- cross-posted to:
- energy@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- energy@slrpnk.net
You must log in or # to comment.
95% performance of regular cells or 95% performance of turning light into electricity? It sounds like the latter but it can only be the former.
All this and more, for the low low price of actually reading the article:
It enables complex visual patterns while also retaining approximately 95 percent of the power output of an uncoated module.
The latter is physically impossible.
i want a solar array infused with an LED array so that i can make my roof a giant compass, temperature, and clock for planes and helicopters at night. And I want my roof to flash QR codes on my roof to NGGYUNGLYD pilots. If we gonna lose the night sky to satellites i’m gonna need a bigger screen, Pete.
LEDs can work a bad solar panels.
*NGGYUNGLYD, you mean?
Cheers! I have corrected it, and I have added that to my spell check dictionary.
How about panels with RGB led backlight? Isn’t RGB supposed to be on everything now?
Get panels made from material with a direct band gap like GaAs.
Well that’s clearly nonsense. I think the highest efficiency ever recorded for a solar panel was 2.4% so 95% is definitely not right.
What they probably mean is 95% of the efficiency of a black solar cell. I.e. you don’t lose too much just to keep the HOA happy. Although black slate roof tiles are actually a thing as well.
What they probably mean
You mean what is clearly stated in the article?
Dude imagine reading the article before commenting ! Revolutionary ideas <3
The title is ambiguous, though
My initial understanding was 95% of a normal panel. So not that ambiguous
You are above average
I did read the article. But I’m talking about just the new information we can gleam from the headline. Because that’s the thing that’s been disingenuous.
The thing is, most people with no technical background will probably get the right meaning from the headline even though it’s phrased wrong. I sure did. Because when you buy solar planes, you usually compare efficiency of different products and placements, not the actual efficiency factor.
HOA? I don’t think this is such a thing in Europe, at least not in Portugal. wandering if it’s a american defaultism thing
I’m not allowed to replace the roofing on my house with anything other than real slate. So there are some restrictions.
Other people on the street have solar panels though so I’m guessing they’re not too restrictive. The difference being that this is a government restriction rather than some arbitrary requirement from a Karen.
Though we do have a lot of places everywhere in Europe that restrict how buildings can look, often for tourism reasons.
controlled by the government and local law, not your neighbor
The smaller the community, the smaller the difference. But at least there’s no HOA in addition to that.
We have them in Iceland for multi tenant buildings such as blocks for handling outside repairs etc. Nobody has them for a whole street since with rules on how often the lawn needs to be moved like in the US.
You meant 24%? And i have seen news about 32% years ago, although with concentrating lenses as part of the cell.
Looking online I’ve seen claims up to 50% but I’ve also seen lots of discussion online about how those numbers can’t be relied on.
what does it mean actually?
100% would mean it absorbs the sun completely?
There is 2 things that are measured in efficiency.
The first thing is as you mentioned, how much of the solar energy is absorbed. 100% would mean that all the solar energy on the surface of the cell would be absorbed.
The second thing is how much of the absorbed energy of the solar cell is converted into usable energy.
For a square meter of sun, there is about 1kW of energy, or 1000W.
If the solar panel of one square meter is efficient at 50% to absorb the solar energy, 500W would be available.
Then, if the circuitry is 90% efficient at converting the absorbed energy into usable power, you would get 450W of usable power.
The overall system efficiency is 450W/1000W, or 45%. So 45% of the solar power that hits the solar panel is usable at the output of the whole system.
This is a really watered down version of how things really work, but that should help you navigate this article.
i guess, which is why that’s not a thing.
it would have to convert the photon directly into an electron for 100% efficiency;
in other words it would require straight-up magic!
24 to 25% efficiency, based on a quick search. But they are talking a difference in terms and measures. While they may only convert 24%, they still produce 90 to 95% of their stated power output. In short, how fast they can charge a battery vs, how many things can they actively run.
And the use case is only for visual appeal? Good for those who need that. Probably can add advertisement on it to make it cheaper? I’m fine with normal looking one. Maybe it is beneficial, as it might reduce the performance at first but might keep temperatures lower and so increases efficiency again? Solar power is just great and it should get to a point where there is no more question about if it is worth it and will just get added to every roof that gets sun.
There are plenty of people who seem to only manage to conjure up “but they’re ugly” as reasons to not have panels and policy supporting their adoption
Sometimes it’s worth something existing simply to reduce the arguments against it
Personal taste doesn’t matter when you have to deal with American HOAs or the German Denkmalschutz (Monument Protection Agency). This tech is a godsend.
In some cases, you are not allowed to install regular solar panel in my country. If you live near an historical monument, it can be impossible because it would clash with it. These solutions could be an alternative.
A lot of people take pride in the appearance of their house, and solar panels could totally alter the appearance of a house, especially one designed in a particular architectural style.
Yeah, make it look cooler. Solar panels still look like fancy future tech to me. I’m always reminded of the ISS. So I stand by it, they just look cool.
to me
That’s the issue right there.
If they can find a way to make the panels usable and still have aesthetic appeal then they could be used for signage and shit too.
While I don’t say yay more signage I do say yay more solar, so like a lose-win
The solar would be used to power the signage at night.
But it would also be more easily scavengeable…
Solar power is just great and it should get to a point where there is no more question about if it is worth it
We are well past the point where there are any legitimate question marks over the efficiency and efficacy of solar panels. Unfortunately we don’t live in a sane world we live in a world where politicians are being paid off by oil companies that are seen their industry evaporate.
The only place on earth where solar panels are probably not going to work is inside the Arctic circle where there is insufficient light for a well over half the year. But that’s what the electrical grid is for you don’t have to generate your power locally.
