Researchers at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (MLU) have discovered a new method to increase the efficiency of solar cells by a factor of 1,000. The team of scientists achieved this breakthrough by creating crystalline layers of barium titanate, strontium titanate, and calcium titanate, which were alternately placed on top of one another in a lattice structure.

Their findings, which could revolutionize the solar energy industry, were recently published in the journal Science Advances.

0 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
reply
2 points
*

As a moderator of this community I need to remind you that non-constructive personal criticisms like this are inappropriate and go against the ethics and guidelines of this instance, let alone Lemmy. Honestly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points

The headline seems to be a but misleading though. Seems like it’s 1000x more efficient than pure barium titanate would be.
Also seems like it has the potential to be much ore efficient than conventional silicon based panels, but not by a factor of 1000.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

Indeed, this seems impossible. Current solar panels are surprisingly efficient as it stands.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

It says in the article

compared to pure barium titanate of a similar thickness, the current flow was up to 1,000 times stronger

And in the referenced paper

In addition, the photoresponse from SBC222 is 1000 times higher than that from BTO

Neither sound like a measure of efficiency to me. But I’m also no expert and the paper went well beyond my head.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

“Strong current flow” is informal language, but both it and photoresponse refer to the electrical power that comes out. In theory you would just divide that by the incoming solar flux and get the efficiency. For now it’s only in a lab setting, though, so we’ll have to see what the practical efficiency will be if this is actually incorporated into a reasonable solar cell.

So yeah, apparently barium titanate solar panels used to be extremely terrible, and now they might become competitive with further research.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It’s not a measure of efficiency per se, but efficiency is a limiting factor:

In order for a solar panel to put out 1000x more power, the baseline you’re comparing it to must be at most 0.1% efficient, because otherwise the new thing would have greater than 100% efficiency and that isn’t possible.

And that’s a purely thermodynamic argument. The actual limit for solar efficiency is likely less.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Thanks for the reality check. Still a huge result if it translates well into mass production.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Thanks for clarifying that. That publication can be prone to clickbait style headlines it seems but they also publish some good information overall and I thought it was worth noting

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Even a few hundred percent improvement would be great.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

If it’s over 400%-500%, it’s fake news, because that’d be generating more energy than is emitted by the sun (per area at distance).

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

Current solar panels are about 25% efficient, so 1000 times that would be 25.000%. I think Mr. Boltzmann and Mr. Maxwell might have some objections here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Now that’s what I call efficient!

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Any domain that ends in .news is full of A-grade bullshit. Just something I’ve noticed.

permalink
report
reply
22 points

Anything claiming a 1000 times improvement on a technology needs to come from several serious sources to be remotely credible

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Impossible to be literally true, so quite literally “incredible” if 1000x or 1000%. The sun doesn’t emit that much energy more than current solar panels can manage.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Yeah, a kilowatt per square meter (perpendicular to the sun angle). We only need something like 5 times for 100% efficiency

The article must be either entirely bullshit or using an odd baseline to raise a thousand times

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Most solar panels are ~20% efficient. So (100-20)/1000=0.08%, 100-0.08=99.92% efficient (1000x less energy loss) (you could do it the other way, but that would make less sense)

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

It’s a 1000 times improvement the same way riding a horse is a 1000 times improvement over riding an army of snails. It’s possible because nobody was doing the old thing because it was garbage.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

When conducting the photoelectric measurements, the new material was irradiated with laser light. The result surprised even the research group: compared to pure barium titanate of a similar thickness, the current flow was up to 1,000 times stronger, despite the fact that the proportion of barium titanate as the main photoelectric component was reduced by almost two thirds.

permalink
report
reply
18 points

Sounds an awful lot like an article posted months ago. Old article? Someone publish a copy of an old article?

And yeah, those numbers are 1000% bogus.

permalink
report
reply

Green Energy

!energy@slrpnk.net

Create post

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

Community stats

  • 1.6K

    Monthly active users

  • 416

    Posts

  • 1.7K

    Comments