5 ms·

Anyone know what the state of the art is/will be for panel lifetimes? Efficiency is great, but I’d sacrifice some if it meant 50+ year lifetimes of 85%+ peak ou

Anyone know what the state of the art is/will be for panel lifetimes? Efficiency is great, but I’d sacrifice some if it meant 50+ year lifetimes of 85%+ peak output.

greenthrow 3y ago
They essentially last 50+ years now, and have always, barring damage. State of the art panels today warranty 90%+ output after 25 years. So they probably aren't far off what you're asking for at 50. They keep getting better and cheaper every year.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  NREL's latest data is summarized here: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81172.pdf#page=5 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81172.pdf#page=5 Some types of panels have increased capacity after being in the field for years. Degradation is not a significant economic concern at this stage of the process.
  - abdullahkhalids 3y ago
    I see degradation numbers between -0.1%/year and -1.1%/year. This translates to about * 0.999^25 = 97.5% to 0.989^25 = 75.8% output after 25 years. * 0.999^50 = 95% to 0.989^50 = 57.5% output after 50 years.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Data I’ve see doesn’t show output dropping continuously at a constant rate. Also some panels did show modest improvement for a few years.
      - londons_explore 3y ago
        > modest improvement for a few years. Many regions of the world are getting dryer. You might just be seeing a global warming side effect as there is less cloud cover.
    - londons_explore 3y ago
      It would be good to break the figures down between: * The actual silicon is degrading * The cover glass is getting dirty/frosted/delaminating/optical adhesive is no longer clear * Electrical failure of a whole cell - for example it is cracked, yet the panel still appears to work due to the bypass diodes removing a whole cell from the circuit. Sure - from the users point of view it doesn't matter, but from an engineering point of view, the cause of failure gives some clues how to prevent it.
- philipkglass 3y ago
  This is true for panels on the market now, and most of those produced in the past. The 33% tandem systems reported on by Ars Technica see severe efficiency degradation after just a few hundred hours of full-power operation, so that's something that needs to be solved before perovskite-on-silicon tandem systems enter mass production.
- larsiusprime 3y ago
  What about hail damage? That's the main concern holding me back, but is this something already being addressed?
  - ben_w 3y ago
    That sounds like you want armoured panels; As I understand it, the degradation being discussed here is from the light itself.
  - greenthrow 3y ago
    Most panel warranties cover hail up to like 1" diameter. So, pretty sizable. Beyond that, you need insurance.
  - goldenkey 3y ago
    Is it possible to put some translucent protective material that doesn't block the frequencies the panels absorb?
    - jackmott42 3y ago
      yes, they use this new tech called glass.
      - goldenkey 3y ago
        Glass refracts and depending on what it's made of, will absorb some frequencies. > For normal incidence, approximately 4 % of the light is reflected; this value is determined by the refractive index of the glass. For most glasses with a refractive index of 1.5, reflection losses at the surface result in an approximate 4% decrease in light intensity.
  - abdullahkhalids 3y ago
    You can always put more/stronger glass on top to protect them more. But I would bet it is cheaper to buy insurance for such infrequent events.
  - jackmott42 3y ago
epolanski 3y ago
I have worked as a solar scientist researcher for some time, have coauthored 3 papers in Michael Graetzel[1]'s laboratory and I have some experience in both Graetzel cells and perovskite solutions like the one mentioned in this article. Long story short: scientific researchers, especially those in well funded laboratories are incentivized by the wrong metrics (in all fields, not unique to solar) and in this field the only metric that matters is efficiency. It doesn't matter if your cell decays by 50% in a day, it reached some great potential in a new way, here's the way for a high impact publication. Want to work on the other problem though? Lifetime, resiliency? Cheap and affordable and non-toxic materials? Good luck getting proper funding and exposure. Why? Because scientific papers are a closed mafia, where a set of the most influential scientists (doesn't matter how many scientists the planet has, the moment you start entering a niche the number of people is very low) in their field review the submitted papers. Don't have high efficiency or you're not breaking science? Forget a high-impact journal. You're back at B-tier, C-tier papers, but those won't get you funding and status. Not great for your career. So what do you do? You play fool and focus your efforts and many many millions of euros to get the next perovskite cell that can reach high 20%s with some twist at least or go for the 30%+ ones. Just to express how sad and toxic the world of scientific research is (not even mentioning the insane amount of fake data that gets published every day, the politics, etc): instead of being a researcher I now prefer being a web developer writing forms list and tables. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gr%C3%A4tzel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gr%C3%A4tzel
- casparvitch 3y ago
  I disagree that science has the wrong incentives. The place for science is to chase new (e.g.) physics, not build something useful. As a society we have decided that (e.g.) physics should/shall solve our problems with better technology. But that is not what pure academic science is about, or what pure academic scientists care about. You want to iteratively improve technologies? Give more funding to proper engineers, not physicists/chemists, even if they're sometimes in the 'school of electrical engineering'.
  - ScoobleDoodle 3y ago
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
I'm the opposite, I'd trade some of the current longevity, for ever increasing efficiency. Some research suggests you should replace all solar panels every 17 years because the tech will have advanced enough to make it worthwile.
walrus01 3y ago
There are very reputable manufacturers now that warranty on a sliding scale over time to be 84% of original STC watt rating at 25 years.

Anyone know what the state of the art is/will be for panel lifetimes? Efficiency is great, but I’d sacrifice some if it meant 50+ year lifetimes of 85%+ peak output.

greenthrow 3y ago

They essentially last 50+ years now, and have always, barring damage. State of the art panels today warranty 90%+ output after 25 years. So they probably aren't far off what you're asking for at 50. They keep getting better and cheaper every year.

jeffbee 3y ago
NREL's latest data is summarized here: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81172.pdf#page=5 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81172.pdf#page=5 Some types of panels have increased capacity after being in the field for years. Degradation is not a significant economic concern at this stage of the process.
- abdullahkhalids 3y ago
  I see degradation numbers between -0.1%/year and -1.1%/year. This translates to about * 0.999^25 = 97.5% to 0.989^25 = 75.8% output after 25 years. * 0.999^50 = 95% to 0.989^50 = 57.5% output after 50 years.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Data I’ve see doesn’t show output dropping continuously at a constant rate. Also some panels did show modest improvement for a few years.
    - londons_explore 3y ago
      > modest improvement for a few years. Many regions of the world are getting dryer. You might just be seeing a global warming side effect as there is less cloud cover.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    It would be good to break the figures down between: * The actual silicon is degrading * The cover glass is getting dirty/frosted/delaminating/optical adhesive is no longer clear * Electrical failure of a whole cell - for example it is cracked, yet the panel still appears to work due to the bypass diodes removing a whole cell from the circuit. Sure - from the users point of view it doesn't matter, but from an engineering point of view, the cause of failure gives some clues how to prevent it.
philipkglass 3y ago
This is true for panels on the market now, and most of those produced in the past. The 33% tandem systems reported on by Ars Technica see severe efficiency degradation after just a few hundred hours of full-power operation, so that's something that needs to be solved before perovskite-on-silicon tandem systems enter mass production.
larsiusprime 3y ago
What about hail damage? That's the main concern holding me back, but is this something already being addressed?
- ben_w 3y ago
  That sounds like you want armoured panels; As I understand it, the degradation being discussed here is from the light itself.
- greenthrow 3y ago
  Most panel warranties cover hail up to like 1" diameter. So, pretty sizable. Beyond that, you need insurance.
- goldenkey 3y ago
  Is it possible to put some translucent protective material that doesn't block the frequencies the panels absorb?
  - jackmott42 3y ago
    yes, they use this new tech called glass.
    - goldenkey 3y ago
      Glass refracts and depending on what it's made of, will absorb some frequencies. > For normal incidence, approximately 4 % of the light is reflected; this value is determined by the refractive index of the glass. For most glasses with a refractive index of 1.5, reflection losses at the surface result in an approximate 4% decrease in light intensity.
- abdullahkhalids 3y ago
  You can always put more/stronger glass on top to protect them more. But I would bet it is cheaper to buy insurance for such infrequent events.
- jackmott42 3y ago

epolanski 3y ago

I have worked as a solar scientist researcher for some time, have coauthored 3 papers in Michael Graetzel[1]'s laboratory and I have some experience in both Graetzel cells and perovskite solutions like the one mentioned in this article. Long story short: scientific researchers, especially those in well funded laboratories are incentivized by the wrong metrics (in all fields, not unique to solar) and in this field the only metric that matters is efficiency. It doesn't matter if your cell decays by 50% in a day, it reached some great potential in a new way, here's the way for a high impact publication. Want to work on the other problem though? Lifetime, resiliency? Cheap and affordable and non-toxic materials? Good luck getting proper funding and exposure. Why? Because scientific papers are a closed mafia, where a set of the most influential scientists (doesn't matter how many scientists the planet has, the moment you start entering a niche the number of people is very low) in their field review the submitted papers. Don't have high efficiency or you're not breaking science? Forget a high-impact journal. You're back at B-tier, C-tier papers, but those won't get you funding and status. Not great for your career. So what do you do? You play fool and focus your efforts and many many millions of euros to get the next perovskite cell that can reach high 20%s with some twist at least or go for the 30%+ ones. Just to express how sad and toxic the world of scientific research is (not even mentioning the insane amount of fake data that gets published every day, the politics, etc): instead of being a researcher I now prefer being a web developer writing forms list and tables. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gr%C3%A4tzel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gr%C3%A4tzel

casparvitch 3y ago
I disagree that science has the wrong incentives. The place for science is to chase new (e.g.) physics, not build something useful. As a society we have decided that (e.g.) physics should/shall solve our problems with better technology. But that is not what pure academic science is about, or what pure academic scientists care about. You want to iteratively improve technologies? Give more funding to proper engineers, not physicists/chemists, even if they're sometimes in the 'school of electrical engineering'.
- ScoobleDoodle 3y ago

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

I'm the opposite, I'd trade some of the current longevity, for ever increasing efficiency. Some research suggests you should replace all solar panels every 17 years because the tech will have advanced enough to make it worthwile.

walrus01 3y ago

There are very reputable manufacturers now that warranty on a sliding scale over time to be 84% of original STC watt rating at 25 years.