3 ms·
The article tells you the answer to your question. Search for "1,000". Edit: Apologies, I misread the parent's question. I thought they were saying "1,000 wh
by AndrewDucker 5y ago
The article tells you the answer to your question. Search for "1,000".
Edit: Apologies, I misread the parent's question. I thought they were saying "1,000 what?". Sorry about the unhelpful answer.
- qayxc 5y agoNo it doesn't. The 1000x factor refers to the photo-response of the material, not power output, not cost to produce, not durability. All these are properties of a (prototype-)product, while this research is basic research and didn't create any prototypes. The researchers measured the photo-response by shining laser light onto a sample, they didn't build a panel and measured the power output.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- madengr 5y agoIt’s 1000x more than some unstated efficiency.
- boboche 5y agoNot 1000x net output since we are in what now, 10-20% efficiency with current available cell technology? That would not make sense.
- kothar 5y agoFrom one of the comments on the article: Ryan Kennedy August 6, 2021 at 1:46 am Our apologies for not making this clear. The photovoltaic effect was increased by 1000 times compared to previous output achieved from cells made of ferroelectric crystals, not from prevailing solar cells made of silicon or other conventional materials.
- rob74 5y agoOk, now we just need to know how ferroelectric crystals compare to conventional solar cells to find out what this "1000x" really means...
- hansel_der 5y agoi would guess that they are about 1000x worse than conventional silicon
- pama 5y agoOr much worse yet, otherwise the authors could have used clear language.
- destitude 5y agoYes, it would be extremely helpful if we knew how they compared to what people are able to purchase today.