Silicon-perovskite solar cells are on the verge of revolutionizing power generation efficiency

Alfonso Maruccia

Posts: 1,025   +302
Staff
Forward-looking: Traditional solar power cells are based on a silicon semiconductor compound, which is known to have a theoretical maximum efficiency of 29 percent in converting sunlight into electric energy. However, by incorporating a second perovskite layer onto the base silicon layer, solar cells have the potential to surpass this efficiency threshold in the near future.

Perovskite is a class of compounds that shares same crystal structure as the calcium titanium oxide mineral. This highly flexible material is used in a variety of applications including ultrasound machines, memory chips, and solar cells for power generation. Recent studies suggest perovskite could be the "secret sauce" to propel the solar cell industry towards new levels of power generation efficiency.

Current solar cell technology is rapidly approaching its maximum efficiency level, but still falls short of what is needed for solar power to be a significant mitigating factor against global warming. Scientists say efficiency must surpass 30 percent, and the installation rate of new solar panels must increase tenfold compared to current adoption levels.

By adding an additional layer of perovskite on top of a silicon base, both possessing semiconductor properties, the amount of energy captured from sunlight can be enhanced. The silicon layer captures electrons from red light, while the perovskite layer captures blue light. Improved energy absorption capability will lead to a reduction in the overall price of solar energy, thereby enabling faster deployment and adoption of solar panels.

Scientists have spent years developing an efficient silicon-perovskite solar cell technology, and it appears that 2023 will mark a significant milestone in this field. Recent research advancements have successfully pushed the efficiency of silicon-perovskite tandem cells beyond 30 percent. The pace of progress is so rapid that this technology will soon demonstrate its enhanced capabilities in commercially available products.

Stefaan De Wolf, a professor of material science and engineering at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia, believes that 2023 will bring significant advancements. De Wolf's team has already achieved an efficiency level of 33.7 percent in a silicon-perovskite solar cell, but their work still needs to be published in scientific journals.

Another group, led by Steve Albrecht at the Helmholtz Center Berlin for Materials and Energy in Germany, recently published a study about a tandem silicon-perovskite cell that can achieve power conversion efficiencies of up to 32.5 percent. A third group led by Xin Yu Chin at the Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, Switzerland, has demonstrated an efficiency level of 31.25 percent with tandem cells having the "potential for both high efficiency and low manufacturing costs."

According to De Wolf, surpassing the 30 percent energy threshold instills confidence that "high performance, low-cost PVs can be brought to the market." Solar power capacity reached 1.2 terawatts (TW) in 2022, and it must increase to at least 75TW by 2050 to mitigate the most catastrophic scenarios arising from global warming and greenhouse gases.

The commercial industry is actively working on enhancing solar cells efficiency. China's biggest manufacturer (LONGi) has already reached a 33.5 percent efficiency in the lab. The next step involves scaling up the size of efficient silicon-perovskite tandem cells from experimental conditions (1 cm squares) to commercial-level features (15cm squares). De Wolf expresses confidence that we will reach this goal sooner rather than later.

Permalink to story.

 
Color me impressed when I see a real product that surpasses 40% efficiency. It was previously postulated that 39.7% was the maximum efficiency for passive regular (single-layer?) panels.

As of today, not a single perovskite product has reached production. So it's all just a hype for now, like that with eternal super-batteries.
 
Color me impressed when I see a real product that surpasses 40% efficiency. It was previously postulated that 39.7% was the maximum efficiency for passive regular (single-layer?) panels.

As of today, not a single perovskite product has reached production. So it's all just a hype for now, like that with eternal super-batteries.

And if they do, the cost will be astronimical.
 
Let me guess? they'll be silly expensive and we'll stay at the starting line like usual?

im at the point where any kind of science news about bettering peoples everyday lives feels mean and borderline cruel to discuss because we know even if it does get created that only the richest of the rich will even glimpse it.

but im american so im jaded beyond all belief because theres no help in this place.
 
Color me impressed when I see a real product that surpasses 40% efficiency. It was previously postulated that 39.7% was the maximum efficiency for passive regular (single-layer?) panels.

As of today, not a single perovskite product has reached production. So it's all just a hype for now, like that with eternal super-batteries.
It's not just a question of efficiency to compete and replace conventional silicon panels, you need to have stability and durability. The problem with these solar cells is that they suffer performance degradation very quickly, in months they lose almost all efficiency, while silicon panels take decades to drop below 80% of the initial performance. There are panels working for over 40 years.
 
Wait this supposed to be a huge breakthrough that solar panels can only get a few more percentage efficiency? What the heck?
 
Wait this supposed to be a huge breakthrough that solar panels can only get a few more percentage efficiency? What the heck?

How is it a few %???? Current state-of-the-art panels consumers can actually buy for their home tops out at around 23%. 8-10% is massive improvement given we've been getting a 1% or so every 3-4 years. I currently have 410W solar panels with 22% efficiency. Imagine one day getting regular sized panels with 700W+. There are much larger commercial panels that hit 600W, but we could expect 1kW. This is great for people with small roof space. You could still have a large capacity with smaller number of panels.

There may well be materials that offer much better efficiency but they would either be far too expensive or would degrade far too quickly to be of use. Panels need to be rated for 20 to 25 years in harsh environment.

And despite the current lowish efficiency my power bills over the last year have been zero and I have a shading to deal with.

 
There was an article about solar panel reliability. They found out that panels made in 2010 stated to degrade much faster just after 10 years.
I do not know how much it costs to install a set, but I bet most people expect them to last longer than 10 years.
They should pay more attention to longevity of these.
my understanding is that they become more complex with new and experimental materials used.
Who knows how long those hold.
 
There was an article about solar panel reliability. They found out that panels made in 2010 stated to degrade much faster just after 10 years.
I do not know how much it costs to install a set, but I bet most people expect them to last longer than 10 years.
They should pay more attention to longevity of these.
my understanding is that they become more complex with new and experimental materials used.
Who knows how long those hold.

Once current tech panels drop to 80% efficiency they tend to just stay at that, they can last up to 40 years.
 
The main problem isnt the efficiency of solar panels… its politics. In the UK it makes zero sense for a typical family to I vest in solar panels.
The electricity you generate is purchased from you for 3.5 pence while they sell it to you for 40-45 pence. If you invest in batteries you can store if of course, but we all know how long baterías last… 10 years and its pretty much dead.
If I need 40 years to get my money back… well the whole thing is dead to me. Simple as that.
At the end of the day governments are first and foremost there to protect the interests of the rich. If you let ordinary people generate their own energy then who will pay for the fat bonuses and dividends?
 
I would like to read that.


As usual that is complete FUD. (thanks for link proving it)
There are lots of articles showing that solar panels only loose the most energy output in the first 10 years and then after that is levels off.

That means that panels produced 20 years ago lost 5% in the first 5 years, 5% the next 10 years and may loose another 5% the next 20 years. (dropping to 85% of initial output after 35 years)

Now they DO remove panels from use after 20 years of use. This is not because the panel is worn out or no longer works but becasue the new panels produce more power and with the drop in costs and government subsidy they can produce MORE power cheaper than what they started with. There is a second hand market for panels that produce 70 to 90% of rated power that you can buy really cheap. So cell your used panels at 1/2 price or less, government pays 1/2 the cost and suddenly you're producing 30% more power for free or almost free.

If you have the land and space who cares if you need 30% more space for same amount of power output?

BUT if you DON'T then use you need panels that produce the maxiumum amount of output.

These new panels will give you 50% more output for the same amount of space as those that are 20% efficient and that is where it matters.
 
There was an article about solar panel reliability. They found out that panels made in 2010 stated to degrade much faster just after 10 years.
I do not know how much it costs to install a set, but I bet most people expect them to last longer than 10 years.
They should pay more attention to longevity of these.
my understanding is that they become more complex with new and experimental materials used.
Who knows how long those hold.
Link, please.

Last year was year eight for the panels on my roof, and I produced more kWh than any previous year. Of course, total hours of sun per year is a critical variable that can't be controlled with a sample size of 1. Even if my panels drop to 50% I've already made my money back and then some, and it doesn't seem like I've lost any efficiency.
 
It's funny watching the FUD come out from overseas while I sit here in Australia, where nearly a third of homes have rooftop solar. The degradation of solar and batteries is not nearly as bad as some would like to make out, only the cheapest nastiest panels have had issues long term in our harsh conditions. Most 10-15 year old systems are still going strong, there's always going to be a drop in efficiency but if you've sized your system correctly it will still cover your needs and have paid for itself twice over by the time it's down to 80% of original.

Household batteries are not stressed even remotely as much as an EV, I don't understand why people think a battery technology that is now proven to go over 10 years in a Tesla will degrade in less than 10 on a house. The charge/discharge cycles for a household are an order of magnitude gentler on the battery than they are in a vehicle, there is no vibration to deal with, and assuming you didn't put it in a stupid place there is negligible heat cycling.
 
Color me impressed when I see a real product that surpasses 40% efficiency. It was previously postulated that 39.7% was the maximum efficiency for passive regular (single-layer?) panels.

As of today, not a single perovskite product has reached production. So it's all just a hype for now, like that with eternal super-batteries.

Well, not quite. The mathematically calculated theoretical efficiency of a single-layer solar cell is 33.7%. For silicon, the commonest used photovoltaic material, the limit is 33.16%. This is known as the Shockley–Queisser limit. We're getting up to about 24% now.

This system is a two-layer panel. With an 'infinite' number of layers, the maximum theoretical efficiency can be calculated as 68.7% for normal sunlight, or 86.8% using concentrated sunlight.

Two-layer panels have been made before, e.g. Spectrolab, up to 40% though they are mainly used for space; a 10kW system on earth would cost you a couple of million. They hope to hit 50% soon.

They key is making them cheaply!
 
Let me guess? they'll be silly expensive and we'll stay at the starting line like usual?
Guesses like that tend to be common when the reality is that they are projected to cost about the same amount per unit area as current solar cells. https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201780
However, since they are more efficient, their power output will be higher per unit area than the current cells thus lowering cost per watt. In fact, lowered cost is why perovskites are being so heavily researched.
im at the point where any kind of science news about bettering peoples everyday lives feels mean and borderline cruel to discuss because we know even if it does get created that only the richest of the rich will even glimpse it.
That's a projection of your own attitude.
but im american so im jaded beyond all belief because theres no help in this place.
As was common in the TV show The X-Files, the truth is out there. All you have to do is look for it.

In fact, I'd say that most of the people doing research into the energy field have lowered cost as the highest priority. Perhaps its best to not let a negative attitude carry you off to a land of make-believe.
 
It has nothing to do with loving oil and mostly to do with false promises of free energy right always right around the corner.
That's the nature of research. Research does not stop because a bunch of people out there are constantly P&Ming about the fruits of the research being "just around the corner." It keeps going.
 
Link, please.

Last year was year eight for the panels on my roof, and I produced more kWh than any previous year. Of course, total hours of sun per year is a critical variable that can't be controlled with a sample size of 1. Even if my panels drop to 50% I've already made my money back and then some, and it doesn't seem like I've lost any efficiency.
And even on cloudy days, the Earth still receives something like 40% of the energy that it would on a clear day. Your panels may not output as much electricity, but they still output electricity none-the-less.
 
Back