this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2024
41 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

3613 readers
66 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
41
Spending a billion dollars to bring solar manufacturing back to Australia is 'worth a shot', researchers say (theconversation.com)
submitted 7 months ago by tardigrada@beehaw.org to c/australia@aussie.zone
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

If Australia can kickstart a viable solar industry, the country could take better advantage of the talent and research knowhow in Australia to begin building next-generation cells, and unlock other parts of the green economy, write Brett Hallam and Fiacre Rougieux from the UNSW Sydney.

"Cheap and plentiful solar power could make it viable to crack water to make green hydrogen or make green steel and aluminium," they add.

"Many initiatives have to be set in train now to gain the benefits in five or ten years’ time. [...] But in a sun-drenched country, it makes sense to aim for the skies."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Isn't perovskite next generation solar tech?

Australian labs are working on it now. Silicon could end up being a waste of money.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 4 points 7 months ago

If it can be made without Lead & reasonable efficiency. Why does there always have to be an if.

[–] Wiggles@aussie.zone 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Pervoskite still has some challenges to overcome before it can be a primary material in solar modules. One of the major problems being Potential Induced Degradation (PID) which is ironically caused by sun exposure, and leads to decreased power output from the solar cell. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666386422003174

The market is currently looking transitioning from p-type modules to n-type (both crystalline silicon based). P-type was the market leading technology for many years because issues like PID, Light Induced Degradation (LID) and Light and Temperature Induced Degradation (LeTID) were more easily resolved in p-type modules. N-types (also known as TopCon) are taking over now as these issues are being resolved and n-types are capable of reaching higher efficiencies than p-types. The higher power classes of n-types (>= 430W) over p-types (peaked around 415-420W) [these power classes are from modules designed for residential installations so have a surface area of about 1750mm*1100mm] is also enabling people to claim the maximum rebate for installing solar on their residence. This is because there is a rebate maximum that is based on installations up to a total size, and the newly released n-type modules (have only been in the market a little over a year) have a power class (440W) that divides evenly into the max installation size (6.6kW) so people can claim the entire rebate.

It looks like the manufacturers are looking to work towards developing hetero-junction (HJT) solar cells. There are a combination of both silicon and pervoskite, with the intent to be to make the most of both materials properties to improve module efficiency while also keeping PID, LID and LeTID within reasonable levels across the module's lifetime.

Edit: just adding some more citations. I haven't directly quoted from any of the sources, just regurgitated info from my head and added them for further readings. Information above may be subject to some inaccuracy. https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/p-type-and-n-type-solar-cells-excellent-electron-adventure/

https://www.maysunsolar.com/blog-n-type-solar-cell-technology-the-difference-between-topcon-and-hjt/

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/78629.pdf

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/03/12/lid-and-letid-qa-with-jinkosolar/

Edit 2: grammar/spelling