Another breathless press release on perovskite technology from Oxford PV. The press release's claim of "reducing the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE)" (compared to what?) is sufficiently vague that my BS detector started twitching.<p>Let's look at the state-of the art: The most carefully done research article I could find (2022, written with authors from Oxford PV, so take it with whatever size NaCl dose is appropriate): <a href="https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/se/d2se00096b" rel="nofollow">https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/se/d2se0...</a><p>Surely, since this study relied heavily on empirical data, they would have used empirically measured degradation rates in their models? Well, nope. Check out these gems:<p>"Oxford PV succeeded in mitigating stability-related deficits and aims at providing future buyers of their modules with the industry-standard 25 year performance guarantee." So, _aims at_.<p>"Due to the proven stability improvements [_citation needed_], no distinction is made between the PST [perovskite-on-silicon tandem] and SHJ [silicon heterojunction] modules with regard to the degradation rate." So, they ASSUME the exact same degradation rate as silicon heterjunction solar cells.<p>Sure, if the degradation rates are truly equal (or even, not terribly worse for PST) then I would believe. But the claim of lower LCOE today (compared to SHJ? they don't say) needs some more evidence, because this is an extraordinary claim in my opinion.