4 ms·

Yeah, that's 100% a problem worth calling out and fixing. But we really do need efficiency gains in solar panels, and silicon is maxed out. Figuring out how to

Yeah, that's 100% a problem worth calling out and fixing. But we really do need efficiency gains in solar panels, and silicon is maxed out. Figuring out how to make perovskite more workable is absolutely worth the effort, and commercializing it is a crucial step for that.

coryrc 2y ago
> But we really do need efficiency gains in solar panels why?
- coldpie 2y ago
  Because we're already past midnight on the climate catastrophe clock, and every gain counts. If we get a 20% jump in solar panel efficiency, that means we can offline coal plants even more quickly.
  - aidenn0 2y ago
    Or we could just make 20% more of the old technology?
    - coldpie 2y ago
      Both!
  - ianburrell 2y ago
    Producing more cheap panels is much better solution than waiting for more expensive, more efficient panels that aren't available now. I'm surprised someone who is concerned about catastrophe wants to wait. Solar panels are cheap enough that big installations are putting them on the ground than making mounts. There is plenty of ground. There are places where more efficient panels would be useful. With rooves, where if spending effort to mount them then might be worth using more efficient panels. Or the flexible panels might be easier to mount.
    - coldpie 2y ago
      > Producing more cheap panels is much better solution than waiting for more expensive, more efficient panels that aren't available now. I'm surprised someone who is concerned about catastrophe wants to wait. Huh? Can you point out where I said we should wait?
      - ianburrell 2y ago
        It was rhetorical cause you obviously don't. But you are arguing for the slower, more expensive option. Current panels are faster and cheaper. The efficiency doesn't really matter for utility solar. It is unlikely that perovskite panels will ever get cheap enough for efficiency gain to matter unless there is some breakthrough in production. Current solar panels have too much of a head start.
        coldpie 2y ago
        > But you are arguing for the slower, more expensive option No I'm not. I'm not arguing for anything. I'm excited to have more options for solar deployments! If the best option for a current time & deployment is silicon, then great! Use silicon! If perovskite does nothing more than put price pressure on silicon to get even cheaper, then that's great, too! I'm excited about green technologies :) > It is unlikely that perovskite panels will ever get cheap enough for efficiency gain to matter unless there is some breakthrough in production We'll see! We're pretty good at making improvements. Will perovskite see the same amazing price drop that silicon has? I don't know, but I'm excited to see the first step in that possible path happening.
        Workaccount2 2y ago
        Solar panels will continues to be installed at a breakneck pace for likely another decade or more. So the sooner we get more efficient panels, the sooner they can be installed rather then the less efficient ones. It's very straight forward what they were saying.
        coldpie 2y ago
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Only if the new panels are cheap enough that we install at similar a similar pace. If we install 50% less we are worse off.
    - coldpie 2y ago
      Obviously, yes.
  - AlgorithmicTime 2y ago
    [dead]
blitzar 2y ago
We still have more than enough empty roof space in suburbia to power everything for everyone and more for $0 (after installation).
- vinceguidry 2y ago
  The real move here is to roll them out in fields mostly unusable for other purposes. These days, you can put up an entire field installation in a day or two. Getting them onto roofs requires a whole lot more effort for a whole lot less capacity.
  - euroderf 2y ago
    Furthermore you can take a shortcut by mounting them either flat on the ground (dead simple) or vertically (no worries about dust or snow) (use them as a fence). The loss of efficiency might be marginal, depending on your latitude and weather.
- tuatoru 2y ago
  Armchair comment. Roofs are about the worst place. All the working at heights safety issues, the wide diversity of roof plans, the small size of individual roofs, the cost and difficulty of maintenance, and on and on.
0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
Do we need efficiency gains? Like more is better, but in the US, land is cheap in many areas. A panel that is 5% better, but degrades faster might not be an economic win for a commercial power plant.
- coldpie 2y ago
  > Do we need efficiency gains? Like more is better, but in the US, land is cheap in many areas. Yes. Anything that lets us offline coal plants faster will save lives. Assuming all else is equal, it's literally free energy. Why wouldn't you want that? What a bizarre question. > A panel that is 5% better, but degrades faster might not be an economic win for a commercial power plant. Obviously you have to multiply efficiency by longevity. If that equation didn't work out, they wouldn't be commercializing it.
  - nicoburns 2y ago
    > Yes. Anything that lets us offline coal plants faster will save lives. Assuming all else is equal, it's literally free energy. I agree with that. But all else is not equal. The more efficient panels are much more expensive than the regular panels (and there are no signs of this changing any time soon). Cheaper regular panels (and prices are still falling) are more helpful. Aside from which, panels are already cheap enough for cheap energy. It's energy storage costs (and availability of storage technology in general) that are the blocker at this point. > Obviously you have to multiply efficiency by longevity. If that equation didn't work out, they wouldn't be commercializing it. I suspect they won't be commercialised for grid-scale power plants. They'll likely be used in space, and perhaps on things like boats and RVs where space is also at a premium.
    - coldpie 2y ago
      > The more efficient panels are much more expensive than the regular panels (and there are no signs of this changing any time soon). I'm pretty confident we'll be replacing silicon panels with another, more efficient tech before long. Something will bust through silicon's efficiency barrier. It may or may not be perovskite-based panels, who knows, buit I still think it's exciting to see the research & gains in this area. It's great to have more options coming online.
shwaj 2y ago
This is the first I’ve heard of perovskite so I have no idea: are the cited toxicity issues fixable? Or are they inherent to the chemistry of this class of panels? How do we decide how much extra short term toxicity is acceptable? Do we do that blindly without theoretical/empirical results that demonstrate a better end state?
- coldpie 2y ago
  I'm no expert here, either. Lead is regulated pretty carefully these days, so I have to think if this was a deal-killer, then it would've killed the deal already. This conversation has the feel to me of internet armchair commenters insisting they know more than the experts. Shrug.
  - vondur 2y ago
    That regulation is part of the reason why these panels cost more to produce. I doubt they will ever go down in price due to that.
- nicoburns 2y ago
  My understanding is that there could in theory be perovskites that don't contain the toxic materials. But all known perovskites that are suitable for PV panels do happen to contain them.

coryrc 2y ago

> But we really do need efficiency gains in solar panels why?

coldpie 2y ago
Because we're already past midnight on the climate catastrophe clock, and every gain counts. If we get a 20% jump in solar panel efficiency, that means we can offline coal plants even more quickly.
- aidenn0 2y ago
  Or we could just make 20% more of the old technology?
  - coldpie 2y ago
    Both!
- ianburrell 2y ago
  Producing more cheap panels is much better solution than waiting for more expensive, more efficient panels that aren't available now. I'm surprised someone who is concerned about catastrophe wants to wait. Solar panels are cheap enough that big installations are putting them on the ground than making mounts. There is plenty of ground. There are places where more efficient panels would be useful. With rooves, where if spending effort to mount them then might be worth using more efficient panels. Or the flexible panels might be easier to mount.
  - coldpie 2y ago
    > Producing more cheap panels is much better solution than waiting for more expensive, more efficient panels that aren't available now. I'm surprised someone who is concerned about catastrophe wants to wait. Huh? Can you point out where I said we should wait?
    - ianburrell 2y ago
      It was rhetorical cause you obviously don't. But you are arguing for the slower, more expensive option. Current panels are faster and cheaper. The efficiency doesn't really matter for utility solar. It is unlikely that perovskite panels will ever get cheap enough for efficiency gain to matter unless there is some breakthrough in production. Current solar panels have too much of a head start.
      - coldpie 2y ago
        > But you are arguing for the slower, more expensive option No I'm not. I'm not arguing for anything. I'm excited to have more options for solar deployments! If the best option for a current time & deployment is silicon, then great! Use silicon! If perovskite does nothing more than put price pressure on silicon to get even cheaper, then that's great, too! I'm excited about green technologies :) > It is unlikely that perovskite panels will ever get cheap enough for efficiency gain to matter unless there is some breakthrough in production We'll see! We're pretty good at making improvements. Will perovskite see the same amazing price drop that silicon has? I don't know, but I'm excited to see the first step in that possible path happening.
      - Workaccount2 2y ago
        Solar panels will continues to be installed at a breakneck pace for likely another decade or more. So the sooner we get more efficient panels, the sooner they can be installed rather then the less efficient ones. It's very straight forward what they were saying.
        coldpie 2y ago
- bluGill 2y ago
  Only if the new panels are cheap enough that we install at similar a similar pace. If we install 50% less we are worse off.
  - coldpie 2y ago
    Obviously, yes.
- AlgorithmicTime 2y ago
  [dead]

blitzar 2y ago

We still have more than enough empty roof space in suburbia to power everything for everyone and more for $0 (after installation).

vinceguidry 2y ago
The real move here is to roll them out in fields mostly unusable for other purposes. These days, you can put up an entire field installation in a day or two. Getting them onto roofs requires a whole lot more effort for a whole lot less capacity.
- euroderf 2y ago
  Furthermore you can take a shortcut by mounting them either flat on the ground (dead simple) or vertically (no worries about dust or snow) (use them as a fence). The loss of efficiency might be marginal, depending on your latitude and weather.
tuatoru 2y ago
Armchair comment. Roofs are about the worst place. All the working at heights safety issues, the wide diversity of roof plans, the small size of individual roofs, the cost and difficulty of maintenance, and on and on.

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago

Do we need efficiency gains? Like more is better, but in the US, land is cheap in many areas. A panel that is 5% better, but degrades faster might not be an economic win for a commercial power plant.

coldpie 2y ago
> Do we need efficiency gains? Like more is better, but in the US, land is cheap in many areas. Yes. Anything that lets us offline coal plants faster will save lives. Assuming all else is equal, it's literally free energy. Why wouldn't you want that? What a bizarre question. > A panel that is 5% better, but degrades faster might not be an economic win for a commercial power plant. Obviously you have to multiply efficiency by longevity. If that equation didn't work out, they wouldn't be commercializing it.
- nicoburns 2y ago
  > Yes. Anything that lets us offline coal plants faster will save lives. Assuming all else is equal, it's literally free energy. I agree with that. But all else is not equal. The more efficient panels are much more expensive than the regular panels (and there are no signs of this changing any time soon). Cheaper regular panels (and prices are still falling) are more helpful. Aside from which, panels are already cheap enough for cheap energy. It's energy storage costs (and availability of storage technology in general) that are the blocker at this point. > Obviously you have to multiply efficiency by longevity. If that equation didn't work out, they wouldn't be commercializing it. I suspect they won't be commercialised for grid-scale power plants. They'll likely be used in space, and perhaps on things like boats and RVs where space is also at a premium.
  - coldpie 2y ago
    > The more efficient panels are much more expensive than the regular panels (and there are no signs of this changing any time soon). I'm pretty confident we'll be replacing silicon panels with another, more efficient tech before long. Something will bust through silicon's efficiency barrier. It may or may not be perovskite-based panels, who knows, buit I still think it's exciting to see the research & gains in this area. It's great to have more options coming online.

shwaj 2y ago

This is the first I’ve heard of perovskite so I have no idea: are the cited toxicity issues fixable? Or are they inherent to the chemistry of this class of panels? How do we decide how much extra short term toxicity is acceptable? Do we do that blindly without theoretical/empirical results that demonstrate a better end state?

coldpie 2y ago
I'm no expert here, either. Lead is regulated pretty carefully these days, so I have to think if this was a deal-killer, then it would've killed the deal already. This conversation has the feel to me of internet armchair commenters insisting they know more than the experts. Shrug.
- vondur 2y ago
  That regulation is part of the reason why these panels cost more to produce. I doubt they will ever go down in price due to that.
nicoburns 2y ago
My understanding is that there could in theory be perovskites that don't contain the toxic materials. But all known perovskites that are suitable for PV panels do happen to contain them.