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.
