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.
> when they use so many toxic materials ... but degrades faster
At some point, we need to consider that "labour cost becomes dominant" is absolutely irrelevant if the external costs we're completely ignoring at enormous.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
It is as free as nuclear, or water generated. The infrastructure must be installed and maintained. Panels, their cleaning, changing failed/broken, inverters, cables, batteries (eventually).
Right now it is mandatory to install in Germany after a major roof renovation. Turns out the typical small home electric needs are about 1000 EUR per year, the installation of a solar system is about 25000. I do not see what is free…
Yes. Should is the key word. As the government pushes lots of people to install solar, prices soar… also my house is particularly bad for solar (roof parts looking exactly west-east) so I install double of what will be used. Also high roof, so according to regulations, all house has to be with scaffolds around. Just that+permits+ connection to the grid by a “meister” costs around 5k… German efficiency is called…
Well, the article under discussion is about the tech being commercialized, so presumably they believe it is cost competitive at least in some scenarios.
I don't understand why you're so hung up on the idea that 120 units for the same cost as 100 units means you get 20 units for free when comparing the two options.
Here, I'll spell it out a bit more:
Assume the mfr is not lying and the panels are 20% more efficient.
Assume that in order to commercialize a new product, it must be cost competitive with existing options. Otherwise no one would choose it, and it would not be commercialize-able.
Therefore, it is a reasonable position to assume that the new panels will give 20% more energy for about the same cost.
This is all hand-wavey, and it is of course possible the commercialization will fail. But until that happens, I think it's pretty cool that we have new tech coming to the market that's showing significant efficiency improvements!
I have no problem with the math, I take issue with your assumptions to get there, namely that these panels will be anywhere near cost-competitive with traditional panels. I hinted earlier that this new panel is manufactured by taking a traditional one and slapping a perovskite cell onto it, so you are assuming this whole tech is literally free.
I think this is amazing tech too, but you're maintaining "this is free energy" with zero evidence outside of a press release that does not mention cost. I'm sorry, this isn't hand-wavey, it's flat-out misinformation. If you have actual information on pricing, please share it.
> so you are assuming this whole tech is literally free.
No I'm not. I'm assuming it's commercially viable, or else they wouldn't be trying to put it into production.
The context of the post you're being weird about was a reply to someone saying "Do we need [solar panel] efficiency gains?", I wasn't specifically talking about the numbers of this tech in that post.
I assumed they were talking about the numbers of this tech in that post. I assumed everyone was talking about the numbers of this tech. You quoted the next bit about land use in the US:
> > 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.
I'm sorry if I'm being weird. It really looks like you're arguing efficiency is something standing in the way of saving lives.
> Assuming all else is equal, it's literally free energy.
When comparing silicon and perovskite (and probably any other material) this is a bad assumption. Since this is a bad assumption, the rest of your position falls apart.
There are space limited use cases which would benefit from higher efficiency such as cars and yachts. Yachts are nearly able to cruise entirely on solar.
