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

Technology

1086 readers
6 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 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] deliux@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 18 points 2 years 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.

[–] tinwhiskers@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 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 11 points 2 years ago (5 children)

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

[–] _s10e@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago

Just need another sun on the opposite side

[–] humanplayer2@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years 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.

[–] tinwhiskers@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

I think you're right there. My bad.

[–] tinwhiskers@kbin.social 1 points 2 years 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 1 points 2 years ago

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

[–] dave@feddit.uk 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] I_Miss_Daniel@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I can wipe with both sides now?

[–] dave@feddit.uk 2 points 2 years ago

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

[–] DrinkyCrow@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago

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

[–] Hedup@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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

[–] sdjmchattie@infosec.pub 4 points 2 years 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.

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years 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 4 points 2 years 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

[–] rm_dash_r_star@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.