PEROVSKITE solar panels now ON SALE in the USA!

Perovskite and silicon appear to be the dream combo for improved efficiency in solar PV technology, with the potential to more than double the performance of anything you may have on your roof today. If you live in America, you can now buy perovskite/ silicon solar panels manufactured in Europe. So what is Perovskite, how does it work with silicon, and when will you be installing 43% efficient panels for your home?
Help support this channels independence at
/ justhaveathink
Or with a donation via Paypal by clicking here
www.paypal.com...
You can also help keep my brain ticking over during the long hours of research and editing via the nice folks at BuyMeACoffee.com
www.buymeacoff...
Video Transcripts available at our website
www.justhaveath...
Link to Chinese research paper
onlinelibrary....
Oxford PV website
www.oxfordpv.com/
Explanation of the Czochralksi Process
grish.com/deta...
Check out other KZbin Climate Communicators
zentouro:
/ zentouro
Climate Adam:
/ climateadam
Kurtis Baute:
/ scopeofscience
Levi Hildebrand:
/ the100lh
Simon Clark:
/ simonoxfphys
Sarah Karvner:
/ @sarahkarver
ClimateTown: / @climatetown
Jack Harries:
/ jacksgap
Beckisphere: / @beckisphere
Our Changing Climate :
/ @ourchangingclimate

[@justin_time]

40% efficiency solar cells would definitely make solar electric vehicles much more viable for lots of folks out there. Right now it seems that the typical range gain from adding solar cells to a vehicle is about 10-20 miles per day, but doubling current efficiency would bring it up to 20-40 miles per day, which I believe would cover most people's commutes. Very hope inspiring tech. I'm glad to hear that this one actually came to fruition. I hope the technology continues to improve too.

[@danilooliveira6580]

10-20 miles in the best possible conditions with direct sunlight, for a small fortune that would cost to apply them to the entire surface of the vehicle. it's never going to be worth it unless for super light vehicles designed specifically for the purpose of maximizing solar energy.

[@justin_time]

@@danilooliveira6580 Like the Aptera Sol

[@rosspitca9142]

keep eye on graphene solid state ev batteries,, goal is 600 miles, extremely fast charge and less prone to fires.

[@vinniepeterss]

😑

[@2ndfloorsongs]

I certainly wish this idea well, but for now the added weight gain and overall vehicle reliability penalty really cancels out any benefits.

[@IDann1]

Thank you for your pronunciation. It made me feel good.

[@MarcoNierop]

I read many concerns about the longevity of perovskite panels, but if they are dirt cheap, that might not be much of an issue.. just have them removed and install new ones (which are probably better as well), the old ones should then be recycled, so the materials can be used to make new solar panels.

[@ristekostadinov2820]

i think they're not going to be dirt cheap (at least not anytime soon) because they're going to be silicon-perovskite combination, LCOE can be lower than regular ones because they converts more sun light into electricity

[@SonnyDarvishzadeh]

Wouldn't it be amazing if no product was allowed in the market until the whole process, down to its recyclability was designed and implemented?

[@terosma]

Today installation costs more than the panels for residential applications

[@GhostFS]

That's my luck. Made research in quantum dot cell to save the world... not working good enough, tech ended up Q-led in monitor. Made research in organic photovoltaic to save the world... not working good enough, tech ended up in OLED monitor. Made research in Organic Photovoltaic and... stopped thinking that "will end up like the other two broken dreams displayed on monitor" and abandoned research for private sector.. Now 10 years later... Those are working -_-

[@danilooliveira6580]

you paved the way for those discoveries

[@2ndfloorsongs]

Science is a crap-shoot. I applaud your honest efforts. Really, that's the best anyone can do.

[@ianPedlar]

Skulduggery I tell you! It is strange that having, as we do, a massive fusion generator (our Sun) only eight light minutes away, that we can't use it to power everything (apart from life on earth). What would the Vogons say?

[@Rustea314]

Mostly harmless. 😂

[@vinniepeterss]

😂😂

[@2ndfloorsongs]

The Vogons, to the detriment of all sentient beings, have probably written an uncountable number of seemingly endless poems about it.

[@michaelmcnally9737]

Hey now, I do actually remember talking about perovskites earlier

[@mellissadalby1402]

I am looking forward to longevitiy data on these new PV cells that make use of Perovskite as they go through their service life.

[@manickn6819]

Good stuff. I did a course on solar some years ago and perovskites were the most efficient.

[@punditgi]

Fascinating video, Dave. Always appreciate your technology updates. And I notice you correctly use "micrometre" instead of "micron", which is officially obsolete. One hint, though; your pronunciation is for "micrometer", which is a measurement device. The pronunciation of the metric subunit of the "metre" is MY-kroh-mee-ter, much like MILL-ee-mee-ter. Cheers, mate! 😊

[@aliendroneservices6621]

7:57 7:59

[@2ndfloorsongs]

Haha, micron is definitely not obsolete and is the preferred term to use where I come from which, not surprisingly, is the manufacturing, engineering, and manufacturing of those damned measurement instruments that people confuse with the new-fangled unit name. (Numerous publications and textbook publishers have resisted changing over as well for the same reason.) "Micron is also shorter and well known. Nope, call me old-fashioned, but "micron" is the much better, less confusing term And I support all efforts to resist this change. The world has enough ambiguity as it is, there's absolutely no reason to add more.

[@liamthompson9342]

Amazing to see research actually get to market. So many damp squibs.

[@TinaKrack]

Great video! I really like the way you present the material - everything is clear, understandable and professional. Keep making us happy with your work!🐹🌲🙊

[@glennllewellyn7369]

Explain your interest and experience in batteries please

[@Able_Cylon]

@@TinaKrack I like batteries too. They make toys work.

[@Able_Cylon]

@@TinaKrack oops, I forgot to add cute emojis

[@Able_Cylon]

@@TinaKrack why take comments away?

[@Able_Cylon]

@@TinaKrack stop!

[@pandoraeeris7860]

Finally!

[@martinrady]

Thanks

[@WeDeserveBetterNow]

This is fantastic news! Thanks for keeping us up to date on all the latest green tech Dave!

[@auhsz9140]

9 mins ago is wild

[@TheDoomWizard]

Cool. Buy me some and a bag of groceries.

[@jesseestrada8914]

You're excellent use of the a banger at the beginning is you farming view time. I know this because I had to watch 2 minutes twice cuz I was laughing so hard.

[@SophiaYoung-j7n7n]

Thank you for your efforts! Your videos are always so interesting and professional. Continue to please us with your work.🥃🌸👢

[@dermotdonnelly5495]

Great video. Thanks.

[@anders21karlsson]

Brilliant as always.

[@ChoompanZeebra]

How did you comment 9 days ago? This video was shared yesterday. I'm so confused

[@macmcleod1188]

The Spruce Pines (north caroline) quartz* manufacturing has been shut down but is more likely to affect computer chips than solar. Just FYI, unless someone says it's going to shut down solar panels. *(99.999999% pure quartz wafers).

[@rklauco]

The more tech we can use, the better. Even if it has some downsides (e.g. shorter lifespan), it still can work plenty well for ground-mounted utility scale arrays. And if it's not from silicone, it might be easier to recycle afterwards... I am optimistic. Thanks for the update, positive news are rare these days.

[@haroldnicholos7436]

All that matters is how is the respectability. We don't need super powerful solar panels what we need is solar panels that are easily recyclable

[@brsaweda]

We want both, of course: super powerful solar panels that are easily recyclable. And cheap, too.

[@NobbsAndVagene]

All that matters is that we respect them, show them we care. Respectability is what I really look for in a solar panel in 2024.

[@danilooliveira6580]

recyclability is not really that important, specially if it's at the cost of panel durability. modern solar panels are made to last more than 30 years already, and even after 30 years they still produce plenty of energy. if you can make them easier to recycle without affecting durability, then sure, but modern panels already can be recycled, it's just a lot more expensive then mining new raw materials. but it would be even better if we found ways to continue using old panels, just like we should find ways to continue using old batteries for as long as they still work.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

No, that's not "all that matters". When you're comparing it to coal as a source of electricity, you need to consider all the people and other animals getting sick or dying from the air pollution, the mountains of toxic coal ash, the massive, ongoing destruction of the environment while we continually mine massive quantities of coal. With solar panels, the material requirements are minimal. Infinitesimal, in comparison to coal. At the end of their useful life, decades in the future, they can be harmlessly buried. So what. I know, "Reeee, it's not 'sustainable'!!!" BFD. Coal is killing us.

[@vinniepeterss]

great!

[@patrickgriffiths889]

Thanks. Free fusion FTW.

[@vitabricksnailslime8273]

This polyfluorinated coating sounds a bit like another one of those "forever" chemicals. Any thoughts?

[@Nobe_Oddy]

I guess the REAL QUESTION is 'HOW MUCH?" (for the unpronounceable TEA compound(s) and retrofitting this new process into (the one) existing Perovskite production line)

[@joehopfield]

I just joined your Patreon because of your perfect pronunciation of something that should clearly have been an acronym. Well done!

[@timbrown9305]

That Shockley guy is suspect. He has a sorted history at IBM.

[@TaylerKnox]

Whenever you cite research in China I’m both hopeful yet skeptical. When will it be available for verification?

[@ngana8755]

Who is buying Oxford PV's solar panels in the U.S.? They don't look like they're available for retail sale anywhere here in the U.S.

[@rivimey]

Elon musk?

[@MikeHodgkinson]

He said they were going to commercial customers

[@LL-fw7hi]

600 hours of illumination divided by 12 hours in a day isn't even two months. I'm sure it ends up being more than that: the solar cell probably doesn't have direct sunlight for all 12 hours, there is an intensity curve over the course of the day, etc. but still those numbers don't look good. Will these cells have lost most of their advantage after a couple of years of use?

[@anguscampbell1533]

How does excessive heat buildup affect perovskite tandem/silicon panels?

[@pneudmatic]

Paid for a research article?! Not sure how it is where you are but in the countries I've lived in you can always go to your local university and enter as a visitor and access pdf copies legally for free. I currently have university access but I used to do this occasionally to get access to journals my university didn't subscribe to.

[@vinniepeterss]

top!

[@RachelsSweetie]

Would you please stop using the bouncing graphics? The motion makes them difficult for me to read and they make me seasick. Thank you.

[@arleneallen8809]

Good progress it would seem. From a commercial perspective I would be hesitant to do other than a test installation due to the rapid aging problem. 600 hours of test is a tiny fraction of the 20 year minimum I would want. Accelerated age testing is problematic using any typical techniques for such. Perhaps the research groups will ad to this with some methods for simulating many years of exposure. Interesting, as always.

[@GregHassler]

600 hours degradation is only 3%, don't know what long term degradation looks like. Normal panels degrade 3% the first year and 1% each year after that.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

As panels age, just add 3% more panels. 😊 Roof shading as latitudes warm would be a handy feature for rooftop panels. Shading 😎 😎 😎

[@arleneallen8809]

@@GregHassler At 10 hour average irradiance per day, call it 60 days. I'm unfamiliar with your 1% statistic. All my panels leveled out around 5% loss in 2 to 3 years and then stayed there. I have some in service now for 21 years.

[@ChoompanZeebra]

How did you comment 10 days ago? This video was shared yesterday. I'm so confused

[@ChoompanZeebra]

First 5 yrs current panels lose about 5%... 20% first 25

[@ianstewart7605]

Nothing wrong with hopium, as long as we don't count the chickens yet.

[@RichardBergson]

I feel a bit like a solar panel myself - only about 20% efficient in converting information into learning! (Might also have something to do with wavelengths). It did occur to me though that it would be a lot easier to collect the sun's energy as heat and convert the heat into power as needed and use much of the heat for - well, heating. Not a novel concept, I know, but I would be interested in the relative efficiencies and ways in which the sun's heat could be concentrated for increased energy production.

[@ChoompanZeebra]

How did you comment 7 days ago? This video was shared yesterday. I'm so confused

[@alberthartl8885]

Who is selling these panels?

[@af8828]

These are great innovations that will be key going forward, BUT it's worth reminding this community that the philosophy of maintaining current energy dependency is absolutely incompatible with a livable future. Our (especially imperial core) societies MUST be reoriented to allow energy use in essential sectors only.

[@tims9434]

We just need them to cut down on the geoengineeering now so the sun might reach the panels

[@AlRoderick]

Good news, cutting the sulfur emissions from international shipping caused the solar irradiance at the surface to go up, so we are in fact geoengineering less than we have been in the previous century. Also, the ocean is getting hotter as a result.

[@jonbeecroft1102]

It's great these technologies are being worked on but is 97% after 600 hours good enough? Hopefully someone can correct me but does this degrade performance in a compounded way? 600 hours is only 50 sunny days, perhaps 100 less sunny days. Does it keep losing 3% of the previous total for every 100 days?

[@philallen7626]

Yes, it doesn't sound encouraging, does it? I guess we'll find out how they really last over the next few years.

[@DavidBeaumont]

A very good question. Losing 3% per 600 hours (about every 50 days or so) is not viable long term (it would halve about every 3 years), but hopefully it just stabilizes at some point.

[@NScherdin]

Average solar exposure is about 5 hours a day. Assuming they tested that 600h at full solar exposure(eg artificial light at full power) then its closer to 120 days. But note that was just them saying they stayed ABOVE 97% of the initial output during that 600 hours of testing time. It doesnt really indicate the life expectancy of a panel. That will probably take a lot more testing and something closer to a commercial panel vs test cells.

[@lomiification]

Also unclear how a cloudy day impacts them

[@danilooliveira6580]

their loss in efficiency tend to level off after a sharp initial decline, and then they degrade progressively slower in a curve. so just 600h doesn't tell us anything.

[@oldmanstumpie1061]

“a typically unpronounceable name” 😂

[@NirvanaFan5000]

crazy to think that we could double, triple, or quadruple our solar capacity on *already existing solar land* if we can upgrade them to tandem cells with 40% efficiency.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

20% better for 50% more $ ??? More roof shading from more and cheaper panels might be better value as latitudes warm.

[@MikeHodgkinson]

Things get cheaper when in production and scale increases 🤓

[@peterinbrat]

Doesn't this need the ultra pure silicone only found in the NC mines where Helene just hit?

[@AlRoderick]

That's a misconception by one remove. That mine isn't a source of silicon strictly speaking, it's a source of ultrapure quartz which is used in making crucibles that are used to process the pure silicon needed for electronics. So it's a necessary input material for making pure silicon, but not the source of the silicon itself, although adding to the confusion is the fact that silicon is one of the elements in quartz.

[@RobertGrant-j8z]

Shipping Solar panels around the World? Anti Idealism?

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Millions and millions and millions and millions of customers, the grids best friends. cashflow = customers = cashflow. $100sBILLIONS cashflow 😮😮😮 Customers are grid connected. Customers have rooftops. Customers own vehicles. Customers with BVs OVERSIZED battery parked 23hrs every day with V2G and parked all night long. Customers with rooftop PV DO NOT NEED grid electricity. 😮😮😮 Hello, hello anyone home, hello 👋 Grid needs dirt cheap electricity AND customers cashflow. Smart grid OWNERS should keep existing customers, take their dirt cheap electricity and supply heavy industrial customers heavy demands, for their cashflow.

[@-LightningRod-]

Time tells all tales daddy ! Wanna buy some batteries?,...cheap,...

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Average roof area is 200m² 7kwh rooftop PV is 33m², 15% of the roof area. 20% more efficient means 6m² less roof cover. The largest area available for PV panels is on the customer's building roof. All buildings ARE GRID CONNECTED. Grid capacity is 1,000% more expensive than all types of generation And we are expected to find 5% improvements exciting, FMD.

[@danilooliveira6580]

roof solar panels are exponentially more expensive than ground solar panels, and they usually only try to power one house, not the entire grid, meaning you would need ground solar panels for industrial energy, and the more efficient the panel, the less surface you will need to dedicate to solar panels. another important factor is more efficient solar panels require less material to make, specially if perovskite solar panels are more efficient during sunrise and sundown since they cover the more visible light spectrum. so you would need to manufacture less solar panels for the same energy. and lastly, and probably the most important factor to consider. a lot of places in lower or higher latitudes don't receive enough solar energy to be worth it for the surface area they have available. however the more efficient each solar panel is, the more viable they are for places that receive less sunlight. and again, the fact that perovskites work better for visible light means they can work a lot better with indirect light.

[@CamTracey]

​@@danilooliveira6580 actually at higher altitudes they become much more efficient

[@CamTracey]

Sounds like you've got it all figured out then @stephenbrickwood1602 . No need to make anything more efficient really, let's just keep burning stuff because the infrastructures already there & it would just take too much energy & effort to be more efficient at anything....... irony probably lost in text here.

[@Soothsayer210]

Watch from 2:50 for those who are short on time. Not sure if there is anything that is new here.

[@billweberx]

Efficiency is only one factor. Cost is more important and you didn't even suggest what additional cost these solar cells would be. Doubling the efficiency while tripling the cost is not progress.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

Wind and solar, regardless of how they are arranged, are *_infinitely-expensive,_* on a sustained basis. No new *_"breakthroughs"_* can change that.

[@MikeHodgkinson]

If they are already selling to commercial customers in the States the early economics must be good enough, and scale can reduce costs massively.

[@CaptApple]

Always impressed by your willingness to believe whatever China's scientists say about any given advance.

[@TennesseeJed]

Cool, now we can dig up every mountain with forest on top for the minerals!

[@incognitotorpedo42]

Maybe you're thinking of burning coal to make electricity? That literally involves removing the tops of mountains, and the coal has to keep being provided forever. These Perovskites, on the other hand, require a tiny amount of minerals, only once. Then they keep making (carbon free!) electricity for decades. I'll leave it to you to decide which choice is better for the world.

[@TennesseeJed]

@@incognitotorpedo42 I suppose I am jaded by my overshoot reading on the carrying capacity of the biosphere. I hope humans can figure out our energy situation without killing our habitat.

[@grumpy3543]

Why isn’t Tesla invited to your everything electric show in Farnborough? Does he not have enough solar panels, power walls or electric cars?

[@Ratgibbon]

Everything Electric is organised by Fully Charged and not by Dave and according to the event's webpage Tesla Motors is going to exhibit at stand O54.

[@grumpy3543]

@@Ratgibbon Thanks

[@leftcoaster67]

Ask Robert at Fully Charged. It's his show. Telsa doesn't have anything new for the UK or Europe. So what's to show?

[@garrettdarnell7048]

I hate to break it to you but you didn't get thiophenylethanammonium right on that attempt either.

[@lifeisshort921]

1- contains lead 2- poor stability 3- poor scalability 4- more expensive than silicon

[@incognitotorpedo42]

Is any of that true for the cells described here?

[@lifeisshort921]

I'm a perovskite scientist for 5 years and I don't believe in them😂

[@EarthCreature.]

Unless it doesn't degrade in 5 years then half wits need not hock the product. Just have a think

[@DSAK55]

This will work in the UK where they have no sunlight

[@CarolynShearrer]

Praise to God Almighty!!!!'m favoured, $140k every 3weeks! I can now give back to the locals in my community and also support God's work and the church. God bless America 🇺🇸❤️❤️❤️❤️

[@CarolynShearrer]

It is the digital market. That's been the secret to this wealth transfer. A lot of folks in the US amd abroad are getting so much from it, God has been good to my household Thank you Jesus

[@CarolynShearrer]

Thanks to God, my daughter who introduced me into the digital market. Moreso, thanks to Ms *Kathleen Mary Vella*

[@DonnieRankin]

WOW!! Kathleen Mary Vella I know her too

[@DonnieRankin]

Her top notch guidance and expertise on digital market changed the game for me

[@DonaldRobinette-r4e]

I'm really interested please 🙏🏽

[@christophorfaust2457]

Don’t mean to rain on your great new technology, but as a nuclear engineer, there is but one factor to consider when buying a solar system for your home or business, BOS=$/kW-hr produced. No amount of panel/cell efficiency to consider. It’s a meaningless parameter to the normal customer!!! Most solar systems come with a 20-35-yr production warranty, but after 10-12 years, the electrical wiring is generally beyond economical repair, which means if something breaks, hurricanes, fires, flooding… it’s more cost effective to simply replace the system, than trying to repair it. What’s never mentioned, especially when talking great new technology, is the cost of recycling panels, VS storing them in the barn where they will never be used after repair. So if you really love the planet, we need to start charging a recycling fee, about $25/panel, to create a market for the 10,000,000 panels already in service. Nice video, just not relevant to the cost of solar.

[@brentgraham1735]

BOS?

[@ambrosenuk]

But solar's a whole bunch cheaper than nuclear, right?

[@Ryan-ff2db]

@@ambrosenuk Yes, significantly.

[@jwnomad]

Area efficiency only matters to people in high rise buildings with a small roof area per person. Lifetime $ efficiency is more important for the rest of us.

[@typxxilps]

not really competitive at current prices. We pay here 140 € per kWp for 550 Wp panels I would get 4/20 = 20% more power if 24% versus 20% would be right which I doubt cause Longi claims to have 22,5% panels with 550 Wp. And then it would be an advantage of 1,5 / 22,5 = 6,6% or for a 550 Wp panel it would mean that the perovskite panel would deliver 40 Wp more. Forget about perovskite at such price level which people will not buy for such premiums.

[@IceglacierArnar]

No...the future is Thorium nuclear plants

[@GregHassler]

The future? They tried that back in the '60s.

[@DSAK55]

🤡🤡

[@davestagner]

Sigh. No, no, it’s not. Thorium is wishful thinking.

[@DavidBeaumont]

That's a bold claim given there are serious issues around embrittlement of graphite in the design of liquid flouride Thorium reactors they've not solved properly yet. I mean I want the future to involve Thorium, but it's not a truly solved problem yet for long term power plants, and solar PV cells are here and making a big difference today.

[@MarcoNierop]

No, it isn't.. Way too expensive.

[@t.g.2777]

I think concentrated solar panels is more promising currently. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrator_photovoltaics. Can get over 30% efficiency with current technology using that. Some nearing 40%

[@ChoompanZeebra]

@jonbeecroft1102 I see a comment on my KZbin over Chromecast that you posted 11 days ago and then realized, as I came to my phone so I could reply, that this video was shared today, just two hours ago. That's extremely odd. It was the top comment, right below the first one that's an obvious sc4mmer. I was wondering why I couldn't find it... It's strange since it had multiple replies including one just 15 mins ago.... I even went by chronological order and those replies weren't showing up