[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 266 KB, 1584x944, unnamed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12651386 No.12651386 [Reply] [Original]

Why do normies love solar energy?

>> No.12651394

>>12651386
Because the media tells them to

>> No.12651396

>wanting to burn something when there is a huge something already on fire
wasteful

>> No.12651431
File: 38 KB, 600x354, Schematic-showing-processes-in-a-hot-carrier-solar-cell-1-A-high-energy-photon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12651431

>>12651396
>Wanting to convert low energy photons directly to high energy electrons
It's much more efficient to use those photons to store heat, from which a heat engine does the rest. You don't have to burn anything.

>> No.12651514

>>12651396
>worrying about waste
What a virgin tier response

>> No.12651532

>>12651386
Shockley-Quiesser limit can be exceed by using multiple bandgaps. Solar cells have the potential to exceed the efficiency of heat engines. Cause it's pretty hard to make a heat engine that works with T hot 3000 K

>> No.12651789

>>12651396
>why farm when there are a huge animal and plants already on the forest
>why burn something when you can eat it raw
>why bother with cotton when you already have skin

>> No.12651874

>>12651789
Yes.

>> No.12651894

>>12651532
LMAO
That's not how it works, you idiot
The more efficient your solar cell is at capturing light, the more heat it would absorb.
The hotter the solar cell is, the less efficient the conductivity gets and its efficiency completely shuts down at 65C

>> No.12651901

>>12651894
>>he doesn't understand what efficiency is

>> No.12651903

>>12651901
You don't know basic thermodynamics

>> No.12651906

>>12651903
the more efficient the solar cell is, the less heat would be generated because more of it would be converted to electricity

>> No.12651910

>>12651906
The more efficient the solar cell is, the less reflective it becomes, the more absorbing it is, the hotter it becomes.
Retarded fuck

>> No.12652042

>>12651910
>Imagine being this retarded

>> No.12652791

>>12652042
You don't know basic thermodynamics
Silicon is not a conductor. It is doped with Phosporus and Boron which has no valence electrons
High resistance results into high amounts of heat.

Shut the fuck up

>> No.12652989
File: 1.31 MB, 2020x1895, e72ef3d39ef1ffd40ffb8aff12e52e2f.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12652989

>>12652791
Based

>> No.12653022

>>12652791
damn you murdered that guy

>> No.12653038

>>12652791
>>12652989
>>12653022
>Imagine being this retarded

>> No.12653062

>>12651894
>>12651910
>>12652791
The absolute state of /sci/

>> No.12653267

>>12651386
>buy 250 solar panel from ebay for $50 buck
>plug in your laptop
It just werks

>buy "heat engine"
>buy condenser
>buy vacuum sealed pipes
>buy turbine
>buy pump
>put water
>create a platform to heat up
>buy fuel to heat up
>it doesn't work because any failure in any of the steps above means failure of entire system
>you have to manually setup each part of the system
Now you're left with $2000 bill and useless parts

>> No.12653381

>>12651386
>No mention of chad Carnot cycle when detailing a heat engine.
Who made this? An undergraduate dweeb?

>> No.12653525

Turbines are hard carry of humanity

>> No.12653556

wait guys, i have it figured out. Just direct sun energy to the water to boil it, literally free energy

>> No.12653601

>thin film
>perovskites
solar is pretty cool anon you should look into it

>> No.12653663

>>12653267
>>12653556
God, you're fucking stupid

A generator costs just $500 and can already power your house at $5 fuel a day

Solar panels cost $1500 to power a house. Completely unstable
Oil is infinitely better than your solar meme

>> No.12653688

>>12653663
Only because the jews shill for oil so the us will keep defending their ethnostate

>> No.12653694

>>12653688
Lol bitch, It actually takes $15000 worth of solar shit to power a house
If you cannot beat oil, then your energy is fucking shit. No one's going to pay for that

>> No.12653707

>>12653694
Good goy
5 shekels have been deposited into your account

>> No.12653713

>>12653694
If you want a generator that can run your entire home, it'll likely cost $15,000. I know this because we have one. This is not even mentioning the fuel costs.

>> No.12653722

>>12653663
Or buy a Solar Panel for 500 dollars and it will power your house for free

>> No.12653732

>>12653713
The largest generators are in the $5000

>>12653722
Or just plug it on the coal plant for $2 a day. Kindly go fuck yourself.

Solarfags are the hippies of 2000's
A bunch of naïve fucks who does more harm than good

>> No.12653791

>>12653732
>CONSOOMER

You can't just buy a generator and that's it. You need to hook it into the house and you need propane tanks and concrete slabs.

A whole house solar system would have costed 4 times as much, around $60k, but it would be good for about 30 years and has no moving parts require maintenance or upkeep. Honestly the debate boils down to where you live and how much money you have. If you severely isolated or live in a place that has very good sun, then solar is the better long term investment.

>> No.12653814

>>12653732
>paying 500+ 700+ dollars per year
YIKES

>> No.12653816

>>12653791
Not. Going. To. Pay. Shit

You heard those """""gReEn nErGy"""" from hippie sites and never did any research about how it works and how they are made. You are just consooooooming

Call me when you rally for Hydro and Geo instead. Oh wait, those are not Hippie enough for you, ain't it?

>> No.12653818

>>12651386
Without cuck subsidies propping up oil/gas, solar and wind are already cheaper. This will continue to be the case as we slowly exhaust natural reservoirs. The biggest problem with solar/wind is the variance in energy production (and consequently energy storage), but overall it's a pretty good source if you combine it with something more reliable like nuclear.

>> No.12653825

>>12653814
Solar panels: 8 years payback time.
Eat a cock

>> No.12653827

>>12653825
>coal plant: infinite years payback time

>> No.12653828

>>12653827
2 years, actually

>> No.12653839

>>12653816
>Anonymous 02/01/21(Mon)13:54:42 No.126538
Geo is pretty great for areas where it is feasible. Hydro is great too, but it can have drastic side-effects on local wildlife population (although it's probably still an overall win). The best path forward is likely a combination of geo, hydro, solar, wind, and nuclear. Oil/gas/coal won't last forever, and it's better that we get started now than later since infrastructure on this scale takes almost half a century to build up

>> No.12653842

>>12653816
>You heard those """""gReEn nErGy"""" from hippie sites and never did any research about how it works and how they are made. You are just consooooooming

are you even aware that is a strawman argument?

>> No.12653847

>>12653825
Even 8 years of payback over a ~30-40 year lifespan sounds pretty damn good desu

>> No.12653851

>>12653847
Works for half of that
Half of working time are cloudy, stormy
And dies at summer overheat

>> No.12653884

>>12653851
When it's cloudy though you still get power though, just not as much. The lower efficiency in summer is fine since you have so many more daylight hours

>> No.12653889

because liberals think reducing carbon emissions has to be a huge kick in the balls to ever industry under the sun

>> No.12653923

>>12653663
>>12653694
>>12653713
>>12653732
>>12653791
You are dumb as hell. Assuming gas is $2 per gallon you and your generator is 20% efficient you get 18 kWh for $5 which is more than double the cost of electricity. Your generator will never break even. The solar panels will.

>> No.12653949

>>12653923
There are no info on the payback time of generators
But payback time of coal and gas is 2 years. 2 years of completely stable energy that your green ass meme can never achieve

>> No.12653958

>>12651386
Finally, someone gets it! There’s a much better renewable energy source out there. It’s called Nuclear. People should try it.

>> No.12653980

>>12653949
>Imagine being so retarded that you couldn't do basic math
0.277 $/kWh > 0.14 $/kWh

You will never break even. There are no savings to break even with

>> No.12653988

>>12653980
Whatever, mate
What I posted is not even real info

>> No.12653998

>>12653988
That doesn't make you any less retarded or able to do basic math

>> No.12654004

>>12653949
Something that requires constant input doesn't have a real 'payback time' since you will perpetually need more of it

>> No.12654028

>>12654004
Payback time is when you made enough money to pay for the generator
The fuel is already guaranteed to make more money than it cost.

You fucking brainlet

>> No.12654041

>>12654028
>Imagine being this retarded
You're wrong. The fuel costs twice what electricity does. You're spending a couple thousand dollars to double the cost of electricity.

>> No.12654045

>>12653038
>>12653062
He's right though, silicon is a bad conductor.

>> No.12654046

>>12651386
because it's based

>> No.12654047

>>12654041
At least you dropped the act that your Greenshit is going anywhere but the trash

>> No.12654071

>>12654045
That's very nearly the only thing he's right about.
>The more efficient your solar cell is at capturing light, the more heat it would absorb.
>The more efficient the solar cell is, the less reflective it becomes, the more absorbing it is, the hotter it becomes.
>It is doped with Phosporus and Boron which has no valence electrons
All nonsense

>> No.12654084

>>12654047
I'm not the person you were arguing with and solar capacity is growing exponentially so you're still wrong. What possessed you to come to a board titled "science & math"?

>> No.12654095

>>12654071
>>The more efficient your solar cell is at capturing light, the more heat it would absorb.
>>The more efficient the solar cell is, the less reflective it becomes, the more absorbing it is, the hotter it becomes.
These are the same point repeated.
Could you explain what he meant then, because I don't follow?

>> No.12654121

>>12654095
It's all nonsense. The photovoltaic effect is not based on reflectivity or converting heat into energy. The waste heat from a solar panel comes from the inefficiency of the conversion from light to electricity. Higher efficiency means less waste heat, not more.

>> No.12654180

>>12654121
I understand now, thank you. I thought he meant that an increased temprature would also increase resistence, which I believe is true.

>> No.12654246

>>12654028
>spending on fuel generates more money than it costs
u wot m8

>> No.12654548
File: 105 KB, 370x342, 1419900919851.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12654548

>>12653062
>>12654071
>>12654121
Not how it works, retard
Photovoltaic effect only takes effect due to heating of the semi-conductor. Without heat, the Seebeck won't occur
>Besides from the direct excitation of free electrons, a photovoltaic effect can arise simply due to the heating caused by absorption of the light. The heating leads to increased temperature of the semiconductor material, which is accompanied by temperature gradients. These thermal gradients in turn may generate a voltage through the Seebeck effect. Whether direct excitation or thermal effects dominate the photovoltaic effect will depend on many material parameters.

Silicon is highly reflective. Because of this, Solar panel's are painted "anti-relflective coating" which allows light to pass inside but because of the polarization of its waves, less light are being reflected away.
THIS is what is measured about the Solar Panel's effectiveness.

Increase in temperature is needed for the Solar Pnale to work but the more light is being absorbed by the panel, the greater the temperature would increase due to the interaction with the EM fields that puts the electrons in an excited state. And if the temperature increase enough, the conductivity falls

No go smash your face on concrete

>> No.12654566

>>12654548
>Imagine being this retarded
You have no idea what you're talking about.

>> No.12654576

>>12654566
>Imagine being THIS retarded
YOU have no idea what you're talking about.

>> No.12654586

>>12654576
Read these wikipedia articles and feel embarrassed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_effect
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect
You are either pants-on-head retarded or lying. Take your pick, it makes no difference to me.

>> No.12654592

>>12654586
No, YOU read these wikipedia articles and stop being pretentious
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_effect
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect

There is bigger red flag of absolute retardation than being a solarfag.

Have you ever wondered how photons turn into electrons? No you don't. You just think it's all magic

>> No.12654635

>>12654592
>Imagine being this retarded
The photovoltaic effect is not at all related to the seeback effect. The fact that you think otherwise proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

>> No.12654888

I'm hesitant on Solar for now, panels are not efficicent enough/storage tech is not there

>> No.12655038

What exactly stops us from harnessing the power of lightning?

>> No.12655051
File: 649 KB, 1452x678, 8891941948bb451ac662c29c21be7777.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12655051

>>12651386
>needs a small building
Someone should make a turbine generator that can fit in a shipping container. This will probably never get built due to muh "everything new should use renewables"

>> No.12655206

>>12655038
Too much power over too little time and energy storage is expensive.

>> No.12655212

>>12651532
>exceed the efficiency of magnetic induction
Dunning-Kruger right here, folks

>> No.12655216

solar cells get hot because of non radiative recombination, absorption of light that falls outside of the bandgap, and a few other things

Also kekw they still think silicon solar cells are the only ones

>> No.12655237

>>12655038
Randomness/unreliability.

>> No.12655250

>>12655216
Yeah, we also have selenium and copper which are fairing worse

>> No.12655263
File: 2.46 MB, 938x4167, 1311010641509.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12655263

>muh LFTR

>> No.12656728

>>12655250
>perovskites
>gallium arsenide
>cadmium telluride

>> No.12656802

>>12651386
Because they think its cheap and clean to build solar panels and easy to build billions of batteries.

>> No.12656813
File: 40 KB, 960x540, external-content.duckduckgo.com.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12656813

>>12655263
>muh thermal spectrum breeding
>have to constantly worry about online filtering of waste and neutron poisons from the reactor
take the Molten Chloride Fast Reactor pill
all you need is around 20% U235 or plutonium to get it started
>no complex online filtering
>waste stays in the reactor
>can use LWR waste as fuel

>> No.12656978

>>12656728
Hint: if you use semiconductors as a medium for harvesting energy, your energy source is pathetic

>> No.12657437
File: 44 KB, 800x450, brainlettttt (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12657437

>>12656728
>perovskites
Unstable, undergoes a phase transition if you simply sneeze around it.
>gallium arsenide
Too expensive.
>cadmium telluride
Low efficiency and huge pollution issue, very toxic heavy metals, not sustainable.

You are picrel, along with all the other solarnormies.

>> No.12657473

>>12651532
Having multiple bandgaps require precious and dirty materials

>> No.12659449

>>12657473
not necessarily.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_rectenna
Optical rectenna can be made from metal in the right shape

>> No.12659578

>>12655212
>Shockley-Quiesser = Magnetic Induction
That's...not true? The Shockley-Quiesser limit combines multiple sources of efficiency limitation like the solid angle of the sun and blackbody radiation limits. As far as I can remember, magnetic induction is not even a consideration.

>> No.12659580

>>12657473
Organic semiconductors have promising tunable bandgaps, over a fairly wide range. So this might not be as much of an issue.

>> No.12659601

>>12652791
>Discussing solar panels
>Knowing this little about semiconductors
You know why we dope silicon in the first place, right? Also heat generated is typically from thermalization of carriers, something that would not happen if the bandgap is well matched with incident light...or in other words efficient.

>> No.12659618

>>12659449
>>12659449
>Optical rectenna can be made from metal in the right shape
At the low cost of $100 per square centimeter.

>> No.12659629

>>12654548
Holy shit you are dumb. If I have a solar cell, I want to generate a photovoltaic effect by using photons to generate electrons and holes and then power some external load.

Why in the fuck would I want to use a solar cell as a thermoelectric device?? Sure, a temperature gradient can give a potential difference, but the Seebeck coefficient for most photovoltaic devices are ass anyway.

>> No.12659638

>>12659449
>>12659618
Have you guys heard of "anti-solar" panels? They're thermoradiative devices that generate power by reflecting heat into space.

>> No.12659652

>>12656813
Based, godspeed anon. Thorium still sucks, Elysium is the way for now

>> No.12659668

>>12659638
>that generate power
Yes. Like 5 watts per square kilometer array. Hiring a green biofueled NEET to pedal a generator bike for minimum wage is going to be more economic than that.

>> No.12659679

>>12659668
That's wrong. The figures I've seen quote 50w/sq m which over the course of a day is about the same amount of energy produced by a typical solar panel.

>> No.12659698

>>12659601
Which violates the entire nature of silicon.
It does shit until it was heated

>>12659629
Because it is silicon-based, duffus.
Do you not even realize that semi-conductors does not conduct shit until it breaks the dielectric breakdown which heats it up via resistance?

>> No.12659711

>>12659698
>Imagine being this retarded

>> No.12659733

>>12659679
>he figures I've seen quote 50w/sq m which over the course of a day is about the same amount of energy produced by a typical solar panel.

It's a theoretical device. There's no actual such panels built. It exists as an idealized construct in a paper somewhere and that's it.

>> No.12659765
File: 327 KB, 1280x1691, electricity_185.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12659765

>>12659711
Guess what happens when the di-electric breakdown was broken and a resistor becomes a conductor

>> No.12659780

>>12659733
No, it's a real device that was built and tested.

>> No.12659790

>>12659765
>Imagine being this retarded
What do you imagine that has to do with the photovoltaic effect? Entertain us.

>> No.12659807

>>12659790
What do you imagine that has to do with the nature of semi-conductors? Entertain me

And stop pretending to be multiple multiple

>> No.12659811

>>12659780
Then post a link to the real device that was built and tested, because I only find whitepapers speculating about various theoretical solutions.

>> No.12659823

>>12659807
>multiple multiple
Lol what a fuckin' retard. Did you mean "samefag"? You're wrong again. Multiple people have pointed out how wrong you are because your ignorance shines like a beacon.

Everytime I, or anyone else, explain to you why you're wrong you've been incapable of understanding the explanation. Let's try a different tact. You explain your faulty understanding of electronics to me so I can have a good laugh.

>> No.12659828

>>12659811
First link on Google. Gee, that sure was hard to find.

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2020/02/anti-solar-panel-concept-generates-power-in-the-dark/
>Munday’s prototype produces 50W per square metre, while conventional solar panels produce approximately 200W per square metre during daytime.

>> No.12659842

>>12659823
*multiple people.
Sorry but you reek. You do nothing all day but shill Solar despite the fact that anyone who studied it knows that it is regarded energy source

>> No.12659846

>>12659842
Auto correct
*retarded

>> No.12659851

>>12659842
>Imagine being this retarded
So you don't want to display your ignorance anymore? Why not, I was just starting to have fun with it?

>> No.12659869

>>12659851
Tell me which part is wrong so I can rip you apart

>> No.12659904

Wow. So confident but took you 10+ mins to think of a reply?

Yeah, so pathetic

>> No.12659909

>>12659904
shut the fuck up nigger youre extremely LOW IQ like 10 iq you are not even human, try necking yourself faggot

>> No.12659915

>>12659909
So you don't want to display your ignorance anymore? Why not, I was just starting to have fun with it?

>> No.12659918

>>12659869
Read all of the posts telling you you're wrong and pick one.

>> No.12659993

>>12659828
Here's the actual full paper: https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/nighttime-photovoltaic-cells.pdf

>we consider an alternative photovoltaic concept
>we discuss the principles of thermoradiative photovoltaics, the theoretical
limits of applying this concept to coupling with deep space, the potential of advanced radiative
cooling techniques to enhance their performance, and a discussion of the practical limits,
scalability, and integrability of this nighttime photovoltaic concept.
>concept

No prototypes actually built.
It's just yet another case of journalists lying to your face. I'm starting to wonder if they've published a single grain of truth ever.

Also from the paper
>an ideal cell could produce as much as 54 W/m2 under optimal conditions
>and potentially more than 10 W/m2 under typical sky conditions
Actually build it and it's probably 5 W/m2, and the commercial mass market one 1 W/m2.

>> No.12660071

>>12659993
It's probably more a case of misunderstanding what they read or were told. Practical devices are still estimated produce orders of magnitude more energy than you claimed.

>> No.12660263
File: 64 KB, 1024x1001, Atomkraftwerk-Ohu-bei-Landshut-bei-Nacht-nuclear-power-plant-Ohu-at-night.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12660263

>>12651386
because of double digit iq.
nuclear is king.