This study demonstrates, for the first time, the successful integration of cyanate into a perovskite solar cell to develop a cutting-edge triple-junction perovskite/Si tandem solar cell,proving cyanates to be viable substitute for halides in perovskite-based solar cells. An efficiency of 27.1 percent was achieved.
“Shatter” is a bit much considering that these are around 27% efficient and contemporary commercial panels are around 25%, and other researchers have been able to get into the mid 30s.
That said, the devil is in the details. How easy are these to reproduce and manufacture? If they’re easy and cheap to make, and we can get residential solar up from the 17-22% range that it’s at now, then that’s pretty rad.
This study demonstrates, for the first time, the successful integration of cyanate into a perovskite solar cell to develop a cutting-edge triple-junction perovskite/Si tandem solar cell,proving cyanates to be viable substitute for halides in perovskite-based solar cells.
Ah yes, I recognized a few of those words.
As someone who spent hours in grad school digging through journals, abstracts like this are my biggest pet peeve.
They intentionally avoid mentioning context and practical applications that would make findings seem less grandiose, and less worthy of publication. Journals like Nature only want to publish shinny things, and institutions often only want research that gets published.
Researchers that have unlocked some legitimacy cool shit often have no problem mentioning that stuff, in laymen’s terms, at the start or end of an abstract.
- Editorialized headline.
- Sensationalist language (that doesn’t even have the excuse of being a quote from the linked page).
- Content locked behind paywall.
That’s a big -1 from me. Please do better next time.
