SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Highly efficient perovskite solar cells with enhanced stability and minimised lead leakage:
While the power conversion efficiency of perovskite solar cells (PVSCs)—a future of solar cells—has already greatly improved in the past decade, the problems of instability and potential environmental impact are yet to be overcome. Recently, scientists from City University of Hong Kong (CityU) have developed a novel method which can simultaneously tackle the leakage of lead from PVSCs and the stability issue without compromising efficiency, paving the way for real-life application of perovskite photovoltaic technology.
The research team is co-led by Professor Alex Jen Kwan-yue, CityU's Provost and Chair Professor of Chemistry and Materials Science, together with Professor Xu Zhengtao and Dr. Zhu Zonglong from the Department of Chemistry.
[...] Currently, the highest power conversion efficiency of PVSCs has been on par with the state-of-the-art silicon-based solar cells. However, the perovskites used contain lead component which raises a concern for potential environmental contamination. "As the solar cell ages, the lead species can leak through the devices, e.g. through rainwater into the soil, posing a toxicity threat to the environment," explained Professor Jen who is an expert in PVSCs. "To put PVSCs into large-scale commercial uses, it requires not only high power conversion efficiency but also long-term device stability and minimized environmental impact."
Collaborating with Professor Xu whose expertise is materials synthesis, Professor Jen and Dr. Zhu led the team to overcome the above challenges by applying two-dimensional (2-D) metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) to PVSCs.
Journal Reference:
Shengfan Wu, Zhen Li, Mu-Qing Li, et al. 2D metal–organic framework for stable perovskite solar cells with minimized lead leakage, Nature Nanotechnology (DOI: 10.1038/s41565-020-0765-7)
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2020, @08:00AM (1 child)
One day we can beat our swords into plowshares, and our bullets into perovskite solar cells.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2020, @08:16AM
That day will be sooner if you are a Chinese.
Otherwise, the territories reunited with the Middle Kingdom will get them based on their loyalty and the average social credit of their subjects.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2020, @12:58PM (6 children)
Like so much green energy.
There are no silver bullets--only tradeoffs.
Probably the greenest energy source, hydrolelectric, requires you to change an ecosystem, and possibly human settlements, as the price, for example.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by crafoo on Tuesday September 22 2020, @01:00PM (4 children)
I think nuclear reactors actually take the crown of Green Energy, once you look at the data and cut through the marketing as much is feasible.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2020, @01:22PM (1 child)
The best hydro locations in the US have already been built. Hydro is very, very reliant on having a good site.
Nuclear much less so. To appreciably power our economy with no carbon emissions, nuclear is the only realistic choice.
But, enviros are blind idiots who would rather say "Screw nuclear" than actually solve the problem.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2020, @03:11PM
I am replying to my post which at this time is marked "Troll."
I guess I need to expand a bit on how the enviros are being idiots and how nuclear is a required component of the carbon-free energy generation scheme.
If you shutdown your reliable energy generation sources (nuclear, gas, coal) in favor of itermittent, unreliable sources like wind and solar (wind stops blowing, it's night time), then you get California: super expensive electricity with blackouts. Intermittent energy (hydro is not really intermittent, but it can conk out completely in a bad drought) is mitigated by either getting energy dispatched over the grid from a location that is lucky enough to be producing it, perhaps a fee states away, or from some massive energy storage mechanism. Right now, the former is used, and the latter is mostly a pipedream still for massive amounts of power. It is CLEAR that a stable baseload generation capability is needed for a reliable grid. Which is the only source for that that is carbon-emissions free? Nuclear.
The anti-nukes claim research breakthroughs will provide the storage technology. Maybe. But when? How imperative IS IT to generate our power carbon-free? If it truly IS imperative, we need a solution YESTERDAY. The decades-long proven technology is nuclear.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday September 22 2020, @03:25PM (1 child)
The problem with noo-ku-lar energy is where to put the nuclear waste? We could safely bury it deeply in the earth, but people object to that plan. We could store it above ground in New Jersey, but other annoying people object to that. So what to do?
The best plan is what we're doing: permanent temporary storage above ground at power plant sites. An accident waiting to happen.
Is there a chemotherapy treatment for excessively low blood alcohol level?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2020, @07:16PM
No need to save it, use it for other useful things...
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday September 22 2020, @03:20PM
Green bullets, only please.
Not just human settlements, but the habitats of delicious animals also.
Is there a chemotherapy treatment for excessively low blood alcohol level?