A couple years ago this blog mused about perovskite as a solar-panel opportunity in space. It can convert light to energy with less thickness than our silicon mainstay. Every Gram Counts when launching from Earth just as much as when driving a car; also, flexibility helps with getting the best possible surface-area. I recall reading that thinner panels imply less exposure to the harmful radiation, although they'd used gallium arsenide. Last I looked perovskite had indeed been tested in space...
...for seven minutes. Space men would like a little more time with that.
Today I've read a reason why they didn't test the perovskite panel for longer - it was unstable. That's why it's been silicon silicon silicon ... or mercury. Well now it might be made stable. And cheaper.
The parameters of perovskite stability are 1400 hours under simulated sunlight at 65°C
. That's 58 days, 388 K. This seems to compare well with silicon 35°C. As I compare the solar-system bodies we'll be looking to install panels upon, our Moon is in daylight for 27.3 days... but 400 K. Close-enough?
Mind, the Lunar albedo is lower than you'd think - lower still in the frozen basaltic seas. If we installed these panels on something shinier not on the lunar surface then maybe the temperature would be less. Also to be considered is Phlebas Deimos. Our irradiance is 1361 W/m2. Deimos' is (implicitly) 586.2, less than half that. Wiki puts Deimos' surface temperature at 233 K, a little warmer than I expected but hey - tides, I guess.
Overall although I remain unsold on these panels on our Moon without a plan to replace them (a lot), they look good for Earth. Also for outbound journeys past 1 AU. Even over Venus, if you keep 'em off the clouds. I don't see much problem for LEO satellites either; over the life of their station-keeping propellant, lightweight-solar might compete with battery.
No comments:
Post a Comment