"Also, some of the materials used to make them, such as silicon, are becoming scarcer and thus more expensive."
!?
The Earth's crust is 28% silicon by mass. It's literally the second most abundant element. I'm not a professional, but isn't most of the cost of solar outside the panels now anyway - installation, cabling, inverters, permitting, storage for use during peak hours, etc?
HAHA! oh my. what a trash article this is. I read it and the whole thing. Every paragraph has a gem of nonsense, maybe it's AI tuned to the key of breathless doomer ignorance. OP, feel shame for reposting this.
Setting aside the veracity of the article for a moment ...
... a key factor in industrial-scale silicon production (microchips, PV, or otherwise) is the purity of the raw material. It may well be that high grade silica is fundamentally scarce, or that access to it may be restricted or limited by other factors. Sand theft is an issue that's emerged as a concern, largely as it's a huge industrial input, particularly in concrete, and the most suitable sands are found in riverbeds, rather than either deserts or beaches, both of which are far more abundant. Discussed five years ago on HN here:
There are abundant materials whose useful stock or rates of production are limited by other factors. Nitrogen fertiliser is a canonical example: the raw element is abundant in air (70% of the atmosphere), but its fixation is extremely energy intensive, relying most keenly on natural gas supplies and prices. Ammonia and ammonia-based product costs (fertilisers, cleaning supplies, explosives) tend to fluctuate strongly with natural gas prices, despite the underlying abundance of nitrogen itself.
Pretty much agreed on that, and I haven't followed the perovskites discussion closely enough to know where it falls on that basis. I have been aware of the technology vaguely for a decade or so.
The raw material itself is CaTiO₃,[1] which are three fairly abundant elements, though how that compares with sufficiently pure silica isn't clear to me. My general feeling (from what I've read and experience with other strongly-promoted energy alternatives) is that applications are more likely to be niche, where conditions specifically favour perovskites' specific advantages.
Those seem to be greater incident sunlight conversion efficiencies (~30% vs. 15--20% more typical of silicon PV, which is often less significant than might at first be apparent), and potentially lower manufacturing costs. As is noted in the discussion, panel cost itself is increasingly dwarfed by less-fungible labour and infrastructure costs (e.g., physical support, see <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43135371>).
Worth keeping a finger on the pulse, but not something I'm getting particularly excited about. Pace of development has lagged hype/expectations over the decade or so I've been hearing about the tech.
Ignoring for a moment the cost of inverters and storage...
With the cost of big-ass 400W solar panels as low as they are now, in the pallet load or container load, much of the cost is actually the labor and the mounting.
$150 per panel x 22 on a pallet = $3300
For a ground mounted PV system, you can easily spend far more than 3300 on the foundation work, concrete, steel erection and frame than the raw solar panel costs now. Randomly chosen 40kW theoretical would be $15000 in panels plus LTL truck cargo, the rest of the costs for a working system would be much more than 15k.
It's also possible for a roof mounting system to cost more than the panels in materials and labor and time.
Which is why I am a fan of this simple idea, just put them flat on the dirt. Stick a fence around it to stop deer, and see what happens. One company is trying it[0]. I am not sure if water drainage, plant growth, whatever might be a problem, but for the cost of installation, seems worth exploring.
There is also this company [0]
The founder is a friend of mine and they’re growing very quickly particularly across mining and remote sites in Australia.
Interestingly he said the efficiency loss from having panels mounted at the ‘wrong’ angle is essentially nothing particularly when you consider the increased density and reduction in site prep/installation. They can literally install a couple hundred kW in an afternoon
With the cost of panels as cheap as they are these days it makes much more sense to buy more panels rather than spending lots of money on trying to have everything like a perfect 35 degrees south facing angle. Even on a house, if you have a north facing roof, put up a separate string on that side if the budget permits.
This is also why 2-axis and 3-axis tracker mechanisms are rarely seen these days, the cost of foundation/structure to build a thing on a concrete and steel pier that can 'steer' just six 1.65x1.0 meter size panels is extreme. It's like a big sail in wind loading so it takes a lot of steel and structure to resist that.
If I'm understanding this right, it looks it comes packaged in a 40' ISO standard cargo container, then you use some piece of construction equipment to pull it sideways (on a skid?) out of the container, then pull the string lengthwise across the ground to unfold it to its full length.
The website says "shallow ground penetration" which sounds to me like some sort of anchors that are drilled into the surface then bolts run down into them (such as with a construction team using the largest size of battery operated Milwaukee hammer drills?), or similar.
Yep that’s pretty much it as far as I know. I think they’ve been floated as the deployment mechanism for the SunSolar/sunCable powering Singapore from the NT (…if that ever happens)
I think it comes in pretty useful at temporary sites and for disaster relief but not sure if it’s been deployed for that yet
If the panels don't have a slope of at least 5 or 10 degrees dirt can easily accumulate on them and may not wash off effecively with rain. I have a couple near flat on my porch roof for example, that suffer from dirt accumulation more than others in my off-grid and grid-tied systems that have inclinations ranging from ~23 degrees to vertical.
5-10 degrees of slope often isn't enough to keep panels clean on their own, depending on the climate and dust environment, some form of mechanical cleaning is still needed. This video is from a multi megawatt scale ground mount PV system in Rajasthan, India.
There's a few different companies selling roof intended mounting systems that use weight/ballast to hold down panels at about a 20 degree angle (facing south, in the northern hemisphere), which are basically big plastic trays with some clips to hold the panels and a place to put concrete blocks. Some care has to be taken to prevent gaps that let wind get underneath them for worst-case windstorm scenarios, but it's definitely a product that exists.
This system appears based on tin, not lead, so that's a plus for not generating as much toxic waste. However the lifetime report - 10% efficieny loss over 1000 hour - is why people vastly prefer monocrystalline silicon cells, whose lifetime is easily 200X as long (more like 1000X, but other components of the PV module than the silicon will degrade more on the 200,000 hours timeline).
You'd have to replace these once a year or so to retain >90% of the initial power output, versus mono-Si which lasts for 25 years+.
Not based on this exact paper, but Oxford PV is claiming to have perovskite solar cells that will last 25 years now (and is commercially selling tandem silicon-perovskite cells based on this).
I'd like to request some comment replies from anybody who keeps up the downvoting on this one.
I've found that every time I post something complaining about a "science journalist", or a "tech journalist", not having a basic understanding of the stuff they write about, or not doing meaningful research, I reliably get downvotes.
Sorry, if you are reporting on a "science" beat, I do expect you to recognize the word "furan", because you either took organic chemistry or have paid some attention to the world around you. You don't have to be able to sketch it, but come on.
"Also, some of the materials used to make them, such as silicon, are becoming scarcer and thus more expensive."
!?
The Earth's crust is 28% silicon by mass. It's literally the second most abundant element. I'm not a professional, but isn't most of the cost of solar outside the panels now anyway - installation, cabling, inverters, permitting, storage for use during peak hours, etc?
HAHA! oh my. what a trash article this is. I read it and the whole thing. Every paragraph has a gem of nonsense, maybe it's AI tuned to the key of breathless doomer ignorance. OP, feel shame for reposting this.
Setting aside the veracity of the article for a moment ...
... a key factor in industrial-scale silicon production (microchips, PV, or otherwise) is the purity of the raw material. It may well be that high grade silica is fundamentally scarce, or that access to it may be restricted or limited by other factors. Sand theft is an issue that's emerged as a concern, largely as it's a huge industrial input, particularly in concrete, and the most suitable sands are found in riverbeds, rather than either deserts or beaches, both of which are far more abundant. Discussed five years ago on HN here:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21758301>
There are abundant materials whose useful stock or rates of production are limited by other factors. Nitrogen fertiliser is a canonical example: the raw element is abundant in air (70% of the atmosphere), but its fixation is extremely energy intensive, relying most keenly on natural gas supplies and prices. Ammonia and ammonia-based product costs (fertilisers, cleaning supplies, explosives) tend to fluctuate strongly with natural gas prices, despite the underlying abundance of nitrogen itself.
I don't refute this point, but the alternative materials would have to be more available than high-grade silicon for it to matter.
Pretty much agreed on that, and I haven't followed the perovskites discussion closely enough to know where it falls on that basis. I have been aware of the technology vaguely for a decade or so.
The raw material itself is CaTiO₃,[1] which are three fairly abundant elements, though how that compares with sufficiently pure silica isn't clear to me. My general feeling (from what I've read and experience with other strongly-promoted energy alternatives) is that applications are more likely to be niche, where conditions specifically favour perovskites' specific advantages.
Those seem to be greater incident sunlight conversion efficiencies (~30% vs. 15--20% more typical of silicon PV, which is often less significant than might at first be apparent), and potentially lower manufacturing costs. As is noted in the discussion, panel cost itself is increasingly dwarfed by less-fungible labour and infrastructure costs (e.g., physical support, see <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43135371>).
Worth keeping a finger on the pulse, but not something I'm getting particularly excited about. Pace of development has lagged hype/expectations over the decade or so I've been hearing about the tech.
________________________________
Notes:
1. See: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perovskite_(structure)>
Ignoring for a moment the cost of inverters and storage...
With the cost of big-ass 400W solar panels as low as they are now, in the pallet load or container load, much of the cost is actually the labor and the mounting.
$150 per panel x 22 on a pallet = $3300
For a ground mounted PV system, you can easily spend far more than 3300 on the foundation work, concrete, steel erection and frame than the raw solar panel costs now. Randomly chosen 40kW theoretical would be $15000 in panels plus LTL truck cargo, the rest of the costs for a working system would be much more than 15k.
It's also possible for a roof mounting system to cost more than the panels in materials and labor and time.
Which is why I am a fan of this simple idea, just put them flat on the dirt. Stick a fence around it to stop deer, and see what happens. One company is trying it[0]. I am not sure if water drainage, plant growth, whatever might be a problem, but for the cost of installation, seems worth exploring.
[0] https://electrek.co/2022/12/12/texas-solar-farm-flat-on-the-...
There is also this company [0] The founder is a friend of mine and they’re growing very quickly particularly across mining and remote sites in Australia.
Interestingly he said the efficiency loss from having panels mounted at the ‘wrong’ angle is essentially nothing particularly when you consider the increased density and reduction in site prep/installation. They can literally install a couple hundred kW in an afternoon
[0] https://5b.co/
Hi, I've got a project that your friend's company would be perfect to help with - any chance of an intro?
Australian tech is so mining and property focused its crazy to me sometimes (especially here in WA)
With the cost of panels as cheap as they are these days it makes much more sense to buy more panels rather than spending lots of money on trying to have everything like a perfect 35 degrees south facing angle. Even on a house, if you have a north facing roof, put up a separate string on that side if the budget permits.
This is also why 2-axis and 3-axis tracker mechanisms are rarely seen these days, the cost of foundation/structure to build a thing on a concrete and steel pier that can 'steer' just six 1.65x1.0 meter size panels is extreme. It's like a big sail in wind loading so it takes a lot of steel and structure to resist that.
If I'm understanding this right, it looks it comes packaged in a 40' ISO standard cargo container, then you use some piece of construction equipment to pull it sideways (on a skid?) out of the container, then pull the string lengthwise across the ground to unfold it to its full length.
The website says "shallow ground penetration" which sounds to me like some sort of anchors that are drilled into the surface then bolts run down into them (such as with a construction team using the largest size of battery operated Milwaukee hammer drills?), or similar.
https://5b.co/en/5b-maverick
Yep that’s pretty much it as far as I know. I think they’ve been floated as the deployment mechanism for the SunSolar/sunCable powering Singapore from the NT (…if that ever happens)
I think it comes in pretty useful at temporary sites and for disaster relief but not sure if it’s been deployed for that yet
reminds military pontoon bridge deployment.
If the panels don't have a slope of at least 5 or 10 degrees dirt can easily accumulate on them and may not wash off effecively with rain. I have a couple near flat on my porch roof for example, that suffer from dirt accumulation more than others in my off-grid and grid-tied systems that have inclinations ranging from ~23 degrees to vertical.
5-10 degrees of slope often isn't enough to keep panels clean on their own, depending on the climate and dust environment, some form of mechanical cleaning is still needed. This video is from a multi megawatt scale ground mount PV system in Rajasthan, India.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/18p1q...
https://www.naturaecoenergy.com/robotic-solar-panel-cleaning...
How frequently really depends on the local climate, but at least a few times a year even in a place that doesn't have dust storms.
I did this at my house.
A couple of hundred panels just laid on the ground.
Even strong winds didn't lift them.
But after just a few months they're kinda covered in mud.
There's a few different companies selling roof intended mounting systems that use weight/ballast to hold down panels at about a 20 degree angle (facing south, in the northern hemisphere), which are basically big plastic trays with some clips to hold the panels and a place to put concrete blocks. Some care has to be taken to prevent gaps that let wind get underneath them for worst-case windstorm scenarios, but it's definitely a product that exists.
> It's also possible for a roof mounting system to cost more than the panels in materials and labor and time.
Probably. The fix would be for the panels to be an intrinsic part of the roof, meaning they don't have to be separately installed.
You guys do realize you can't just scoop rocks into a grinder and make chips, right? You need high quality sources of refinable materials...
Paper https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.20...
> a type of agricultural waste known as furan
Important note, it's not waste, it's manufactured from waste.
Much better article here.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/02/17/organic-inorganic-per...
This system appears based on tin, not lead, so that's a plus for not generating as much toxic waste. However the lifetime report - 10% efficieny loss over 1000 hour - is why people vastly prefer monocrystalline silicon cells, whose lifetime is easily 200X as long (more like 1000X, but other components of the PV module than the silicon will degrade more on the 200,000 hours timeline).
You'd have to replace these once a year or so to retain >90% of the initial power output, versus mono-Si which lasts for 25 years+.
Not based on this exact paper, but Oxford PV is claiming to have perovskite solar cells that will last 25 years now (and is commercially selling tandem silicon-perovskite cells based on this).
https://undecidedmf.com/how-record-breaking-perovskites-are-...
Submit that as a recommended alternative link to mods by email at hn@ycombinator.com
Nonsense.
Why is it nonsense?
Your assessment may be correct, but it's not informative.
It’ll always be waste-ish because of the lead, no?
> comes from a type of agricultural waste known as furan
Where do they get these people?
I'd like to request some comment replies from anybody who keeps up the downvoting on this one.
I've found that every time I post something complaining about a "science journalist", or a "tech journalist", not having a basic understanding of the stuff they write about, or not doing meaningful research, I reliably get downvotes.
Sorry, if you are reporting on a "science" beat, I do expect you to recognize the word "furan", because you either took organic chemistry or have paid some attention to the world around you. You don't have to be able to sketch it, but come on.
[dead]