This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
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.
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.
This has been the main problem since years (I've been part of a research group in which most people was working on perovskite SC). I call perovskite(s) "the new graphene".
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.
Yeah it sounds like they decay quickly in moist environments and the solutions are to throw more materials and chemicals into them.
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