this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
561 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

72865 readers
2523 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/24690127

Solar energy experts in Germany are putting sun-catching cells under the magnifying glass with astounding results, according to multiple reports.

The Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems team is perfecting the use of lenses to concentrate sunlight onto solar panels, reducing size and costs while increasing performance, Interesting Engineering and PV Magazine reported.

The "technology has the potential to contribute to the energy transition, facilitating the shift toward more sustainable and renewable energy sources by combining minimal carbon footprint and energy demand with low levelized cost of electricity," the researchers wrote in a study published by the IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics.

The sun-catcher is called a micro-concentrating photovoltaic, or CPV, cell. The lens makes it different from standard solar panels that convert sunlight to energy with average efficiency rates around 20%, per MarketWatch. Fraunhofer's improved CPV cell has an astounding 36% rate in ideal conditions and is made with lower-cost parts. It cuts semiconductor materials "by a factor of 1,300 and reduces module areas by 30% compared to current state-of-the-art CPV systems," per IE.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Remember gang, stuff like this means 10-15 years before you see it in market.

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What was the stuff like this of 15 years ago ?

[–] eronth@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Honestly solar panels and electric cars. I know those existed over 15 years ago, but they weren't serious market options until like 5 or so years ago.

[–] UltraMasculine@sopuli.xyz 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

First known electric car was built in 1837. Yes, 1837, not 1937. In 1910's and 1920's there were tens of thousands electric cars in USA and Europe. So electric cars has been here for a long time right now.

First (known) solar panel was built in 1954.

[–] huquad@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago

Yes, hence the name motor vehicle. His point was modern implementations of EVs and solar panels. 10-20 years is very common for transition to production. It takes time to scale up manufacturing and that's only after the manufacturers have actually decided/agreed to take on the risk of a new product line. Lithium ion batteries were invented in the 80s, but didn't see broad deployment until the 00s.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 days ago (4 children)

If I had a penny for every time I heard about new advancements about to revolutionise solar panel technology, I'd have glazed the bloody Sahara with them by now.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] OhVenus_Baby@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago

Just wanted to drop a comment.

I love solar. It's the best form of energy that's attainable by the average person.

[–] whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

is it a real thing or an obligatory overestimated result to get grants because the system is fucked?

[–] brendansimms@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (6 children)

I just skimmed the IEEE paper (peer-reviewed, solid journal); The usage of 'slash costs' in the title is entire sensational. The tech gave a SLIGHT increase in efficiency (which is good news - marginal improvements are still very good and can be game-changing if scaled up), but there is no cost/benefit analysis in the paper regarding the additional costs of lenses and whether the increased PV efficiency would offset those costs at scale.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago

Concentrating solar cells have been around for decades, but I suppose the efficiency Fraunhofer achieved here is nothing to sneeze at.

[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.org 7 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Wouldn't this be negated by the fact, that the same area of roof now has less actual PV cell on it? Since the light gets concentrated on a smaller area?

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think the idea is that it’s the same amount of light is being used but the actual expensive part of the solar cell is cheaper and designed to take the increased heat. So the same size “solar unit” on the roof collecting the same amount of light and generating the same amount of energy but cheaper overall. At least that was my take. Correct me if I’m wrong.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How does concentrating the sunlight like this not start a fire? Or wouldn’t this at least cause panel electronics to overheat?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Alloi@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago

at this point it doesnt matter. theres no saving us from extinction due to climate change. this serves only for the intermediate period where we can "save" some money on energy day to day, before the inevitable collapse that makes money and savings worthless.

dont get me wrong, if i could afford a house, let alone additional panels and the additional fees that come with installation, maintenance, regulations, licensing, etc. then id be all in, even if it was just to contribute to the dying ideal that there was some semblence of hope for a better future. this is up to the landlords and the upperclass to give a shit about, and most of it is for grandstanding and keeping up with the joneses.

i used to install these for a living during covid. only people in my area who could afford them were multigenerational farmers and eco concious suburbanites. even for the suburbanites living in million+ dollar homes it was a stretch financially, and a hastle due to regulations.

good idea. but a bit late. we are at the point that if someone waved a magic wand tomorrow, and everyone stopped driving cars and pulled a full 180 on coal, oil, and gas, it would still be far too late.

if you can afford the inevitable markup that comes with proffessional installation. be my guest. if you are a poor person wanting to slap some panels on a tiny home, go nuts. just dont expect to save the world by doing so. its fucked. live how you want to while you can. drink, fuck, fight, eat good food, play video games, bed rot and consume to your hearts content.

nothing can save us. not even the "indomitable will of the human spirit" not a god damned thing.

sorry to shit in your salad. but thems the breaks.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›