• sushibowl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      68
      ·
      1 year ago

      I kinda skimmed it. So from what I understand, they put a cooling layer behind regular solar panels. Panels get less efficient when they heat up so keeping them cool is where the extra efficiency comes from. The cooling layer is inspired by how plants cool themselves, it seems sort of similar to sweating in a way. Water moves through by capillary action, absorbs heat from the panel, and evaporates. Additionally they discuss:

      • using salt water as input water, which will result in some clean water output. It seems you need to kinda flush the cooling layer at night to get rid of salt crystal build up, but this could be a nice bonus in less developed areas.
      • use a condenser down the line to recover heat energy from the evaporated output water. Has the potential to raise total efficiency by a bunch of you can use the warm water for heating and the PV generated electricity for power.

      They claim the cooling layer doesn’t add much extra cost (6 months extra operation to recoup your investment). I wonder what the lifetime of the cooling layer is compared to the photovoltaics themselves. They use some natural fiber I think so maintenance could be an issue.

      • Bleeping Lobster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        That was my immediate thought (maintenance), how does this compare to solar panel maintenance, which I’d assume consists of an occasional clean / check on the wiring?

        • sugartits@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unless you live in a very dusty area with no rain, there is literally zero maintenance on a modern domestic installation.

            • sugartits@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well I’ve done literally zero to my panels since they were installed and they are working just fine.

              I was in fact told they were maintenance free when they were installed unless they get exceptionally dirty, which they haven’t as the rain cleans them.

              So maybe calm down with your “bullshit” emotional responses.

              • RegularGoose@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                “I’ve gotten lucky and haven’t had mine damaged by the elements yet” is an anecdote, and it certainly doesn’t make a thing maintenance free.

                • sugartits@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not taking about damage repair, I’m talking about maintenance.

                  They are two different things.

                  If a rock smashes through a panel, then of course that would require intervention. Of course it would. That’s common sense. I’m not claiming otherwise.

                  I’ve had my panels for a while now, and I’ve done nothing to them. The manufacturers of the panels AND the people who fitted them both told me they were maintenance free. Which they have been.

                  You are calling “bullshit” on something you’ve never used or apparently understand. Please stop.

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

              bullshit, there is plenty of low maintenance or even maintenance free outdoor equipment, it’s just not going to be the cheapest stuff you can buy often

      • QuinceDaPence@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The cracker is more useful but it is very thin and mostly air, but fair enough.

        It has the substance of a saltine cracker with 0 sodium.

    • Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      ikr, the correct form is in the article as well…

      Experiments reveal PV-leaves generate over 10% extra electricity compared to standard solar panels, which dissipate 70% of solar energy.

      Edit. Maybe it’s pedant bait

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      on one hand I agree that it’s an embarrassing error.

      On the other hand, what in the flying fuck is the reason to have leaves as the plural form of leaf over leafs.

      • BearArms@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Knives, lives and wives too, but why not roofs and chiefs? Is it hoofs or hooves?

  • Sekki@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Experiments reveal PV-leaves generate over 10% extra electricity compared to standard solar panels, which dissipate 70% of solar energy.

    So basically you go from using 30% of solar energy to 33%? Sounds nice but would that really do that much?

    • Bleeping Lobster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not just a 10% increase in productivity, it produces fresh water as a byproduct:

      Furthermore, the photovoltaic leaf is capable of synergistically utilising the recovered heat to co-generate additional thermal energy and freshwater simultaneously within the same component, significantly elevating the overall solar utilisation efficiency from 13.2% to over 74.5%, along with over 1.1 L/h/m2 of clean water.

    • Alteon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s easier to see the impressiveness of it when you realize that it collects 10% more energy than the current designs on the market. Yeah, that’s a huge jump. Typically you only see less than 1-2% jumps in any given technology unless you develop a really novel approach (which is what this seems like).

    • teamonkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t make sense to think of it in terms of how much of the Sun’s energy it uses because solar energy is essentially free and unlimited, it comes from an outside system, we don’t need to mine it or carry it or anything and we can’t ‘waste’ it in the same way we can other fuels. All it tells us is the maximum theoretical limit.

      10% more energy from solar means a rooftop array could generate an extra 300-500W which is a genuinely useful amount of energy.