I wonder how much power per sqft compared to traditional they generate. To replace traditional cells the issue is space not weight. But this could have application for many other places
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Not sure - you're right that they don't explicitly say. But given the light weight and fact that it's printable suggests interesting potential applications in aerospace and even military/infantry. Nice to see they're working to get ahead of the waste issue too (those 2 waves they talk about).
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
3:07: 300W/kg, 18 times more than traditional solar cells.
The panels on my roof are 1,5 sqm-ish and deliver 450Wp each, so approx 300W/sqm. This comparison suggests that the new tech will produce a lot more power per sqm than traditional panels, most likely not 18 times (as conductor size will become an issue rather than how thin you can spread the material) but even if it is "only" 5 or 10 times as much IRL this really looks like a game changer because you can literally stick them anywhere (also for self charging electric cars).
Exciting times!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Nakey (Site Administrator)
hate to break it to you but it's "18 times more power per kilogram" not 18 times more power than a conventional solar panel i'm afraid. they're probably still only 15-20% efficient.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"18 times more power per kilogram"
That is what I wrote. What is your point?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Nakey is correctly pointing you back to the fact that surface area and not weight will be gateway in most instances. Agree that when launching into space weight is key and therefore a gamechanger.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Nakey (Site Administrator)
thank you.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
so you see no relation whatsoever between weight and surface area? Do you think the new tech will be so much heavier that one cannot extrapolate at all from weight to size? Did you actually even try to understand the comment you were replying to?
I am used to brainless responses by bobbledibob, you I thought were a little more technically switched on....
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
You speed-read replies faster than your copy of King James New Testament and fucked up. So you're moving to attack on a science thread. At least you're consistent.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Nakey (Site Administrator)
*sigh*
In simple terms, if a traditional 1040x1900mm monocrystalline solar panel weighing 21.6Kg produces 400 watts under full sun, a 1040x1900mm printed solar panel of this new type weighing under a kilogram will produce 400w under full sun.
and is easier and cheaper to make.
and is flexible
and can be stuck to curved surfaces.
Does that clear things up?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"In simple terms, if a traditional 1040x1900mm monocrystalline solar panel weighing 21.6Kg produces 400 watts under full sun, a 1040x1900mm printed solar panel of this new type weighing under a kilogram will produce 400w under full sun."
I see your point but I don't know the weight proportion of carrier material on the current cells, do you?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Nakey (Site Administrator)
wait, what? the majority of the weight in a monocrystalline silicon solar panel comes from the glass plate holding it together. the solar cells can't survive with out a rigid structure to surround it.
if you want to know the weight of the anodised aluminium frame, highly resistant polymer back sheet holding this thing together,and wiring infrastructure you're on your own. i have no idea how much the solar cells weigh and it really doesn't matter in this case.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
it doesn't?
I think there is a good chance that the "old type" cell is equally as thinly spread between the carrier and protection layers than the "new" stuff. the electrical connections probably are insignificant.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Let me guess the "T" in MIT stands for "Tesla", Elon revealed this tech years ago after all. ROFL
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Ha! You're a lot more fun when you stick to subject matter you understand.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
You wouldn't detect sarcasm if it hit you with a stick.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Yeah? Open Schrodinger's box and let's see if you're stick is dead.
Comments
(Old Spike)
I wonder how much power per sqft compared to traditional they generate. To replace traditional cells the issue is space not weight. But this could have application for many other places
(Site Administrator)
Not sure - you're right that they don't explicitly say. But given the light weight and fact that it's printable suggests interesting potential applications in aerospace and even military/infantry. Nice to see they're working to get ahead of the waste issue too (those 2 waves they talk about).
(Old Spike)
3:07: 300W/kg, 18 times more than traditional solar cells.
The panels on my roof are 1,5 sqm-ish and deliver 450Wp each, so approx 300W/sqm. This comparison suggests that the new tech will produce a lot more power per sqm than traditional panels, most likely not 18 times (as conductor size will become an issue rather than how thin you can spread the material) but even if it is "only" 5 or 10 times as much IRL this really looks like a game changer because you can literally stick them anywhere (also for self charging electric cars).
Exciting times!
(Site Administrator)
hate to break it to you but it's "18 times more power per kilogram" not 18 times more power than a conventional solar panel i'm afraid. they're probably still only 15-20% efficient.
(Old Spike)
"18 times more power per kilogram"
That is what I wrote. What is your point?
(Site Administrator)
Nakey is correctly pointing you back to the fact that surface area and not weight will be gateway in most instances. Agree that when launching into space weight is key and therefore a gamechanger.
(Site Administrator)
thank you.
(Old Spike)
so you see no relation whatsoever between weight and surface area? Do you think the new tech will be so much heavier that one cannot extrapolate at all from weight to size? Did you actually even try to understand the comment you were replying to?
I am used to brainless responses by bobbledibob, you I thought were a little more technically switched on....
(Site Administrator)
You speed-read replies faster than your copy of King James New Testament and fucked up. So you're moving to attack on a science thread. At least you're consistent.
(Site Administrator)
*sigh*
In simple terms, if a traditional 1040x1900mm monocrystalline solar panel weighing 21.6Kg produces 400 watts under full sun, a 1040x1900mm printed solar panel of this new type weighing under a kilogram will produce 400w under full sun.
and is easier and cheaper to make.
and is flexible
and can be stuck to curved surfaces.
Does that clear things up?
(Old Spike)
"In simple terms, if a traditional 1040x1900mm monocrystalline solar panel weighing 21.6Kg produces 400 watts under full sun, a 1040x1900mm printed solar panel of this new type weighing under a kilogram will produce 400w under full sun."
I see your point but I don't know the weight proportion of carrier material on the current cells, do you?
(Site Administrator)
wait, what? the majority of the weight in a monocrystalline silicon solar panel comes from the glass plate holding it together. the solar cells can't survive with out a rigid structure to surround it.
using: https://www.omnicalculator.com/construction/glass-weight
based on specs for: https://solaroutlet.com.au/products/solar-panel-rec-twinpeak5-mono-400w-half-cell-all-black-30mm-mc4-rec400tp5-black
the glass in that pannel weighs: aprox 15.58kg
if you want to know the weight of the anodised aluminium frame, highly resistant polymer back sheet holding this thing together,and wiring infrastructure you're on your own. i have no idea how much the solar cells weigh and it really doesn't matter in this case.
(Old Spike)
it doesn't?
I think there is a good chance that the "old type" cell is equally as thinly spread between the carrier and protection layers than the "new" stuff. the electrical connections probably are insignificant.
(Old Spike)
Let me guess the "T" in MIT stands for "Tesla", Elon revealed this tech years ago after all. ROFL
(Site Administrator)
Ha! You're a lot more fun when you stick to subject matter you understand.
(Old Spike)
You wouldn't detect sarcasm if it hit you with a stick.
(Site Administrator)
Yeah? Open Schrodinger's box and let's see if you're stick is dead.