4 ms·

Another breathless press release on perovskite technology from Oxford PV. The press release's claim of "reducing the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE)" (comp

Another breathless press release on perovskite technology from Oxford PV. The press release's claim of "reducing the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE)" (compared to what?) is sufficiently vague that my BS detector started twitching. Let's look at the state-of the art: The most carefully done research article I could find (2022, written with authors from Oxford PV, so take it with whatever size NaCl dose is appropriate): https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/se/d2se00096b https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/se/d2se0... Surely, since this study relied heavily on empirical data, they would have used empirically measured degradation rates in their models? Well, nope. Check out these gems: "Oxford PV succeeded in mitigating stability-related deficits and aims at providing future buyers of their modules with the industry-standard 25 year performance guarantee." So, _aims at_. "Due to the proven stability improvements [_citation needed_], no distinction is made between the PST [perovskite-on-silicon tandem] and SHJ [silicon heterojunction] modules with regard to the degradation rate." So, they ASSUME the exact same degradation rate as silicon heterjunction solar cells. Sure, if the degradation rates are truly equal (or even, not terribly worse for PST) then I would believe. But the claim of lower LCOE today (compared to SHJ? they don't say) needs some more evidence, because this is an extraordinary claim in my opinion.

akamaka 2y ago
Presumably the utility wouldn’t have purchased these panels if they weren’t priced appropriately. If you’re asking if Oxford can make these profitably, the answer is an obvious “no” because this is part of an initial production run meant to prove the product in the field.
- GlibMonkeyDeath 2y ago
  Presumably, but I wonder - people also said the Walgreen's deal with Theranos was proof the technology must work as advertised, but we all know how that worked out. The fact that I can't find any lifetime data on these panels is what I find really disturbing - that is the #1 problem with perovskite-based cells, and if they really have solved the degradation problem they would be shouting it from the rooftops and publishing their data. Every claim they make about cost hinges on the details of the degradation curves. I'm not the only one who knows this to be the case, BTW: From https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/05/24/perovskites-move-into-production/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/05/24/perovskites-move-into... " “None of these companies can guarantee the stability of their modules for 25 years,” said Jülich’s Ding. Despite promising results in the laboratory, the durability of perovskite solar cells remains a challenge – both alone and in tandem devices. There is a lack of concrete information from the manufacturers, as well as a lack of measurement data from long-term outdoor use or standards for tough tests that simulate real-life loads of up to 25 years." I'd love to be wrong, but my prediction is there will be a one-time buy, and the news will go quiet about this. Perovskite has a niche, but it isn't ready for utility-scale solar.

akamaka 2y ago

Presumably the utility wouldn’t have purchased these panels if they weren’t priced appropriately. If you’re asking if Oxford can make these profitably, the answer is an obvious “no” because this is part of an initial production run meant to prove the product in the field.

GlibMonkeyDeath 2y ago
Presumably, but I wonder - people also said the Walgreen's deal with Theranos was proof the technology must work as advertised, but we all know how that worked out. The fact that I can't find any lifetime data on these panels is what I find really disturbing - that is the #1 problem with perovskite-based cells, and if they really have solved the degradation problem they would be shouting it from the rooftops and publishing their data. Every claim they make about cost hinges on the details of the degradation curves. I'm not the only one who knows this to be the case, BTW: From https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/05/24/perovskites-move-into-production/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/05/24/perovskites-move-into... " “None of these companies can guarantee the stability of their modules for 25 years,” said Jülich’s Ding. Despite promising results in the laboratory, the durability of perovskite solar cells remains a challenge – both alone and in tandem devices. There is a lack of concrete information from the manufacturers, as well as a lack of measurement data from long-term outdoor use or standards for tough tests that simulate real-life loads of up to 25 years." I'd love to be wrong, but my prediction is there will be a one-time buy, and the news will go quiet about this. Perovskite has a niche, but it isn't ready for utility-scale solar.