> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
The electrical needs of most homes is fairly fixed. The price of that electricity can change at any time. So why 1000€ and not 5000€.
You should not come above 1,5€ per Wp of solar. so for a 4500wp system, 6750€ and that is a high price and will provide more energy than consumed.
Sure, but assume all else is not equal, and suddenly energy has costs again. Why is "free energy" the default assumption? What a bizarre assertion.
I'd have assumed a tandem perovskite on silicon panel probably costs more than a traditional silicon one. Do you disagree?
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 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.
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.
> > 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.
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.
What position is that?
why?
There are places where more efficient panels would be useful. With rooves, where if spending effort to mount them then might be worth using more efficient panels. Or the flexible panels might be easier to mount.
Huh? Can you point out where I said we should wait?
It is unlikely that perovskite panels will ever get cheap enough for efficiency gain to matter unless there is some breakthrough in production. Current solar panels have too much of a head start.
No I'm not. I'm not arguing for anything. I'm excited to have more options for solar deployments! If the best option for a current time & deployment is silicon, then great! Use silicon! If perovskite does nothing more than put price pressure on silicon to get even cheaper, then that's great, too! I'm excited about green technologies :)
> It is unlikely that perovskite panels will ever get cheap enough for efficiency gain to matter unless there is some breakthrough in production
We'll see! We're pretty good at making improvements. Will perovskite see the same amazing price drop that silicon has? I don't know, but I'm excited to see the first step in that possible path happening.
This thread has been a wild exercise in people tripping all over their own feet in their huge rush to educate me that a new technology is not some flawless miracle device, lol.