It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Perovskite solar cells show tremendous promise in propelling solar power into the marketplace. The cells use a hole-transportation layer, which promotes the efficient movement of electrical current after exposure to sunlight. However, manufacturing the hole-transportation organic materials is very costly and lack long term stability.
Publishing in Science, a team of scientists in China, led by Professor Hongwei Han in cooperation with Professor Michael Grätzel at EPFL, have developed a perovskite solar cell that does not use a hole-transporting layer, with 12.8% conversion efficiency and over 1000 hours stability under full sunlight in ambient temperature. The innovation can reduce the cost of perovskite cells, and firmly propel them into the marketplace.
Hybrid organic-inorganic methylammonium lead halide perovskites have attracted intense attention for thin-film photovoltaics, due to their large absorption coefficient, high charge carrier mobility and long diffusion length. However, these cells are also costly because of the hole-transportation layer, which demands high purity materials and complicated fabrication procedures.
A team of scientists at the Michael Grätzel Center for Mesoscopic Cells of Huazhong University in China in cooperation with the Laboratory for Photonics and Interfaces at EPFL directed by Michael Grätzel have successfully manufactured a perovskite solar cell that does not need a hole-transportation layer. The solar cell shows comparative energy conversion efficiency (12.8%) and was shown to be stable for over 1000 hours in direct sun exposure.
The scientists fabricated the new solar cell by drop-casting a solution of lead iodide, methylammonium iodide, and 5-ammoniumvaleric acid iodide through a porous carbon film. The solar cell's scaffolding was made using a double layer of titanium dioxide and zirconium dioxide covered by a porous carbon film and amino acid templating agent was used to promote the pervoskite nucleation and crystal growth within the pores . The resulting perovskite crystals showed much higher electrical charge generation and collection efficiency than conventional hole conductor free perovskite cells. The use of organic-hole conductor free triple layer also resulted in strikingly high stability.
originally posted by: Legion2024
And when solar is finished with, and we have moved on to the next type of power generation there will be so much solar pollution i bet it will stack to the moon and back. Not to mention all the pollution created just to make solar. But you cant tell that to anyone can ya. not so green solar power.
originally posted by: Legion2024
And when solar is finished with, and we have moved on to the next type of power generation there will be so much solar pollution i bet it will stack to the moon and back. Not to mention all the pollution created just to make solar. But you cant tell that to anyone can ya. not so green solar power.
“There’s an irony, you’re trying to save the environment by buying a solar panel, and the manufacture (of solar panels) is emitting greenhouse gases in the process,” says Ray Weiss, a professor of geochemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Electricity is used to manufacture solar panels, resulting in greenhouse gases — and some other kinds of emissions stem from solar panel production as well.
Weiss’ research focuses on trace gases like nitrogen trifluoride, or NF3, a greenhouse gas 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. NF3 is commonly used in the manufacture of electronics and some solar panels. The gas is confined but a fraction often escapes during the process. In October, Weiss and other scientists found NF3 levels were increasing at 11 percent each year, although the cause is unclear. Production of some other panels involves another gas called sulfur hexafluoride — the most potent greenhouse gas known to science.
originally posted by: NthOther
originally posted by: Legion2024
And when solar is finished with, and we have moved on to the next type of power generation there will be so much solar pollution i bet it will stack to the moon and back. Not to mention all the pollution created just to make solar. But you cant tell that to anyone can ya. not so green solar power.
Indeed.
The Not-So-Sunny Side of Solar Panels
“There’s an irony, you’re trying to save the environment by buying a solar panel, and the manufacture (of solar panels) is emitting greenhouse gases in the process,” says Ray Weiss, a professor of geochemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Electricity is used to manufacture solar panels, resulting in greenhouse gases — and some other kinds of emissions stem from solar panel production as well.
Weiss’ research focuses on trace gases like nitrogen trifluoride, or NF3, a greenhouse gas 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. NF3 is commonly used in the manufacture of electronics and some solar panels. The gas is confined but a fraction often escapes during the process. In October, Weiss and other scientists found NF3 levels were increasing at 11 percent each year, although the cause is unclear. Production of some other panels involves another gas called sulfur hexafluoride — the most potent greenhouse gas known to science.
originally posted by: knoledgeispower
The way I see it, the pollution from solar panels is better than the risk we take with nuclear power plants.
We're damned if we do, damned if we don't so let's take the lesser of evils (so to speak)
Could the study you used above be a made up study that TPTB have created in order to keep solar panel production at a minimum because they are already so heavily invested in the current methods we use?
originally posted by: NthOther
originally posted by: knoledgeispower
The way I see it, the pollution from solar panels is better than the risk we take with nuclear power plants.
We're damned if we do, damned if we don't so let's take the lesser of evils (so to speak)
I don't like nuclear power plants either. But choosing between evil A and evil B is no longer an option in the times we currently find ourselves. We've slid down that road far enough. Instead, we need to start asking ourselves why we need all this crap. Do we even need it at all? Is our dependence on technology good... or not? These are uncomfortable questions.
Quitting one drug by transitioning to another, you see.
Could the study you used above be a made up study that TPTB have created in order to keep solar panel production at a minimum because they are already so heavily invested in the current methods we use?
Absolutely. Anything could be.
originally posted by: pl3bscheese
I mean, can't we just get real and conclude that we already done mucked up this environment, and harvested a good chunk of the energy resources?
I just can't see homo sapiens rocking civilization through the end of this century on this planet. Every alternative has it's own set of problems, and the problems are just stacking up as me move on with "progress".
It seems the only way through this mess is out into the stars. I have to periodically conclude this, but for discussion sake of a variety of other subjects, choose to omit this incredibly pertinent information. Everything else basically doesn't matter when we realize we're just so screwed staying on this planet much longer.
originally posted by: knoledgeispower
Let's go destroy another planet because this one is ruined. If aliens exist, I doubt they will let us do anything out in space. We might be able to do some mining but I don't think we will be able to go far.
12.8% conversion efficiency and over 1000 hours stability under full sunlight
originally posted by: PhoenixOD
12.8% conversion efficiency and over 1000 hours stability under full sunlight
Is that a good deal?
originally posted by: pl3bscheese
originally posted by: knoledgeispower
Let's go destroy another planet because this one is ruined. If aliens exist, I doubt they will let us do anything out in space. We might be able to do some mining but I don't think we will be able to go far.
What bizarre assumptions. Just because we're making this planet uninhabitable for our own species, doesn't mean we're "destroying" it, nor is this an indication that we can't learn from our mistakes, and start fresh with a wiser outlook. The whole trying to figure out the mind of aliens, is about the same as trying to figure out the mind of god... it's ridiculous, and likely a form of projection. I see no good reason to think we can't get off this planet and reach a new earth. In fact, I think that was the whole reason behind the trillions of dollars which seem to have been funneled into the black budget via the shadow banking system in the last decade.