of every exhaust pipe for decades might have something to do with it.... Lead pewter, water pipes, and paint are also very common historic sources of lead contamination.
Lead is bad, and hould be avoided where at all possible, but putting a tiny amount in solar panels (assuming their particular secret forumla does) is not exactly a panic button moment.
10:30 I'm not sure what Dr. Chris Case was thinking when he said "superconductors are used to cool MRI systems". No. The MRI machine is cold so that the superconductors stay cold. They need to be cold so that they maintain their induced magnetic fields. The magnetic fields are necessary in order for the MRI to penetrate object ( humans) in order to see inside them. In other words, "cryogenic fluids like liquid nitrogen are used to cool superconductors, and they are what make MRI machines possible"
"High Temperature" distinguishes superconductors that need to be colder than liquid nitrogen and those that can be high enough temperature that liquid nitrogen is can cool them.
I love the quote “the sun has never raised its price”. So if that’s true and the tech to convert it to electricity keeps getting cheaper, things don’t look so bleak after all.
Things are going to get really bad. It's not as bleak as it could be as decarbonization is entirely within our means. The problem is the political will to do it and the fact that we've already waited too long.
There are areas of the Earth which will be rendered uninhabitable already. It's just a question of how MUCH of the planet we're going to loose access to.
@@dynamicworlds1 Also .... all the idiots forgetting about the billions of people forced to migrate into other countrys ... maga is already getting a meltdown because of mexicans
@@dynamicworlds1We're likely to lose Florida soon, just because of home insurance. Large parts of the dry West also, but there the cities will survive because they exclude wildfires.
The great extinction event known as 21st and 22nd centuries? There are certainly hard times ahead, but if we can solve energy, that frees up a lot of resources to solve the other problems.
@@android0197820th & 21st
Thanks for the video. As an environmental engineer, battling the planet's climate difficulties, it's good to know other (more complicated) fields are doing their damndest for humanity's future. Looking at the comments, a lot of folks clearly already have ALL of the answers (or more likely watched a video of someone else telling them 😂) but for a lot of us grafting outside and either not smart enough to get a lab job, or too busy applying it practically to read and study, this has been very positive and helpful news. Thanks.
They’d just prefer to watch it in a TikTok video and forget it 30 seconds later
I've watched many youtube videos on the subject of perovskites, but this is by far the most detailed and useful. Thanks for this.
Nothing says "in production" like.. "they wouldn't let me hold their panel"..
To be fair that was a flexible prototype, not the one they actually produce.
I would bet that many of the first prototypes have been tested in military and spaceflight applications and this is where the first year or two of production will go.. A company in Texas is making double sided panels in the 22% range and I don't see it taking long for fabs to get up to production levels maybe a year before the volume is up to retail levels.. If they can get the cost down and lifespan up in two years I would consider adding a bank of these in place of the 300 watt panels I have now as afternoon energy production..
Even Chinese are manufacturing perovskite cells, iirc
High five machines 😂😂😂 That's hilarious!
Love his dry delivery! I thought, "what did he just say?"
That joke earned my subscription.
For those who know nothing about glove boxes: If you do ever visit a lab with one, don't don't actually give it a vigorous high five. (But if you must, make sure somebody records a video to entertain the rest of us.)
That's not what my proctologist calls them!
Hugabees moment
shoutout to Oxford PV for still rocking Windows 7 18:22
Dr. Chris Case is an ENGINEER not a physicist. Please give us engineers more due for the technology we develop. Of course we cannot work without the contributions of physicists but the converse is also true.
And also they treat inventors as if they don't know anything about science. Actually, I think science is mostly a recap of history of inventions. Every invention leads to a new theory.
A phrase that one of our managers used and I did not fully appreciate when I started my engineering career was "better is the enemy of good enough."
No one cares how well you can drive a train bro 😉
It is possible for somebody to both be a physicist and an engineer. I went to school for physics engineering... It's an actual thing.
Science discovers what is possible, engineering discovers what is practical... with enough education that can be one person even if they are two different tasks.
When I was a teenager I remember watching James Burke's Connections. He explained how throughout history we build our knowledge on what others have done in the past. I'm happy to say he is rebooting his series again. Of all the accomplishments we have made our ability to learn through language is the one traits that we should cherish most because if we didn't none of the things we have today would exist.
Your channel rocks!
A link would be nice ?
@18:30 - Perfect is the enemy of good. Any practical advance on the current tech is excellent news
Summer 2024 DIY 14 KW system installed. Despite a modest understanding of the physics the tech has a almost magic feel. Having
control over only a tiny fraction of the suns power is rather amazing, far more power than a small campfire and way more useful.
The only mention I heard of a resolution of the problem of the delicacy of the material was "layers of additional packaging," which is rather a vague reference considering it is the most challenging issue with perovskites.
Sharing information vs. secrecy until patented always seems a huge roadblock. I truly hope this works out. I won't hold my breath in the meantime.
It's a real fancy term for Gorilla Glass™
@SepticFuddy it would cover it but it wouldn't seal it
1:20 is this loss?
nahhhh💀💀💀
Omg
It just might be
silicon cell efficiency >27% and module efficiency >25% already being mass produced, not the 18-20% limit you said in the video 8:30, it's actually much higher than that.
What I thought, too!
Most commercially available solar panels have an efficiency of less than 23%, with an average range of 15% to 20%. i wish 25 was being mass produced
@@koaasst we installed about 35 000 PV panels and through two last years they raised from 20.5% up to 20.8% through the 4 types of PVs from 400Wp up to 550Wp - mostly because of size changes (all Risen Solar company)
/calculated from standard measurement environment with perpendicular light with intensity of 1000W/m2 - then any deviation from that, lowers efficiency drastically = clouds, fog, tilt, dust .... /
Maybe on the planet Mercury perhaps?
Thanks for your clarification @@stanislavbandur7355
Sadly, I'll still have to categorize this under "We'll never hear from this again" until there's actual evidence that this will be used commercially within an acceptable time frame.
“High five machines” was the most instant decision to subscribe to a channel in my RUclips career
Thank you for the wonderful video! Perovskite solar cells certainly look like they'll be a key technology in our future, so it's a good idea to understand how they work as completely as we can.
video starts @14:50
Thanks for helping all those that have the attention span of a normal RUclips Short!
@@elwhagen well, you're entirely free to listen to 14 minutes of waffle
@@ThylineTheGayI like waffles
@@unoriginalname4321 great for you
I generally prefer them not in video form myself
@@ThylineTheGay Thanks!
I love this. Everybody has been talking about this company for years (well, since 2017), it's great to have a progress report this detailed and well presented.
Thank you so much for these really informative, professionally delivered programmes. The occasional subtle humorous asides are also welcome!
I have recently been investigating solar marine propulsion and your information is invaluable. Anything to do with PV energy generation, battery science, electric motors for boats is welcome.
I'm very happy to be able to send a financial donation as well. Great value for money!
Type 0 is such an arbitrary measure, in particular because early humans used way more energy than just their camp fires. All the energy that fell on the earth and was absorbed by the plants that the humans or their animals would then eat, for example
all extra energy lost to the heat from poop
Most plants and animals were unavailable to humans for usage, early humans used a very small part of said energy. Even then plants absorb a very small part of the light energy that falls on their leaves and when animals eat said plants they absorbed a small part of the energy stored in those plants. When humans ate said animals they again absorbed a very small part of the energy stored in those animals. So, the total energy absorbed through eating was(still is) an extremely small part of the total energy coming from the sun(and all of this not accounting for the fact that most solar energy falls on ocean water where mostly nothing lives). There is also the fact that gaining energy through eating limits how said energy can be used compared to getting it in form of something like fire or electricity for example, so this would decrease the available energy even more. All in all, yeah early humans used more energy than produced by their camp-fires but it wasn't that much more than what type-0 predicts.
@@Nadzap making poop is what all that energy is FOR.
roasting marshmallows at yellowstone, or other lava spots. Cavemen. Luxury levels of energy just freely out in the open. Maybe their descendants are free energy guys. ha.
The value for Type 0 is just repeating the pattern established for the higher levels, but going down. The jump from Type 2 to Type 3 is 10^26 to 10^36. To make the scale continuous, Sagan changed the value for Type 1 from 10^17 to 10^16, which left Type 0 at 10^6.
These peoples full time occupation is solving a common problem for humanity. Every breakthrough, big or small, is tremendously valuable.
I don't really understand the haters...
LOL. High five machines... I died! :D
@13:36
I feel like this joke went past a lot of people. It's brilliant.
I highly appreciate that you do those kind of videos based on visiting the research places and interviewing the people instead of articles. Makes this whole video way more interesting.
Very useful, beautifully explained, thank you Dr. Miles
New subscriber here. I don't usually comment, but this was an exceptionally well-made video. I enjoyed the history aspect as well as the science explanation behind how solar works paired with the visual representations. Keep it up!
Dr Miles, you are a scientist and that explains your conviction that the commercial stage of the Oxford technology is more desirable than waiting for the perfect cell.
Actually, there are two aspects to this commercialisation.
First, the pervoskite/silicon cells will be considered in terms of power output per dollar and selected or rejected in comparison with the other cells in the market.
Secondly, the worry of investors will be that one of the other technologies, and there are many of them, will reach the market with a greater power output and at the same or lower cost.
If this happens, the investment in plant and team will collapse.
This is not an unusual problem for business projects. Something similar is happening in the field of electric vehicle battery technology.
The company now can try to focus more on production rather than pure research, delivering revenues and profit, then start feeding research from customers rather than investors. As economic efficiency can became more interesting.
On top of that, two concepts are missing from this... communication.
1: lifecycle compared to standard silicon cells.
2: recycle cost and efficiency compared to standard silicon cells.
Deliver more energy? Seems so. It's actually better than silicon in long term? Answer is not here.
It is crazy how far we are going with tech
1:43 NUCLEAR
Specifically thorium.
@@BondzySmid this is misinformative, thats our current stockpile, not the total amount of uranium capable of being mined and used for power
@@BondzySmid me when i intentionally spread misinformation online
Sadly not very cheap and the build has a quite big emissions footprint.
@@Hector-bj3ls no fuel is better than any other. If you can achieve fusion and producing energy it’s good in my book
Perovskite coated silicon solar panel is the smartest business choice. Since you don't have to build Si-panel, just source it from other companies, then clean it and coat it nicely. I know "just" here sounds undermining, but the difficulty of doing that could be tedious. And from the graph in 15:41 I think you can't add more than that one layer, only leave a room for a new Perovskite in place of Si.
I think, they still have to keep a layer of Si at the bottom even with new Perovskite material, it seems to help stabilize the structure.
Everyday a video about some energy breakthrough comes our and every other day the video is forgotten as the tech turns out to be useless.
So what? just stop then ?. You really don't belong here
This is a real product in the market. It is not some crazy revolution, but a very significant upgrade
Its called trial and error. Edison created 1,000 light bulb attempts that failed before he produced one that did the job and changed the world 💡
@@jeremymanson1781 No one is talking about this. They are always some great breakthrough when in fact it's some nonsense. Edison had a breakthrough after many attempts. He didn;t boast about his attempts but his success.
@@TemplarX2Yes the hype is very annoying. If you look further, some of the hype is journalists getting carried away and some is straight up hype by the researchers, maybe because they are trying to prevent their investors from losing faith in them.
The fact is the vast majority of attempts to innovate fail. The failures are an important part of finding out where the blind alleys are or where to focus to overcome the reason for failure.
Even in ordinary business, 9 out of 10 business start ups fail. Failure is necessary.
I strongly believe that perovskite cells are the future. Once manufacturing processes are refined and the most ideal compounds found, I think it won't be too hard to layer up a few layers of this into >50% efficient solar panels cost effectively. This means far less mined material since the power density is drastically increased. That's what's important, because raw material will be the limiting factor to increasing solar power. Energy will become cheaper as we deploy more, which will make manufacturing cheaper, but you can't turn energy into matter (well, not practically). So being efficient with resources, especially if we can make them recyclable, will be hugely important.
So basically, 20mins to inform us that there's no NEW information/breakthroughs - this is very old news.
Well it's new to me. And I imagine everyone else who hasn't Currently ridden on the Solar Express, (all puns thoroughly intended)
@@TCL_Dasler”I know this information so everyone must” ahh attitude
Thanks now I can skip this
someone needs to get...... you get the idea.
This is actually great news.
FYI, 2e+18 as you indicate in brackets at 00:22 is 2 million terawatt not 200K terawatt as you've indicated. So either the large number needs updating or your scientific notation needs updating.
Shots fired at the end there
Your attitude needs updating 😂
@@alienwalk so pointing out a critical error in a scientific video equates to having an attitude for you haha 😂 don't think you realize how significant the 2 numbers are from one another but okay 👍
This was inspiring. Thanks.
Everything about Fusion technology please if you're doing requests for future episodes.
Fusion never gets boring.
i feel like the threshold for being a type 1 civilisation should be alot lower, like, being a civilization that is actively harnessing loads of energy without destroying their home planet (which is actually achievable using today's technology, and alot more nuclear).
In my opinion, the definition for type one makes sense because it matches the definition for the rest of the levels. If we redefined it to match our level it wouldn't have the symmetry of the current definition in my opinion
@@jamesleishman8025Yes, but I don't think it is a positive to harness the total energy of a planet. Destroying a planet to do so is stupid. Totally darkening a star and destroying Earth's ecosystem is also stupid. The scale is not an absolute measure. It is more of a guideline.
The Hertz joke earned my sub lol.
I would be curious to see in the future how these early perovskite cells degrade. If they are still putting out at least 80% of designed output in 25 years, I would consider them a decent investment. If they manage 90%, I would consider that a massive success.
The degradation issue has been much reported, but gets little .mention here. What is the current status?
@@TonyFisher-lo8hh According to first google result, silicone degrades at 0.3-0.5% per year, depending on environment. After 25 years, that means the average is likely still producing in the range of 80-90% of original rating.
@@kstricl The silicon degradation is well documented, but past reports have been much less optimistic for perovskite. The outstanding question (poorly addressed here) is the perovskite long-term reliability.
I would think the "defect tolerance" should help in that regard. Especially if initial production still works to reduce the defects rather than cheap out. I could easily see a bunch of cheap panels flooding the market where early degradation is ignored for both legitimate and cynical reasons.
For example, why incur the cost of polishing the perovskite layer if in 5-10 years a much more advanced product will be available and reasonably affordable to replace the panel? In such a case, it could be argued you're better off gearing production toward a stopgap mentality than a durability one. Or, on a silicone-free panel, perhaps production can become cheap enough that longevity is far less of an issue.
Of course, that carries the added benefit of repeat business, and all the cynical intentions that come with it. And then there's what to do with the old panels. Probably suck up landfill space like iPhones.
But the underlying question is still how stable these layers are over time, of course.
I don't understand why the pyrovskite doesn't need the same perfection in the crystal structure that the silicon does? You mention that "obviously" it still needs to be tuned, but how is that obvious when you just went over how the defects in the crystalline structure of this compound doesn't matter?
Surely you understand that any can't or doesn't is can't yet or doesn't yet? I mean of course it doesn't matter yet. They get it working is what matter, finetuning comes after knowing how it works! Isn't that kinda obvious?
@@dragon67849 Yeesh. What an immature and egotistical response. Every sentence is just tones of "Duh, you f-ing idiot."? Pathetic. Grow up, kid. The person simply asked a question. I hope you're not raising/f-ing up a child of your own with this kind of ego/asshole attitude...
It's explained right after in the "defect tolerance" section of the video
@@pedro_mab i wouldn't call that an explanation he just kind of says it is and glosses over it. I'm genuinely curious why this material is exempt from the physical requirements demanded by silicon, and he doesn't address this. I've watched it twice could u post a time stamp?
I would explain but you would not understand.
TLDR : Solar panels are still inefficient inside the atmosphere.
Perfect may be the enemy of good, but it is in reaching for perfect that we discover the point of diminishing returns or the "good enough" point.
This video reminds me of an idea I’ve always had about how we could harness light more efficiently. Imagine a structure, like a cube or sphere, designed to trap and direct all light it touches into a material that absorbs and transforms it entirely into usable energy. Not just solar panels as we know them today, but something capable of cooling spaces by converting excess heat into electricity, acting like a self-contained generator that could wirelessly transmit energy to nearby devices. It’s fascinating how humanity is progressing with innovations like perovskites, yet it feels like we’re just scratching the surface of what’s possible. If we could perfect the way we capture and guide light-maximizing absorption and minimizing losses-it could redefine energy generation entirely. The future isn’t just about capturing more energy, it’s about doing it smarter and seamlessly integrating it into our lives. Isn’t that the true leap toward a Type 1 civilization?
“High five machines” 😂
Well. Ben, you did well in explaining this to a MBA guy like me. Since I understand it now.. I’m fully into it ❤❤
Thanks also for including all the scientists behind it. These findings don’t just grow on trees. Thanks!!!
Those cells have my handwriting on them! Am I famous?
Maybe but Facebook are taking all the royalties because of that photo you posted years ago.Yeah,that one ;-)
@@chippysteve4524Facebook does accelerate fascism so I'm unsurprised :)
Thank You !!
I learned a lot on the history.
Even from your ad. on Opera !
I must watch this several times to pick up the parts my future self missed !!
Cheap oil makes world peace ---
Cheap energy helps the poorest FIRST! ---
I went into a fit of hysterical laughter at the “high-five machines.” Thank you for that, Dr Ben.
I've read that silicon cells degrade from about 22 to the stated 18% rather quickly.
For the layered cells, will the silicon aiming at a different wavelength have a similar degradation, and what does the expected curve for the provoskovites look like?
Basically, how long will they last?
What you're saying about degradation from 22% to 18% states a degradation to ~80% of initial effectiveness. Data collected from existing photovoltaic solar panels tells us that it takes anywhere from 20 to 25 years to degrade to 80%. Not so rather quickly in my opinion :) As to perovskites solar cells there is no real world data but in labs they mostly had crap life span.
That would be insanely much.
Most manufacturers guarantee you 80-90% remaining power output after 20-35 years.
Most degradation is caused by atom migration, where e.g. Oxygen or Nitrogen migrate into the P-N-Boundary and create leaks.
The packaging and preparation of the cells in modern modules has improved a lot, so that the issues has mostly become a non issue.
We have "in that regard bad" modules from 1997 running and they still show just very VERY little degradation by age, though one module degraded faster due to mechanical damage.
Perovskites are still a lab experiment, but given the amount of real world operation problems with them I would say they wouldn’t last more than a year and would not be used anywhere except for aerospace.
Top end silicon degrade with around -0.25% per year, and th cost is around 100 EUR/kW
It's not that quick. A typical solar installation is rated to last thirty years, after which the panels will have degraded to maybe 80%-ish of their original capacity and are due for replacement. The replacement is fairly cheap, as the rest of the system is in place - electronics, cabling, mounting brackets and such - so it's just a matter of sending someone up on the roof to un-bolt the old panels and bolt new ones in their place.
@13:27 - we had a perfect perovskite crystal until Taylor gave us bombastic side-eyed, criminally offensive side-eye! 😖😭
More efficient but as mentioned deteriorates more rapidly. It can be protected from some things. But one thing that can't be avoided that causes it to deteriorate is sunlight - LOL ...Seriously, a big downer for a solar cell, but I guess they have solved that?
When a comparable modern day panel is the same weight as a simple material like sheet metal or alupanel used in cars or trailers the world will change drastically!!
weight of the panel isn't the real problem.. here in the UK solar radiation in total delivers between 7kWh/m2/day in summer and 700Wh/m2/day in winter. Currently the most efficient cars (Teslas) can manage about 4miles per kWhr. Assuming 2m2 available area that means in summer the maximum you could achieve is 28miles per day, and in winter 2.8miles per day. On average over a year you'd do well to achieve 14miles per day. Now reduce that by 70% (30% panel efficiency) and you get 9miles per day in summer and 0.9miles per day in winter. The way to make that work in reality is to make cars vastly lighter and more aerodynamic. What you get is something like the Aptera, which has been "close to production" for rather a long time, it's very interesting, but the problem isn't just the solar panels.
Efficiency matters as much as cost. The available area is still quite large I think.
At 25% efficiency vs 20%, the area is reduced by a fifth.
@@simonwatson2399 Yes but at what extra cost. Also what degradation over times looks like.
dude you speak so methodically slow, that i was able to listen to you in the background and talk to my friend on video call who was speaking louder and faster and it overwhelmed my senses.
There really is no need to link the K-scale into this technology.
More clicks = more $$. As Dr Miles says, the practicality is pretty dang important.
Still think that optical rectennas could get way better result at some point in the future. It still tons of issues to overcome and manufacturing could be problematic but potential efficiency around 80% sounds worth trying to solve that riddle.
It would be interesting to learn how long these new cells last and how recyclable they are.
Recycling doesn't sound like a big deal until you realise that current panels only last 20 years before they have to be replaced. Every panel that you see being installed today will have to be recycled 20 years from now.
In the Netherlands we current get 400.000 new rooftop installations a year and that number will grow. That means that in 20 years time we'll have 400.000 old rooftop installations that need replacing and recycling every year. That's 4mln panels a year. That's a problem.
Current panels last rather 25 to 30 years. The EU and the members have or should have already laws that adress recycling plus there are already PV recycling companies for "normal" silicon PV panels across Europe. But yeah, i agree that there are still questions to be answered how recycling friendly those new ones will be and how long they last.
Kardashev's scale is about consumption but does not account for efficiency. For example, in the '70s we used incandescent lighting but nowadays we use LED lighting, so we have become more efficient in e.g. lighting a room with the same lighting intensity but at a fraction of the previously used amount of consumption. So there is a need to redefine this scale incorporating efficiency as well.
Don't forget to allow for Jevons paradox though - an increase in the efficiency with which a resource is used can result in a counterintuitive increase in the utilisation, because new uses which were previously not viable become worthwhile and there is less pressure to conserve. LED lighting does provide the same light at a fraction of the energy, but that also mean the lights might be left running continuously rather than turned off any time the room is empty. Or that the LEDs might now be used to construct large-scale light shows and advertising displays.
4:19 Physics joke…😂😂😂
That got me from start to finish. What a great way to explain solar
12:34 windows 7
My shop just got rid of a CNC machine that ran on a Commodore 64. In 2024.
i feel bad for how hard the casket RNG is cause im dying laughing xD gl hopefully soon!
I was working on PV's in the 90's here in Australia, our group held at the time the (in lab only) maximum efficiency record, (and not much lower than today), this work is very infesting..
Particularly your take on cost, reliability, and eff%, the engineering Vs 'perfection', a case where good enough is good enough.
that is a point - if we consider nowadays prices of PVs then it is much cheaper to add a few m,ore panels than make a frame to give them better orientation to the sun (pricewise). We were covering even northern sides of roofs, because of dirt cheap panels (sun hits them only around the noon in summer - it was for cooling system, which utilizes this seasonal gain). We put them flat on roof without bothering about frames, because it adds weight to roof (to level it is not possible to make installation there), lowers coverage and make installation twice expensive (frame cost and installation cost).
so... compromises
Engineer logic - you don't need to make it perfect, you need to make it work
Why is the local climate changing effect of solar panels always ignored?
And the biggest effect is the city island effect on the local logged thermometer, telling us the world is heating up.
What is that?
It’s not, the shadowing is actually an additional benefit in some application so is reducing the local heat
20:16 I too enjoy having a sun
efficiency is great and all, but the real energy gainer would actually be applying these kinds of systems. we are currently vastly underusing solar panels, so solar panels that are even 100% more efficient wouldn't make that much difference in overall power production.
Yes yes it's all available but ppl don't buy it enough, isn't at stores, ppl need "micro incentives" to do this more
100% efficient solar panel would be something then it would be very viable, todays panels are around 20-23% efficient, at 100% that would be 1000w per sq metre, tho plenty of people buy it id say dependy on country
@@MrRacerhacker "100% efficient solar panel would be something then it would be very viable,"
And it would be invisible because all the light that falls on it would be transformed to electricity.
Are you AI?
@@vinny142 he meant 99.99%
@@vinny142 no just bit tired do agree 100 aint viable but tho would be alot more usefull at 80-90% tho myself run 3kw myself in the nordics work well but also got some space for it
I absolutely love your videos, but something about this one was particularly exciting. I have loved science all my life but am still only a peon in the world of science. Thank you for making it understandable and intriguing at a peon level. I’m excited to pass along this information. - An old, old teacher
This is company PR and misleading by leaving out a ton of context. Oxford PV has a production line of "production capacity of
To add some extra detail into this that wasn't included, the main thing stopping mass production isn't just the rapid degradation in real-world conditions. It's that the current most efficient perovskite that we have uses lead as a main component. Added WITH the rapid degradation when exposed to some UV wavelengths and moisture you have a disaster with lead leaching into some peoples main sources of drinking water
That energy scale where a civilization harnesses all their suns energy is silly though. If we turned all the energy that hit our planet into electricity, then we'd live on an ice rock
If we had the technology to do that we would allocate some of it to keeping our world nice and comfortable. In fact, we'd end up making even more of the planet habitable than it is today. Think about it, if we had the tech to use all the energy coming from the sun it would be a piece of cake to direct it to where we want it to go.
It doesn't say turn it all into electricity it says control it all.
If you had a dyson sphere you could easily program it/design it to leave the very small portion of energy/light leaving the sun that actually hits the planet in question alone and let it through the dyson sphere's network.
Also a dyson sphere capable civilization could just use dyson tech in solar systems with no planets with desireable habitable conditions. And only use partial dyson rings in their home system.
Given the area of our sun for instance, you could host untold billions or trillions in a structure the size of a dyson sphere.
If you turn sunlight into electricity, that electricity eventually turns back into heat. If anything we'd overheat the planet by absorbing too much sunlight.
And once it was used as electricity it would turn back into heat melting the ice.
Still would be a rock because no energy for nature would be left.
I'm just at 7:30 and had to comment. This is a really good video so far. Well explained on the set up.
The Kardashev scale never made much sense to me. We don't even know what would happen to the solar system if we blocked just 1% of the sun's energy and converted it to our needs artificially, let alone 100% of it.
If the temperature on Earth was 2 degrees hotter or cooler, then life on Earth would change drastically. That's how delicate nature is. We shouldn't think this balance is only important here on Earth.
Bruh, the temperature swings about 60 to 80c every single year here. The nature seems just fine. I don’t think 2 degrees is gonna break nature..
@@Duminasion bruh, average temperature, bruh. It's currently around 15 degrees Celsius. If it moved 5 degrees lower, we'd probably be starting to move towards an ice age. 5 degrees hotter, and many areas around the equator would become like the Sahara desert, and many islands and shores would come under water.
Not sure what 2 degrees difference would look like, but definitely different than now. That's all I'm saying.
"This is why they have so many High-Five machines throughout the lab".....@ 13:35....Love It!!!
Why not use machine learning to predict the most viable perovskites like alpha fold did with proteins?
1:30 I saw you said "Unlike nuclear fusion, this now works", Check out the Helion Laser powered Nuclear Fusion. It uses Magnetics to contain everything in the fusion process, and concentrates laser energy all in 1 point to make the fusion happen. They made PROFIT in the amount of energy output. That is HUGE.
Cool. I’ve have personally measured some of these cells and can confirm according to ANSI standards, we’ve reached 43%. And yeah it’s quite impressive. I can’t speak for the cost or robustness though
Any impressions re: anticipated longevity?
43% is maximum in theory. But it was never measured. Maximum till now was about 33% (STC) higher than 40% measured only under concentrated light conditions (CSTC).
So I believe you have measured 43% but not under realistic conditions. 🤔
ANSI you mean ASTM?
Thanks for letting me know Opera is still alive. Also the solar panel thingy
Wonder how difficult it is to produce perovskite.
Engs. Might have already made a good and easy way
@ seems like an ideal opportunity for someone with the skills to do it.
Perof skite. Not that hard.
It's pretty easy to make, but the problem is its longevity. Perovskite solar cell degrade too quickly to be used outside of a lab
4:18 "Heinrich Hertz, a physicist famous for only doing one task each second". Bloody brilliant. That alone is worthy of a sub.
There are so many things wrong in this video....
Your comment is entirely unhelpful and feels like bait.
That joke about Heinrich really hertz me 😄
Videos like these replace the need for any and all "motivational speakers". So goddamn cool!
For Hertz, the phenomena is called "The Compton Effect". It applies not only to Electrons around a nucleus but also those in transis. It is most notable in-transit.
I'm glad to see Dr. Taub's finding purpose in his new line of work, after leaving Dr. House's team.
High Five Machines! That is going to be my go to term for positive pressure glove boxes :)
Actually, a lab in Australia did figure out how to get an other frequency to generate power, even if very small amount of power.
Also we are harnessing much more from the sun, the fossil fuel and wind are all powered by the sun after all, but indirectly.
very well put together research, i love it
This is the kind of innovation we need to get closer to a civilization capable of harnessing the full power of the Sun
fun fact: all silicon melting relies on highly purified quartz. 80%+ of the world supply comes from spruce pine, nc, right next to asheville.
The thing with designen/programming/creating the perfect solution is:
Your idea most likely does not survive the contact with the real world.
That is why iterating works better. Not because its more efficient to iterate vertically but because the problem that needs to be solved is so complicated when looked at its full scale.