Talk:Third-generation photovoltaic cell

message: "Silicon is a limited resource" - a look at the wikipedia page on silicon shows that it is the second most abundant element on earth - so I've removed this statement....
: I agree that's a pretty weird statement. In some sense, all resources are limited, but if you're rating resources on their availability, the 2nd most common element in the earth's crust (2nd only to oxygen) is going to be pretty high on the list. What the original author is probably intending to say is that PV-cell quality silicon is in high commercial demand now so organic cells might be a good alternative (as if the oil used to make the polymers wasn't limited...), but that's a highly questionable line of argument and it's part of the obvious promotional bias in this article. There's way too much heavily biased cheerleading in this, but "3rd generation solar cell" is (IMO) a contentless promotional buzzword anyway. There's not much agreement about what it means other than "novel." The first listed example, CIGS cells, are stated to be not PN junctions but "complex heterojunctions". Well, thing is these heterojunctions ARE PN JUNCTIONS, and CIGS cells are really just another kind of PN heterojunction photovoltaic, made from those virtually unlimited resources, copper, gallium, indium, and selenium. The world is just rolling in excess indium inventory, you know. However, the main solar cells article (more correctly) identifies them as part of the 2nd generation trend toward thin films. The technical competence of this article is generally very low and its viewpoint is more about marketing than information. If this ever comes up for a deletion vote, I'll go on record as pro-deletion unless someone can come up with some actual accurate information on the topic. I'm going to change the lead in to something more neutral, but I don't think this article has any good reason to be here. Tarchon 02:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is my understanding that the third generation is a combination of nano paint sprayed on tin foil by an ink jet printer.  And that it is competitive with fossil fuel costs.71.28.99.150 (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  third generation solar cells 

message: I don't have time to find references, but I wish this article made it clear that essentially everyone researching or selling solar cells today says that their cells are "third generation", just because it's a snazzy-sounding marketing term. You can find single-crystal-silicon p-n junction "third generation solar cells", and thin-film amorphous Si or CdTe or CIGS "third generation solar cells", high-efficiency, low-efficiency, whatever.
The term started with Martin Green's opinion of where the future of solar cells is going, but then everyone used it for where they thought the future of solar cells is going. The problem is that no one agrees what is the future of solar cells, so the term is now thrown around everywhere, and it's well on its way to being completely meaningless.
I encourage anyone interested in this article to look broadly at how the term "third generation solar cell" is being used by people today, I'm confident that they would find my rant to be true. :-) --Steve (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I'm going to totally re-write this article within about two months unless someone wants to speak up now to stop me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.144.149 (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Third generation": A meaningless term 

message: I suggest to merge this article into Thin film solar cell
* The article contains little content, see section Third_generation_photovoltaic_cell#Types_of_third_generation_solar_cells
* There is already a section "emerging photovoltaics "in Thin_film_solar_cell#Emerging_photovoltaics 
* The term first/second/third... generation has already been criticized and I agree.
* Usefull content to transfer: 
** the article contains some links to articles I wasn't even aware of.
** section "background" is instructive. Howerver needs revision.
There is no way to know which technology will one day become important. As for now, it seems to me much better to keep thin-film technology (2nd generation by the disputed terminology) and emerging PV technology (3rd generation) together in one article.Rfassbind (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge into article Thin-film 

message: First let me say that I disagree that the article should be merged with thin film photovoltaics. While there is some overlap (like a-Si), thin film PV is a well established field and there are companies that currently produce solar cells that fit the description of thin film PV (looking at CdTe and CIGS primarily). 
I prefer the title emerging photovoltaics, which redirects here. Fraunhoffer and NREL both refer to this category as "emerging," but whatever (https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/business-areas/photovoltaics/research-topics/emerging-photovoltaic-technologies/emerging-photovoltaic-technologies, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency#/media/File:PVeff(rev161202).jpg). 
I think more seriously is that the description of emerging PV as a radio antenna is odd, unnecessary, and confusing. Furthermore, I don't feel that the description in the first sentence is correct. Third generation PV is much more about obtaining a levelized cost of electricity than just boosting solar cell efficiency. There are clear roadmaps to high efficiency solar cells but they are not for terrestrial use because they are too expensive. I also question the reference to the ideal band gap energy of 1.13 eV, as the traditional formulation of the Shockley Queisser limit places the value closer to 1.3 eV.  TrueManofGenius (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has serious issues