Skip to main content

Solar By Numbers

A group at the University of New South Wales has announced that they have achieved a record 25% efficiency with a silicon solar cell, improving on their previous 24.7% performance...

...except that it is the SAME CELL as before. It's just that the standards body changed the reference spectrum upon which the PV cell is tested, and their cell happens to take better advantage of the new spectrum.

“Improvements in understanding atmospheric effects upon the colour content of sunlight led to a revision of the standard spectrum in April. The new spectrum has a higher energy content both down the blue end of the spectrum and at the opposite red end with, dare I say it, relatively less green.”

This is (exactly) like having the EPA change their mileage test and then having an automaker trumpet the "improved" performance of their products.

Mish, who is usually rather astute, fell for this nonsense.

NSW does good work, but please...

Doh!

Doh!

Comments

Michelle L. Jones said…
I have another, sort of alternative energy question. When people talk about how much (industrial) energy is consumed within a country, they are including all industrial sources, from nuclear to oil to coal to solar, etc. But when they say that "country x gets 45 percent of its power from renewables" they are meaning that country x gets 45 percent of its electricity from solar, wind, etc. So I guess I have two questions. 1) Am I reading this correctly, that when they say "power" they mean electricity generation? and 2) Why would that be the case? I understand the definition of power as this: "In physics, the amount of energy put out or produced in a given amount of time. Power is often measured in watts or kilowatts." But I also understand that "Power is nothing more than the rate at which energy is used. The familiar unit, the Watt, is simply Joules per second. A 100 W incandescent light bulb is spewing 100 J of energy per second in the form of light and heat. It does not make sense to talk of Watts per second or Watts per hour." So why would someone talk about electricity in terms of power and oil and gas in terms of energy? Why are they seeming to mix those different measures? Or am I just being silly and missing something completely obvious?
October 11, 2015 at 4:34 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The elemental insanity of carbon sequestration

  The periodic table of the elements, devised by Mendeleev in 1870, is one of the most dangerous things ever created. It seemingly awakens us to a world of chemical possibilities, but it misleads us into believing that the world actually provides us with these things as starting materials. The most obvious problem, of course, is that is gives equal visual weight to atoms with vastly different relative abundances. Thus, we could try scaling by that. But that seems hard to get right as well.   But my current beef is that, except for a few inert and/or shiny things, nothing is available in elemental form. Which leads into an analysis of this fake news:   Scientists find way to make mineral which can remove CO2 from atmosphere     ******snip***   Scientists have found a rapid way of producing magnesite, a mineral which stores carbon dioxide. If this can be developed to an industrial scale, it opens the door to removing CO 2 from the...
1 comment
Read more

Who Killed The Electric Gas Tank?

A few months from now, or perhaps 5-10 years from now, we will know whether or not EEStor can make good on its promise to sell a electrical storage device capable of propelling a reasonably-sized automobile down a freeway for a couple hundred miles before needing a recharge. There are some indications that they are making progress and that this could happen, but there are many reasons to remain skeptical. In this post, I will wade into these waters -- and then get out quickly. Will EEStor revolutionize motor transportation and more? Will it even work? The human quest for energy is an interesting topic. Mostly by burning things, we have transformed our relationship with the planet and each other. It has been said that we are addicted to oil, but it is more the case that we are addicted to what harnessed energy can do. As it is learned that some utilization of energy is not sustainable for environmental reasons, or for lack of supply, the natural response is to search for other ways of d...
Post a Comment
Read more

Hells Bells! Shell Sells Wells!

So why does an oil industry major sell working gas wells? Shell Plans to Sell Stake in Eagle Ford Shale - WSJ The explanation tossed out is that Shell and other majors came late into the game, overpaying for assets. Okay. This would explain a decision to sell acreage. But selling working wells indicates that the money flowing from these wells is not good enough to make owing them worthwhile for Shell. (Indeed, the original WSJ report reported "the assets weren’t meeting the company’s profit targets") Can the smaller buyer (with less overhead, perhaps) can deal with a lower margin? We'll see. A month ago, after reports of write downs of shale assets by many companies, it was suggested that The companies are turning instead to developing current projects, unable to justify buying more property while fields bought during the 2009-2012 flurry remain below their purchase price, according to analysts. As Fadel Gheit, an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. was quot...
3 comments
Read more