They lose 10% of their power output in less than a month?! I hope I’m seriously misunderstanding something here, because that sounds absolutely terrible. Silicon solar cells are good for two decades.
ETA: There are serious problems with perovskite solar cells, and it doesn’t sound like they’ve been solved. See Wikipedia.
deleted by creator
no most places only get 8-10 hours of sun a day so they’re perfectly fine to run for at least three months! great for commercial use!
And then you have to recycle it carefully because it’s full of lead.
Yeah, I don’t think this technology is going to see the light of day, if you’ll pardon the pun.
After 200 temperature cycles, the 2020 PSCs still retained 90% of their power, indicating that they are capable of short-term stability. Now, what remains to be researched is long-term stability, and what material advances could be applied to boost these 200 temperature cycles (days) to 20–25 years.
They are making some progress, it seems. The person or group that can make it stable enough to last a couple of decades stands to benefit.
Yeah that sounds pretty bad, I wonder if anyone can comment on how that compares to silicon solar panels and how much it matters when you take into account the value of cheaper production and the other benefits
90% of 150% is still 135% so what’s the problem?
depends on if that rate continues or levels off. I imagine it does level off, but it wouldn’t be immediately after the 10% loss.
The perovskite solar cells (PSCs) are capable of retaining over 90 per cent of their initial performance after 600 hours of continuous operation, the team noted, making them suitable for commercial use.
That’s what the article says - it leaves a bit to interpretation, for sure. But “viable for commercial” must imply that it’s not useless after a couple months.
