6 ms·

I did a quick Google for the Power Conversion Efficiency of Barium Titanate based solar cells and they are currently mostly in single-digit percentages [1]. A t

I did a quick Google for the Power Conversion Efficiency of Barium Titanate based solar cells and they are currently mostly in single-digit percentages [1]. A thousandfold increase would be over 1000%. Unless I'm missing something important, they probably mean 1000x over a super basic BaTiO3 system, not 1000x over the current state of the art. [1] For example, this 5.13% PCE from "hierarchical barium titanate micro flowers": https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2053-1591/aace86 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2053-1591/aace86

ghastmaster 5y ago
From the comments section of the article: > 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.
- phkahler 5y ago
  In other words they made something work that really didn't before. Even if they made the best theoretically possible solar cell, the starting point of 1/1000th of that would not have been considered useful for anything.
VygmraMGVl 5y ago
To get the 1000x figure, the research is comparing photocurrents from bulk BTO and their special crystal-aligned BTO at a specific wavelength of incident light (306nm). They also compare photocurrents under a solar simulator and achieve 100x increase vs bulk BTO. At no point do they make comparison to state of the art BTO cells, which almost certainly aren't just bulk BTO but are likely doped, nanostructured, or have some other novelty.
- wishawa 5y ago
  That is true. The research is good. But the headline, the article itself, and especially this comment by the author > 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. misleadingly make it seem like they made 1000x progress from the current best.

ghastmaster 5y ago

From the comments section of the article: > 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.

phkahler 5y ago
In other words they made something work that really didn't before. Even if they made the best theoretically possible solar cell, the starting point of 1/1000th of that would not have been considered useful for anything.

VygmraMGVl 5y ago

To get the 1000x figure, the research is comparing photocurrents from bulk BTO and their special crystal-aligned BTO at a specific wavelength of incident light (306nm). They also compare photocurrents under a solar simulator and achieve 100x increase vs bulk BTO. At no point do they make comparison to state of the art BTO cells, which almost certainly aren't just bulk BTO but are likely doped, nanostructured, or have some other novelty.

wishawa 5y ago
That is true. The research is good. But the headline, the article itself, and especially this comment by the author > 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. misleadingly make it seem like they made 1000x progress from the current best.