In this case you'd probably want to aim for exactly the opposite... something that would not degrade. Having biodegradle replacements for things that are produced in huge quantities and often discarded... shopping bags, disposable plates, etc. is a great idea. An expensive device that should last as long as possible (20, 30 or more years) to make it economically feasible should simply be accepted as something that will take up a bit of room in a landfill if it can't be recycled.
Look carefully at real, manufacturable efficiencies. They are far less than what is obtained in the lab. Typical efficiencies for commercial solar cells are in the 8% to 17% range. This discovery will be great if the gain can be seen in mass produced solar cells.
I wonder what the cost per watt output will be for these? I did not see any roll-out plan and was hoping for hints about pre-production date, estimated final effective efficiency, etc.. It sounds like they are moving in the right direction but still have a lot of experimenting left to do. Good luck!
This is a very greatly written article, very nice precise and sufficient in terms of content.
It will be surely a very great gift to the mankind by the inventor if the commercial production of the material is possible. There also many other affecting factors a the material is being plastic.
For countries like Germany who pan to shout down their Nuclear power generation completely in the next decade , this news is encouraging. It tells us that Solar energy may become a economically viable and environmentally safe alternative to nuclear energy in the near future.
The work seems really interesting, but the confusion in the numbers makes me think that I have missed something. The headline clearly says "double". Why double? Does this leap require the use of focused light, for example? What performance improvement can we expect from solar panels as a result of this research? Thanks for any clarification.