New Tin-based Solar Cells Trap Heat 1,000 Times Longer, Could Beat 33% Limit (interestingengineering.com)
- Reference: 0185866968
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/26/09/26/0716210/new-tin-based-solar-cells-trap-heat-1000-times-longer-could-beat-33-limit
- Source link: https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/tin-based-solar-cells-could-beat-33-limit
> Researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands found that tin-based perovskite solar cells can slow heat loss from high-energy "hot electrons..."
>
> When sunlight strikes a panel, photons jump-start electrons into action. The most energetic photons create super-charged hot electrons... [but] in fractions of a trillionth of a second, these high-energy particles rapidly cool, dumping their bonus energy as waste heat before ever leaving the solar cell... In collaboration with Maria Antonietta Loi, professor of Photophysics and Optoelectronics, the team created an experimental setup. Using a specialized solar cell material called tin-based perovskite, Loi's lab performed a feat many thought impossible: she slowed the heat loss down by a factor of 1,000.
>
> Suddenly, the extra energy lingered for nanoseconds instead of vanishing in picoseconds... To solve the puzzle, Koster and PhD student Tim Faber built digital simulations to peel back the quantum layers. And discovered a surprising double-action mechanism at work... The simulations matched the exact nanosecond delay observed in the lab... These specialized materials could be used to build a new generation of super-efficient solar cells.
>
> [2]Tin-based metal halide perovskites are non-toxic, eco-friendly crystalline materials for high-performance solar energy conversion... The material possesses an unusually low electron mass. As a result, electric charges move quickly and retain extra thermal energy for extended periods. This combination of broad light absorption, efficient charge movement, and prolonged energy retention makes these materials prime candidates for next-generation solar panels.
"There are many other questions that still need answers," [3]the team said in their announcement , "but in theory, this discovery could allow the creation of more efficient solar cells, beyond the theoretical limit of 33 percent."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader [4]fahrbot-bot for sharing the article.
[1] https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/tin-based-solar-cells-could-beat-33-limit
[2] https://pubs.rsc.org/sc/article/13/23/6766/786161/Tin-based-halide-perovskite-materials-properties
[3] https://www.rug.nl/fse/news/highlighted-papers/2026/harvesting-hot-electrons-could-break-solar-panel-barrier?lang=en
[4] https://www.slashdot.org/~fahrbot-bot
This isn't the issue. (Score:5, Informative)
To be clear: none of this is the reason why lead has been winning over tin. Unfortunately, the Sn+2 is extremely prone to oxidizing to Sn+4 even under trace oxygen or moisture contamination, and tin perovskites are extremely vulnerable to crystal defects, while lead perovskites aren't. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.
Unfortunate. (Score:2)
The question with these kinds of tech articles is always "can this be scaled to mass market levels" and the answer is almost always "No."
Great, but... (Score:2)
This is all great, but when can we see rhus in actual production? We've had many breakthroughs in efficient solar panels in labs, but a lot of those breakthrough never ended up in actual products.
Re: (Score:2)
It took us 100 years after the first electric vehicle, so based off of that vaguely relative point... 100 years?
perovskite sucks (Score:2)
Perovskite panels only last a few years... normal mono panels have an order of magnitude longer service life.
Re:perovskite sucks (Score:4, Informative)
This was true of some pilot installations, [1]but accelerated aging [nih.gov] of modern perovskite panels suggest much closer to silicon, and some have passed the same IEC standards as silicon panels.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11985620/
Re: (Score:2)
> This was true of some pilot installations, but accelerated aging of modern perovskite panels suggest much closer to silicon, and some have passed the same IEC standards as silicon panels.
It would be nice if it worked. Perovskite has been nothing but disappointment for years. I'm not sure I buy lab aging tests because moisture infiltration is what does these things in. When someone sells them with a 20-30 year warranty it will be good enough for me.
Theoretical max efficiency of 33% ? (Score:2)
I hate finding out about limitations of by seeing a casual mention of those limitations by someone pushing an improvement.
Many many long years ago (Score:2)
When I was just a lad I was in school learning about Electronics.
Our textbooks proved conclusively that there was an absolute limit for solar panels of about 11% conversion.
The theoretical Max efficiency of 33% is good - right up until somebody comes up with a new Theory.
Re: (Score:2)
> Your reply is baseless.
It isn't specifically because both are taking something some media dildos spun dumb headlines about and basing dissatisfaction on those dumb headlines. But one would have to be capable of insight to understand the connection, so I'm not surprised a coward failed there.
Re: thin film solar panels want their attention ba (Score:2)
I believe he is thinking of
"cost no more than printing a plastic sheet or a postage stamp"
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but that was always a dumb idea, and it was always a minority position. Also we've know exactly why we can't have solar panels like that since [before] former thin film printed panel darling Nanosolar closed their doors in 2013: Microcracks develop in the protective plastic layers on thin film flexible solar panels and let in moisture which spoils the panel. You can make a relatively long-lived plastic solar panel if you don't want it to flex much, but it doesn't save much money in the end so that's d
Re:thin film solar panels want their attention bac (Score:5, Informative)
Um, [1]have you looked at a graph of PV price trends [ourworldindata.org]?
And remember: that vertical axis is a logarithmic scale .
As for "the price of a lollypop per square meter", that's literally the first time I've ever heard that phrase, but okay, I'll bite. If by "lollipop" you mean [2]retail prices for one of those big lollies [amazon.com], they're like $11 on Amazon on average. PV wafers are [3]about $0,045/W [trendforce.com]. At a typical ~250W/m, that's like.... $11. Yes, a square meter of PV wafers is about the cost of a lollipop! Yes, integrating them into whatever panels or other solar device increases cost over the raw wafers, but we very much are "on the order of lollies".
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/solar-panel-prices-have-fallen-by-around-20-every-time-global-capacity-doubled
[2] https://www.amazon.com/s?k=large+lollipop&crid=3R7Z87RYCHVJG&sprefix=large+lollipop%2Caps%2C209&ref=nb_sb_noss_1
[3] https://www.trendforce.com/price/pv/cell
Perovskite thin films (Score:2)
The perovskite semiconductors here are a very different technology than the old thin photovoltaics. They have the potential to be much more efficient, and the deposition techniques are cheap and comparatively low-tech
Whether they can succeed in simultaneously be highly-efficient, resistant to degradation in the environment, and still be low cost is the subject of a lot of work. We'll see.
> They were supposed to be manufactured for the price of a lollypop per square meter back in the '90s.
To be more specific, the target back in the '80s and '90s was clearly articulated as being fifty cents per watt (where "p
Re: (Score:2)
Your last sentence... I was just about to post something similar... far as I remember, heat doesn't generate electricity in PV cells... it might even hurt their efficiency, but you beat me to it.
Now... you could route a water line behind the PV cell, and that'd give you warmer (depends on conditions) water (and might help cool the PV cells which might help their efficiency).