• MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s obviously a great achievement though it would be nice to see improvements larger than 1-2%.

    Let’s hope the next one will be like a 10-12% improvement… though that’s probably wishful thinking.

    Storage is likely the bigger issue now.

    • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m more concerned with longevity and use of more environmentally friendly materials with solar panels than efficiency. In about 30 years or so, they reach their end of life so there will be hazardous waste resulting from that.

      • Mountain_Mike_420@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        4 months ago

        Remember that solar just doesn’t stop working at some random day. The efficiency drops to where it makes sense to replace then people like me come in and buy the panels for pennies on the dollar because a 18% efficient panel will work just fine.

    • ArtikBanana@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      It’s more about the use of perovskite (while retaining durability), which should lower the cost of the panels.
      The efficiency improvement is a bonus.

    • BassTurd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I thought that I had read that we are close to the theoretical max efficiency for solar. That may have been in a comment and completely false, but it may be something to look into if it interests you. If there is validity, then there just may not be enough room for those large jumps. I think making them out of safer materials and trying to make the mfg process greener would offset some of the shortcomings of efficiency.