> use land more efficiently<p>This might not be such a big deal. I appears that it makes sense not to pack panels in tightly, but to space them apart so pasture can grow under them. In this way, the land is essentially "free", in that panels can be put on land that is already being used for pasture. Apparently it benefits the pasture, as condensation from the panels irritates the pasture, leading to more growth [1]. The sheep also benefit from the shelter, the panels providing shade and reducing wind chill, leading to lower mortality. A win for the farm production and a win for energy production [2].<p>[1] <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/13/farmers-who-graze-sheep-under-solar-panels-say-it-improves-productivity-so-why-dont-we-do-it-more" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://extensionaus.com.au/energysmartfarming/agrivoltaics-sheep-grazing-in-solar-farms-good-for-both/" rel="nofollow">https://extensionaus.com.au/energysmartfarming/agrivoltaics-...</a>
Volts had a really good recent episode on the state of perovskite PV panels and why they are exciting: <a href="https://www.volts.wtf/p/whats-the-deal-with-perovskite-solar" rel="nofollow">https://www.volts.wtf/p/whats-the-deal-with-perovskite-solar</a><p>Theoretically they can ~double output of silicon PV, but have historically been hampered by faster degrading; that problem seems now to have been significantly improved
I am confised. These are 24.5% efficient. Which they claim is 20% more efficient than other commercialised panels.<p>But over at <a href="https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-utilities/most-efficient-solar-panels/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-utilities/most-efficien...</a> the top-rated ones are 24.1% efficient. Which is only slightly less.<p>Anyone able to shed light on this?
The direct announcement (<a href="https://www.oxfordpv.com/news/20-more-powerful-tandem-solar-panels-enter-commercial-use-first-time-us" rel="nofollow">https://www.oxfordpv.com/news/20-more-powerful-tandem-solar-...</a>) seems to have more nuanced wording:<p>> The 72-cell panels, comprised of Oxford PV’s proprietary perovskite-on-silicon solar cells, can produce up to 20% more energy than a standard silicon panel.<p>I think "standard silicon panel" and "up to" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. They might also be using the lab number (26.9%) rather than the 24.5% number. But then it says:<p>> The first Oxford PV panels available on the market have a 24.5% module efficiency, offering performance significantly above traditional silicon technology.<p>AFAICT, the real news isn't a massive efficiency win, but that these are actually going into production.
Efficiency is really not that important in non space applications. Better to have 2 18% panes than 1 24% and the 18% ones are so cheap right now it’s impossible to compete