3 ms·

For those like me, who didn't get this at first. It's about improving output from ferroelectric solar cells, a specific type of solar cells, which are easier t

by k__ 5y ago

For those like me, who didn't get this at first. It's about improving output from ferroelectric solar cells, a specific type of solar cells, which are easier to build than regular ones made of silicon. But they usually aren't as effective as the silicon ones.

leecarraher 5y ago
yup, my thoughts exactly. otherwise a 1000x increase in 30%-ish efficient pv silicon-based solar cells would be far above unity
- nine_k 5y ago
  Depends on how you count. If your process is 30% efficient, it wastes 70% of input. If you increase efficiency 1000x, it wastes 70% / 1000 = 0.007% of input, so it's 99.993% efficient.
  - danuker 5y ago
    It could also mean that the ferroelectric cells were harvesting 0.000001% of sunlight, while now they harvest 0.001%. The fact that no absolute number is given in the article makes me want to boycott it.
  - usrusr 5y ago
    That would be a 1000x decrease in inefficiency. Very, very impressive but not even remotely as impossible as a 1000x increase assuming that you start with more than 0.1%. I'd expect the headline to resolve to some perspective where the numbers do make sense, in some very special, limited way, assuming that they didn't just roll dice to decide how many orders of magnitude to falsely claim. Unfortunately, there's a huge crowd out there that combines, in a surprising way, radical science scepticism with radical science optimism. The "science said man cannot fly, then came the Wright Brothers" crowd who refuse all painful achievable improvements based on their hope for some convenient miracle. These headlines are dangerous.
nine_k 5y ago
I'm not certain about the "easier" part, but with efficiency higher than a semiconductor cell can ever be, this device should draw attention, no matter how hard is it to produce currently.
- k__ 5y ago
  Ah, good to know. Yes, easier might be not right here, but it sounded like overall they are less complex.
- smolder 5y ago
  Reading the article and the comments... No, these are not more efficient than silicon cells. They took an inefficient, simpler to produce PV material and found a way to dramatically increase its efficiency on certain wavelengths of light. It's still worse than silicon panels overall.

by k__ 5y ago

leecarraher 5y ago

yup, my thoughts exactly. otherwise a 1000x increase in 30%-ish efficient pv silicon-based solar cells would be far above unity

nine_k 5y ago
Depends on how you count. If your process is 30% efficient, it wastes 70% of input. If you increase efficiency 1000x, it wastes 70% / 1000 = 0.007% of input, so it's 99.993% efficient.
- danuker 5y ago
  It could also mean that the ferroelectric cells were harvesting 0.000001% of sunlight, while now they harvest 0.001%. The fact that no absolute number is given in the article makes me want to boycott it.
- usrusr 5y ago
  That would be a 1000x decrease in inefficiency. Very, very impressive but not even remotely as impossible as a 1000x increase assuming that you start with more than 0.1%. I'd expect the headline to resolve to some perspective where the numbers do make sense, in some very special, limited way, assuming that they didn't just roll dice to decide how many orders of magnitude to falsely claim. Unfortunately, there's a huge crowd out there that combines, in a surprising way, radical science scepticism with radical science optimism. The "science said man cannot fly, then came the Wright Brothers" crowd who refuse all painful achievable improvements based on their hope for some convenient miracle. These headlines are dangerous.

nine_k 5y ago

I'm not certain about the "easier" part, but with efficiency higher than a semiconductor cell can ever be, this device should draw attention, no matter how hard is it to produce currently.

k__ 5y ago
Ah, good to know. Yes, easier might be not right here, but it sounded like overall they are less complex.
smolder 5y ago
Reading the article and the comments... No, these are not more efficient than silicon cells. They took an inefficient, simpler to produce PV material and found a way to dramatically increase its efficiency on certain wavelengths of light. It's still worse than silicon panels overall.