This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
The original compared a perovskite cell without a back mirror with a GaAs cell with a back mirror saying that the former nearly reaches the latter. The efficiency limit in both cases being different, it was spurious to state "the perovskite cell without a back mirror nearly matches the GaAs limit with a back mirror".
Therefore: I've specified the spectrum, and made it clear the perovskite bandgap can be tuned to the ideal. This allows it to reach the maximum radiative efficiency in principle, for a bandgap of 1.35eV. The GaAs call however cannot, because its bandgap is slightly too high at 1.424eV.
The GaAs cell with a back mirror, however, can nearly reach the same as the perovskite solar cell with a back mirror, to wit 33%.
In my opinion the processing section reads as an advertisement for the cited articles. It is heavy on detailed descriptions of very special methods and does not provide an overview for the reader. I think this section should include a historical development of processing methods with citations of a view milestones that actually contributed to the development of more homogeneous films for high photovoltaic performance. In the current state it misses any concept, solution processing methods are mixed with vacuum vapor deposition etc. Razh Muur (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also in "b) Schematic of a thin-film perovskite solar cell. In this architecture in which just a flat layer of perovskite is sandwiched between to selective contacts." to should be changed to two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinzele (talk • contribs) 20:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With the potential of achieving even higher efficiencies and the very low production costs, perovskite solar cells have become commercially attractive, with start-up companies already promising modules and powerbanks on the market by 2017.[6][7][8] Dr. Universe (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please update with: "A piperidinium salt stabilizes efficient metal-halide perovskite solar cells"
Please update the article with info on this paper (it relates to longevity/stability of perovskite solar cells). It's included in 2020 in science like so:
Scientists show that adding an organic-based ionic solid into perovskites can result in substantial improvement in solar cell performance and stability. The study also reveals a complex degradation route that is responsible for failures in aged perovskite solar cells. The understanding could help the future development of photovoltaic technologies with industrially relevant longevity.[1][2]
^Lin, Yen-Hung; Sakai, Nobuya; Da, Peimei; Wu, Jiaying; Sansom, Harry C.; Ramadan, Alexandra J.; Mahesh, Suhas; Liu, Junliang; Oliver, Robert D. J.; Lim, Jongchul; Aspitarte, Lee; Sharma, Kshama; Madhu, P. K.; Morales‐Vilches, Anna B.; Nayak, Pabitra K.; Bai, Sai; Gao, Feng; Grovenor, Chris R. M.; Johnston, Michael B.; Labram, John G.; Durrant, James R.; Ball, James M.; Wenger, Bernard; Stannowski, Bernd; Snaith, Henry J. (2 July 2020). "A piperidinium salt stabilizes efficient metal-halide perovskite solar cells". Science. 369 (6499): 96–102. doi:10.1126/science.aba1628.
In what way is this article about climate change? There isn't a single mention or reference within it to climate change. This seems an inclusion without an actual basis. Anastrophe (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the Climate Change WikiProject could be modified to reference an outline of research into mitigation strategies, including solar cell energy conversion, as replacements for burning fossil fuels for electricity. Otherwise, how could the article merely be added to their project directly? I agree that the Climate Change WikiProject needs to organize knowledge - or effect the organization of knowledge within the Wikipedia projects (in various languages) so that the current knowledge (including knowledge about the state of technical R&D) they want to make accessible can be recognized 'topologically' as relevant to the concerns of their readership (perhaps most of whom are not electrical or chemical engineers). Members of the WikiProject Climate Change could suggest that on the Climate Change WikiProject's page.MaynardClark (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opening the Wikipedia, I was surprised to see the leading image indicating a mass-produced perovskite solar cells. However,it seems to just be stock footage used by the video producer, as it was certainly not to do with what was being spoken about or the research in the lab. Someone should post what a "usual" device looks like, i.e. a fabricated device on a glass or flexible substrate. An image of factory-scale solar cell production might give a reader the false impression that perovskite devices are entering or close to entering the market. Rsfadia (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notifying editors about this. If it truly isn't a perovskite solar cell, it should be removed asap and the error also be corrected in WMCommons.
However, they do look like perovskite solar cells and the video suggests that they are. Maybe somebody else can clarify? It has been in the article for a while.
The image is not indicating this is a "mass-produced" one. Back when I uploaded it it was sad to see there's not even one image of solar cell despite the importance of this tech and lots of orgs working on it. Why is nobody thinking of publishing/uploading a CC BY version? The image Chidgk1 posted is the only exception but that doesn't look like common perovskite solar cells or how they'd look like (thin). I just a found a second image though on WMC and suggest a cropped out version of it is used if replacement is needed (on the right).
If this is just about An image of factory-scale solar cell production might give a reader the false impression that perovskite devices are entering or close to entering the market – I don't think that this is the impression the user gets from that, especially as it's clarified in the text. Images on Wikipedia very often give slightly false impressions simply because no better alternative image exists and it's useful for illustration. I don't know whether or not the suggested alternative image is better or whether there's some other CC BY image by now to upload to WMC. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective My thought was that, while the video was reporting on a notable research breakthrough regarding perovskites, they seemed to have been using some stock footage that wasn't related to the lab work they were reporting on...though I do concede it looks like thin film PV production.
I'd vote for the use of @Chidgk1's image, as that is how most R&D perovskite solar cells are fabricated, i.e. on thick glass substrates, or tandem on silicon PVs. This image from the DoE could be also be a good choice, as it is on a flexible substrate. Rsfadia (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It indeed seems to be stock footage which is not CCBY albeit the video I took it from is licensed CCBY on youtube (and without naming/crediting the stock-footage). I requested deletion of the files. Thanks as well for that link – it seems like DoE images are public domain so I uploaded those three images to this WMCommons category that I just created: Commons:Category:Perovskite solar cells. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2024 and 3 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lasolway (article contribs).
In a section titled "Inorganic Perovskites" I found this sentence: "This also made them difficult to synthesize at ambient temperatures as the black α-phase is thermodynamically unstable with respect to the yellow δ-phase, although this has been recently tackled by Hei Ming Lai's group, who is a psychiatrist." I suspect that the use of the work "psychiatrist" is a mistake. Does anyone know what the author was trying to say? Techlady (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you view the associated citation, it shows that three of the seven authors are psychiatrists. Three of the others are specialists in tissue reconstruction, and the last is in chemical pathology.
How that group came to be making discoveries wrt perovskite is baffling, but that's what the source says. As to the claim, I think it could be simplified to just 'This also makes them difficult to synthesize at ambient temperatures, though recent research has had success in doing so." The names of the researchers or their background are irrelevant to the article. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.19:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Innovations in Emerging Non-Toxic Perovskite Solar Cell Alternatives" section written by ChatGPT?
I was looking through this page and I noticed this section seems to be written a bit strangely. As someone who has previously used chatgpt for recreational purposes (long story dw about it) I saw this section and it read like it was written by ChatGPT. Here's a few things which particularly stuck out to me:
1. The title is weird for a Wikipedia section. To me it reads more like something ChatGPT would write instead of something a human would write. It sticks out compared to the other sections, no doubt.
2. The language seems less technical to me (admittedly not an expert in this field) than other sections are. For example, compare:
> "Consequently, scientists are studying lead-free substitutes such as double perovskites, bismuth-based, antimony-based, and tin-based ones."
to
> "It has recently been reported that charges in the perovskite material are predominantly present as free electrons and holes, rather than as bound excitons, since the exciton binding energy is low enough to enable charge separation at room temperature."
These are both the last sentences of the first paragraph of a section, the first one being "Innovations in Emerging Non-Toxic Perovskite Solar Cell Alternatives" and the second one being "Physics". While some technical language is used in this section it seems like less technical language to me.
3. The way this section uses abbreviations reads like ChatGPT to me.
After using ChatGPT I noticed that when discussing more technical language it likes using the full form of an abbreviation and then including the abbreviation in brackets afterwards: for example, writing something like "Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)" (remembered directly from memory). This happens a lot here even with things which I feel definitely don't need their abbrevation explained this way:
For example:
"The production of perovskite solar cells (PSCs) has proven to be economical and to have excellent power conversion efficiencies (PCEs)."
The abbreviation for perovskite solar cells as PSCs is introduced in the first chapter and the abbreviatio nis used by itself multiple times throughout the page before this.
Elements are all introduced with their chemical symbol:
"Tin (Sn)"
"bismuth (Bi)" (This exact phrase actually appears twice when bismuth is mentioned again in the same paragraph!)
"antimony (Sb)"
4. Other general "ChatGPTisms"
Some of the sentences in this don't really say anything about perovskite solar cells but do read more like something ChatGPT would say. I feel this is sloppy even if human-written as it takes up unnecessary space. For example:
a) "Future Prospects and Challenges
Lower efficiencies, limited long term stability and complex manufacturing procedures are some of the immediate challenges in non-toxic perovskite solar cells. Through innovative synthesis processes, sophisticated passivation techniques, and tandem solar cell topologies that combine lead-free perovskites with silicon or other absorbers, future research endeavors are concentrated on circumventing these constraints."
This whole paragraph is unsourced and says nothing. I'm removing this after I make this post.
b) "Adding a selective lead-scavenging layer underneath the perovskite active layer is a novel strategy"
Obviously, this is in a subsection called "Promising Breakthroughs in Non-Toxic Perovskite Research".
c) "Hybrid Perovskites (organic-inorganic)
There have been proposals for organic-inorganic hybrid perovskites that contain cations free of lead, such as perovskites based on antimony or germanium. Although these materials have better environmental stability and adjustable qualities, they still need to be further optimized for commercial use."
This is at the very least sourced but still reads weird and has brackets in the title. Feels off to me.
Putting everything together, I think it's likely that this section has been written by ChatGPT or a similar Ai model and should probably be heavily rewritten or removed entirely. I'm not an expert on this field so I can't comment on whether this information is true but I wouldn't keep it here.
For what it's worth I used the prompt "Write a section of a Wikipedia page about non-toxic perovskite solar cells, with subsections on specific elements which could be used to replace it." on ChatGPT in this conversation: https://chatgpt.com/share/6818ad5c-b99c-8013-b8cb-e092b7da464f. It was different but if my suspicion is correct and the user did use ChatGPT, they could have used a different prompt, or possibly a different AI model to write it. Augmented Reality Foliage (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As well, if you examine the article's edit history, each of several large chunks of the material were serially published by three new accounts - as well as restoring portions after they were reverted by a different editor. It should probably be entirely removed. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.23:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2024 and 3 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lasolway (article contribs).