Scientists develop mega-thin solar cells that could be shockingly easy to produce: ‘As rapid as printing a newspaper’
(finance.yahoo.com)
from L4s@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 05 Dec 2023 12:00
https://lemmy.world/post/9172304
from L4s@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 05 Dec 2023 12:00
https://lemmy.world/post/9172304
Scientists develop mega-thin solar cells that could be shockingly easy to produce: ‘As rapid as printing a newspaper’::These cells could be laminated onto various kinds of surfaces, such as the sails of a boat to provide power while at sea.
threaded - newest
“mega-thin”? Is that like “micro-large”?
Pepperidge Farm remembers when journalists had a grasp of the language.
They should have just used “hella-thin”.
THINTACULAR!
THINTROCIRY!
AM I DOING THIN RIGHT?
Thintastic is quite good also
Or “wicked thin” for the New England audience.
Lol I thought the same thing on first read. Then again “micro thin” sounds redundant…
“It has a large amount of thinness” Mega-thin is fine lol. I do like hella-thin though
Thin. Very thin, paper-thin. Ultra-thin if you want hyperbole.
What about jumbo thin
If it’s shockingly easy to produce then just do it and then you can write a declarative headline that doesn’t need to use the word “could”. If you can’t then I’m guessing it’s not that shockingly easy.
I mean, even if it’s easy to do, that doesn’t mean a manufacturing process is easy to ramp up. You need equipment to produce it, and people to do it. Logistics of that isn’t like just turning on/off a light switch.
Some people have never tried getting a product to market before, and it shows.
I would wager most of us haven’t.
I don’t care what you say the am/fm butt plug was going to be revolutionary!
At that point, you can just call it bm radio
Without headlines, no investors. Without investors, no equipment. Without equipment, no product. Headlines like these drive investment.
Yes, exactly. My point is that I’m tired of these bullshit headlines that are implying that we have some great breakthrough; unless the discovery also accounts for everything you listed, it’s not a breakthrough and we, the public, don’t need to hear about it just so that a newspaper can sell clicks and ruin trust in science.
You seem to be conflating breakthrough with manufacturing capacity
No, I’m just not referring to a slightly novel manufacturing process that will probably lead nowhere as a “breakthrough”.
Some of us like learning about science and technology, if you only want to know about products then watch adverts.
The average person understands the difference between ‘will’ and ‘could’
I love shows like How It’s Made, you get to see the Rube Goldbergian systems that produce stuff we take for granted.
To echo the other individual who replied, it’s shockingly easy to make injection molded parts, but there is usually a long process before you bring the final product to market. And that’s with all the manufacturing processes already existing at scale.
In this case, the processes need to be fleshed out from scratch, which adds even more time to the ramp up. So even if the headline is 100% accurate, and there are no other roadblocks, it would still take a significant chunk of time to bring to market.
Time, money, man hours, etc, etc. All while still figuring out how to make it at scale and be able to sell it a a price that enables you to continue the business.
It’s hard stuff, for sure.
Yeah, how dare they report on science and technology - I’ve barely seen a dozen articles about Will Smith’s personal life today, we don’t have resources to waste talking about successful research projects from MIT!
When MIT get in a salacious romance scandal then they can have a bit of our precious media space but get the fuck out of here with your science bullshit nerds.
This isn’t science, this is engineering, and it’s crappy engineering at that.
For a while I was celebrating when I didn’t see Taylor Swift’s name in either the sports or entertainment heading on google news. And each heading only showed three headlines.
AFAIK this was previously developed about 5 years ago in Australia at the University of Newcastle Engineering Dept.
Not sure why this lot n the US is claiming credit for it.
…edu.au/…/public-debut-for-printed-solar
We do love “discovering” other peoples things and claiming they’re “the new _____”
An Edison tradition.
It’s a different process. Multiple processes with varied applications are absolutely essential to making this style of solar the norm
It’s a great thing that this particular field continues to see innovation.
New process
Your linked process:
Ok thanks. I see the difference. It was a late night knee-jerk defensive post.
As a fabric geek with a cut/sew shop working on marine canvas, this gives me a raging boner. The panel making process might be cheap but I’ll tell you dyneema fabric isn’t. Bet there’s great mark-up on it though! 🤑
This has its own applications but I can’t say I’ve ever heard anyone complain about thickness of solar panels. Efficiency, power generated, etc. Sure.
Bulky, heavy, stiff, …
Which would all be a valid concern if you had to carry them all the time or bend them. There are flexible solar panels which you can glue on roof of your boat or car though.
First, the thickness factor plays into flexibility. Just imagine surfaces of every shape being covered in solar cells. Flexible panels could also be less prone to breakage.
Second, with “as rapid as printing a newspaper”, this might be a major cost-reduction thing, even on top of the process needing less high-pure Si material.
This might make solar power generation more attractive even if the efficiency would be lower than other methods, because this would drive the ratio $/kw down.
Kind of like these? Flexible solar panels are not a problem. And no, being newspaper thin will never be stronger than mounted on rigid surface. If it bends it has a definite limit in number of times you can bend it.
As for “printing a newspaper” and rapid production, when I see it I’ll believe it. At the moment it’s nothing more than speculation as they themselves have not made it yet. Every manufacturing process starts slow and then speeds up as process is optimized. The problem is whether there is a financial incentive to start producing in the first place.
By “flexible” I did not imply “use it as a hinge”. It was more like: “you can install it on a non-flat surface”, e.g. by gluing it down. Now that surface would provide the needed overall stability. Imagine having you cars roof and engine hood being completely covered in solar cells - or basically be a solar cell. No, you would not be able to drive it as an EV with the amounts of power provided, but it could trickle charge a battery, or power a fan in hot weather so the interior will not be boiling when you return to your vehicle after a day at work.
We already have the panel type which is glued on. But I guess it remains to be seen whether there’s a financial incentive to mass produce this.
Indeed. Price is the key issue.
For most users, I’d guess that unit area is more important. But for satellites, I suppose that as long as they can unfold, space isn’t really an issue. You’ve got all of outer space to spread out into. But weight determines a lot of the cost of putting the thing up in space, so you’d like that to be low.
Weight does play a huge role for satellites and to be honest I have very little knowledge of solar panels they use. However since solar sail is a thing, I’d argue surface is indeed a factor with satellites. But perhaps they managed to get some use there. There might be even other use cases I just didn’t think about. My original comment was mostly pointing out that thickness was rarely as big of an issue as it was efficiency.
For anything other than house roof solar price per kw is going to be the deciding factor. Rural land is very cheap compared to solar panels - we’re talking about a 100:1 cost ratio.
Also I can’t imagine you’d want to add too much extra weight to a skyscraper
If they’re cheap enough, you can just slap them on any available surface that gets a marginal amount of sunlight. Doubly so if they’re flexible.
If you can print them on textiles they can literally be everywhere.
Clearly you’ve never
owned an air fryerwanted a solar powered car. Or imagine shipping containers covered in these powering the trucks that haul them! Or trains! Even boats. Basically any kind of self powered transit, especially ones with greater surface area.Second edit: Another idea! Clingfilm solar panels for windows, or blinds and curtains that can power the lights!
Or wind turbines skinned in thin, light, flexible solar panels. You’d double dip on energy per square meter. You could have a solar farm on a stick that also makes wind energy.
If you dream of covering a vehicle with panels and have it driven by that power, I have to burst your bubble. That’s not even nearly enough surface to generate enough power. Perhaps assist in trickle charging battery, sure. But we already have flexible panels, even self-adhesive ones. And again, their biggest downside is not their thickness but efficiency. There will never be a self-propelled vehicle. Just a nature of things.
As for window blinds, etc. There is already glass that lets enough light through and can generate electricity. Those are even worse when it comes to efficiency due to non-ideal angle, light passing through, etc.
“We already have technology that doesn’t do those things well enough, so this new technology that won’t see advancement ever has no chance of addressing these issues either.”
Trickle charge is awesome. Trickle charge the semi during your 8 hour driving shift and then another 8 hours while the trucker is asleep. If that nets half a charge every other day, that’s a charge and a half a week. It’s not self powered like a perpetual motion device, those aren’t real. But regenerative braking is a worthwhile addition to an electric truck. Why wouldn’t solar paper or whatever we want to call it also be part of the solution?
There are physical limits at play to how much power this can provide. No amount of technological improvement can break them.
Imagine the driver plugging in the truck during the 8 hours while they’re asleep. That’s an achievable goal.
Here’s a video of a camper van with traditional solar panels on the roof using a slide-out awning technique.
youtu.be/Ev5C9gf0zFc?si=97piy-3mV9TIsRlu
You might say that’s impractical for regular use. Sure, it is, but your previous argument was that is was impossible due to physics, which the video clearly shows isn’t physically impossible, so we’re already much closer to a reality. I’m not saying it could drive forever without stopping or be the only power source. That’s silly. But if it reduces the need to charge from a grid by X% it can be a useful technology. Go on now and tell me how it could never ever work.
A camper van. Which has electrical use for things besides turning a motor. Yeah, that’s useful, but it doesn’t exactly help your case.
Under optimal conditions, the sun gives us 1000Wh per square meter. Let’s say you have a 100% efficient solar panel. A semi truck trailer has a max of 42 sq meters on top of its trailer. So you get 42kWh out of this.
It takes about 280kWh to keep a semi truck at cruising speed on the highway. Thus, in this most optimal scenario, it would give you an additional 15%. Even this assumes there is no additional aerodynamic drag from the panels, mounting hardware, or wiring. It wouldn’t take much to completely blow that 15% away.
If it’s a cloudy day, all of it is now deadweight, and now hurts more than it helps. If you don’t drive on the equator, its output drops and it now hurts more than it helps. If you have solar panels that actually exist that do around 20% efficiency instead of 100%, it now hurts more than it helps.
I guess we could move the Earth closer to the sun. Won’t help our global warming problems, though.
It also turns the motor bro, did you watch it?
Of course it does. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
Did you math?
You first said is was physically impossible. I’ve shown you it wasn’t and predicted you’d move the goal post from possibility to practicality. And you did. Thanks for proving that you don’t really care about whether it could even possibly work, but just that you wanna dunk on excitement and be right on the Internet. Have a good day.
I never said this.
“There are physical limits at play to how much power this can provide. No amount of technological improvement can break them.”
Also, the fact it powers the motor for the camper AND all the appliances and such just proves the viability that much more, as the extra power draw is still supported by the camper’s solar power system.
Yes, there are physical limits. It cannot provide enough power to justify having it only for the purposes of turning a motor. A camper van can justify it because it has lots of uses for electricity besides turning a motor, and as long as you’re paying the cost anyway, might as well connect it to the battery charging circuit.
You started this conversation with:
All things that primarily turn a motor. None of these are feasible to be powered this way.
So you did say that. But you just told me you didn’t. You’re confusing. I also showed you a motor powered this way yet you say it isn’t feasible. So I really feel like I’m done with this conversation. Good day.
Not my fault if you don’t understand the difference between “impossible” and “infeasible”.
Your physics isn’t terrible but you’re making absurd leaps into nonsence with the rest, you also don’t seem to have practical awareness of trucking logistics.
Here’s a thought experiment, if sticking news paper to the outside of your truck was proven to give a 5% fuel cost reduction how long do you think it would take before you see a truck covered in news paper? Probably hours at most, truck drivers don’t like stopping to piss because the extra fuel required to accelerate to highway speeds cuts into their margins so you can be damn sure that if there was an inexpensive way to reduce the cost of charging their truck everyone will be on that.
Also trunks have a lot of stuff beyond the motor, security and logging systems for example as well as various forms of climate control. Also being able to leave a vehicle idle and have it’s fuel slowly increase instead of decrease / denature is a huge thing in a lot of situations.
If course is not going to make a truck that can drive a heavy load without recharging but if its only going to cost the same as a paint coating and can supply a slow trickle then it’ll be a very popular product.
Even more so for things like agricultural machinery, leasure vehicles such as campers and boats, or anything with large gaps between uses.
So let’s think about how a hypothetical electric truck would charge throughout the day. Driver makes a 20 minute stop and there’s a 350kW charger available (about the max of what’s out there for this sort of thing right now). They’ll get 105kWh of charge out of that.
The top solar panels I can find at the moment are 540W and take up 2 sq meters each. So a 42 sq meter can have 21 panels for 11kW. That’s the power they’d be rated for in direct sunlight on a bright day.
Even if we assume they have that direct sunlight for 12 hours straight (they won’t, not even in equatorial regions), they’ll get 136kWh out of that per day. Only a bit more than what they’d get out of a 20 minute stop.
US regulations require that a driver take a 30 minute break after 8 hours of consecutive driving. I also understand that this rule is broken all the time, but I don’t feel the need to pander to exploitative and dangerous behaviors on the part of trucking companies.
Then we get to the cost. Those panels will be around $5000 for the set, and there are significant labor costs involved, too. Call it $10k/trailer to save a 20-30 minute stop each day that the driver will probably take, anyway.
There’s also significant weight added, which reduces how much cargo they can carry. The factor you’re talking about in getting the truck back up to highway speed just got worse. The panels ones noted in OP would be extremely lightweight, yes, but they also cut the power delivered in half.
None of this can happen until the industry electrifies. Current electric semi trucks are barely suitable, and there needs to be some improvements in battery tech before they can be.
This idea doesn’t even look good on paper with unrealistic assumptions made in its favor. Put the solar panels at the charging stations, not the trucks.
Or better, forget about long haul trucking and replace it with electrified rail. Mount the solar panels on racks above the trains, not on the trains.
And this technology is ideal for going over rail, road, parking areas and all that sort of stuff so of course it’s likely to end up used in those places.
It’s also almost certainly going to be painted onto truck roofs, RVs, trailers, boat decks, fencing, marquees, and just about everything else. We’ll certainly see rolls of it carried in pretty much all groups that go camping or work in off grid locations - take the roll, steak out two corners then unroll it onto a sunny bit of ground and suddenly you’ve got twenty square meters of PV charging your vehicles, phones, laptops, and tools. Life boats with power to run desalination equipment and satellite communications will save many lives.
At a low enough price point it’s worth it just to maintain charge in an ICE’s starter battery when left idle and to power monitoring systems, for electric trucks it’s a no brainer - free fuel and extended range for the cost of a paint job? It doesn’t matter how little range it adds or how slow the fuel trickes in it’ll become ubiquitous pretty much over night.
More like, it would take 8 days of constant sun to have an hour of driving.
Currently. Technology gets better
As outlined elsewhere in this thread, you’d have to move the Earth closer to the sun for this to be feasible. You can only get so much solar power as it stands, and even 100% efficient panels would only go so far.
Nah. Even 1% power is better than 0% power
Not when it costs any amount of money to do so.
No, there is literally only so much energy radiated by the sun in a certain area. The number of square feet of roof on a car is just too small to propel it, even with magic theoretical 100% efficient panels.
You do know cars don’t have to move all the time right? If I was on a road trip and got stuck because of no juice for whatever reason, I would be able to camp wherever I am for a couple days and then have enough to move.
Your thinking is pretty small minded
This isn’t some theoretical thing I’m making up. It’s really basic math and physics you should have learned in high school. To do a trip of a few miles you would have to charge for a week. Here is a good explainer with demonstration cars that have been physically built, maybe that will help drive the point home.
Those all sound like efficiency issues still. Covering any form of transportation with solar panels is primarily pointless because of how little power that would generate. Even if you covered every available inch with the most efficient panels invented, it would take over two weeks of sitting in full, direct sunlight to charge a solar-powered car, which you would drain in four hours of driving. As these panels are half as efficient as traditional panels, you could drive maybe
atwo minutes per hour you sit in full sun.Gotta be useful during the zombie apocalypse though. No more raiding gas stations and broken down vehicles.
Where are you getting that two weeks number?
A car has up to 55 sq. ft. available to panel. A good solar panel gets maybe 20 W/sq. ft. efficiency. An electric car has around an 80 kWh battery. A day has roughly the equivalent of 5 hours of full sunlight.
Then you just multiply/divide everything together, and you get 14½ days.
Fair enough. That definitely is true for a car. I would wonder whether the power/surface area/weight/energy consumption all scale linearly or if a vehicle like a semi with more surface area could take advantage of increased number solar panels, or would the amount of work needed to move the larger truck scale equally to the power gained?
Thank you for your proving reasoning for your opinions and sources. You’re groovy. Don’t feel like you have to again for this random thought of mine unless it’s enjoyable for you as part of our conversation.
Wait, what the fuck, dude. I had given you the math for semi trucks two hours before you posted this. You already had those numbers, and yet you speculate otherwise here.
That guy isn’t being a dick. You’ve got a bad attitude and I don’t like talking to you. Goodbye.
So… You denied reality because you didn’t like the person explaining it to you? Grats, you’re politician material now
No, I wasn’t enjoying one conversation in the room so I went to talk to somebody else. I’m not required to talk to them and I am free to explore a topic with someone else without citing previous discussions I’ve had. I deny nothing that guy said, though I also don’t take it as face value when they also ignored my points in the thread, I’d just rather talk to this person about it if they’d care to.
I’m often a dick to people arguing dishonestly. Guilty.
Oh just fuck off. You’re seriously chasing me around the comment section, butthurt because I’d rather talk to somebody less unpleasant. You’re not changing my perspective if that’s why you’re doing it.
If it takes 14 days to charge the battery, you just need to use it less then a 14th of its range per day and this all becomes very feasible, no? First link on google tells me high efficiency EVs output 6.4km per kwh. That’s 30 km a day at 80kwh, nothing to scoff at in my opinion, although its probably less.
I also think it could become popular to lengthen the in between charging times with higher capacity batteries.
+1 for the use of wolfram
Then factor in the extra cost of the panels and connecting hardware. The ones mentioned in OP are supposed to be dirt cheap, but they’re also half as efficient. The tradeoff cancels out the benefit.
Also, this won’t help highway driving much. EVs have already solved city driving just fine. 100mi range will do, even without good charging stations outside your home (with caveats for apartment dwellers). Highway range is where we need improvement, but you can’t ask people to just drive for 1/14th of the day there.
Also known as a “flag”
Ha! That could be it too, but I had meant more like a wrap around the pole.
I don’t think it’s so much about thickness, but being super thin presumably means it requires less of a manufacturing process and also less raw materials. Could bring costs down on panels and make them more financially viable for projects.
On top of that, could make them viable for other surfaces that might not have been a good fit for them with current tech
Indeed, 44 lbs for an 8kw installation is very light.
Use cases increase if they are thin. Instead of limited to rooftops. For example, take a look at what Aptera is doing.
Burning investor money on a DOA meme product just like Lightyear One did?
Ooof
What? Newspapers not rapid. They are printed only once per day because of all the writing and editing that’s required. Do it any faster and you’ll end up with lot’s of typos and factual errors.
The printing is fast.
Yeah, but do you want to be the person who has to fact-check every photon that hits these solar cells? I’m sorry, but a lie can radiate from the surface of a star and power your vehicle before the truth can even put its shoes on.
I would imagine it could only be useful for 30 minutes before the cell would be unusable. Arent solar cells just P-N junctions where if it is really thin it would just run out of holes to fill?
Edit: why am I being downvoted? To my limited understanding from my electrochemistry courses from 10 years ago, photovoltaics depend on the density. Theres only a limited amount of free electrons and only a limited number of free holes. The thinner the material the less likely an electron hole can get filled with whatever N-doped semiconductor used.
By your logic all solar panels would run out of these holes after a certain period of use?
Yes, correct me if I am wrong buy is that not the case?
No, definitely not. There’s no such lifetime limit.
Why not? I have not looked at this in forever so im probably wrong but I thought that these pn pairs end up creating some band gap. Over time that band gap widens until the energy from the sunlight just isnt strong enough to move through the system. In the end, it has a finite qty of holes so that limit depends on the qty of doped materials.
Again i dont remember well so 🤷
You’re a bit jumbled up here.
There are P N junctions where the magic happens. The P side conducts by moving vacant electron “slots” through the structure, we call these holes as in electron holes. There isn’t a lack of electrons or anything, both N and P are charge neutral, instead: Where in a metal if you push an electron into it in a circuit it bumps another one over a bit and so on in a P type you pull an electron off one end, the “hole” moves taking an electron from deeper in to fill where it was until at the end it pulls another in.
As you can see the number of holes is constant under normal circumstances. We pay attention to them for reasons that’ll become clear.
Now since N types want to volunteer electrons and P types have little electron holes ready, and these are negatively and positively charged (remember overall the material is neutral though) if we put them together then in a very narrow region some holes will accept electrons and fill up. As this happens ion cores (nuclei of the atoms making up the material missing an electron) are exposed in the N type making a small positive region, while the extra electrons in the P type make a small negative region. This balances the hole-electron attraction exactly and we have a stable charge depleted region.
Following? let’s talk about lightning for a moment.
you know how everything becomes a conductor if you try hard enough? think lightning jumping down through air, a tree, and some literal earth. Well lighting ionises (pulls electrons off making a kind of gas made of charged particles) stuff mostly but there’s a special sort of state most metals and similar can get to (indeed most metals are in this state at room temperature) where they’re sort of lightly ionised. Instead of the electron going away it sort of becomes promiscuous and is happy to share its time with nearby atoms.
Electrons in this state have certain energy levels associated with them, we call this band of states the conduction band. To get to that energy state you need to go from the valence band across a "band gap " to be promoted to slutty electron.
OK so these bound hole-electron pairs moved from the conduction band to the valence band when they settled down with each other. They can’t conduct anymore. But if a photon hits them just right they trial an open marriage and separate into the conduction band. The electron is now more attracted to the positively charged region back from whence it came and visa versa for the hole. Once they get bumped over they have to go the long way round the circuit to find each other again and that’s how we get energy.
Thank you for the eli5 refresher on how PN junctions and band gap works.
All I was saying was if there is some N-type material with only some finite number of excess electrons and some P-type with finite number of holes, there is a specific energy level that this semiconductor requires for valence band conduction. The electrons are not being replaced in the circuit so the N-type is slowly degrading. In a normal scenario, these materials would take forever to deplete and so it is usually treated like an infinite well. In reality, a cell will have only a finite potential energy and a discrete so in effect widens the band gap until the cell is no longer functional.
On the contrary, i know thin film solar cells exist. Way back in college i remember making organic dye sensitized solar cells and they were complete garbage. I might be associating all thin cells the same way but yeah. Was a bit of time ago for me and im going off my shitty memory
The electrons are being replaced, otherwise the system would become charged over time. They go the long way round the P side of the junction and bond with a hole again in the depleted region.
Solar cells do deteriorate over time but it’s not due to use, or not directly. The structure of various parts gets damaged through lattice migration due to heat/thermal cycling, UV radiation and higher can cause excitation to reactive states that damage crap, dopants can migrate around over time (like how carbon can leech from steel) and reduce the conductive efficiency etc.
I think this might be what you’re confused by? there are a finite number of available charge carriers in the depletion region and damage to the region uses them up, but it’s not because they’re used up it’s because of structural and chemical changes caused by damage that occurs due to the environment.
Are they being replaced? I dont remember these circuits being closed loop. I also dont remember if photons do anything other than create a wave excitation to move electrons… where is the replenishment coming from?
I understand phonons deteriorate lattice structures. I dont know if that is a seperate issue though.
So on the arse ends of the junction are little wires (one transparent). If you leave the panel in an open circuit the carriers will separate till the charge build up overcomes the depletion zone field and no more charge separation happens during excitation.
In this configuration the cell is essentially a capacitor.
If you close the circuit the P side of the electric field will propagate through the circuit and the load, pushing charge carriers through the load, out the other end, and into the P side of the junction where they combine with the separated holes.
Electrons have to come from somewhere. They arent coming from sunlight. Im not understanding how even if its closed loop it will carry charge back so there is no defecit in charge. This is why i keep saying it makes sense as long as there is an assumption of infinite electrons. If you take that away, where does the potential come from…
The electrons are all already in the material. They are never created or destroyed just paired and unpaired with holes.
This video might help? from approx 5 minutes. www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfP5YdJn-c4
The energy comes from the sun, it excites electrons and holes, causing the cell to hold a small charge, that charge is the potential energy that drives the circuit. It is depleted by electrons flowing back into the P side from the circuit, they cannot go from the N side because of the field across the depletion zone. Recombinant electrons from the circuit can then be excited again, excess electrons in the N side flow out of the silicon into the load so that electrons can move from the load into the P side.
This all happens at once. In a very long time, eventually the very same electron that was originally excited by a photon will recombine in the depletion layer. There isn’t any loss here.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=WfP5YdJn-c4
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I am getting frustrated because i am pretty sure the qty of electrons is conserved so at some point equilibrium needs to be reached. I read this paper on diffusion lengths and i got confused so i started watching this older lecture about short and open circuit recombinations. My first impression is that the recombination rate (or qty of electrons coming back into the cell) depends on some thickness of material at the very least.
I was definitely wrong about how the whole loops work but that was me being dumb. Again, this is very out of my brain territory. I used to love this stuff though.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
short and open circuit recombinations
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I’m not sure I understand the confusion. The material thickness does matter in that thinner materials will resist current flow due to a lack of charge carriers meaning each must travel faster, which means that more charge separation is required for a given recombination rate or current.
If the charge required is too high (more than the potential difference across the depletion zone) then the build up will prevent charge separation after excitation. They will recombine in the depletion zone making a bunch of heat and burning out the cell.
Maybe that’s the thing? super thin films under too much irradiation or load cooking themselves due to inability to move excited charges away fast enough?
They might be right for other reasons though. I once worked at a lab where they were doing r&d on this sort of thin solar cells, and their stability and longevity was the #1 biggest problem. They worked great inside those anaerobic box thingies in the lab, but they degraded to nothing very quickly upon first contact with real atmosphere.
Yeah but that’s experimental tech. OP’s talking about limitations on normal solar panels
Im talking about limitations of thin solar cells largely. I think there is usually enough doped material in regular cells that it usually isnt looked at.
This kind of affordable tech has been promised as “about to hit the market” since 2003. I’ll believe it when I see it on the market.
bro i can run LED lights by putting wires inside my body
Kinky.
Since 1975, which is as far back as I can remember with this stuff.
I’m sure my parents would say the same.
was thinking the same thing. this printing press solar has been demoed and showed off for literial decades. and yet it just never seems to materialise in any meaningful fashion.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
I like them thicc
I too have a bridge to sell you!
I love when people act like progress never happens, we’re in a world where developments happen so fast it’s impossible to keep up with a single field of development because so much new stuff is happening but sure anyone interested in the emergence of printable pv is a rube…
I see the same in ai discussion, I use it when coding all the time but every article about a new development has someone saying it’s useless and a gimmick.
Rapid deployment solar is happening whether you like it or not, the science has been building for a couple of decades and every interesting new study and development opens up new avenues of possibility. This will be a game changer in many situations and it’s something we can see getting closer, studies like this are so interesting because we can see which avenues things are likely to take and consider how it would affect things.
We have a tendency to think of science as someone waking up and inventing something and then it’s ready to hit the shelves but it’s never worked like that. If you’d been reading the news when photography was new you’d see endless news stories about progress towards colour photography, about potential methods and means of a making a single plate colour image - famously you’d have also seen discussions in the letters section of the Times between some of the chemists that’d go on to actually solve it.
Progress happens, science happens - sure you don’t care that they found a way of transferring printed solar onto fabric which avoids the need for the fabric to be able to endure the entire fabrication process but it’s actually a pretty cool thing. The article is kinda dumb I really don’t think this process will hold up to the intense sea air and mechanical stress of being a sail but for simpler uses such as an awning cover over carparks or even better train lines its likely to be very useful - imagine being able to generate the power for electric vehicle charging or train travel simply from a fabric roof which also shades the area from hot sun.
A process that makes the current chemistry cheap and fast to print onto a useful material is a big thing, not as huge as extending the working life of the materials but by being easier to make and replace we might find that there are a lot of uses for rapid temporary deployment of PV in situations like disaster zones but also in seasonal infrastructure which is especially important for things like music festivals, holiday locations (which see power usage vastly increased when tourists are in town), and travel routes.
It can be as plain as “we literally couldn’t do this last week” - like when we invented grass that doesn’t need to be watered - and people will be there to tell you it’s shit and you’re incompetent if you feel otherwise.
Yeah, you’re missing the point that this is a shouting headline that I’ve read about 50 times in the past ten years at least. Progress happens, I’m sure, I neo t say it doesn’t. This, however, is sensationalist bullshit, not progress.
I think you probably don’t understand the article because you only read the headline, the actual study is very interesting and solves a problem that was often talked about before. Those of us with an interest in this field recognise the advancement that’s been made are are interested in the implications,
The headline is like if every article about CERN, James Webb, and any other physics study was titled ‘could lead to unified field theory’ or if every time anyone releases a new machine learning model the headlines were all about AGI - Oh yeah, they do that one too…
So yes it’s a bad headline but it’s great science and we really are making great progress with printable PV - there will come a time where you start seeing it everywhere.
Much like AI people have known that the relevant breakthroughs have been coming for a long time but it’s not until a certain threshold is met that we see companies scrambling to stake their claim. Someone will make a factory producing one of the various printable PV methods and market it to a suitable situation, people will find other uses for it also besides the initial market and as demand becomes established others will leap on and start making their own variation.
Man, y’all a bunch a grumpies.
This technology doesn’t hinge on what we here believe or predict. It will happen or it won’t.
We could speculate on how cool it would be, and how it could be used if it happens, instead of pooh-poohing it.
You guys realize that this is a significant step towards having moving pictures like in Harry Potter right?
please elaborate