Scientists develop mega-thin solar cells that could be shockingly easy to produce: ‘As rapid as printing a newspaper’::These cells could be laminated onto various kinds of surfaces, such as the sails of a boat to provide power while at sea.

  • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This has its own applications but I can’t say I’ve ever heard anyone complain about thickness of solar panels. Efficiency, power generated, etc. Sure.

    • Dran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think it’s so much about thickness, but being super thin presumably means it requires less of a manufacturing process and also less raw materials. Could bring costs down on panels and make them more financially viable for projects.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      Although the cells can only generate half the energy per unit area compared to traditional silicon panels, they can generate 18 times more power per kilogram, Fast Company reported.

      For most users, I’d guess that unit area is more important. But for satellites, I suppose that as long as they can unfold, space isn’t really an issue. You’ve got all of outer space to spread out into. But weight determines a lot of the cost of putting the thing up in space, so you’d like that to be low.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If they’re cheap enough, you can just slap them on any available surface that gets a marginal amount of sunlight. Doubly so if they’re flexible.

      • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Weight does play a huge role for satellites and to be honest I have very little knowledge of solar panels they use. However since solar sail is a thing, I’d argue surface is indeed a factor with satellites. But perhaps they managed to get some use there. There might be even other use cases I just didn’t think about. My original comment was mostly pointing out that thickness was rarely as big of an issue as it was efficiency.

      • tty5@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        For anything other than house roof solar price per kw is going to be the deciding factor. Rural land is very cheap compared to solar panels - we’re talking about a 100:1 cost ratio.

      • Kowowow
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also I can’t imagine you’d want to add too much extra weight to a skyscraper

    • mortalic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Use cases increase if they are thin. Instead of limited to rooftops. For example, take a look at what Aptera is doing.

    • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Clearly you’ve never owned an air fryer wanted a solar powered car. Or imagine shipping containers covered in these powering the trucks that haul them! Or trains! Even boats. Basically any kind of self powered transit, especially ones with greater surface area.

      Second edit: Another idea! Clingfilm solar panels for windows, or blinds and curtains that can power the lights!

      Or wind turbines skinned in thin, light, flexible solar panels. You’d double dip on energy per square meter. You could have a solar farm on a stick that also makes wind energy.

      • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you dream of covering a vehicle with panels and have it driven by that power, I have to burst your bubble. That’s not even nearly enough surface to generate enough power. Perhaps assist in trickle charging battery, sure. But we already have flexible panels, even self-adhesive ones. And again, their biggest downside is not their thickness but efficiency. There will never be a self-propelled vehicle. Just a nature of things.

        As for window blinds, etc. There is already glass that lets enough light through and can generate electricity. Those are even worse when it comes to efficiency due to non-ideal angle, light passing through, etc.

        • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          “We already have technology that doesn’t do those things well enough, so this new technology that won’t see advancement ever has no chance of addressing these issues either.”

          Trickle charge is awesome. Trickle charge the semi during your 8 hour driving shift and then another 8 hours while the trucker is asleep. If that nets half a charge every other day, that’s a charge and a half a week. It’s not self powered like a perpetual motion device, those aren’t real. But regenerative braking is a worthwhile addition to an electric truck. Why wouldn’t solar paper or whatever we want to call it also be part of the solution?

          • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            More like, it would take 8 days of constant sun to have an hour of driving.

              • lnsfwuser@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, there is literally only so much energy radiated by the sun in a certain area. The number of square feet of roof on a car is just too small to propel it, even with magic theoretical 100% efficient panels.

                • UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You do know cars don’t have to move all the time right? If I was on a road trip and got stuck because of no juice for whatever reason, I would be able to camp wherever I am for a couple days and then have enough to move.

                  Your thinking is pretty small minded

                  • lnsfwuser@lemmynsfw.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    This isn’t some theoretical thing I’m making up. It’s really basic math and physics you should have learned in high school. To do a trip of a few miles you would have to charge for a week. Here is a good explainer with demonstration cars that have been physically built, maybe that will help drive the point home.

              • frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                As outlined elsewhere in this thread, you’d have to move the Earth closer to the sun for this to be feasible. You can only get so much solar power as it stands, and even 100% efficient panels would only go so far.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There are physical limits at play to how much power this can provide. No amount of technological improvement can break them.

            Imagine the driver plugging in the truck during the 8 hours while they’re asleep. That’s an achievable goal.

            • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Here’s a video of a camper van with traditional solar panels on the roof using a slide-out awning technique.

              https://youtu.be/Ev5C9gf0zFc?si=97piy-3mV9TIsRlu

              You might say that’s impractical for regular use. Sure, it is, but your previous argument was that is was impossible due to physics, which the video clearly shows isn’t physically impossible, so we’re already much closer to a reality. I’m not saying it could drive forever without stopping or be the only power source. That’s silly. But if it reduces the need to charge from a grid by X% it can be a useful technology. Go on now and tell me how it could never ever work.

              • frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                A camper van. Which has electrical use for things besides turning a motor. Yeah, that’s useful, but it doesn’t exactly help your case.

                Under optimal conditions, the sun gives us 1000Wh per square meter. Let’s say you have a 100% efficient solar panel. A semi truck trailer has a max of 42 sq meters on top of its trailer. So you get 42kWh out of this.

                It takes about 280kWh to keep a semi truck at cruising speed on the highway. Thus, in this most optimal scenario, it would give you an additional 15%. Even this assumes there is no additional aerodynamic drag from the panels, mounting hardware, or wiring. It wouldn’t take much to completely blow that 15% away.

                If it’s a cloudy day, all of it is now deadweight, and now hurts more than it helps. If you don’t drive on the equator, its output drops and it now hurts more than it helps. If you have solar panels that actually exist that do around 20% efficiency instead of 100%, it now hurts more than it helps.

                I guess we could move the Earth closer to the sun. Won’t help our global warming problems, though.

      • Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Those all sound like efficiency issues still. Covering any form of transportation with solar panels is primarily pointless because of how little power that would generate. Even if you covered every available inch with the most efficient panels invented, it would take over two weeks of sitting in full, direct sunlight to charge a solar-powered car, which you would drain in four hours of driving. As these panels are half as efficient as traditional panels, you could drive maybe a two minutes per hour you sit in full sun.

            • Grimy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If it takes 14 days to charge the battery, you just need to use it less then a 14th of its range per day and this all becomes very feasible, no? First link on google tells me high efficiency EVs output 6.4km per kwh. That’s 30 km a day at 80kwh, nothing to scoff at in my opinion, although its probably less.

              I also think it could become popular to lengthen the in between charging times with higher capacity batteries.

              +1 for the use of wolfram

              • frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Then factor in the extra cost of the panels and connecting hardware. The ones mentioned in OP are supposed to be dirt cheap, but they’re also half as efficient. The tradeoff cancels out the benefit.

                Also, this won’t help highway driving much. EVs have already solved city driving just fine. 100mi range will do, even without good charging stations outside your home (with caveats for apartment dwellers). Highway range is where we need improvement, but you can’t ask people to just drive for 1/14th of the day there.

            • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Fair enough. That definitely is true for a car. I would wonder whether the power/surface area/weight/energy consumption all scale linearly or if a vehicle like a semi with more surface area could take advantage of increased number solar panels, or would the amount of work needed to move the larger truck scale equally to the power gained?

              Thank you for your proving reasoning for your opinions and sources. You’re groovy. Don’t feel like you have to again for this random thought of mine unless it’s enjoyable for you as part of our conversation.

              • frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Wait, what the fuck, dude. I had given you the math for semi trucks two hours before you posted this. You already had those numbers, and yet you speculate otherwise here.

                • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That guy isn’t being a dick. You’ve got a bad attitude and I don’t like talking to you. Goodbye.

                  • wahming@monyet.cc
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So… You denied reality because you didn’t like the person explaining it to you? Grats, you’re politician material now

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Gotta be useful during the zombie apocalypse though. No more raiding gas stations and broken down vehicles.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      First, the thickness factor plays into flexibility. Just imagine surfaces of every shape being covered in solar cells. Flexible panels could also be less prone to breakage.

      Second, with “as rapid as printing a newspaper”, this might be a major cost-reduction thing, even on top of the process needing less high-pure Si material.

      This might make solar power generation more attractive even if the efficiency would be lower than other methods, because this would drive the ratio $/kw down.

      • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Kind of like these? Flexible solar panels are not a problem. And no, being newspaper thin will never be stronger than mounted on rigid surface. If it bends it has a definite limit in number of times you can bend it.

        As for “printing a newspaper” and rapid production, when I see it I’ll believe it. At the moment it’s nothing more than speculation as they themselves have not made it yet. Every manufacturing process starts slow and then speeds up as process is optimized. The problem is whether there is a financial incentive to start producing in the first place.

        • Treczoks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          By “flexible” I did not imply “use it as a hinge”. It was more like: “you can install it on a non-flat surface”, e.g. by gluing it down. Now that surface would provide the needed overall stability. Imagine having you cars roof and engine hood being completely covered in solar cells - or basically be a solar cell. No, you would not be able to drive it as an EV with the amounts of power provided, but it could trickle charge a battery, or power a fan in hot weather so the interior will not be boiling when you return to your vehicle after a day at work.

          • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            We already have the panel type which is glued on. But I guess it remains to be seen whether there’s a financial incentive to mass produce this.

      • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which would all be a valid concern if you had to carry them all the time or bend them. There are flexible solar panels which you can glue on roof of your boat or car though.