
UNSW takes lead in race for non-toxic, thin-film solar cells - ytz
http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/unsw-takes-lead-race-non-toxic-thin-film-solar-cells
======
Animats
From the article: _" NREL, the USA’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
confirmed this world leading 7.6% efficiency in a 1cm2 area CZTS cell this
month._"

That's deceptive. It's "world leading" _for CZTS technology_ , not for solar
cells in general. Commercial solar panels today are delivering about 20%
efficiency, and there are research technologies which have demonstrated
44%.[1]

Also, somebody else is claiming 12% for CZTS cells in a lab.[2]

Why are materials science articles from academic PR outlets so fake? We see
this all the time with articles on batteries and surface chemistry, called
"nanotechnology" for PR purposes. It's embarrassing.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency)
[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CZTS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CZTS)

------
Aelinsaar
It's looking like the next decade is going to be absolutely insane for solar
power, and it's no wonder that everyone wants a piece of that.

~~~
pgrote
Is the constraint still energy storage?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Not really a constraint anymore. With solar as low as $20/MW ($0.02/kwh),
battery storage isn't so exorbitant when complementing solar (Tesla has
batteries under $190/kwh, and that's before the Gigafactory is fully ramped)
_insert To The Moon ASCII here_.

Texas currently has the lowest price per watt in the entire country [1] (and
that's just solar, they have so much wind power they can't get out of the
state due to transmission lines being under construction, some utilities are
giving wind power away for free during nighttime hours), the cost of solar
continues to plummet [2], and India is going all out to provide solar to homes
(its cheaper than coal based on their economics). [3]

New York is about to start a program to give solar generation systems away for
free to middle class families [4].

Nuclear was once thought of as an energy source "too cheap to meter" [5];
solar is going to deliver on that.

[1] [http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/30/texas-solar-prices-
curre...](http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/30/texas-solar-prices-currently-
lowest-price-per-watt-country/)

[2] [http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/i-was-wrong-
abou...](http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/i-was-wrong-about-the-
economic-limitations-of-solar-power)

[3] [http://www.sciencealert.com/india-says-the-cost-of-solar-
pow...](http://www.sciencealert.com/india-says-the-cost-of-solar-power-is-now-
cheaper-than-coal)

[4] [http://greenenergychronicles.com/index.php/2015/05/26/new-
yo...](http://greenenergychronicles.com/index.php/2015/05/26/new-york-set-to-
give-solar-panels-to-middle-class-families-at-no-cost/)

[5]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter)

~~~
ams6110
My electric bill just isn't a big enough factor in my budget to think
seriously about giving up the proven reliability and availability of utility
power. Even if electricity were free, it's a big and costly problem when it's
not available.

So I have no interest in a personal household solar system and bank of
batteries in the basement. And for the Alternative Energy Solar Project
prediction that "it could save individual families up to $2,400" seems a
stretch -- my annual utility electric costs aren't anywhere near that in a
middle-class home.

~~~
toomuchtodo
You don't give up utility power, but that's besides the point. Its already
happening one roof at a time (per my citations), and will continue to
accelerate as solar costs continue to decline.

------
guitarbill
Somewhat ironically, "lead" is highly toxic. I was very confused for moment.
Thanks English!

