this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
339 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3183 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
339
Silicon plus perovskite solar reaches 34 percent efficiency (arstechnica.com)
submitted 3 months ago by Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago (2 children)

We're reaching the limit for photovoltaics. Really need to pour money into optical rectennas.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is a rectenna like that thing Cartman got one time?

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 20 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Current panel efficiency is at roughly 22%. A 34% efficient panel would increase current solar generation to 133% just by replacing current panels. That's much easier then building new solar generation plants. This would move the "total energy produced Earth by solar" amount from the current 5.5% to 7.35%

That's a pretty stunning improvement for a comparably easy lift.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The longevity numbers on these are abysmal, though. Like nearly useless after a year.

I'm not interested in hearing about perovskites breaking efficiency records when the longevity issue isn't solved.

[–] bastion@feddit.nl 3 points 3 months ago

Not only that, they're terrible on the toxicity front.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Oh no doubt it's a massive improvement. It's just we can see even better numbers and for cheaper once we crack the materials and lithographic constraints of rectenna diode construction. Mass production of those babies would be revolutionary in terms of solar energy. It'd straight up outcompete fossil and nuclear even considering having to build energy storage. Hell it'd be revolutionary even if we make them just for the infrared wavelength.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9320463/

[–] piper11@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago

Did not know that rectenna panels could harvest infrared radiation at night. Interesting technology

[–] mriguy@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

34% is 155% of 22%, so an even bigger increase!