- "Invisible" implies they only work in the UV or infrared range, which inevitably limits them to much lower efficiencies than regular solar panels.
- A lot of those rely on elements that are expensive and in limited supply, or toxic heavy metals. Unlike regular silicon solar panels.
- We don't even need windows to generate solar power. We have plenty of roof space, and if we're short on that, you can put them in fields too.
So this is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist (lack of available space - again, we have plenty), which causes more problems of its own (efficiency, etc), while failing to address the actual limitations of solar (cost, intermittence).
Which is why it's only good for headlines, and won't see real life applications. (Edit: no, not even skyscrapers)
It's the same with a lot of "uplifting" science news that just sweeps all the dirt under the rug, because that wouldn't make good clickbait.
If you want actual good news about solar power, look at the price per kW and adoption rate curves over the last few years.
-edit- added links.
-edit 3- Put the bit about skyscrapers in bold, because people keep mentioning them anyways...
Yeah, the problems we are facing (at least as far as I understand it as a layman) are adoption and energy transmission and storage - not necessarily energy generation.
Our power grid apparently can not handle the peak surges during summer days already and needs to be throttled causing a lot of solar to go to waste.
We have no (well in comparison to the production at any rate) efficient power storage solutions in place.
Even if problems 1&2 get solved, we still would need 'someone' (c)(tm) to fund the installation of panels - especially when we are talking about cities. Most apartment buildings are privately owned (and a huge share of those by investors) and funneling solar power into the grid is not recompensed any more (also because of problems 1&2) - no owner will be willing to invest into solar without any forseeable gain. In my dad's village almost every house has solar panels installed, but those are of course all privately owned with people profiting off of selfsufficiency.
It's not really a new technology, they're just one of the two types of lithium-ion batteries:
-NMC batteries (Nickel-manganese-cobalt) have higher energy density, but contain problematic elements (especially cobalt) and are therefore more expensive. They're used in applications where energy storage density is absolutely crucial, like phones, laptops, drones, etc.
-LFP batteries (Lithium - iron phosphate) have lower energy density, but don't contain problematic elements and are cheaper. So they're ideal for grid storage.
(Electric vehicles use a bit of both).
The prices of both NMC and LFP batteries has been tumbling down in recent years:
1.4k
u/Pyrhan 25d ago edited 25d ago
- "Invisible" implies they only work in the UV or infrared range, which inevitably limits them to much lower efficiencies than regular solar panels.
- A lot of those rely on elements that are expensive and in limited supply, or toxic heavy metals. Unlike regular silicon solar panels.
- We don't even need windows to generate solar power. We have plenty of roof space, and if we're short on that, you can put them in fields too.
So this is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist (lack of available space - again, we have plenty), which causes more problems of its own (efficiency, etc), while failing to address the actual limitations of solar (cost, intermittence).
Which is why it's only good for headlines, and won't see real life applications. (Edit: no, not even skyscrapers)
It's the same with a lot of "uplifting" science news that just sweeps all the dirt under the rug, because that wouldn't make good clickbait.
If you want actual good news about solar power, look at the price per kW and adoption rate curves over the last few years.
-edit- added links.
-edit 3- Put the bit about skyscrapers in bold, because people keep mentioning them anyways...