Hacker News Reader

Comment by AndrewDucker | Hacker News Reader

I am confised. These are 24.5% efficient. Which they claim is 20% more efficient than other commercialised panels.

But over at https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-utilities/most-efficien... the top-rated ones are 24.1% efficient. Which is only slightly less.

Anyone able to shed light on this?

View on HN

It’s a little misleadingly worded. Looking at the original press release[1] and an earlier announcement[2] I think they mean that they have prototype versions of this panel with 29.5% efficiency, the first production version they’re talking about here isn’t at that level yet.

[1]https://www.oxfordpv.com/news/20-more-powerful-tandem-solar-... [2]https://www.oxfordpv.com/news/oxford-pv-hits-new-world-recor...

Thank you! That makes total sense, if they have one that's that much more effective then that's very impressive. Fingers crossed they can get that into production soon.

They claim the panels produce 20% more energy not that they are 20% more efficient.

How do they produce 20% more energy in the same area without being more efficient?

Easy! They have a little diesel engine strapped underneath. /s

Solar panel energy production is their efficiency in converting solar radiation into electricity.

So yes, they seem to be 20% more efficient in converting solar radiation into electricity.

Though I have to say that this is an iterative upgrade, not groundbreaking. If they increased their efficiency by 20% in absolute terms - that would be groundbreaking.

It’s one measure of their efficiency. We could also talk about their cost efficiency or their area efficiency.

Solar panel efficiency is already based on the area, just as solar radiation is measured in W per square meters.

Interesting thanks. So could you have a panel that is slightly more efficient in energy capture than the current best alternative but uses 20% less panel area? I’m entirely unfamiliar with how testing is performed

Reply on news.ycombinator.com