Slashdot Mirror
Japanese Company Develops a Solar Cell With Record-Breaking 26%+ Efficiency (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The silicon-based cells that make up a solar panel have a theoretical efficiency limit of 29 percent, but so far that number has proven elusive. Practical efficiency rates in the low-20-percent range have been considered very good for commercial solar panels. But researchers with Japanese chemical manufacturer Kaneka Corporation have built a solar cell with a photo conversion rate of 26.3 percent, breaking the previous record of 25.6 percent. Although it's just a 2.7 percent increase in efficiency, improvements in commercially viable solar cell technology are increasingly hard-won. Not only that, but the researchers noted in their paper that after they submitted their article to Nature Energy, they were able to further optimize their solar cell to achieve 26.6 percent efficiency. That result has been recognized by the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL). In the Nature Energy paper, the researchers described building a 180.4 cm2 cell using high-quality thin-film heterojunction (HJ) -- that is, layering silicon within the cell to minimize band gaps where electron states can't exist. Controlling heterojunctions is a known technique among solar cell builders -- Panasonic uses it and will likely incorporate it into cells built for Tesla at the Solar City plant in Buffalo, and Kaneka has its own proprietary heterojunction techniques. For this record-breaking solar cell, the Kaneka researchers also placed low-resistance electrodes toward the rear of the cell, which maximized the number of photons that collected inside the cell from the front. And, as is common on many solar cells, they coated the front of the cell with a layer of amorphous silicon and an anti-reflective layer to protect the cell's components and collect photons more efficiently.
DRM it?
"26.3 percent, breaking the previous record of 25.6 percent. Although it's just a 2.7 percent increase"
Uh, what? Someone flunked elementary school math.
25.6 * 1.027 = 26.29
Lots of people flunk elementary maths... apparently.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Thin-film heterojunction? Is that like latex fetish?
26.3/25.6 is ~1.027 i.e. a 2.7% increase. Could've been less-confusingly worded though.
The only reasonable improvements are in reducing the cost of manufacturing and reducing the amazingly toxic byproducts of solar cell production.
Yeah lots do ... let maths buttfuck them ... but not him , speaking in a casual context.
Cost is not everything, that is pretty dumb economic thinking. Cost efficiency is everything, the return on capital investment. With branded solar energy systems, retained capital investment is as important as energy generated. Want it the price of a home with a top quality solar energy system versus a home without one. What premium can you start to charge on a home where the supply charge for electricity is higher than the cost of actual supply of electricity, a house that is basically black out proof. Where energy running cost for a car heads to zero.
So in mid level housing density, how close to an effective solar energy system for a two story town house, where a premium is paid, due to limited are for panels. It makes no sense with solar panels to have them anywhere else but as close as practicable to the point of demand, screw the insensate greed of the energy companies. Doing away with the electrical grid all together in suburban low density housing would be a major victory for the majority, screw the energy companies, they can pretty much choke on their own gas (tee hee).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Over time, though, the cost almost always comes down unless there's a reliance on highly valuable raw materials (such as gold).
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
Keeping the same number of significant digits in the lower and higher efficiencies, a 3 percent increase from 25.6 would round to 26.4, and a 2 percent increase from 25.6 would round to 26.1.
This means that to describe a percentage increase that properly rounds to 26.3, you need one more digit, and once you decide to add the extra digit, you want to make it as accurate as possible. The 2.7 percent given in the article rounds to 26.3, as accurately as possible.
26.29 rounds to 26, not 27.
Nobody mentioned 27 though. 2.7 isn't 27.
And, although the wording clearly implies an absolute relationship, the correct relative formula would be 26.3/25.6=1.03 when significant digits are accommodated (which would be a 3% relative increase).
You're making the assumption that 26.3 and 25.6 are given with the full number of significant digits (which may not be the case), or that significant digits actually matter in a percentage figure (not an actual measurement) in popular scientific journalism. Get over yourself.
Well, at least you're in good company.
Someone's really salty to be shown wrong, eh?
This is only single cell solar cells, multi-junction cells have breached 46%. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/... At this point increases in efficiency are mostly masturbation, relying on complex materials/techniques that aren't worth the cost. The big transformation will occur when they get thin film solar cells that are more efficient so you can have solar cells without making ridiculous amounts of toxic waste.
and I have all of my roof covered that gets direct sunlight, and they still aren't powerful enough to produce enough power even in the summer to overcome the self-discharge of my SLA batteries. Here in Seattle in the winter, I might as well not even have the panels. 26% efficient would be strong enough to keep me from having to plug a charger into the wall to charge my batteries for maybe six months a year. Hopefully this will reach consumers soon.
26.29 rounds to 26, not 27. And, although the wording clearly implies an absolute relationship, the correct relative formula would be 26.3/25.6=1.03 when significant digits are accommodated (which would be a 3% relative increase).
26.3 (the previous record), multiplied by 1.027 (or 102.7%, or increasing by 2.7%) equals 26.29, which rounds to 26.3 (the new record).
That's not elementary maths, I grant you, but I'm sure you would have spotted it if you weren't so eager for the FP.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
...but solar cell efficiency only really matters when space is limited.
Nobody said there would be math in this comments section.
Next time, could we get some kind of warning?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Hey genius, you just agreed with the person you're arguing with. At least in the first part of your post.
For the second part I had to wrap my head in tin foil to truly get on the same wavelength with you. Omg! The evil energy companies! Those highly regulated monopolies that are essentially government agencies!!!!111 eeeeeep!!!
Idiot.
Don't you worry folks... we got your coal jobs right here!!! that thar sciency mumbo jumbo is fer them Hollywood E-leetists... you won't catch me usin' no soLAR sells.... commie contraptions iffn' ya ask me!!!!
Math blows, like your mom.
Can we get back to serious discussion now and stop being fucking retarded internet pedants? kthx.
"26.3 percent, breaking the previous record of 25.6 percent. Although it's just a 2.7 percent increase" Uh, what? Someone flunked elementary school math.
25.6 * 1.027 = 26.29
Lots of people flunk elementary maths... apparently.
It's from Japan; their numbers are in metric - duh.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
My solar panels are 14% efficient and cost 11 cents per watt.
Math blows, like your mom.
Can we get back to serious discussion now and stop being fucking retarded internet pedants? kthx.
Do you even know where you are?
Modern consumer solar is breathtakingly amazing.
We forget how bad things were just 15-20 years ago.
Earlier today, I set up a folding panel with sunpower cells; it was literally vertical, in a window, facing South. Total surface area.. maybe 3sqft, weighing 1lb. It was making ~20W for 4 hours, and managed to completely recharge my 130Wh battery pack in 8. Through a window. In the winter, in Canada.
The thing cost $120.
It's easy to get lost in the constant claims of breakthroughs while forgetting what an amazing time we live in. 20 years ago, this panel would have blocked out the sun and cost a months' salary.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
"26.3 percent, breaking the previous record of 25.6 percent. Although it's just a 2.7 percent increase" Uh, what? Someone flunked elementary school math.
26.29/25.6=1.026953125 ,rounded to 3 decimals 1.027 , which makes it a 2.7 percent increase. How man decimals do they need to use not to flunk math would you say?
If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
I don't know anything about politics, but this level of ignorance is quite prevalent. The really sad thing is is that it's mostly arithmetic, you don't even need to know algebra to do the analysis.
The language is actually ambiguous.
It can legitimately be read as
25.6%+2.7%=28.3% (huh?).
or
25.6%+ (25.6%*2.7%)=26.29% (hooray)
or even
25.6%*1.027=26.29% (hooray)
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Significant digits (figures)? Fuck that shit - everyone does it incorrectly, and it's fucking retarded when done "correctly". Seriously, why the FUCK would you consider a reading of "20" to be less valid than a reading of "21" when all else (measurement device, environment, methodology, etc.) is the same? Yet "2.0x10^1" is more significant than 20? It's absurd.
Further, 26.3 / 25.6 is a calculation, not a measurement, and you can't apply significant figures to raw calculations like that without fucking everything up. Significant figures are meant to handle the inaccuracy/imprecision of measurements. Only a few classes of calculations are imprecise (essentially because they are based on measurements or approximations, like trig functions on shitty, not cool angles).
What if I asked you to convert 1 meter to inches? 1 meter is exactly 5000/127 inches. Using 1 significant figure, to match 1 meter, we need to do 5000/100! 1 meter is not 50 fucking inches.
For 26.3/25.6 You get exactly 1.02734375.
Now, IF you know the significant figures of the measurements (and you don't necessarily just by seeing the number there), then you can do the following:
Assume 26.3 means a value in the range of [26.25, 26.35) and 25.6 means a value in the range of [25.55, 25.65).
We can take the extremes, 26.25/25.65 and 26.35/25.55 and get 1.0233918128654970760233918128655 to 1.0313111545988258317025440313112. The mean of which is 1.0273514837321614538629679220883, if you want to take a statistical stab at it. Remember our calculated value of 1.02734375? How does that compare?
If we used "significant figures" we'd get 1.03 for a 3% increase. But wait, it gets more retarded. Because if we calculate the percentage increase instead of the ratio, we get a different result even though they're giving us the same fucking information!
(26.3-25.6)/25.6 = 0.02734375, rounded to 3 significant figures gets us 2.73x10^-2, or 2.73% (as leading zeroes are never significant).
It's HORSE SHIT!
It can legitimately be read as
25.6%+2.7%=28.3% (huh?).
No, what you have just described is a 2.7 percentage point increase. The language is not ambiguous.
Sometimes there is an energy cost to making the material/molecular structure.
The efficiency of renewable energy is only half the battle. The major problem with networks powering up from DER (distributed energy resources) is that you don’t really get to deliver the power in an efficient manner without a Smart Grid. So ok, it’s good for household, but for a major plant, you’ll be left with really goon solar panels that generate quite a lot of electricity, but then all the power will be dissipated.
Since we don’t have sufficient energy storage units and no Smart distribution grids that supply in accordance with a consumer demand. On a large scale (mass energy production) having a system that can respond to changes in the power requirements boosts efficiency far more than advancement in energy generation. Although it is important as well, I just though it needs to be mentioned, because this subject is always overlooked in the discussion of renewables.
Why is this rated -1? Cost is a damn strong motivator to general adoption, and the absolute first thing that comes to mind as a barricade to entry in the current energy market.
Cost might not be the only thing that matters, but any energy source today must fulfill one of two criteria -
1. Cheap. For personal use (such as solar panels on the roof of a house) the barrier to entry is price. Your standard homeowner only has $X saved up, so even a super-efficient solar panel for $250,000 will remain out of reach. A cheap-ass solar panel of low efficiency for $1,000 though? That is what makes the energy companies complain (and lobby for bans).
2. A high power to cost ratio. The west is starting to drown in wind-parks. The energy is there, but building a wind-turbine out in nowhere is expensive, and the energy output is damn low. Coupled with the erratic performance of wind ( and solar to a lesser extent), and you will need a(n expensive) backup source to meet demand. Don't expect to get your money back quickly. And that's not even counting the protesting or zoning laws you will face before construction can begin.
And because of those, the parent asked a very pertinent quetion - What does it cost? Because that determines what, if any, role can the panel fulfill in our current energy market.
Cost efficiency is everything, the return on capital investment.
What a delightfully parochial point of view.
If you can produce a more efficient product more cheaply, but the toxic effects of producing it depopulate the neighbourhood for 350 miles around, that's kind of an "everything" too, at least unless your factory is in Bhopal.
The bean counters are notoriously lax at counting the true cost of what a factory produces. They cannot assign a hard dollar amount to so many things, so for them, those things don't exist. And for many more, they simply assign the amount to "Someone Else's Problem".
And that's just the touchy-feely greenie Liberal side of it. The Conservative hard-nosed practical business approach these days has little to do with the costs of R&D or production and a lot more with how the C-suite can leverage perceptions of it to buy and sell corporate assets and collect their bonuses and golden parachutes.
The 1800s are over and it's no longer a case where to be a successful manufacturing business you can build a mill, belch smoke until the sheep fall over and rake in big bags of cash from customers a la Scrooge McDuck.
Eh? Well, the way I was taught to calculate a percentage increase was:
(a) 26.3 - 25.6 = 0.7
(b) 0.7/25.6 = 0.02734
So 2.7% increase....
(c) Check your result 25.6 * 1.02734 = 26.2999 or round up to 26.3
At least these guys agree with me anyway...
https://www.skillsyouneed.com/...
You are so stupid it's truly a shame your parents were not tortured for bringing you into this world. Even the Republicans support abortion for things as stupid as you.
Oh I like how this is going!
Maybe the word 'ambiguous' is too ambiguous for you?
And don't forget , 26.29% is just 2.7% away from that theoretical limit!
We need Gunpistolman on here.
What's wrong with you ?
There's a new better photovoltaic cell, that is actually produced by an actual manufacturer (Kaneka) and could soon be matched by other actual manufacturer making real cells in the real world (Panasonic and Tesla mentioned), and not simply one of those "small research team in some university lab make a small breakthrough that could increase cell effenciency. In theory. Probably within 25 years when the discovery finally reach actual production at a real-world manufacturer".
And all you people bicker about how the numbers are presented in the summary ?
What's next ? Going ape-shit crazy about some shirt that a scientist is wearing, instead of paying attention that he's announcing that they managed to land a probe on...
oh, wait!
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Cost is not everything, that is pretty dumb economic thinking. Cost efficiency is everything, the return on capital investment.
With solar panels, it turns out that these two correlate quite nicely. With the exception of potential panel area limitation, cheaper panels are also more cost efficient. Although the US is also an outlier with fixed non-hardware costs (permits, labor etc.), so your experience may be somewhat different than in other parts of the world, where the cost efficiency of ordinary panels is much more obvious.
Ezekiel 23:20
Eh? Well, the way I was taught to calculate a percentage increase was:
(a) 26.3 - 25.6 = 0.7 (b) 0.7/25.6 = 0.02734
It's not a percentage increase in the first place. When the power of the incident light was 100W the old solar cells would produce 25.6W of electrical power. In the same conditions the new cells provide 26.3W. So that's an increase in the delivered power of (26.3 - 25.6) / 25.6 = 2.7%. See none of the numbers being compared are percentages.
I just do 1 - old/new.
A notable example of that is silicon wafer manufacturing.
Or the steel for making the coal boiler casing. Or the loss of land due to spoil leeching (ask Aberfan too about the dangers).
Then again merely to house you requires a lot of materials. So you should, since you appear so worried about use of resources to build, be living in an apartment block high-rise to minimise the resources you used to be housed. No car either. Take a bus, only one of those carries you and several other people and if you have a car, they still have to have the bus made, so you're just adding to the resources used.
Or we can assume your concern is fake and you do not live like that nor wish to.
Well, kind of. The cost for wafers keeps staying about the same but the transistor-density goes up. So if you were to measure cost/transistor, the prices are sinking like a rock.
We need both:
Panels that are cheap for areas such as building roofs where grabbing every last watt isn't such a big deal, due to the availability of space. It is just getting the solar cells on the area that is the main thing.
Panels where surface area is hard to obtain (satellites is one example.) where every watt is precious. A more realistic example are solar panels on class "B" motorhomes (campervans.) There isn't much in the way of square footage, so the trick is to maximize what can be gotten.
Similar argument can be made regarding PWM versus MPPT controllers. You can buy a PWM controller for $8 which "lops off" excess voltage and passes the batteries what it needs. MPPT controllers require an inductor and coil to change volts into amps and vice versa, so are usually an order of magnitude more expensive... but for areas where space is precious, they allow more energy to hit the batteries.
Moreover, if you're mostly using it for personal use, you are far better off using solar water heating and cutting bills heating water or the home.
And if you're spending $15k, either two thirds of that is not the cost of the panels but installation, in which case that is where you were ripped off, not on the panels, shop around next time, or that's over 10kW you think you're using.
Try using less power you fucking wasteful moron.
It's comments like this that literally give my life meaning. I friggin love this place. lol.
This isn't a maths problem, it's a units problem.
Since % can be expressed as the original units or as a new %, it is ambiguous. Both are reasonable approaches, though obviously one is correct whereas one is not.
Most people wouldn't automatically try to do the % of % difference in their head
"you will need a(n expensive) backup source to meet demand"
If you can use LFTR (when they're ready) it's likely to prove so cheap that solar and wind installations will be abandoned.