MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048102689 · doi:10.3390/en13164131

Emerging Photovoltaic (PV) Materials for a Low Carbon Economy

2020· article· en· W3048102689 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhotovoltaic Systems and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of ChemistryDivision of Electrical, Communications and Cyber SystemsMcMaster UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPEDOT:PSSPhotovoltaic systemMaterials scienceFossil fuelPolystyrene sulfonateCarbon fibersLayer (electronics)PolystyreneNanotechnologyCarbon nanotubePolymerWaste managementComposite materialElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerging photovoltaic (PV) technologies have a potential to address the shortcomings of today’s energy market which heavily depends on the use of fossil fuels for electricity generation. We created inventories that offer insights into the environmental impacts and cost of all the materials used in emerging PV technologies, including perovskites, polymers, Cu2ZnSnS4 (CZTS), carbon nanotubes (CNT), and quantum dots. The results show that the CO2 emissions associated with the absorber layers are much less than the CO2 emissions associated with the contact and charge selective layers. The CdS (charge selective layer) and ITO (contact layer) have the highest environmental impacts compared to Al2O3, CuI, CuSCN, MoO3, NiO, poly (3-hexylthiophene-2,5-diyl (P3HT)), phenyl-C61-butyric acid methyl ester (PCBM), poly polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS), SnO2, spiro-OMeTAD, and TiO2 (charge selective layers) and Al, Ag, Cu, FTO, Mo, ZnO:In, and ZnO/ZnO:Al (contact layers). The cost assessments show that the organic materials, such as polymer absorbers, CNT, P3HT and spiro-OMeTAD, are the most expensive materials. Inorganic materials would be more preferable to lower the cost of solar cells. All the remaining materials have a potential to be used in the commercial PV market. Finally, we analyzed the cost of PV materials based on their material intensity and CO2 emissions, and concluded that the perovskite absorber will be the most eco-efficient material that has the lowest cost and CO2 emissions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it