Materials based on clusters of atoms called “super-ions” may revolutionize the whole solar cell ind…

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://science.energy.gov/bes/highlights/2016/bes-2016-07-h/

[font face=Serif]07.25.16
[font size=5]It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's Super-ion Building Blocks[/font]

[font size=4]Materials based on clusters of atoms called “super-ions” may revolutionize the whole solar cell industry.[/font]

[font size=3]The Science

Lead-free, more efficient solar cells and other optoelectronics devices will likely be based on a family of materials known as hybrid perovskites. Scientists identified how to control different properties and stability in these solar cell materials using lead-free preparation. These new design principles identified super-ion building blocks, clusters of atoms that carry the same charge as the ions that they replace. Scientists can tailor these building blocks improve stability and other desired traits.

The Impact

These new design principles guided by simulations could lead to the next generation of solar cells and optoelectronics for lighting and data storage based on simple and environmentally friendly manufacturing methods.

Summary

Solar cell performance of hybrid perovskites has improved from under 4% efficiency in 2009 to over 20% efficiency today. However, perovskite stability still limits the performance. Also, hybrid perovskites commonly contain lead, which is toxic. Now, researchers led by the Virginia Commonwealth University have used a multi-scale approach and a comprehensive study of over 40 materials to identify parameters and mechanism that control properties and stability in lead-free hybrid perovskites. Scientists performed simulations to fill the information gap in a series of lead-free hybrid perovskites, where experimental data were not available. Computational methods included density functional theory, ab initio molecular dynamics simulations, and dynamic crystalline lattice calculations. The material can be pictured as a super crystal composed of super-ions, both super-alkali and super-halogen ions. Changing the halogen (chlorine, bromine, or iodine) and metal (germanium or tin) in the super ions affected their ionic radii and the ionic nature of the bonding. Scientists identified design principles that correlated the ionic nature of bonding to the electronic band gap and other photovoltaic-relevant properties. The team identified two methods to increase the ionic nature: using a smaller halogen to increase the radius ratio between super-ions and using a more metallic metal (tin compared to germanium). Also, they identified how the materials degrade when exposed to moisture and proposed counter strategies. This new atomic-level understanding could lead to the development of more efficient and longer-lasting solar cells.

…[/font][/font]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c5ta09646d

[The Wielding Truth]

1. Very good news.

[6chars]

2. a lot of this science is advancing faster than expected

that's good, bc co2 and climate change are advancing faster than expected

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Faster than expected by whom?

CO₂ concentrations are increasing and climate change seems to be occurring right about on schedule. Oh! Unless you ask the media…

The earth has been warmer in the first five months of this year than in any comparable period since measurements began 130 years ago, and the higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution, a space agency scientist reported today.

(Sound familiar? Shock! Dismay! It sounds like it was written just last month. Right? How about 28 years ago?)


http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate[/font]

By PHILIP SHABECOFF, Special to the New York Times
Published: June 24, 1988

[font size=3]WASHINGTON, June 23— The earth has been warmer in the first five months of this year than in any comparable period since measurements began 130 years ago, and the higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution, a space agency scientist reported today.

Until now, scientists have been cautious about attributing rising global temperatures of recent years to the predicted global warming caused by pollutants in the atmosphere, known as the ''greenhouse effect.'' But today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.

Dr. Hansen, a leading expert on climate change, said in an interview that there was no ''magic number'' that showed when the greenhouse effect was actually starting to cause changes in climate and weather. But he added, ''It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.''

An Impact Lasting Centuries

If Dr. Hansen and other scientists are correct, then humans, by burning of fossil fuels and other activities, have altered the global climate in a manner that will affect life on earth for centuries to come.

…[/font][/font]

Quick! Where’s the surprising increase in this graph? (It looks pretty predictable to me!)
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/
[center][/center]


OK, Where’s the surprising increase here? (I guess I’m missing it.)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
[center][/center]

[6chars]

4. various climate problems are on the bad end of forecast

the last two years of temp, for example. i keep seeing things about rates of loss of snow and ice cover, things like that - especially things that hit at the poles - happening now, not later. not really co2 - i kind of misspoke. as i interpret it, there are more / stronger positive feedback loops that keep becoming apparent that weren't in earlier models. make sense? thanks for the data here.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. So, here’s the thing

Frequently, the IPCC reports are presented as kind of extreme (“oh, those crazy scientists…”) Sometimes, they are presented as “what is expected.” In reality, they’re actually rather conservative. One reason is because they are consensus opinions, but a more serious reason is that governments have a hand at multiple steps in the process.
[center][/center]

What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/15/ipcc-un-climate-reports-diluted-protect-fossil-fuel-interests

[font face=Serif][font size=5] IPCC reports 'diluted' under 'political pressure' to protect fossil fuel interests[/font]

[font size=4]Saudi-led coalition sought to make policy summaries as vague as possible to minimise climate action[/font]

Nafeez Ahmed
Thursday 15 May 2014 02.00 EDT

[font size=3]Increasing evidence is emerging that the policy summaries on climate impacts and mitigation by the UN Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were significantly 'diluted' under political pressure from some of the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters, including Saudi Arabia, China, Brazil and the United States.

Several experts familiar with the IPCC government approval process for the 'Summary for Policymakers' (SPM) reports – documents summarising the thousands of pages of technical and scientific reports for government officials – have spoken out about their distortion due to political interests.

According to David Wasdell, who leads on feedback dynamics in coupled complex global systems for the European Commission's Global System Dynamics and Policy (GSDP) network, "Every word and line of the text previously submitted by the scientific community was examined and amended until it could be endorsed unanimously by the political representatives."

In a detailed paper critiquing the WG1 Summary for Policymakers, Wasdell revealed that:

"Greatest pressure to establish grounds for the highest possible budget came from those countries whose national economy, political power and social stability depend on sustaining the asset value and production revenue derived from exploitation of their resources of fossil energy. Additional pressure was applied to the political agents by those vested interests whose sustained profitability was based on the extraction, refining, marketing and use of fossil energy as the ground of the global economy."

…[/font][/font]

So, as a result, for example, we read things like this:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/22/sea-level-rise-james-hansen-climate-change-scientist

…

The IPCC has predicted a sea level rise of up to one meter by 2100, if emissions are not constrained. Hansen, and other scientists, have argued the UN body’s assessment is too conservative as it doesn’t factor in the potential disintegration of the polar ice sheets.

…

Wait a second, that seems kind of major. Right? Yeah, the IPCC report assumes that the ice will melt at a pretty steady rate.

So, if it starts looking like sea levels will rise by more than a meter, the headlines will read that it’s “unexpected!” (Headline writers like things that are “unexpected.”) But, the smart money knew all along that the IPCC estimate was too low. For them, the faster rate will be pretty much what they expected.