• Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 days ago

    Nothing about how viable it will be to bring to market, if ever, just discussing R&D without much content.

    Potentially always good to see these sorts of improvements :-) Is just not that impactful until they can make it useful. If it’s 50 years away from being producible at scale? Eh. If it’s only 6 months away and can drop in to existing pipelines? Hell yeah!

    • Thrashy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      Any time you see perovskite-based cells mentioned, you can assume for the time being that it’s just R&D. Perovskites are cool materials that open up a lot of neat possibilities, like cheaply inkjet-printing PV cells, but they have fundamental durability issues in the real world. When exposed to water, oxygen, and UV light, the perovskite crystals break down fairly rapidly.

      That’s not to say that the tech can’t be made to work – at least one lab team has developed cells with longevity similar to silicon PVs – but somebody’s going to have to come up with an approach that solves for performance, longevity, and manufacturability all at once, and that hasn’t happened yet. I imagine that when they do, that will be front-and-center in the press release, rather than just an efficiency metric.

      • addie@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        Nice insight, thank you.

        I can see that there will be a range of markets for these. Installing them in the desert (efficiency not as important as pure cost-per-watt, long-term stability very important) is not the same as installing them on your roof (limited space but fairly easy access, payback time dominated by efficiency) and so the ‘customer’ sweet point for these will not be the same as the ‘industrial’ one.