Clueless tech newspaper writer claims 1000x increase in solar output - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2025, 04:09:44 pm
content: https://www.techspot.com/news/108338-scientists-achieve-1000-fold-increase-solar-electricity-using.html#commentsOffsetI just love how useless tech writers are. The original article is about flexible Peltier elements, not even solarferroelectric materials, with much less efficiency. Seriously I hope AI will take the job of these people.This is Filomena Cunk level.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 07:35:55 am
content: Was the article altered after you read it?" barium titanate (BaTiO₃), a material known for its ability to convert light into electricity, though not very efficiently on its own."and"ayered structures generated up to 1,000 times more electricity than the same amount of standalone barium titanate."The quoted articel is titled "Strongly enhanced and tunable photovoltaic effect in ferroelectric-paraelectric superlattices" - the word "Peltier" appears exactly zero times.I agree the title is a bit clickbaity, but the real content is the fact, that layered structures will create materials with new/improved properties, which might be explored further.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 12:58:31 pm
content: Quote from: Haenk on June 20, 2025, 07:35:55 amThe article isnt altered as far as I see.When you read the original article linked.https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abe4206I don't know why I wrote Peltier, it has nothing to do with it. Ferroelectric materials.But still we have 20 something % efficienct panels today, so claiming a 1000 times increase compared to it is just stupid.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 05:41:36 pm
content: I'm delighted to see that solar output hasn't increased by 1000x. I was just reaching for the factor 50 sun cream!You appear to have out clickbaited the clickbait title.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2025, 07:58:38 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on June 20, 2025, 12:58:31 pmOver-unity solar power! The best of both worlds!

author: paul cotter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2025, 08:03:45 am
content: There was another similar nonsense claim like this about 2(?) years ago. The claim was that by putting a domed lens over a photovoltaic an improvement could be realised whereby a small unit could power an EV!! Unmitigated nonsense, of course.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2025, 10:06:44 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on June 20, 2025, 12:58:31 pmI think that is just a misunderstanding - they increased the efficiency of an unsuited material by sandwiching it - so they hope this method to be applicable to other materials as well. I don't think the authors (of the paper and this article) expect a 1000x increase in *general* solar cell output, but are well aware of gaining 1% of efficiency would mean a fantastic technical result.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2025, 03:48:40 pm
content: Well, the paper requires expert knowledge in the matter and its abstract can't be understood without all the context. It's not crystal clear for non-specialists how it relates to existing actual panels and understanding what they mean by this 10^3 increase is not trivial.Quite frankly, if *you* were to sum up this paper for a tech journal in relatively simple words, how would you do it? Good luck.The usually reasonable way of dealing with something one doesn't understand is just to shut up, but journalists are paid to say something, so, that's a problem.

author: temperance
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2025, 04:51:50 pm
content: The article doesn't state what you made of it. The article states: "The layered structures generated up to 1,000 times more electricity than the same amount of standalone barium titanate."

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2025, 09:40:47 pm
content: Quote from: temperance on June 24, 2025, 04:51:50 pmI bet that means nothing to the great majority of the readership. They also said "... a solar absorber that far outperforms traditional materials". I think that is definitely misleading to a lay readership."The implications for solar energy are far-reaching. Panels made with this technology could be much more efficient and require less space than current silicon-based solar cells, making them especially attractive for urban environments where space is limited.""Far-reaching implications"? "Much more efficient"? I dunno - maybe not misleading, but surely it is hyperbole.It's typical of the nonsense researchers get up to. They want funding, and they want to justify their existence. So they push out stuff like this specifically to get gullible journalists to publish an up-beat article, and get their names in lights. They do it all the time. We'll probably never hear from them again.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 26, 2025, 04:05:32 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on June 24, 2025, 09:40:47 pmExactly, they compare this to silicon solar panels, as it's an improvement on that.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2025, 06:25:56 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on June 26, 2025, 04:05:32 pmNo. They compare it to the construction of *CURRENT* silicon solar panels. That is a huge difference in meaning. So essentially they assume a layered construction could improve the efficiency."Much more efficient" is a bit misleading in itself, but not in context of solar panel efficiency - if you could raise it from 23% to 25%, that indeed would be a huge step forward.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2025, 04:23:44 pm
content: Quote from: Haenk on June 28, 2025, 06:25:56 amAnd yet, nobody is able to explain what they meant by a "10^3 increase" in the paper. Can you?Quote from: Haenk on June 28, 2025, 06:25:56 amCan you derive from said paper what the actual change in efficiency would be?And no, 23% to 25% would not be a huge step forward, even if it's technically challenging. Just a minor one. That would just basically mean that 23/25 times a given area of panel would yield the same output for a given sunlight exposure. For instance, a 1000 m^2 installation could be reduced to 920 m^2. Great. Does that look like a game changer?

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2025, 04:46:00 am
content: Sooo, New Materials can do...uh, stuff ! Wow !