Post #2069233

2026-05-04 13:57 UTC

@Fcksd @MediaActivist More than 100% is impossible. However the article or scientists may mean improving current efficiency by up to 130%, which might mean a total of up to 29% total conversion vs current about 21%. How much will it cost compared to more panels?

Replies (3)

@drahflow@infosec.exchange 2026-05-04 14:00

@raymaccarthy @MediaActivist Yeah. They mean "quantum efficiency", i.e. a single photon had more energy than needed to create a single electron/hole pair. So far, that excess is lost (to heat); the research found a way to convert (part of) that to electricity as well.

Open ##2069234
@bovaz@misskey.social 2026-05-04 15:23

@raymaccarthy@mastodon.ie @Fcksd@todon.eu @MediaActivist@todon.eu If I remember my physics right, the 130% discussed here has little to do with what we generally mean in terms of efficiency. It's more like (and this is an oversimplification) "for every photon absorbed, we had on average 1.3 electrons moving and making electrical current". Each of those electrons have lower energy that they would by absorbing the original photon entirely, but they couldn't anyway, so it is a net gain in the power you can output. Only, it's not automatically 130% of the "original" efficiency. Feel free to correct me because I'm basing this off old memories.

Open ##2069237
@disorderlyf@todon.eu 2026-05-04 20:03

@raymaccarthy @Fcksd @MediaActivist Poor wording aside, nearly 30% efficiency is pretty big if it doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

Open ##2069239