[HN Gopher] Scientists invent double-sided solar panel that gene...
___________________________________________________________________
Scientists invent double-sided solar panel that generates way more
electricity
Author : thunderbong
Score : 35 points
Date : 2023-07-24 19:06 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.independent.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.independent.co.uk)
| beAbU wrote:
| Bifacial modules are nothing new, it's been commercially
| available to domestic markets in my country for a while. It's not
| popular for domestic use because they are often mounted flat on a
| pitched roof. I think the value of bifacials come in effect in
| solar farm contexts, where the back of one row of modules is
| illuminated by the sun reflecting off the row behind it.
|
| The specific novel-ness in this article relates to the new
| perovskite chemsitry approaching commercial production. Making a
| new solar cell chemistry bifacial does not really come over as
| very novel imo?
|
| Also, the article says "generates VASTLY more electricity"
| (emphasis mine), but then in the body it says it's 20% more
| compared to single face panels?
| ajuc wrote:
| Perovskite panels have been available for several years
| https://columbusenergy.com/
|
| EDIT: wrong company - this is correct
| https://sauletech.com/technology/
| hgomersall wrote:
| Have they dealt with the lead escaping the encapsulation
| problem yet?
| wnevets wrote:
| > Also, the article says "generates VASTLY more electricity"
| (emphasis mine), but then in the body it says it's 20% more
| compared to single face panels?
|
| A 20% increases in solar electricity production fits the bill
| for vastly IMO. If I was 20% taller I would be VASTLY taller.
| voisin wrote:
| I just installed ground mount bifacial panels at my house.
| The marketing said that they generate "up to 30% more"
| electricity being bifacial. I concur that there are
| significantly more hours of production (albeit at lower
| amounts during these shoulder hours) than if they were
| monofacial.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| All of that with the cost of only doubling the amount of
| solar cells.
|
| Unless solar cells are almost free, that's not a vast
| improvement. That's only cost-positive if the cells are less
| than 1/5 of the total cost of your solar farm. I don't think
| any place qualifies.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Bifacial panels don't double the number of cells. There is
| just a single layer of cells that is exposed on both sides.
| throwaway89201 wrote:
| > single layer
|
| Bifacial panels have two layers of transistors on the
| silicon subtrate. One on the front and one on the back.
| Monofacial panels have just one layer. See for example ht
| tps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifacial_solar_cells#/media/F
| i...
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| They have twice as many transistors, but they don't have
| twice as many cells.
| [deleted]
| detourdog wrote:
| I don't think it doubles the quantity of solar cells. I
| think it is a single cell that is reactive on both sides. I
| don't think they extend the shoulder hours I think it
| extends the overall surface area to gather more indirect
| light.
|
| Mounted over snow, water, white roof would be the optimal
| set-up.
| awestroke wrote:
| The support structure is also a large cost in solar power
| farms. So this would not double cost. Also, the backside
| will not need as much cleaning
| K0balt wrote:
| Probably will provide significant benefits at higher
| latitudes. Especially where there is snow and panels are
| mounted 45degrees plus.
|
| But here near the equator where view of the sky is the
| only thing that matters, they are a non-starter. Perhaps
| in solar farms where panel mounting is 4m or higher?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| If it gave a 35% improvement, it would be an almost
| universal small gain. If it gave you a 25% improvement,
| it would be a good candidate for one place or another
| that face unusually high land or labor costs.
|
| But no, at 20%, I don't believe anybody will want this.
| Maybe in a decade that changes, but not right now.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| 1) Solar panel hardware costs are typically in the
| ballpark of 20-40% of solar farm costs.
|
| 2) You've assumed the panel costs double, which is likely
| false.
|
| 3) solar generation costs have been falling exponentially
| and upgrades are incorporated into various installations
| and new developments all the time.
| wnevets wrote:
| > All of that with the cost of only doubling the amount of
| solar cells
|
| Why should that change if vastly is the correct adjective
| or not? If I overpaid by a factor of 10 to be 20% taller I
| would still be _vastly_ taller, regardless of how much I
| paid.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Adult male height mean is 70 inches. Standard deviation
| is 3 inches. A 20% increase is 4.67 standard deviations
| above the mean, which is sensibly describable as a vast
| improvement in terms of human height. But your statement
| about "vast" for height is only true because of the
| particular distribution. It doesn't generalize.
| wnevets wrote:
| > Adult male height mean is 70 inches. Standard deviation
| is 3 inches.
|
| If _I_ was 20% taller _I_ would be well over 7ft tall.
|
| > because of the particular distribution. It doesn't
| generalize.
|
| and IMO it fits solar electricity production increases.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| > If I was 20% taller I would be well over 7ft tall.
|
| ok?
|
| > and IMO it fits solar electricity production increases.
|
| I think it's distracting more than anything. We can, at
| best, debate whether the distribution of power generation
| is similar to the distribution of height to get any
| usefulness of out of this.
| wnevets wrote:
| > debate whether the distribution of power generation is
| similar to the distribution of height to get any
| usefulness of out of this.
|
| and IMO they are, thus my original comment.
| gnabgib wrote:
| They seem to be using two different percentages which is
| confusing. More details can be found in "Highly efficient
| bifacial single-junction perovskite solar cells"[0]
|
| Of the new panels; the front is 23% efficient and the back side
| is 20% efficient (see also: "an efficiency of about 91-93% of
| the front") so overall you collect 43%, vastly more than 26%
| ("current solar cell technologies") or even 30% (silicon-
| perovskite solar cells in lab conditions) of the available
| power.
|
| [0]:
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S25424...
| gs17 wrote:
| >the front is 23% efficient and the back side is 20%
| efficient (see also: "an efficiency of about 91-93% of the
| front") so overall you collect 43%
|
| That doesn't seem quite realistic, since the back side isn't
| getting full sunlight like the front unless the surface
| behind the panel is a perfect mirror. Depending on what's
| reflecting onto it, it could still end up worthwhile.
| nharada wrote:
| Neat. I'm assuming these would be fairly limited to niche
| installations, since the cost would almost certainly not be
| competitive to current panels in an installation where you have
| the ability to just add more area (not to mention the difficulty
| of perovskites in general).
|
| I'm trying to think of places these might be worth it -- I guess
| space constrained areas where ground albedo is high?
| mlinksva wrote:
| Frustrating that the study this article is reporting on (linked
| at the end)
| https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(23)00224-6 is
| paywalled. To save others' time, the "download full issue"
| obtains a .zip of PDFs, but not including the relevant article,
| only other articles in the issue that presumably someone paid to
| make open access.
| joaopbnogueira wrote:
| Why not solar spheres?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-24 23:02 UTC)