General Discussion

multigraincracker

(37,728 posts) Sat Mar 28, 2026, 10:54 AM Mar 28

We may not need any stinking oil after all.. [View all]

https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260328024517.htm

Scientists have found a way to push solar efficiency beyond 100% by multiplying energy from sunlight using a novel molecular system. The approach could pave the way for next-generation solar technologies. Credit: Shutterstock
In research published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society on March 25, scientists from Kyushu University in Japan, working with collaborators at Johannes Gutenberg University (JGU) Mainz in Germany, developed a new way to push past this barrier. They used a molybdenum-based metal complex known as a "spin-flip" emitter to capture extra energy generated through singlet fission (SF), often described as a "dream technology" for improving light conversion.
With this approach, the team achieved energy conversion efficiencies of around 130%, exceeding the traditional 100% limit and pointing toward more advanced solar technologies.

does sound too good to be true...Like a perpetual motion machine. But I'm open to science.

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We may not need any stinking oil after all.. [View all] multigraincracker Mar 28 OP

Someone please explain how this doesn't break the first law of thermodynamics. harumph Mar 28 #1

it is harnessing a 'second' source of energy, in addition to the solar stopdiggin Mar 28 #2

Not if it's harnessing solar power, which is infinite as long as we have a source FakeNoose Mar 28 #7

'solar power' doesn't do anything like 'revising' thermodynamics ... stopdiggin Mar 28 #30

I have no science background Eddie Haskell 60 Mar 28 #9

No, that is thermodynamics. mr715 Mar 28 #18

cool Eddie Haskell 60 Mar 28 #21

I'm not buying any of this. To start with, there is no such thing as 100% efficency in any realm. flashman13 Mar 28 #12

The 130% number being bandied about in the article refers to quantum efficiency Shermann Mar 28 #16

I am always raising my eyebrows James48 Mar 28 #3

Why? mr715 Mar 28 #19

It isn't 130% efficient if it is 2 energy harvesting events. mr715 Mar 28 #4

I discussed this badly misinterpreted wishful thinking case in another thread on the topic. NNadir Mar 28 #5

No angrychair Mar 28 #6

Mercury in the exhaust smoke. BidenRocks Mar 28 #8

That is appalling and dangerous nonsense. When confronted... NNadir Mar 28 #10

I was just using it as an example angrychair Mar 28 #28

Again, the question is, did radioactivity from nuclear power plants kill as many people in 70 years as died in the... NNadir Mar 28 #32

So by your logic angrychair Mar 28 #33

poster said absolutely nothing of the sort stopdiggin Mar 29 #39

After coal is burned fly ash has to be disposed of. What goes into the air stays in the air. twodogsbarking Mar 28 #11

Coal ash has radioactivity and heavy metals IbogaProject Mar 28 #14

More people have died in coal processing, burning than nuclear. mr715 Mar 28 #15

Nonsense Disaffected Mar 28 #24

Coal's main byproduct is CO2 NickB79 Mar 28 #29

you could not be more completely misinformed - or wrong about a particular subject. stopdiggin Mar 28 #31

Hanford angrychair Mar 28 #34

Trade offs for any decision. mr715 Mar 29 #37

No. They do not. (say differently) stopdiggin Mar 29 #38

Isn't this a peer review journal? multigraincracker Mar 28 #13

Its a popsci distillation. mr715 Mar 28 #17

No. I accessed the paper on which this pop misinformation is based. NNadir Mar 28 #23

It's not a perpetual motion machine swong19104 Mar 28 #20

Link to the actual scientific paper mentioned in the press report JHB Mar 28 #22

The paper if not talking about energy conversion efficiency. Disaffected Mar 28 #25

Wait!?! H2O Man Mar 28 #27

Recommended. H2O Man Mar 28 #26

Violates the first Law of Thermodynamics Smells like BS Melon Mar 29 #35

Whatever bankrupts the wretched Saudi oligarchs, the better! Initech Mar 29 #36