Solar 4.0: Ultra Efficient Solar Panel Breakthrough

[@startingwithaletter]

I wish this video had 250% more information about the absolute efficiency of the cells.

[@Aridzonan13]

I'd love to know if they've been tested in a Desert environment? Let's say 115F? I don't get excited about any new Solar Tech unless it's run flawlessly for 5 years in a serious Desert.. The major failure w/ HCPV (Hight Concentrated PV) was the cells could not handle the heat. This included cells w/ heat pipes (passive cooling), etc. The cells would deform and then separate. Some of the advanced HCPV cells were multi-junciton / full spectrum too.

[@yousausage]

Basically above 20% absolute efficiency is impossible for a solar cell.

[@bellissimo4520]

@@yousausage Perovskite solar cells already are higher than that (about 24% current record). I honestly don't believe at all that this will now be increased by 250% or anything close to that, but why shouldn't further increases not be possible? Perovskite cells started out with about 3% (2009), and have made quite a lot of progress in the last 14 years.

[@conorstewart2214]

@@yousausage except it isn’t. Why do you think it is?

[@farleftsilencelikenazis1021]

it doesn't matter. The entire topic of solar and wind replacing what we use now is a pipe dream. "Net 0" is an insane ideological point based on a detraction from reality, science and even IF we needed to cut CO2 (we don't) what they want is flat out IMPOSSIBLE. To mine the materials needed to phase out and produce just ONE generation technology units (wind solar and a battery storage farms) we need (based on 2019 mining and discoveries- 400 years to mine nickel 9920 years for Lithium 1733 for Cobalt 3287 for Graphite (natural flake) Silicon 5,9 years Vanadium 7101 years For Rare Earth Metals Neodymium 40 years Germanium 29113 years Lanthanum 166,8 years Praseodymium 31,4 years Dysprosium 193,2 year Terbium 59,9 years. That's based on assuming we can produce at 2019 levels when we only have global reserves of 2,33% Lithium 3,48% cobalt 3,57% graphite 3,52% Vanadium Plus IF we discover more of this stuff, for every 1000 deposits discovered only 1 or 2 become mines. It currently takes 20 years from discovery to mining. For every 10 producing mines, 2 or 3 will loose money and shut down. These ideas a re great! Fossil fuel will have to be replaced at some point but your audience needs to be away these are pipe dreams. Our politicians are on another planet mentally driven by climate hysteria.

[@lucidmoses]

I appreciate the honesty. I'm sure some youtube channels are already taking orders for this stuff.

[@jedics1]

As someone who gets 90% of their power from a small 2kw solar/9kw LFP system, much higher efficiency and lighter solar would allow me to go 100% throughout winter. It might also allow me to charge a small Ev so I don't have to burn stuff ever again... Seeing they have yet to solve Perovskite's durability its still 5 and probably 10 years away before I get to buy it though. Lets hope Ai starts doing some heavy lifting to move things along a bit faster.

[@Sasoon2006]

Why don’t you add few more panels to get to 100%?

[@nightmareinaction629]

What solar panels are you using. You can already buy bi facial panels with cells of afficiency of 24%

[@leonlowenstadter9223]

If this is solved in 5 to 10 years, it would be a great success as the world turns towards renewable energies.

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

AI doesn't create knowledge. It only re-arranges and re-presents existing knowledge

[@cdunne1620]

@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 ..I would omit the word ‘just’ my friend. We know enough physics and science now to change the world so a bit of re-arranging would do just fine!

[@michaelharrison1093]

It would be great to know what their base efficiency assumption was. I understand that some perovskite PV cells are only achieving around 8% efficiency so a 250% improvement on top of this will only bring perovskite cells in line with commercially available Si cells.

[@mrspeigle1]

That's the thing, it dosent have to beat silicon cells in efficiency if it can beat them in price.

[@jeanpaulchristian3282]

45-50% double junction

[@XxXDOMINIONXxX]

@@mrspeigle1 if you think these cells will be "magically cheaper" they won't be.

[@powmod]

@@mrspeigle1 Pure perovskite cells are actually cheaper since they use an easier and less energy intensive building process (printing) and low cost materials (lead). But if you are printing multiple layers of different materials with silver between them, I don't think it will be cheaper.

[@mrspeigle1]

@poWMod stuff for the bean counters to figure out, cheaper is the main promise of perovskyte Materials and manufacturing techniques might push it over the top but don't forget that silicon cells wich hit those efficiency numbers have thier own cost and complexity adds. Figuring out what it will be at scale is the question 🤔

[@ahnilatedahnilated7703]

The degradation has been a major blocking point. If they can't solve this, then it doesn't matter how efficient they are or cheap.

[@TTM1895]

Everything degrades over time. No exception. Considering what the materials are made from and how much heat is placed upon them on a daily basis, the degradation problem isn't going to be solved anytime soon.

[@apollobukowski4275]

You could say the same about roads

[@xolomartinez6036]

Self healing materials

[@flamingo5900]

Degradation of 20% over 25 years is not bad. If it could be avoided then great.

[@heroclix0rz]

If the cost is low enough then it could be worth it. It's just that "cost" includes all the effort to replace degraded parts.

[@altosack]

Please don’t use phrases like “an increase by a factor of 250%”. A factor is a simple multiple, such as 3.5. Every time someone uses a percentage greater than 100% as an increase, it’s always ambiguous what they mean (is 250% 2.5 or 3.5?), because too many that use it are innumerate and want to impress with big numbers.

[@mpirokajosephmgcokoca2355]

Was confused also 😔

[@condruzmarius]

250% means 1.5 increase

[@altosack]

@@condruzmarius - A factor of 1.5 is a 50% increase; a 250% increase is a factor of 3.5. By example, if one normally eats 2000 cal/day, and increases it to 3000, that is a 50% increase and a factor of 1.5, which is the original (1.0) plus the factor of increase (0.5). If one were to increase it to 7000, that would be an increase of 5000 cal, or 250% of 2000, and a total factor of 3.5. The ambiguous part is one could say the increase (5000) is a factor of 2.5, which correlates to the percentage increase (250%). Usually, if we say “increased by a factor of …”, it’s the total divided by the original, not the increase divided by the original.

[@nutsack6454]

@@condruzmarius100% increase means double so, your a bit wrong

[@grahamhireme9283]

I put 100 coconuts into bank of coco. Next day I go back to my nut account and find I only have 50= a loss of fifty %. Next week I deposit 100 coconuts in my isa nut account. Next day I find 200 an increase of 100%. 💯 one more unit than I started with. If it was 300 then I would have two more units than I started with which would be 2x 100% which to me is 200%. So if we start out with a panel that produces 100w and we see an increase of 250% then you do the math!

[@dugandav1]

Great to hear about all these potential developments but at the end of the day, what the consumer/installer wants to see is a higher output for a smaller footprint that they can fit now!

[@bladez-if4vw]

You started off on a daunting path, but you managed to recapture my sense of understanding.

[@107thFruit]

I know that perovskite cells can be roughly 1/2 the price of silicon cells, but with the adaptation of not using lead and adding the layer of silver I wonder how expensive they will end up being if this design is universally accepted after further lab testing.

[@jeanpaulchristian3282]

No perovskites as a material are 1/10th that of convention Crystalline Silicon. However the casing for all.perovskite panels may be made simpler without a silicon substrate, so they could end up being 50% less expensive.... Possibly more due to the roll to roll capability of perovskite material application.

[@nilsfrederking62]

Depends on the thickness of the silver plating they indicate 60 nm and it is an alloy, so maximum silver content per square meter would be(less than) roughly 1 gram which is less than a Euro in material cost.

[@_shadow_1]

@@nilsfrederking62 We also have to take into account that the silver could be potentially recycled and recovered, thereby further deceasing the total amount of silver used.

[@jeanpaulchristian3282]

Maybe dispersed metal atoms on multiple layers could allow for the silver effect. High temp metal could be used as its a substrate not impacting the perovskite layer, however the dispersed atom idea is a little bit complicated in terms or preventing atomic agglomeration for true dispersal

[@13thbiosphere]

@@nilsfrederking62 if the entire Industry converts it it could be * million square metres.... So 1 ton

[@WouterZtube]

What a fresh breath of air. Someone knowledgeable explaining something very complex in simple terms. Thank you

[@romanregman1469]

Also: adding a simple mirror to the ground surface, angled to reflect onto the pv panel, it increases efficiency for very little cost. Or get the germanium ones, and add those mirrors, for even better efficiency, with minimal degradation from .... The Fkn Sun they're supposed to be pointed at!

[@Kysen10]

First time viewer and it's a relief that you know what you are talking about. Too many random tech tubers who just parrot other peoples work and add b-roll.

[@getinthespace7715]

Great in depth explanations. I can tell this is going to be one of my favorite new channels.

[@katana1960]

I heard about this years ago. It seems that we are always on the verge of a break through, but never seem to be able to buy them.

[@MrArcheopteryx]

You made my day Doctor Miles! I am so looking forward to 250% higher efficiency in photovoltaics. Just imagine transparent, film-thick perovskite cells applied to buildings, houses, boats, etc. Now that would be a turning point in cheap renewable clean energy, ABUNDANT for everyone. Conversely, those who profit from a dependency on complex energy production and distribution, would probably oppose it, but that's just another day at the office in the life of progress. Beautiful graphical and verbal explanation. I subscribed. Eagerly looking for more from you. Cheers!

[@HarryAGeorgiou]

Great video, i studied perovskite solar cells a few years ago when i tried and failed at a PhD in them, but I learnt quite a bit and wrote a massive review paper on their stability that was not accepted because it was too big. I might try to do a video on that but it might take a while. I think it is great the style and easy you describe things, so nice one .

[@Infoagemage]

Kudos for preserving through failure 💪🏼

[@KallePihlajasaari]

I encourage you to publish your findings in any format. Too much wisdom is lost or hidden that could help humanity in some small way. The more that is public domain, the less the corporate overlords can dictate who gets to use the information.

[@jimmurphy5355]

So, 250% better. That’s great, unless the efficiency of their tested cell went from 1% to 2.5% Since they didn’t crow about the absolute efficiency, only the change, I’m going to assume their cell was pretty bad, and they didn’t want to mention how bad.

[@andreycham4797]

Ha ha ha they never tell you how good they really are but give us more money for continuing a research

[@DavidD03820]

Finally someone that actually listened and everyone glazed over! I never got the number of how many watts per square meter or anything this magic substance generates. Exactly what you said, 250% then what? what number is it better then, because 250% of 1 watt is 2.5w.. or 2500% of 0.1w is still 2.5w.

[@mistermood4164]

I believe the industry average is 17-19% efficiency

[@DavidD03820]

@@mistermood4164 industry average of solar cells are 17-19% efficiency, they never once talked about perovskite cells.

[@DavidD03820]

They talked about perovskite cells making 250% better then the last time. 250% better then WHAT? because 250% better of 0 is still 0. They never gave a number....

[@couchyrick6300]

Thank you for making a video like this that wasn't clickbait or ai voiced

[@marvinegreen]

I vaguely remember a Japanese scientist came up with a 2 layer solar cell that captured more of the light spectrum. Maybe 3 or 5 years ago. Is this a development of that work?

[@bariole]

I don't know anything about this particular scientist, but multijunction cells are being produced for at least 20 yars. Historically, they are very expensive.

[@testboga5991]

Honest tech commentary on YT. Awesome!

[@benjamindent4806]

If I remember hearing the creator from cal tech, he said while they are powerful and efficient, they are not durable and extremely cost prohibitive. Durable part is the key. Everything is expensive and over time it becomes cheaper

[@DeAlpineBro]

I ignored this video at first because "breakthrough" videos are...well, let's say I'm skeptical. This was excellent, Dr Miles.

[@MasterHigure]

4:00 P and N type semiconductors are *not charged*. They don't go around carrying static electric charge everywhere. What they do have is a deficit or surplus of charge-carrying electrons, as opposed to a pure silicon crystal, which perfectly satisfies the rule-of-8. But this deficit or surplus is perfectly balanced, charge-wise, by protons in the nuclei, so they are still electrically neutral. The region immediately surrounding the interface between the two *does* become electrically charged.

[@rolyantrauts2304]

In the UK our main energy requirement is heat, but for some reason we focus on what could be considered appliance energy. Solar thermal walls and roofs even in northern climes could achieve winter heating and the excess through summer can generate through an ORC likely cooled in a heatpump groundloop. Thermal stores can be little more than a insulated wall type which creates a generation latency to offset peak sunl;ight by several hours. Solar PV has focus because it can be sold and fitted as a cunsumer product whilst likely if designed and built, we already have extremely fit for purpose regional renewables.

[@SpiderF27]

If If If. We hear that non-stop all the time.

[@pappaflammyboi5799]

Reference source articles please...

[@ram64man]

The issue I have many housing developments will reject the pannels that are highly reflective, already we see planning approvals limited to mono cell for neighbours approval especially hill side developments., hopefully they can still develop a cell for all spectrum wave length that’s more important than making them cheaper or adaptable in my opinion as this technology will still be expensive for many so maximise amount for less pannels is key

[@shiinondogewalker2809]

red light is the lower end of the energy spectrum, which is inverted wavelength spectrum that they show in the graph

[@davidcummings2020]

The amount of led used in the solar panels is so negligable compared to what the battery industry still looses even though lead recycling is a huge success story. lets lake the short path to the next generation and work on the lead levels later right? btw great explanations.

[@ankurbhatnagar4609]

What do you mean by 250% efficiency increase? How much is it for the new system after the increase?

[@yoshy2628]

PEROVSKITE SOLAR CELL got around 29% efficiency. 250% will land around 70%?

[@Skylancer727]

There is also the rarely talked about research into the photo rectenna. You probably already know we can also absorb microwaves or radio waves with grids of metal of the same wavelength as the signal, well the same does in fact work with light, this issue is the wavelength of light is tiny and we've struggled to get diodes of the right frequency to fully utilize this effect. There have however been studies showing they do in fact work with one already having one with an energy conversion of 60%. That puts it already around 250% stronger than mast existing solar panels. The issue is it uses graphene/ carbon nanotubes for the grid. In theory however, this has as theoretical total efficiency of around 90% so it is incredibly promising.

[@gene4094]

The energy conversion by solar cell for our energy needs. The same Perovskite molecule can be use for obtaining partial water plasma state. The same state that is in fluorescent lights to lightning bolts.

[@scrappyquilter102]

Total non-scientist here but this is quite interesting. If I understand you correctly, the electron can *see itself* in the mirror? No - I must be mistaken. I hesitate "going full-in" with solar panels, waiting for better science. 4th generation? - BRING IT!

[@ernestestrada2461]

I'm glad that you mentioned that these are thin film printer technology that have a limited life. But people listen to only half and then turn around and say this is a viable technology which it is not.

[@dsd2743]

Please leave reference to the respective publications in the description. That would be highly appreciated.

[@nzoomed]

This is exciting, but I bet its decades away before we can buy them.

[@rondavison8475]

Thin film silicon or other materials can have a 2nd layer of pervoskovites added on the bottom of glass on glass solar panels. this allows them to be used now with the direct UV exposure removed by the top material. GAIA your welcome.

[@rondavison8475]

Perhaps sandwich the metal layer in the middle. This allows decoupling top cell from bottom cell not needing to be in //.

[@Stephen_M.]

What ever happened to Dr. Alvin Mark's Lepcon and Lumiloid? I believe he had reached 80% efficiency, back in the 90's, with no fancy materials.

[@theobserver9131]

Dude, I almost blocked you. 250% efficiency? (on your clickbait thumbnail). You're talking magical energy from nothing. It doesn't get better than 100%, and even that is impossible. Please, be a responsible representative of science and reality. Thumbs down for that.

[@jeanpaulchristian3282]

2.5x means between around 45-55% efficiency- the confusing part is where he said a "factor of" 250% which doesn't make sense

[@alistairmackintosh9412]

Agreed. A 250% increase in efficiency would have been a better phrase.

[@theobserver9131]

The key to my comment is; "on the clickbait THUMBNAIL". It says simply 250%efficiency. Not 250% IMPROVEMENT....as in 2.5 times better than the current level. The video itself is fine and easy to understand. It's actually excellent in my opinion. It's the thumbnail that is false and misleading.

[@jeanpaulchristian3282]

@@theobserver9131 250% efficiency makes no sense, that would be a material absorbing at 3-5 suns at 50% efficiency... Or in space at double the solar luminosity concentration. Even if a solar cell was 100% efficient in space it would only equate to 200% efficiency on earth ignoring ozone layer, clouds, ionic and radio interferences, aerosols and atmospheric moisture.

[@jeanpaulchristian3282]

If. Wind turbine were 100% efficient there would be no wind behind the turbine, maybe you can use electrohydrodynamic attractors to concentrate wind sheer solely on the wind blades themselves, but then there would be no wind but a low pressure zone behins the wind turbine

[@keithrosenberg5486]

I will believe it when it is installed in my solar array. And can it be made in huge quantities cheap enough for the average person to own.

[@ChallengeTheNarrative]

'Could' being the pinnacle world. I won't be holding my breath. It takes a long time to get tech production to the consumer market and there's big problems with the tech. Same goes for the great wonderful fantastic Salt Sodium Chloride batteries

[@KaiserTom]

So it's essentially guiding electrostatic pressure to the wires via the mirror. It's making alternative electron paths and recombination a more unlikely event through the mirror causing wave-field interference. The right mirror effectively creates an photon dead zone in the recombination zone, due to wave field interference, of any photon originating from a recombination. Further photon interactions become biased towards the collectors, improving efficiency. I mean, think the double slit experiment. Photons don't hit the dark lines on the other side. Except now have a recombination event as your source and the mirror your double slit. You'll get a interference pattern reflected. Which you can place your recombination zones in the destructive interference areas and collectors in the constructive interference areas.

[@philipkudrna5643]

I loved the Galadriel quote!

[@ساميالراضي-ذ6ج]

Thank you very much, professor, for clarification. We in Iraq solar panels are expensive and of very poor quality. One watt costs. one dollar 😔

[@technokicksyourass]

Great to see a champion of solar energy that is truthful about the technology advancements. After 20 years of climate alarmism, and massive overpromising from the industry, it's refreshing to see someone just presenting the science.

[@vueport99]

And what nobody talks about is panels are dirty to produce, has a limited life time.... And what are we to do with all the old panels?

[@sampleoffers1978]

If methane traps solar radiation, encase methane above panels...Put spectrum lens filters for panels under the encased methane...Panel might be powered constantly

[@aclearlight]

A wonderful tutorial, thank you!

[@a64738]

Effective solar panes is only something you need when you do like me and mount it on a campervan where there is no room for large panels. For the rest of us low COST of the panels is the only consern. I have four 320w panels on my van, I could have fitted four 400w panels (the most efficient on the market) but they would have cost 5 times as much....

[@moremartin320]

Thanks for sharing and explaining! I learned a lot from your tutorial. I hope this technology will hit the marked soon.

[@kevinrtres]

Research is one thing. Mass production is a completely other game. So is longevity - absolutely essential. Perovskites need to show longevity or else be less than 1/4 the price of the silicon ones so they can be used and recycled.

[@cocis911]

Brilliant explanation - huge congrats on this video! And thank you!

[@ZAR556]

cmiiw, current industry best is ~25% efficiency,, soo much solar energy wasted i hope they manage to make breakthrough soon

[@tysonjbest]

Would love to see a video on googles new Solar API 🤩 .Total game changer!!

[@psionx1]

the real question is if the "mirror" can be made of cheaper metals like iron,nickle or iridium for the same or better effects. silicone and carbon basically have unlimited supply on rocky planets and asteroids so perfecting solar panels using them should be higher priority.

[@danieweir9588]

Have we found a way that we store that power safely yet? It's all very well being able to make power during certain daylight hours depending on your latitude. We need a battery that is not dangerous and we are not anywhere near that yet ... it is a horse AND cart thing.

[@johnmalcom9159]

Mainstream media, and CNN in particular, were relevant enough that Aptera made the effort to get a piece on the air. Their judgement is good enough for me

[@winfordnettles3292]

It would real interesting if the technology can be put into production for a limited test run on a large scale array. I'll be holding my breath........

[@dinosaur0073]

So far, they are doing fine, but they need cleaning at least once a weak...thank you for info.

[@Kevin_Street]

Thank you for this video! You explain a complicated subject really well.

[@nightmareinaction629]

I like how the picture of the thumbnail are cells from 2009 the have an efficiency of 9%

[@kayakMike1000]

Electron falling into hole at the depletion zone would emit a photon that gets reflected back into depletion zone. Electrons can't see themselves in a mirror.

[@thom1218]

Traditional solar cells are neither "thick" nor "heavy". You're mistaking the panels that contain and shield them from weather with the actual feather light cells themselves.

[@BlenderRookie]

I saw your thumbnail and it seemed as if the claim was that the solar panel was 250% efficient as in it's putting out 2.5X the energy that it's collecting. I was prepared to laugh relentlessly. But I see, 250% more efficient than X.

[@ericmichel3857]

Great work everyone, call me when it's ready.

[@SorosNews]

add Ultra Colloidal Silver Concentrate, to the Epoxy Covering of the Pannal, That would be a Hard Mix, Water and Silver are not going to mix with the Epoxy . Maybe Mix Silver with The Drier For Mixing it in the Epoxy for the Silver Reflexions to happen with in the Cells ! Maybe ! This would add The Silver to any Cells already Made !!!

[@Urgelt]

Well. I'm an ignoramus, and elderly to boot. So my opinion isn't worth the time to type it. Time I have, however, so I will inflict my remark on your readers. It seems to me that there might be an unmentioned, but obvious, reason why a mirror can improve yield at the collector. When an electron falls into a positively-charged 'hole' in the cell, so that the electron can't arrive at a collector, a photon is emitted. What happens to this photon? It either escapes the cell entirely, or it collides with cell material and excites/liberates another electron. A mirror, if tuned fortuitously to reflect reemitted photons, will prevent some of those photons from escaping the cell material, redirecting them back into the cell, where there are more opportunities to collide and liberate electrons. So yield goes up. That can't be the entire cause of an improvement of 250%, but it could be a factor, unless I forgot my meds again and am making no sense.

[@joeprizzi407]

I am not great with identifying accents, but I have to ask if you are from Liverpool. It is one of my favorites.

[@aljawisa]

I'm still waiting for one of these main stream channels do to a video on Randil Mills "Sun Cell" and his latest device iteration I call the Solar Cube.

[@maxheadrom3088]

The depletion region is electrostatically neutral but not charge carriers neutral. A small detail, though - nice video! very informatinve!

[@pixelfrenzy]

"Phenomena" is plural. "Phenomenon" is singular. Thank you.

[@zibam982]

Cost efficiency determines the mass use, regardless off the cell efficiency. I hope that will be the case!

[@davidbachtel1721]

The comments are brutal, and I love it.

[@stewartmckay9830]

Let's hope you're right. And the batteries get better too

[@grahamcook9289]

Perovskite is similar to nuclear fusion in that in it is always in the near future, sometime, maybe. Unfortunately if commercial scale production were possible, then someone would have done it by now. It is destined to remain in the lab until abandoned as unworkable. Also renewable energy needs grid scale storage of 1-3 days duration, before fossil fuels can truly be left in the ground. Why not do a video update on the liquid air plant in Manchester?

[@mdb1239]

I hope to put perovskite solar cell system on my house in 3 years. I assume it will be commercially ready and ROBUST and LONGLASTING by then.

[@Chris.Davies]

How about we develop methods which would allow us to effectively and economically recycle the materials from old photovoltaics? That would be a step in the right direction.

[@evitoonbundit2453]

Efficiency is fine but long term stability is still a hurdle?

[@keithplymale2374]

The key things are going to be the cost to make them, how rare the materials to make them are and will they be recyclable. Beyond that the further question would be how easy to scale them up to mass production. The use of silver is going to increase the cost. Experiments need to made to find if other, lower cost, metal could be used. It does sound exciting but they are going to like fusion has always been I suspect.

[@hyp-o-crite-]

Despite significant progress in understanding the stability and degradation of perovskite solar cells, they are not currently commercially viable because of their limited operational lifetimes

[@davefroman4700]

As someone has famously stated, "Prototypes are easy, Manufacturing is hard." Its a good thing that governments around the world are throwing money at the development of these technologies.

[@AreHan1991]

Thanx! Very well and clearly explained 😁

[@notimeliketoday9414]

My question is how will this effect the life span and durability of the panels in question, I live in Australia, as everyone knows our country here is harsh upon anything introduced to the environment (look at the tourists when they come of the planes, evaporated by the sun instantly)

[@loisplayer]

Your recent video's thumbnails are exactly like Ziroth's....

[@williamgidrewicz4775]

But silver here is somewhat expensive! Maybe use silver quantum dots or some other element that reduces the amount of an expensive element. Quantum dots or other special structures!

[@greenfrog58]

Great video!

[@1fly2fly24]

Cool. Now.... how about instead of layers for different wavelength capture, how about a series of lines per cell for an even wider band of light convesion per cell.

[@madmesmith5187]

Thank you Ben for sharing and making understandable....Awesome....The wonders of the human mind....❤

[@robertmunafo5039]

If I had a nickel for every YT headline saying something along the lines of "Solar Breakthrough.." I'm not holding my breath, same can be said for battery tech. When I can purchase equivalent size solar panel with even a 50% efficiency I'll believe it.

[@BR-hi6yt]

They should look at solid state batteries & combine techs as there is considerable overlap here.

[@qijia4769]

it sounds like the same trick could be used to improve the sensitivity of image sensors.

[@yossman8825]

Every year I see at least 4 videos with similar titles. Yet I do not see anything change on the solar market.

[@thetourk]

Interesting video. At somepoint there will be s break through not just in solar power but in battery technically as well.

[@John-gm8ty]

I'll believe it when it hits the main stream market...

[@bartoszpienkosz7827]

Crazy outro bro

[@L.L]

Damnnn keep it up people lets develop that to the max. Now I want that on my car roof 😊

[@SaSaaVirus]

I would love to have the sunroof of my car (smart fortwo ED) replaced. Would be happy with 10km per day extra. let alone charge it completely.

[@solentbum]

I will get excited when B&Q stock it as a DIY product. Meanwhile I will watch from afar.

[@Mr-JJ-]

Have they had a breakthrough in managing the waste from solar panels? If not then it still needs work.

[@gostaknochenhauer3978]

Interesting! But I wonder: You mention a 250% increase in efficience. That should mean that the efficience gets 3.5 times higher. Is that what you meant?

[@Grundewalt]

Get back when this will be in products on sale. Next month ? Next year ? Didn't think so...