this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
161 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

34828 readers
15 users here now

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

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheYang@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well, that's neat.

But where is that really relevant? Typical albedo of anything around a solar panel seems to be like around .2, meaning that these cells which have 23% efficiency on the front, and ~21% on the back.
Solar Irradiance is usually less than 7kWh/m²day.
So this Panel could get around 1.6kWh/m²day on the front and 0.3kwH/m²day on the back.

Isn't cost way more relevant than getting a few more % efficiency?

As long as "we" (as in humanity) can't afford to put solar panels on the top of every/most surfaces that we build, it seems that driving down the cost is more paramount.
Luckily that is happening too though

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Bifaciality isn't new or limited to perovskite based PV. Ground reflection is also not the only source of indirect light.

This article is very bad, but bifacial panels are starting to dominate the industry for good reason. The backside gives a 5-20% boost in total annual yield (which is worth it on its own), but more importantly that boost is skewed towards times with low direct irradiance (such as cloudy days). This reduces the amount of storage required.

It also allows other orientations. Vertical installations have huge advantages including better compatibility with agrivoltaics, generation skewed towards times where low tilt panels don't produce (morning-evening for east-west and winter for north-south), better dual use, and lower racking cost. Glass-glass encapsulisation is also more durable and this alone pays for most of the added cost.

[–] eleitl@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the background. My panels are dual glass encapsulated but not bifacial -- not that I would be able to profit from it anyway.

[–] miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

I would hope that there's enough people on this so that different teams can develop solutions for different problems at the same time.

[–] deliux@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is nothing new, bifacial solar panels are on the market for well over a year now...

e.g. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/06/08/jolywood-unveils-black-bifacial-module/

Cheap and readily available...

[–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 20 points 1 year ago

Read past the (admittedly misleading) headline. This article is about double-sided perovskite solar panels, which is apparently just a better material, and maybe it benefits more from the double-sided structure? Not sure of the specifics, but they're saying efficiency can reach 30%, which is a lot higher than your example.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hmm, I talked with grid solar people who've been using this for a while about a year ago. Maybe this is a new version? Anyway, they were saying that it really helps in the winter when you can harvest the reflected light from the snow. But doesn't do a ton usually.

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it helps with snow, white paint or light coloured concrete should work fine too. No?

As the planet warms, we'll increasingly need to paint flat roofs white anyway.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, but the people I was taking to worked in grid scale rather than utility scale, so in fields rather than buildings. You'd want to avoid paving over the whole field for cost, but also avoiding huge runoff. They are often also renting the fields for 20 to 30 years rather than buying them outright, so paving over the whole thing wouldn't be appreciated.

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Plant daisies, or graze white sheep under them :)

[–] Smatt@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Lol yeah the high albedo of grazing sheep has been tragically understudied until now.

They're soooo floofy.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Definitely!

[–] tinwhiskers@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

TLDR; the front side is 23% efficient, and the rear side 20% efficient.

They don't actually give an overall efficiency but it implies a total of 43%. They compare this to typical panels also at 23% efficient, so it's really remarkable if true. Other emerging solar tech is up to about 32% but if that could also benefit from multiple layers then total efficiency could become insane.

Seems a little too good to be true, really, but great if so.

Edit: Yeah, I don't think these efficiencies can be added like that. I guess the overall efficiency will depend on how reflective the ground under the panels is, and they will extract 20% of that. Maybe that's why they don't give an overall rating.

[–] erezac@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I don’t think you can just add up efficiency percentages like that…

[–] humanplayer2@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

Sure you can. That's why a UV lamp shining at the six 20% solar panels that power it can run your FTL drive.

[–] _s10e@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

Just need another sun on the opposite side

[–] tinwhiskers@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I think you're right there. My bad.

[–] tinwhiskers@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

They say the second layer retains 93% of the performance of the first using reflected light, making it 20% efficient, so, yes they are added in that case.

[–] SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

You double(ish) the surface area. So 23% efficient front panel + 20% rear panel.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

There isn't nearly as much light coming from the back, so you won't get that much efficiency improvement

[–] dave@feddit.uk 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have also invented double-sided paper which holds vastly more information.

[–] I_Miss_Daniel@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can wipe with both sides now?

[–] dave@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, just remember to wash your hands 93% more.

[–] DrinkyCrow@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

I'm pretty positive this has been a thing for a while? Though I have no proof.

[–] Hedup@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Wow, that's great for planets in twin star systems.

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What i got from the article is a panel can get 20% more energy this way. So a 500 watt panel could harvest 600 watts. 500 from the front and 100 fromthe back.

[–] el_illuminacho@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Doesn't it say that the front is 23% efficient, while the back is 20% efficient? So it harvests 90% of the power of the front side.
That makes them harvest almost double the energy, no?

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 6 points 1 year ago

But the back side of the panel gets much less light because it is getting it indirectly. If there were a sun hitting both sides then you would be correct

[–] sdjmchattie@infosec.pub 4 points 1 year ago

It’s interesting that we usually assume the scattered light that has been reflected has much less energy left. Glad to see more movement in renewable energy production.

[–] Sine_Fine_Belli@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago
[–] rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well cost is the main consideration. I mean most would consider cost per kW primarily. Efficiency only counts for something when it's a factor in cost. It's good when solar panels can be smaller, but in utility installations space is usually not a limitation.

load more comments
view more: next ›