/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10386406
Photovoltaic. Peroskvite solar cells are advancing incredibly fast, with efficiency improving every couple of months. If you aren't aware peroskvite solar cells are much cheaper to make than silicon solar cells because the manufacturing process uses less energy and common elements are used. The current efficiency record for peroskvite solar cells is 28%. Silicon solar cells can only reach a theoretical max of 29.3%, so this is pretty goddamn good. In addition peroskvite solar cells can have a theoretical efficiency of up to 64%. No one wants to build solar thermal because peroskvite solar cells could make a solar thermal plant obsolete when it's supposed to be making a profit.

nuclear is only good renewable and effective energy source especially if we could do fusion

>>10386406
solar-thermal is only good for very warm an sunny regions, photovoltaic works even in Arctic regions batteries make quick progress as well so storage will be super cheap in a few years.

Thermal storage is interesting and seems easy enough. Why aren't people using it more, especially since there is so much wasted energy during off-peak times?

Literally,
>any cheap high specific heat capacity salt
>heat it up using electricity
>store it in insulated container
>pass water through it to generate steam and off to the steam turbine to get electricity back

Why aren't we doing this? What's the catch?

>>10386610
Nuclear is clean, but not renewable. There is a finite amount of it on earth and no matter how efficient it is, it will deplete eventually. I do believe we should invest in nuclear, especially since new designs allow small nuclear power plants which are much more safer and manageable.
However, nuclear power is problematic - especially because of politics. While right wingers literally worship fossil fuels and will never be into nuclear power, liberal left wingers are even worse and will never support nuclear power.
>>10386648
>Why aren't we doing this?
It is being researched and developed. Look it up there are already large scale testings in Germany and Spain where they store heat in huge salt tanks.
>>10386636
Yeah, PV will always have that. Hell, it works even in the harsh environment of space (satellites). I still think solar thermal will be more widespread since the vast majority of earth's population lives in areas which are sunny/temperate/warm most of the year.

>>10386406
"Solar thermal" of the design shown, because the heliostat array can easily be used as an anti-air, or perhaps planetary, point-defense system.

>>10386682
>Nuclear is clean, but not renewable.
That is actually debatable.
There are ways to generate new fuel out of common non radioactive elements.
Technically even that wouldn't be renewable, but it would consume only a tiny fraction of earth resources and would last way longer than our own sun existence.

>>10386682
Solar cells can be put on everything. You need a big open space to build a solar thermal plant. Peroskvite solar cells can even be painted on. I would also like to mention that peroskvite solar cells could become very cheap. They are made from common materials and the energy required to manufacture them isn't very high. For storing energy there's some more materials science magic: flow batteries. They're starting to eat other forms of mass energy storage. New chemistries are coming out that use only cheap common elements. Hell some flow batteries even use food grade materials. They also scale up very well as all one needs to do is get bigger electrolyte tanks. Oh and energy can be stored for months.
>>10386703
No.

>>10386610
Mostly this. All these climate scientists are posturing unpredictable weather patterns, well how the fuck are we going to predictably and consistently generate power from PVs if it's constantly overcast? What about abberant hail, hurricanes and tornados?

At least with a plant you're talking a relatively small footprint that can be tornado proofed and base generation can't be affected by some brooding clouds.

>>10386682
what about fusion it realistically will never end there is a loot of deuterium

>>10386648
There is no catch. After overhead and maintenance costs, solar power is a lisence to print money and the Koch brothers know it.

>>10386648
You lose efficiency so it increases the cost. Batteries have a very high efficiency, so as soon as we have some sort of cheap, scaleable grid battery technology renewables will really be the optimal power source.

>>10386406
Solar thermal is more efficient. This is due to the fact that thermal efficiency for thermal-based power plants can be as good as coal-fired power plants. PV power plants are still entirely limited to cell efficiency which is only at 22.2% for the best, but actually only average in around 15%-17% for general market PVs.

>>10386636
Not true.

>>10386648
>heat it up using electricity

Heat it up with thermal solar.

>>10386406
>what's the better way to use the sun's energy
Fusion

>>10386406
Why don't we set up massive solar-thermal farms dedicated to produce hydrogen from water and use that to fill fuel cells to power all our vehicles?

>>10386839
If your grid is big enough those problems mostly disappear. Plus that's why wind is such a good complement to solar.

nuclear energy is best energy. Instead of focusing on how to improve other energy productions they should focus on how to better and make nuclear energy safer.

>>10387049
>not using that money to make fusion possible and use fission plants to provide energy to start the furion reactions

>>10386610
Dude fusion is a pipedream. Fission is perfectly reasonable though.

>>10386867
That's what you think but consider that the more power we get, the more we will need to maintain economic growth
That deuterium is going to be used at an exponential rate

PV is already cheaper then everything else and keeps getting cheaper and more efficient. We just need a cheap solution for overnight storage.

>>10387195
I always wonder why conservatives are so triggered by the idea that solar modules are going to become the no. 1 electricity source. It's simple economics.

>>10387209
because they get a LOT of money from the fossil fuel industry

>>10387052
>fusion
even better

>>10387175
you know that Deuterium is 0.015% hydrogène of ocean water if our energy need would so big that will consume all of this then even filling the
all the planet surface with solar panel will not meet the need of energy so what is your point

>>10387175
and also what will we be doing with all of that energy trying to reach 99% the speed of light or what

>>10387209
you need to seperate conservatives from neocons please.
i have solar power and i think its great. True conservatives like solar power because it means you can detach from the government. That said i dont see how we will get off fuel completely consider the power requirements needs for cargo shits and jet engines which are the main suppliers of vehicular co2 emissions especially for other things like plastics.

yes i do think we should plant more trees, i do think we should have more solar power

>>10387456
yes me too im far right and i have no problem with renewable and green energy if its effective that why i support nuclear

photovoltaic

>>10387456
>That said i dont see how we will get off fuel completely

One solution is better batteries with more capacity, faster charging, cheaper and longer life. All of this has been achieved in labs. It will take time to build factories and mass produce this.
Another solution is to use electrolysis to produce hydrogen from excess wind or solar power. This can be use in fuel cells to power cars and ships and trains and maybe even planes. This technology is ready, but this needs even cheaper green energy and more efficient electrolysis or a higher oil price to be competitive.