Sounds impressive, but let's see if it can be scaled up first.
It's the end of the coal as we know it, and I feel fine....
El Greco
Nice. They should probably stop calling it efficiency though. Conversion ratio or gain.
This could be bad news, for a UK company recently set up, claiming a 'massive' 27% efficiency.
"This could be bad news, for a UK company recently set up, claiming a 'massive' 27% efficiency."

Not necessarily. It all depends on the costs involved when you get to commercial-scale power production. The number to watch there is power per cost. A cheap product that is "good enough" in mass production is sometimes far better than a super-expensive product even if the latter is more efficient in theory.
Chris Coles
My own belief is that we do not "strip" electrons; instead, that the electron is a part of the electromagnetic force field structure of the proton, which is formed around a dipole which acts as a source of both a positive and a negative sink to which the Electromagnetic Force filed is attached. As such the structure has to conform to Maxwell's law, that all positive fields must seek the closest negative sink, or extend to infinity. Thus we have an positive field that forms what is a near infinite spring surrounding that attachment; which has to also conform to a simple fact, that all positive fields repulse each other, and as such where that positive field attaches to the negative pole of the dipole, it must form a minute tube of repulsion all the way from the exterior of the proton, down to the negative face of the dipole. That that tube of repulsion forms a classic capillary tube, which is in fact, the electron we observe seemingly orbiting the proton. Now as all such protons are in constant rotating motion, the distance between each proton's electron, and the adjacent proton's electron must constantly change, and again, must obey Maxwell's law, so as the external electromagnetic force field of each proton must extend beyond the orbit of each proton's electron; then as they rotate, the come under the influence of that capillary tube and connect by being drawn down into the capillary. But that must only be for as long as the distance between them allows such a contact, for as rotation continues, the attachment must conform to Maxwell and move to the closest negative; in that way we observe the constant flow of photon's, relative to temperature of the mass under observation. Now, we have to understand that as these attachments constantly change, they must pass each other, but must repulse. It is my belief that all such electrons are generated by the attachments sliding past each other; under normal electromagnetic interaction laws. That all observed electrons supposedly "stripped" are in fact generated by the interaction of the external positive fields of each proton sliding past each other. When you rub a piece of amber with a cloth of wool, you do not strip electrons; you generate new ones by the interaction of the external electromagnetic force fields of the protons passing each other. Oh! for the record; my theories have been completely dismissed as fake. Food for thought?
Second thoughts; most likely to be used for space machinery first, as the budgets are bigger.
Home use? Probably not for a long time yet.
Agree with Nestor. Impressive, but efficiency is the wrong word. If you are over 100% efficient you have a perpetual free energy machine. Which is obviously impossible.

132% would be a 5 fold increase from the typical 27% efficiency of solar panels today. If they really could do this it would be phenomenal and solar would be so much cheaper than natural gas that the entire oil industry would shut down in just a few years.