How Scientists Achieved 39.7% Efficiency

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024

Комментарии • 1 тыс.

  • @dinosaurcomplaints2359
    @dinosaurcomplaints2359 4 года назад +261

    I can remember the talk about reaching 20% efficiency, and how everyone would then be able to afford solar electric.

    • @laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag
      @laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag 3 года назад +24

      This is already achieved.

    • @escapetherace1943
      @escapetherace1943 3 года назад +43

      @@laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag I think he means it's still not very affordable. At least, to run an entire household from.

    • @SkepticalCaveman
      @SkepticalCaveman 3 года назад +49

      @@escapetherace1943 it is affordable, you get your money back and then you not only get electricity for free you can even sell the excess for profit. Getting solar is an investment.

    • @omarcarrero3623
      @omarcarrero3623 3 года назад +29

      @@escapetherace1943 it depends on the cost of electricity in your area but for most of the population solar is cheaper. But due to the relative big upfront cost and general distrust of it from the general population most people steer away from it

    • @omaradriani6770
      @omaradriani6770 3 года назад +11

      @@omarcarrero3623 couldn't have summed it up better, also you run the risk of bad weather damaging the panels

  • @daverei1211
    @daverei1211 4 года назад

    Well done, educational and entertaining with the beautiful graphics and easy flowing script, voice and music.

  • @kylejewiss659
    @kylejewiss659 4 года назад

    Still loving the vids, so glad to see you gaining subscribers!

  • @billyandriam
    @billyandriam 3 года назад +1

    Great great great video but I don't understand why he talks about LG Neon but fails to mention Sunpower's Maxeon 3 cells which are repordetly better.

  • @ScienceDiscussed
    @ScienceDiscussed 3 года назад

    Another excellent video.

  • @jeffreykalb9752
    @jeffreykalb9752 4 года назад

    It all depends upon manufacturing costs... You can double efficiency, but if you more than double the costs...

  • @igorlima7280
    @igorlima7280 4 года назад

    Great Video! Congratulation.
    Would you mind to tell what software do you use for those sick animations?

  • @machninety7334
    @machninety7334 3 года назад

    Actually I believe that the potential output of power over the course of its life, minus the cost for manufacturing and installation including labor even if you do it yourself would be a better way to judge how practical it is.
    It may cost more up front, but could generate more electricity over the span of its life potentially offsetting the initial investment.

  • @jebise1126
    @jebise1126 4 года назад

    pretty sure in ISS cost for delivery was calculated in that 300M price

  • @TotalGAMIX
    @TotalGAMIX 3 года назад

    When do you guys think we'll be able to buy solar panels with 30% efficiency

  • @ivoryas1696
    @ivoryas1696 4 года назад +57

    Hmm...
    That's nice. I just wish that my absorption of this videos information was more than 50%

  • @NuclearTopSpot
    @NuclearTopSpot 4 года назад +535

    Dude, you're churning out videos in the last few weeks like... dayum! I mean for doing all the rendering in Blender yourself, plus graphics and voice work that's frickin amazing. When compared to other channels who use mostly stock footage, 2D animations or overlays this is a really unique, personal, information dense and appealing 𝔸 𝕖 𝕤 𝕥 𝕙 𝕖 𝕥 𝕚 𝕔.
    You've quickly become my favourite science/engineering channel

    • @blinded6502
      @blinded6502 4 года назад +20

      @DriftingAsleep He releases all this quite rapidly for someone, who doesn't do RUclips as his main job.

    • @FFehse-dk9is
      @FFehse-dk9is 4 года назад +2

      Are you sure it's Blender? Looks more like Unity to me...

    • @WildEngineering
      @WildEngineering 4 года назад +7

      man this comment gives me hope for my channel lol, i love that there are so many people interested in engineering :) time to step the qaulity up on my end xD

    • @FALprofessional
      @FALprofessional 4 года назад +9

      @@FFehse-dk9is He overlays the Blender logo at the end of his videos. If it isn't Blender, then I'd be surprised.

    • @BuildingCenter
      @BuildingCenter 4 года назад +6

      TRICLO He’s also f-in hilarious. “PS - Sometimes even I don’t know what I’m saying,” or smth similar in the exquisitely rendered text.

  • @hisholinesslordpotato
    @hisholinesslordpotato 4 года назад +255

    I'm really feeling my mediocre chemistry knowledge here
    guess someday i'll get it

    • @FALprofessional
      @FALprofessional 4 года назад +17

      Take Introduction to Electronic Material as a class or just look up a video on it. Teaches you all about electron avalanching, Fermi levels, band gaps, MOSFET/semiconductor chemical layout, etc. Super awesome stuffs.

    • @PresidentialWinner
      @PresidentialWinner 4 года назад +2

      @@FALprofessional Any links? for any videos? I tried looking but if you know one..

    • @norman1907
      @norman1907 4 года назад +4

      to my pinecone brain it sounds like putting a translucent solar panel in front of another solar panel, and calling it one solar panel

    • @johncherish7610
      @johncherish7610 4 года назад +4

      Yes it is chemistry but not in the usual sense the elements used create pn junctions ( diodes ) that are sensitive to photons ( light) and this is solid state semiconductor property that relies on the quantum physics in the materials. In much the same way A LED ( light emitting diode PN junction ) emits light when a voltage is applied, this same material creates a voltage when light is applied to the junction. Read up on Transistors and diodes as they operate on the same principles and the theory of their operation. For example a P type material has an excess of spaces where electrons are missing in the lattice crystal structure of the material an N type has an extra electron in its lattice structure applying light to it knocks the electron free and it goes to the extra space in the P material with this causing an electron flow from N to P over the junction this is done by doping the materials with impurities to create an N or P type material

    • @TheHellogs4444
      @TheHellogs4444 4 года назад

      @@johncherish7610 and the direct flow through substance is blocked in some way so electrons go through our wires/create voltage? Or am I mixing stuff up

  • @MrV705
    @MrV705 4 года назад +118

    I like the Cave Johnson's vibe these videos have, they feel like I'm watching the future or something XD
    Really nice dude keep it up, it's really good!

    • @chrisgriffith1573
      @chrisgriffith1573 4 года назад +14

      When life gives you lemons, you don't make lemonade, you make a bomb out of them and throw them back!

    • @MrV705
      @MrV705 4 года назад +6

      ...with the lemons.

    • @chrisgriffith1573
      @chrisgriffith1573 4 года назад +6

      @@TomYourmombadil Now I have to play it again.... Look at me, I'm a potato.

    • @nullvoid3545
      @nullvoid3545 4 года назад +3

      cave johnson, were done here!

  • @thatplayernyl
    @thatplayernyl 4 года назад +401

    Can you cite some sources? I want to read up on this

    • @MirceaIliePloscaru
      @MirceaIliePloscaru 4 года назад +84

      +1 I'd love to see the sources cited in the video description.

    • @constellation3931
      @constellation3931 4 года назад +8

      Can't agree more!

    • @thvist
      @thvist 4 года назад +4

      I think this article is what he is talking about

    • @stoobydootoo4098
      @stoobydootoo4098 4 года назад +9

      The current edition of The Economist newspaper p 72 refers to this matter.

    • @CrackedTubeGamer
      @CrackedTubeGamer 4 года назад +2

      just go to spectrolabs and you'll see their 40% cells

  • @AdamIverson
    @AdamIverson 4 года назад +563

    Cost per watt for the solar panel is more important than efficiency, but sure, 39.7% is definitely welcomed.

    • @ashanmendis1930
      @ashanmendis1930 4 года назад +12

      Yes 100% agree

    • @veysher3756
      @veysher3756 4 года назад +85

      That’s 100% dependant on the application.

    • @beeschamelsoose476
      @beeschamelsoose476 4 года назад +89

      On the earth yes. But it is really good for Spacecraft.

    • @PaulSebastianM
      @PaulSebastianM 4 года назад +10

      And how are those unrelated?

    • @bassam_salim
      @bassam_salim 4 года назад +60

      This will increase watts per square meter which is very important when you have limited space

  • @enigmasshadow9435
    @enigmasshadow9435 4 года назад +421

    Go GaInAs my boy.

  • @Arkir24
    @Arkir24 4 года назад +26

    Do you have a citation for the paper/patent?
    Also, to say that we haven't been able to surpass a 22% barrier without concentrators isn't true. Take a look at the NREL efficiency chart and there are plenty of cases above 22%.

    • @Merloc909
      @Merloc909 4 года назад +6

      all of them seem to be either
      1) labs doing testing hence - non production models
      2) concentrator systems - which means motorised arrays and cooling towers etc so very expensive for residential uses
      Basically coming back to the fact that what is widely available and in use, is still within the 22% range.

  • @fayk5502
    @fayk5502 4 года назад +12

    This narrators enthusiasm is what I strive to have.

  • @rmelotto
    @rmelotto 4 года назад +136

    Today I learned that GAInASS is actually expensive to deal with

    • @hendrik3076
      @hendrik3076 4 года назад +16

      in Dutch, ga in, means go in

    • @gemstonegynoid7475
      @gemstonegynoid7475 4 года назад +1

      its true, its true

    • @rickb.4168
      @rickb.4168 3 года назад +1

      I heard Achieving GAinASS was a painful process😂

  • @keshavbansal5148
    @keshavbansal5148 4 года назад +103

    We know that you were laughing inside the whole time, noice

  • @FurryEskimo
    @FurryEskimo 4 года назад +9

    If I recall, efficiencies like these are Very impressive! Coal and biofuel loose a Ton of power, because the plants use a lot of the power themselves, weren’t effective at collecting all energy hitting them in the first place, and then even more energy is lost converting the material into a fuel we can use.

  • @ron6625
    @ron6625 4 года назад +15

    There's 2 things that are incredibly important to make this worth it, or any solar panels for that matter:
    1. Can it be recycled?
    2. What is the actual lifespan in typical uses?
    The main benefit of having highly efficient panels is that we dont need to devote nearly as large areas of real estate to make sufficient quantities of production. But solar panels start losing their appeal if we have just having them clogging up landfills in 20-30 years.

    • @noworriesnoproblems6382
      @noworriesnoproblems6382 2 года назад +2

      1) Not at the moment.
      2)degradation begins at approximately five years.
      This can be as high as 50%buy year 12.
      Thank you for your questions, we d be happy to answer any other questions.

  • @Build_the_Future
    @Build_the_Future 4 года назад +35

    I hope you do a video showing us how you make your videos what else do you use other than Blender?

    • @igorrtkd
      @igorrtkd 4 года назад

      I wanna know how is he doing the text, or he renders all the basic animations, keep the frames for a while and change it again upon giving new information

  • @lubosbeneda8132
    @lubosbeneda8132 4 года назад +16

    I thought this was SCP channel based on your logo
    and was expecting totaly different SCP oriented content :D

    • @dizzy_derps
      @dizzy_derps 4 года назад +1

      To me it sounds just like the guy from Guga Foods/Sous vide everything

  • @solosailorsv8065
    @solosailorsv8065 3 года назад +2

    "Efficiency" starts with the house and appliances and the user.
    Why are efficient chest freezers, vacuum panel insulation, LED lighting and passive heating/cooling NOT discussed? Marketing hype and profits
    (no, "energy star" is not even close to best efficiency)
    A smartly designed house (Michael Reynolds for example) just isn't legal in most cities.
    We have DUMB Building Codes houses, yet park Smart Cars in them
    The "tech" is fun, but its the USA bureaucracy that needs "Development"
    yes, i went pure solar in 1998 when it was 7$/watt (no incentives/free money), with hyper efficiency 'everything' first...because i value Freedom (evidently, more than most people)

  • @WiseWeeabo
    @WiseWeeabo 4 года назад +15

    I need to get some of those GaInAs for my wife.

  • @michaelclement1337
    @michaelclement1337 4 года назад +6

    When talking efficiency, is that referring to the photons from a particular spectrum such as visible light or does the statement cover the entire spectrum?

  • @photelegy
    @photelegy 4 года назад +36

    4:59
    Please use the normal "m²" and not "SQM" in your future videos. Thank you ✌🏻

    • @carultch
      @carultch 3 года назад

      They mean the same thing.

    • @Joel-ol7dt
      @Joel-ol7dt 3 года назад

      @@carultch We know, it’s just easier to read

  • @gregscott989
    @gregscott989 4 года назад +4

    Nice video but a couple of questions come to mind. What is the degradation curve of these panels and what is the end life recyclability of these panels? There a lot of heavy metals mentioned.
    I'd love to see a video on high efficiency solar cells that have the capability to be produced at a scale and cost to allow wide spread adoption and that are environmentally friendly at the end of their life.

  • @rickdees251
    @rickdees251 4 года назад +17

    The < 20% efficiency range for solar cells has been broken a long long time ago. As in (long long) 35 years ago. The reason why they're not in common use is because they are expensive as hell. Fit for use only with space applications where the cost is no barrier and the gain in out put is warranted. Like with the Mars rovers.

    • @creoshin9082
      @creoshin9082 4 года назад

      Sooooooooooooooo for application for civilian usage, the record has finally been broken. That, I think, was the fuckin point. Like, maybe now we wont have to see such wonderful panels shot off into space at the cost of billions, instead, we can just look at our roof, and feel pride in humanities accomplishments for the little guy.

    • @LukeSchoen
      @LukeSchoen 4 года назад +1

      Thanks for cleaing that up rick! the first few sentences sounds like BS and it was.

    • @0MVR_0
      @0MVR_0 4 года назад

      To say this has an application for private civilian use is true if such a person where on the Forbes list of richest.

  • @yveshersener8842
    @yveshersener8842 4 года назад +2

    Please link the paper like a decent human being, otherwise your words are meaningless and without backing!

  • @CuriosityIsVirtue
    @CuriosityIsVirtue 4 года назад +5

    You can make your channel an order of magnitude greater for people like me if you add sources in the video description.

    • @sunshine5349
      @sunshine5349 3 года назад

      many "faCTS" ARE SIMPLY WRONG, THUS NO SOURCES.

  • @Carlsone
    @Carlsone 4 года назад +8

    Tip: Put more numbers on the screen when making comparations so its easier to visualize the numbers

  • @philoso377
    @philoso377 4 года назад +27

    I didn’t get it.
    Put two suns in the sky, twice the input energy half the efficiency or HIGHER EFFICIENCY?

    • @joshuanorman2
      @joshuanorman2 4 года назад +10

      two suns in the sky, twice the input energy, same efficiency.

    • @msergio0293
      @msergio0293 4 года назад +1

      This guy gets lt

    • @MaxLohMusic
      @MaxLohMusic 4 года назад +1

      You didn't change the nature of the solar cells, you get twice as much energy as before to begin with, so you end up with twice as much energy. This ain't rocket science yo. (oh yeah I'm also ignoring the fact that two suns in the sky would prolly kill us all anyway)

    • @chrisbraid2907
      @chrisbraid2907 4 года назад +1

      Two suns? Forget it, it doesn’t work ....

    • @philoso377
      @philoso377 4 года назад +1

      Max Loh
      I get it. Two suns doubles the output for original efficiency.

  • @adybag5452
    @adybag5452 4 года назад +5

    PS. Even I don't know what I am talking about sometimes-
    Subject zero science
    Best caption ever.

  • @OldGamerNoob
    @OldGamerNoob 4 года назад +11

    ...and what if you just pass it through a prism to separate out wavelengths into different types of panels?

    • @michelangelobuonarroti916
      @michelangelobuonarroti916 4 года назад +5

      You'd need a solar tracker for that.

    • @OldGamerNoob
      @OldGamerNoob 4 года назад +1

      @@michelangelobuonarroti916 Good point
      That makes it a bit more difficult for a roof mounted solution.
      I wonder how any extra efficiency and cost savings would compare to the extra power and financial cost of running the tracker for a solar farm 🤔...
      ... and weight and volume costs for space launch ...
      also curious if the other "solar concentrator" solution required a tracker too?

    • @lugiarboy
      @lugiarboy 4 года назад +7

      It can work but you will lose about 1 or 2 percent of light in the prism and your total panel area will be larger than the area of the prism that the light is landing on which makes it totally space inefficient. So you will be trading capture efficiency for conversion efficiency

    • @OldGamerNoob
      @OldGamerNoob 4 года назад

      @@lugiarboy maybe going theough a concentrator lense on one axis first to reduce the area and then through the prism on opposite axis.
      (Additional cost and mass for the tracker to pull but have to see how much cost reduction for from the panels themselves balances that out)
      😉

    • @fidelcatsro6948
      @fidelcatsro6948 4 года назад +1

      then you have rainbows over the roof instead

  • @jallen1227
    @jallen1227 4 года назад +3

    Amazing achievement, one clarification - to state the efficiency record jumped from 22% to 39.7% is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. 22% would be in the silicon solar cell technology architecture. 39.7% is a 6-junction multi-junction solar cell, as you indicated, with many prior achievements in the multi-junction solar cell technology under AM1.5 global irradiance (excluding concentrator of AM0 irradiance). The NREL link indicates the historical progression of solar cell efficiency records across different types of solar cell architectures: www.nrel.gov/pv/cell-efficiency.html.

  • @DavidPaulNewtonScott
    @DavidPaulNewtonScott 4 года назад +2

    I do not trust their long term chemical stability silicon has a long term demonstrated reliability. We are not short of space for solar cells. Put them over highways shade for cars and electricity for cars no extra land used. I was shocked to see a field in Holland turned over to solar modules terrible idea.

    • @petergoestohollywood382
      @petergoestohollywood382 4 года назад

      David-Paul true. I don’t understand that either. The modern human seems to lack practicality. There are so many rational options. What I see is that Renewables in general need a makeover. Imagine what beautiful things would happen if nations threw their money together to hire the best PR-consultants instead of just burning their money while as a side effect reducing the acceptance of renewables. Imagine PR-consultants for once serving an important goal instead of just some greedy companies.

  • @sanjuansteve
    @sanjuansteve 4 года назад +5

    I assume solar degradation of cells occurs proportionately faster with concentrated solar applications, no?

    • @bmay8818
      @bmay8818 4 года назад +2

      Yes, or at least that's the case with older ones. There were concentrator panels made in the 80s (90s?) that had much higher output but they also had short lifespans. The fresnel lenses cooked the cells. Dunno about modern versions with that issue, but I bet it's still a problem. Maybe they have half the lifespan instead of 1/10 or something..?

  • @discorabbit
    @discorabbit 3 года назад

    Conversion efficiency better than plants? 🌱

  • @RagdollRocket
    @RagdollRocket 4 года назад +6

    GaInAs made my day, thank's for the video!

  • @allanallansson9532
    @allanallansson9532 4 года назад +6

    A third way of spelling aluminum/aluminium is now introduced: Alluminium 0:26

    • @yaroslavpolosin317
      @yaroslavpolosin317 4 года назад

      Literally the first thing I noticed

    • @SickPrid3
      @SickPrid3 4 года назад

      It will blow your mind when I tell you that in profession I work we call it "ali" or less common "alu". It is very rare to hear someone saying or even writing on official documentation the full word

  • @kaptnk51
    @kaptnk51 4 года назад +1

    Normal solar panels work much better in the cold, even with much less light. Our 305 W panels have hit 385 W output in Jan when it was -25 C with a wind. That translates to mid 30's %. In space it is near absolute zero on the back side so I would expect higher output and the big one, no clouds to weaken the sunlight. Higher efficiency panels at a reasonable cost would be fantastic for things like boats with limited areas to mount the panels.

  • @renanjose84
    @renanjose84 4 года назад +12

    8:25 there is a layer of simethicone

  • @giorgiocooper9023
    @giorgiocooper9023 3 года назад +1

    When accidentally the sun shines and the panels are mounted in exactly the perfect angle to the sun which is for most fixed panels only a few minutes a day ...... and for a max of about 5 years before the efficiency declines rapidly ....... a waste of space, money and effort except for some remote location applications ! 78 million toms of solar panels are rotting away on garbage dumps in the US alone right now as we speak ...... i.e. an ecological disaster of epic proportions !

  • @stevemickler452
    @stevemickler452 4 года назад +37

    What about separating the frequencies by diffraction grating and holographic lens and positioning the appropriate material for each band gap at the appropriate location rather than multi-layer. The area increases but fabrication may be cheaper. The holographic lens can keep the proper cells illuminated as the Sun moves I think. It may allow many more material types to be involved, perhaps increasing overall efficiency. This may be more appropriate for concentraror systems on reflection.

    • @Pao234_
      @Pao234_ 4 года назад +4

      I believe in terms of future potential, a multilayered one is more efficient, as no energy is lost to the refraction of the frequencies, but right now i sounds like a really interesting idea

    • @mvvo7366
      @mvvo7366 4 года назад +7

      yeah man what he said

    • @taimoortariq8738
      @taimoortariq8738 4 года назад

      @@mvvo7366 😂😂😂

    • @dotnet97
      @dotnet97 4 года назад +4

      Increasing the area cancels out the benefits though, might as well just have an equivalent area multi-layer cell.

    • @chaselewis6630
      @chaselewis6630 4 года назад +1

      Solar panels generally are about getting W/m^2 you may increase the efficiency but the area you have is increased by N where N is the number of different materials. You'd have to use a concentrator before your grating so all the light that would hit your larger area passes through a much smaller grating and disperses the light over your larger area. Otherwise you are wasting massive amounts of energy, as @Himanshu Goel mentions without the concentrator you'd cancel out your advantages.

  • @thomasbarlow4223
    @thomasbarlow4223 3 года назад +1

    I've put 600w of solar panels and a 3.3kw lifepo4 battery in my RV. Best money I've ever spent.
    It's like a little generator that never needs gas for 20 years!

  • @incognitotorpedo42
    @incognitotorpedo42 4 года назад +18

    Cool for space applications, but I'm really interested in $/watt.

    • @petergoestohollywood382
      @petergoestohollywood382 4 года назад +1

      Absolutely!

    • @baronvonlimbourgh1716
      @baronvonlimbourgh1716 4 года назад +14

      Currently under 5 cents per watt.
      A 300wp panel is 70 buck from the factory.
      Solar is becomming really cheap. Commercial solar farms are delivering energy for under 2 cents per kwh now.

    • @KGopidas
      @KGopidas 4 года назад

      And ready and wide availability.
      Give the technology to the Chinese

  • @mikewhite9818
    @mikewhite9818 3 года назад +1

    But solar still will not be affordable. Solar will remain not monetarily efficient. Remember when they said getting 20% efficient would make it affordable.

  • @josemesquita9354
    @josemesquita9354 4 года назад +4

    47% in efficiency? Omfg if this method become in large scale we could get a super revolution in solar energy output. It's unprecedent! Thank you a Lot to bring this content!
    P.s.: idk How people dislike this kind of content, omg

    • @dhichens
      @dhichens 4 года назад

      Not necessarily. The biggest cost these days isn't the panels, it's the other hardware that converts it into usable electricity. For most users, space for more cheaper panels, even if they're less efficient, is not a problem.

    • @TotalGAMIX
      @TotalGAMIX 3 года назад

      Man I absolutely can't wait! Hopefully will happen in the next few years

  • @ParallelLogic
    @ParallelLogic 4 года назад +28

    "Ideal to replace the panels on the ISS"
    Are we talking about the same ISS that is being decommissioned in 4 years?

    • @zahirkhan778
      @zahirkhan778 4 года назад +1

      Let's do it anyway.

    • @encryptedmaze
      @encryptedmaze 4 года назад +11

      @Kristian La Vigne I'd like to see proof backing that up...

    • @Sk4lli
      @Sk4lli 4 года назад +15

      @Kristian La Vigne Sure, never trust media, but trust some random people on the web that don't provide clear sources, twist and ignore facts to proof a wrong point. Seems legit. The biggest problem is that conspiracy theories always say "think" but just want you to blindly believe.

    • @roberthunter5059
      @roberthunter5059 4 года назад +12

      Yeah, the ISS is CGI. That's why I can see it pass over my house.

    • @osyisr6361
      @osyisr6361 4 года назад +6

      @Kristian La Vigne You can see it though.

  • @the_socompsp
    @the_socompsp 4 года назад +1

    why are we still trying to make electricity from VISIBLE light? there is so much more energy in UV so why arent we making panels that are designed for this wavelength?

    • @Chad_Thundercock
      @Chad_Thundercock 4 года назад

      joseph dragojevich
      I mean, if you find a material that reacts the same way to the higher frequencies, rock on with your bad self.
      Solar panels need materials that have a specific electron shell configuration, and need to be able to withstand the abuses of environmental strains, so those two conditions limit your choices quite a bit.

    • @lugiarboy
      @lugiarboy 4 года назад +2

      Simplest answer is, yes it can be done. Designing solar cells targeted at harvesting only UV light is possible but that comes with different engineering challenges.
      1: UV light has high energy but the amount of UV light actually reaching your cell is very little compared to the visible light spectrum due to both the nature of radiation spectrum from our sun and the scattering and absorption of UV light by our atmosphere. So cells designed for this purpose produce slightly higher voltages but insanely low electric currents. To make up for the low currents we need to get more UV light and doing so will require lenses, which puts the UV light capturing cell into the concentrator cell category where even higher efficiencies are already possible.
      2: Targeting to capture UV light means the bandgap needs to be about 3 eV or more. if you take a look at the image on the right at 7:47 you can see that the highest bandgap in the cell is 2.1eV. This is the about the highest bandgap you can achieve using alloys of AlGaInPAs due to the possible lattice matching on a substrate of GaAs. To achieve 3 eV, you will be needing a different and more expensive substrate to maintain lattice matching. Silicon and GaAs substrates are much cheaper as they are commonly used in the semiconductor industry today and it will take a very big price drop for any other substrates to be used by the solar industry that is very price conscious.
      3: Solar cells that can be bought today are also capable of capturing UV light, just that they are not able to make full use of the fact that UV light can produce higher voltages. That is why tandem cells exist and are the subject of so much research as explained in this video. Just designing more layers can allow you to make better use of the entire light spectrum shining on your solar cell but even more challenges exist. Current matching is one and diminishing returns with more layers is another. At some point adding more layers will be so expensive, it makes no sense to do so and just adding another solar cell beside it is a way cheaper option.
      TLDR: Solar cells sold in stores are already using UV light, and designing a cell to capture only UV light greatly limits its uses to more expensive, carefully selected situations.

  • @TCBYEAHCUZ
    @TCBYEAHCUZ 4 года назад +4

    Theoretically, if solar panels were 100% efficient would they be even darker than vantablack when opened into a circuit?

    • @montec6113
      @montec6113 4 года назад +1

      They would need to absord all wavelenghts of light that are produced by the sun, so yes, it should not reflect any light at all.
      Question is however is it possible to reach such efficiencies due to a lot of the energy being infrared which is heat. Heat decreases efficiency, so we would need a new design for the cells.

    • @alexanderdumas1176
      @alexanderdumas1176 4 года назад +1

      if they were 100 % efficient. that mean we can't see them

    • @0MVR_0
      @0MVR_0 4 года назад +1

      So dark that the object would be in visible.

  • @timm3802
    @timm3802 8 месяцев назад +1

    its now 3 years since.... and its not in production yet? I guess its not that good anyway.

  • @alphadog6970
    @alphadog6970 4 года назад +31

    He says 39.2% in the intro but title says 39.7%
    So which one is it?

    • @StefanReich
      @StefanReich 4 года назад +3

      I NEED TO KNOW!!!!

    • @William_ar98
      @William_ar98 4 года назад +9

      Well above 39% atleast

    • @AlessandroRodriguez
      @AlessandroRodriguez 4 года назад +4

      It raises by the GaInAs effect.

    • @quantumbubbles2106
      @quantumbubbles2106 4 года назад +15

      the 39.7% include a 0.5% sales tax. 🤓

    • @StefanReich
      @StefanReich 4 года назад

      @@quantumbubbles2106 Or relativistic effects from the photon's high speed

  • @TheGodEmperorOfMankind_
    @TheGodEmperorOfMankind_ 4 года назад +4

    "Big Thanks to my patrons: Toyota AE86"
    nice

  • @doolittleranch8302
    @doolittleranch8302 3 года назад +1

    When can we start buying these? This is a year old wire they’re not everywhere?

  • @Delosian
    @Delosian 4 года назад +7

    Dr. William Shockley was absolutely brilliant, working on modern RADAR, inventing the transistor, the semiconductor and the theory that became the solar panel (the Shockley-Queisser Limit was mentioned in this video). I would even go as far as to argue he was smarter than Einstein if you compare his life's work to Einstein's life's work.

  • @Luscious3174
    @Luscious3174 4 года назад +2

    Next video - How Scientists Silently and Discreetly Pass Gas in the Laboratory

  • @benjaminbazi9355
    @benjaminbazi9355 4 года назад +4

    39.2% or 39.7% ?

  • @Nic4Las
    @Nic4Las 4 года назад +2

    Awesome Video With amazing graphics. You should do a behind the scenes or maybe even a quick workflow tutorial. I think the blender community could learn a lot from your excellent work.

  • @Chengmaster
    @Chengmaster 4 года назад

    Fact Checking in ur first 20ish seconds. 22% is just the high end of industry standard solar cells. It's not the record. The multi-junction solar cell record with concentrator was set in 2015 at around 44% and non-concentrator record was set in 2013 around 39%. But this is good news overall: solar cells of different designs have set new records in recent years. Please I love science and I know it may be confusing for those viewers who didn't study solar tech science, but since your video is very scientific, please be more technical or specific in how you phrase things. Your video title says 39.7% but in the video you say "a whopping 39.2%". Science articles NREL online says the newest record set by the 6 junction solar cell is 47.1%

  • @Goreuncle
    @Goreuncle 4 года назад +7

    Great stuff, as always 👌
    Just wanted to comment on what you said at the end, about Solar panels being essential for Mars exploration.
    Due to Mars' reduced Solar irradiance (about half that of Earth's) and dusty environment, Solar power becomes kind of a "meh" choice.
    I think they'll try to go nuclear instead, as the main source of power, I mean.

    • @Real_MisterSir
      @Real_MisterSir 4 года назад +2

      Some of the problems with nuclear, though, is the weight. Having to ship equipment sufficiently effective and safe to provide nuclear power outside of Earth's orbit, is gonna cost a fortune in rocket launch expenses, might as well ship 5x as many solar panels instead. Solar is pretty light weight in comparison.

    • @MrWackozacko
      @MrWackozacko 4 года назад

      @@Real_MisterSir I dont know mango. I suspect 1MW nuclear reactor will weigh less than 1MW of solar panels

    • @ronaldgarrison8478
      @ronaldgarrison8478 4 года назад +1

      OTOH there are no water clouds, so the difference may be less than you think.

  • @TheHellogs4444
    @TheHellogs4444 4 года назад +1

    Aren't all three problems at 5:21 shared by single junction types? And I suspect milti-junc are better at point 2 and 3 than single junc? So please don't mention them in the context of "problems with muti junc"... it might be dangerous.
    7:38 hell yeah barely paid science communicator!

  • @chorinu7609
    @chorinu7609 4 года назад +11

    Science: look at this wonderful advance.
    Plants: Thomas had never seen such bs.

    • @rizizum
      @rizizum 4 года назад

      Aren't solar panels more efficienty than most plants?

    • @DunnickFayuro
      @DunnickFayuro 4 года назад

      IIRC, plants' efficiency is not that great... Like, we made artificial leaves a lot more effective than natural ones.

    • @chorinu7609
      @chorinu7609 4 года назад

      @@DunnickFayuro Ahh. so where are they being applied. My point is nature evolved it and we copy it. bragging about 30 something percent isn't all that fantastic considering how highly we think of ourselves.

    • @chorinu7609
      @chorinu7609 4 года назад

      @@DunnickFayuro I guess my secondary point is plants use the sun for life. We basically aren't interested if there is no profit, money dumped into research and devopment is based soley on profitability. We could be further along if we did it because it is the right thing. We would be further along if money were no option. So no, I am not impressed.

    • @DunnickFayuro
      @DunnickFayuro 4 года назад

      @@chorinu7609 Humans use the sun for life too. Nothing is possible any other way. (Appart maybe for some exotic chemical or radiation feeding bacteria)

  • @ingodwetrustgachatuber2747
    @ingodwetrustgachatuber2747 3 года назад +1

    Solar should be truly affordable for real, not just on paper.

  • @Bruellhusten123
    @Bruellhusten123 4 года назад +3

    Great vid! Keep up making those!

  • @walp86
    @walp86 4 года назад +2

    Nice video and animations!
    I don't know if anyone have metioned this already, but at 1:40 you claim that a 3.8 kW system is next to impossible for buildings. I think you have made an error somewhere.
    I have a 14 kWp Swedish system and only half the size of the average american roof (160 m2 vs 80 m2).
    Just to let you know! :)

    • @JohnDlugosz
      @JohnDlugosz 4 года назад

      I think he means apartment buildings, with less roof area per dwelling unit.
      I have 40 standard-size panels, 10kW total, on my house.

  • @florianthomas7852
    @florianthomas7852 4 года назад +9

    In the last twenty years there was every year a breakthrough in pv cell technology with record efficiency, yet we still have shitty cells.

    • @TechnoMonkeyFarm
      @TechnoMonkeyFarm 4 года назад +3

      Shitty cells, according to who?

    • @zyfigamer
      @zyfigamer 4 года назад +1

      That's markets for you. Why upgrade to the new while people will still pay for the same old subpar product?

    • @congorecluse8111
      @congorecluse8111 4 года назад +2

      Shitty? Possibly so. A least they have got significantly cheaper over the last twenty years.

    • @mafarmerga
      @mafarmerga 4 года назад +4

      I'm 61 years old. I would say that solar cells have improved dramatically in my lifetime.

    • @bozo5632
      @bozo5632 4 года назад +1

      But cells are much cheaper and better than 20 years ago.

  • @gavincurtis
    @gavincurtis 4 года назад +1

    For a moment I read 93.7% efficiency and about lost it.

  • @Star-Man
    @Star-Man 4 года назад +5

    *If we succeeded in raiding Area 51 we’d have 100% efficiency* -breaking the laws of physics bois-

    • @fidelcatsro6948
      @fidelcatsro6948 4 года назад

      if you raid the workshop there you might find overunity anti gravity propulsion systems that no longer need solar panels anymore

  • @FrancisKoczur
    @FrancisKoczur 4 года назад +1

    This video is a bit out of date, top of the line panels from 2017 did over 22% and around 221w/sq.m
    Panel prices have also been under $200 shipped in the medium end since then. Now if you prices include installation, they are more realistic.

  • @pauljames1682
    @pauljames1682 4 года назад +3

    SPECTROLAB has been making 40%+ efficient multi junction solar cells for decades.

  • @shamailahmad7214
    @shamailahmad7214 4 года назад +1

    The results are very nice. Certainly a way forward. Still sometime untill we get it avaialbake commercially because MOVPE is still a very expensive process. 90+% precursor Gases still go to waste. One can't grow large solar cells, upscalabe I mean. Defects in epitaxial layer are still yet to be eliminated. At 7:59, in the TEM Cross-section I can see a lot of defects in the layers. As of yet the best one cud do.

  • @arora_for_life
    @arora_for_life 4 года назад +8

    90% of the stuff went over my head.

  • @walteraustinr102
    @walteraustinr102 4 года назад +1

    As a research and developer, I love hearing and seeing new technologies discoveries. What I dislike is the discoveries developed in labs, universities and big corporations never seem to be commercially available. The best most people gets out from these “fabulous” discoveries are the seeds planted for more innovative technologies. In most cases, by time many of these discoveries become commercially available, the technology is obsolete. An example of this is Graphene, the miracle material. Discovered in 2004 by two scientist resulting in winning a Nobel Prize. To this day it has not been able to be economically commercialized in full sheets since it’s discovery in 2004. Oh, it’s a great material and I’m sure will be the a solution to many innovations. In the meantime.

  • @bowlampar
    @bowlampar 4 года назад +4

    Stated ''Efficiency'' accuracy depend on how close lab testing condition is to real world condition.

  • @Mn16Cr45
    @Mn16Cr45 4 года назад +1

    This is not true we have solar panels with 400W per m2 from sunpower. Also this has a World Record

    • @eibdoktor
      @eibdoktor 4 года назад

      Who is „we“?

  • @Brandon-gy6rt
    @Brandon-gy6rt 4 года назад +6

    Thanks for the insight

  • @mohamedaymanerrahmouni
    @mohamedaymanerrahmouni 4 года назад +2

    About the note, I -we- will wait for another year with this badass quality!
    Ps: we would love to know how you animate your work :) pls a video explaining that!

  • @gig2734
    @gig2734 4 года назад +10

    When will we get them on Earth?

    • @manipurextremz
      @manipurextremz 4 года назад +2

      Good one!!

    • @fidelcatsro6948
      @fidelcatsro6948 4 года назад +4

      after the oil tycoons stop buying rights to these and shelving them off public light of day

    • @Henriburger1
      @Henriburger1 4 года назад +2

      Never. They are more complex and therefore much more expensive. Current panels are good because of how cheap they are.

    • @demef758
      @demef758 4 года назад +2

      Okay, Fidel: name ONE oil company that is sitting on some "rights" to prevent a solar technology from getting to market. Just ONE. You kids and your childish theories ....

    • @Henriburger1
      @Henriburger1 4 года назад +3

      @@fidelcatsro6948
      Actually oil companies support solar. They have launched massive solar campaigns in the past because they know that for the other 18 hours you will need a natural gas turbine as a backup. The alternative energy source they actually oppose is nuclear. They have sponsored many anti-nuclear propaganda campaigns in the past, and apparently have played a large part in getting all those laws that make nuclear so slow passed, though I haven't see any 100% proof of this.

  • @iamfinky
    @iamfinky 4 года назад +2

    This is amazingly exciting news - a while away from scaling up, but nonetheless awesome. Thanks for sharing!

  • @Vivaswaan.
    @Vivaswaan. 4 года назад +3

    This was a very comprehensive explanation.
    And I am compelled to commend the splendid graphics and how accurate they are. Great job with the animation too. Marvellous.

  • @MisterNarrador
    @MisterNarrador 4 года назад

    how about storage, that's the main thing. lot of free energy out there. but very little storage except when it's time to fill their pockets.

  • @vikrantsharma8249
    @vikrantsharma8249 4 года назад +6

    How does this man make his videos and why is he not one of the largest youtubers

  • @udmbfckx2916
    @udmbfckx2916 4 года назад +1

    Thanks for your video, it was REALLY interesting.....
    It's also dirty business to mine all of these elements, manipulate them chemically to the shape/size desired and assemble them as needed to produce an efficient design.....Like everything else, there is a cost benefit, this also applies to batteries....The benefit being that the Life AND Production of the panel will offset the DIRTY Costs of other technologies, such as Fossil and Coal, for the production of Electricity.
    A breakthrough that could be consumer viable as far as cost and efficiency is what is really needed in panel technology, in the same way and combined with the next revolution past Lithium Ion Batteries will finally make Solar / Batteries the mainstream power source.
    Today, in the USA you can buy a 300 Watt decent quality Chinese Panel for about $200 with a 19-20% efficiency. If you are off-grid or if it is too costly to bring the lines to your property, Solar may be a great way to go. I would add a gas generator and/or a Wind Turbine, but you can CHEAPLY over-panel for those low light days if you live in a house with a yard.

  • @chuzzbot
    @chuzzbot 3 года назад +1

    Advancement in PV and all things electric need to be the top priority for all human effort right now.
    Great stuff.

  • @solapowsj25
    @solapowsj25 3 года назад +1

    The ups needs to be upgraded as well. At the research Center I run, the ups runs on energy from the sun. It doesn't need extra power from mains to charge the battery at night. It has better load distribution technique. SJRTC, #21, RA rd., BLR, IN 560047.

  • @annunacky4463
    @annunacky4463 4 года назад +1

    This reminds me of buying the first personal computers, everybody waited for the next better device so they wouldn’t waste their money...it was changing so fast...
    Lets get home fusion kits going...we have tabletop lab systems with great promise...maybe in 30 years...sorry had to say it.

  • @lowkeylowkey1000
    @lowkeylowkey1000 4 года назад +1

    Seems onemeasure to aborb more energy is not to reduce heat. But to collect it into a way that gains more electricity from the excited molecules and to usethat excitement to make electricity.
    Similar to the way a microwave oven excites molecules to generate heat. If that movement of molecules could be regulated. You could exploit a previously understood annoyance. By flipping it into a viable energy source.

  • @2Worlds_and_InBetween
    @2Worlds_and_InBetween 4 года назад +1

    it was not very long ago, I was learning about the brand new OLED screens...
    but they were only tiny, inch square things...
    costly, tiny square things

  • @joaobatistaserralopes7164
    @joaobatistaserralopes7164 4 года назад +1

    Quanto custará cada módulo deste e qual a potência máxima em WH e sua voltagem (12/24/36/48vcc) aguardo resposta.

  • @clavo3352
    @clavo3352 4 года назад +1

    Am too old and too mis-educated to fully appreciate this, but I loved it and watched to the end.
    You young engineers could use some practical knowledge about economics and law. Get your hands on a small old book called: Prosser on torts.

  • @freedom341
    @freedom341 4 года назад

    so if i have 100 watts = only 39% which is 39 watts only generate?

  • @SlimeeosGames
    @SlimeeosGames 4 года назад +2

    0:18, we know how this is effeciency, because the fastest car in the world is you patreon.

  • @jimseldiesel1362
    @jimseldiesel1362 4 года назад +1

    Nuclear energy is way wheaper and probably has less of an environmental impact than this per KwH of produced energy. Not mentioning the impossible batteries required to go carbon emission free without natural gas backup ofcourse.

    • @michelangelobuonarroti916
      @michelangelobuonarroti916 4 года назад +1

      Nuclear is much more expensive than solar plus batteries.

    • @UmbraHand
      @UmbraHand 4 года назад

      @@michelangelobuonarroti916 That is rapidly changing with minutarized nuclear reactors

    • @Willaev
      @Willaev 4 года назад

      @@michelangelobuonarroti916 A common misconception.

  • @Kallenator1988
    @Kallenator1988 4 года назад +1

    300USD per panel on the low end, that seems so high. In Norway with fairly high prices on everything you can get 320W 1m by 1,657m panel for 158USD including taxes.

    • @Sekir80
      @Sekir80 4 года назад

      Is there a goverment subsidy on them? Or can I just travel to Norway and buy them at large? :D

    • @Kallenator1988
      @Kallenator1988 4 года назад

      ​@@Sekir80 No, just normal VAT on them. It seems the person in the video has prices that don't necessarily represent current market prices accurately.

  • @THESLlCK
    @THESLlCK 4 года назад +2

    ABYSMAL performance from ABYSMAL technology. Please, sustainable efforts, move on from this rare earth mineral dependant tomfoolery

    • @chandy3859
      @chandy3859 4 года назад

      Any alternative?

    • @THESLlCK
      @THESLlCK 4 года назад

      Chandy Huang right now, nuclear

    • @chandy3859
      @chandy3859 4 года назад

      @@THESLlCK so what should the common household do?
      Edit: changing the word "use" to "do"

  • @surajrao2889
    @surajrao2889 3 года назад +1

    Hahaha fun to know though
    Hope this comes soon