Researchers at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (MLU) have discovered a new method to increase the efficiency of solar cells by a factor of 1,000. The team of scientists achieved this breakthrough by creating crystalline layers of barium titanate, strontium titanate, and calcium titanate, which were alternately placed on top of one another in a lattice structure.

  • Transient Punk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    compared to pure barium titanate of a similar thickness, the current flow was up to 1,000 times stronger

    This says noting of efficiency compared to standard solar panels. Seems misleading at best.

    • Steve@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Thanks for catching that. Unfortunately seems fairly common with a lot of these projects for “new” technologies ,sometimes due to funding.

  • expatriado@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    a really good solar panel has a efficiency of 30%, idk how can you 1000x that, math doesn’t add up

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I wanna ride my electric motorcycle around the country and chill out for an hour while my crazy efficient foldout panel recharges my bike.

    • evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      If you live somewhere reasonably sunny, you can expect about 1 kW per square meter during the sunniest part of the day. To charge something like a 15 kWh electric motorcycle battery, you’d need 15 square meters of 100% efficient panels.

  • UpperBroccoli@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    That article - and especially the title - seem misleading. To quote (emphasis mine):

    The result surprised even the research group: compared to pure barium titanate of a similar thickness, the current flow was up to 1,000 times stronger, despite the fact that the proportion of barium titanate as the main photoelectric component was reduced by almost two thirds.

    I am sure this is exciting and very important research though.

    • n3m37h@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      And this is the next paragraph

      Bhatnagar explained, “The interaction between the lattice layers appears to lead to a much higher permittivity - in other words, the electrons are able to flow much more easily due to the excitation by the light photons.” The measurements also showed that this effect is very robust: it remained nearly constant over a six-month period.

      I don’t get why ya think anything here is misleading

      Its like burning magnesium oxide alone vs magnesium oxide+iron oxide. Yeah they both burn but one produces 1000x more heat

      • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Because the title says “1000x more powerful than existing panels”. The article clarifies that this is existing barium panels, but the title (I would argue misleadingly so) does not clarify that they aren’t referring to existing silicone solar panels.

        Especially misleading because of the use of the word “existing” because it sounds like they’re referring to something that has made it out of a lab, but I’d wager 99.99999+% of people have never seen an “existing” barium solar panel.

        A less misleading title would be something like:

        Experimental barium solar panel 10000x more efficient than past attempts, possibility of performance parity with silicon in sight

        Or some such nonsense. You could move the second half to a subtitle and still be much clearer and less misleading than the original in title alone.

    • moody@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Considering current panels are at about 30% efficient, these new ones would be 30 000% efficient, putting out 300 times more energy than they absorb.

      • wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Well, you obviously aren’t factoring in their endothermic effect. These panels work as great refrigerators as well. Stience.

        • Jourei@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Ugh, in addition of removing snow in the winter off the panels, I now have to scrape off ice in the summer.

  • NigelSimmons@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    “The result surprised even the research group: compared to pure barium titanate of a similar thickness, the current flow was up to 1,000 times stronger, despite the fact that the proportion of barium titanate as the main photoelectric component was reduced by almost two thirds.”… So not actually 1000x better than current technology, just 1000x compared to pure barium titanite. Garbage clickbait, but “clever technique applied to ineffective solar cell technology scrapes 1% efficiency when used in UV spectrum” does not have the same appeal.

    • kindenough@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Damn, headline got me excited for a few moments and then I get into the comment section and be feeling depressed again.

  • qprimed@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    “The result surprised even the research group: compared to pure barium titanate of a similar thickness, the current flow was up to 1,000 times stronger…”

    so this offers the possibility of barium titanate PV cells that may be marginally more efficient and less expensive than existing silicon PV cells.

    seems to be another “in a few years” tech that, while welcome, probably does not deserve the clickbait headline.