Sorry, should have clarified - I was speaking on the part of many academics. In my department, most people (faculty) have abandoned Twitter and a fair few have started on bluesky although more just don’t use the format in any context anymore. I only know of one who uses Mastadoon.
But we did leave and if (or when) it becomes enshitified, we will move again. We don’t need an idealised platform, we just want something easy to use which doesn’t (yet) have the baggage and culture of twiXer
Currently, garbage. They used it to reinforce a polymer to go from a strength of 50 MPa to 70 MPa. Kevlar is 10x stronger, commercially scaled, and cheap
There’s lots of people who are pointing out that 1000x better might be misleading, which is certainly true here, but let me be a little more exact and explain things briefly (nb I’m a prof of Materials chemistry and am involved in PV research, although it’s not my main focus). Firstly, this research does not give the efficiency which is usually the headline number*. Mainly because most of their measurement aren’t using sunlight but a laser. Here they see it does interact with light to give electricity and they show the response is 1000x higher current for their new layered materials versus the unlayered type. However, as others have pointed 1000x a low number isn’t great. The highest measured current** is 0.5 mA/cm2 although they actually do proper sunlight measurements (under 1.5 suns, which is a common way to measure this) and get 0.035 mA/cm2. This is something we can compare to commercial solar cells and it’s almost exactly 100x lower than a commercial silicon solar cell (35 mA/cm2).
Obviously there’s a lot more detail and nuance here I’m skipping over but (i) don’t expect this to change the world in the near future and (ii) its a new material approach which is cool scientifically and while the uninformed media is hyping it, the scientists in the paper were perfectly reasonable.
If you have any other questions, I’ll try to reply ASAP.
*RE efficiencies normal silicon ones are normally around 15%, good perovskite next-gem ones are a bit above 20%, and there’s a hard physical limit of 33% for a perfect single solar cell
**They use uA/cm2 because their numbers are low. I’ve converted to the more common mA/cm2. These data are in Fig 3c and Fig3d. I’d recommend you have a look yourself as there’s no paywall. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abe4206
If the petition hits it target, the politicians are forced to discuss it which would include agreeing workable language. It would not automatically become the law with the proposed language.
I dont know this work, but have had a hand in some solar cell research (nanomaterials development), so can give a little context. This is a “one off” in so much as it will be centimeters sized lab based sample, although it has been repearedto verify. The current cost difference is astronomical versus mainstream (silicon) panels, but that’s typical of new discoveries. To be more exact, this is TRL 4 (technology readiness level 4) which is a scale that goes up to 9. Things only start getting cheap as you get towards the top. As for what the expected price of these materials would be, we don’t usually know for sure, although as this is a tandem cell it must be more expensive than mainstream as it literally builds a perovskite cell on top of a silicon one. They will never be used for mainstream - this is a specialist material.
The perovskite itself might make it as a general use solar cell. They have good efficiencies and you don’t have to make pure silicon (which is a bitch) and can in theory make them cheap and easy. As for time frame, I’m a bit of a skeptic it will ever be really used as there are a couple of issues this tech needs to address before it’s viable (#1, they degrade in air and encapsulating them adds new issues) and we already build silicon factories so that is soooo cheap versus building new factories to make long-term-cheaper cells. Factories are expensive. But in theory, anyone could push it to the mainstream within a decade.
Not always. I teach a module where my lectures are fully coursework assessed and my god, a lot of the submissions are clearly AI. It’s super hard to prove though and I just mark the same as any other, but half-halluvinated school-grade garbage scores pretty damn low.
(edit: this is because we are trained on how to write questions AI struggles with. It makes writing exams harder, but it is possible. AI is terrible at chemistry. My personal favourite being when Google AI told me the melting point of pyrrole was about -2000C, so colder than absolute zero)