They don't have to be as efficient if they're 100x cheaper and lighter to boot. The stability is really the only issue.

At planetary scale it seems to be quite important not having to replace the whole fleet every few years don‘t you think? Just from a resource perspective this planet shouldn‘t drown in defunct solar panels.

Luckily, they are made of just a few basic, very recyclable chemical elements. Aluminium is fully recyclable. Glass is fully recyclable. Silicon gets purified as part of its manufacturing process. And that just leaves the plastic backing.

Just a thought, but recycling glass is extremely energy intensive.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/5703.pdf

"Recycling of glass does not save much energy or valuable raw material and does not reduce air or water pollution significantly."

Yes, that's why I said the stability of perovskites is the only real issue.

Does it degrade when hermetically sealed? I thought it was down to moisture and getting it in a double glass would be good enough

Moisture heat and light all tend to degrade perovskite.

Perovskite is a family a materials by the way so many of these issues can be sortened out.

I'm overall just skeptic.

> ... heat and light all tend to degrade perovskite.

Have no knowledge in this field but if your solar panel material degrades in light that would seem to be an insurmountable problem to me.

Output degrades at about ~1% a year. EOL for a solar panel is typically about 30 years. It will still generate power but if it is a commercial operation then it will likely be in consideration for replacement. I imagine there would be a large secondary market in the future for used but still functional solar panels as utilities and smaller solar farms replace the panels and possibly funneling into the residential market.

For "tend to", finding a design that avoids it is surmounting it.

Or if you get it slow enough.