/sci/ - Science & Math

Solar panels are an intermediate technology that will never fruition but create a springboard into something else.

My bet's on solar paint using high-efficiency artificial chloroplasts. Paint 'em on, hook wires to opposite ends - boom.

30 years. It's always fucking 30 years.

>>3380963
Same with fusion.

For the near future, I like solar thermal power, with molten salt or pumping water uphill as a reservoir to store excess energy for nighttime.

>My bet's on solar paint using high-efficiency artificial chloroplasts.

Those already exist in rough approximation: Organic pigment based solar cells and iron-based catalytic (light + water => hydrogen/oxygen) cells.

>Same with fusion.

Fusion is the only thing - to our current knowledge - that can be used to cross the interstellar void, which we will have to do eventually. Because practically all energy sources except nuclear power that we rely on today are ultimately powered by the sun.

>>3381019
well good thing intersteller doesnt have to be done for quite some time, to fill that gap till then use micro nukes to push your craft foward

Solar will never take care of ALL our energy needs OP. It's a dead end tech. If EVERYTHING goes right solar AND wind MIGHT produce 20-30% of our electricity in the far future. Meanwhile we gotta try something new. Thorium and travelling wve Nuke reactors for now Fusion far future is ONLY way to go.

What would happen if we contained nuclear fusion inside of a machine generating intense electromagnetic fields?

>>3380979
yeah, thats pretty much the only realistic way of making solar power significant any time soon, its actually economically viable on a large scale

>>3381106
I dunno...What?

What if we suck all the Hydrogen out of the air, and burn it for electricity?

>>3381154
There isn't any atmospheric hydrogen. You need to break apart water to get it - we call it electrolysis.

>>3381133
I'm asking...

>Solar will never take care of ALL our energy needs OP.

- solar constant: 1366 W/m² (in orbit), about 1000W on the surface
- multi-junction cells have achieved 40% efficiency under laboratory conditions
- world primary energy consumption 2010 = 12603Mtoe/a = 1.673×10^13 W

-> required surface area of multi junction solar cells to cover our current energy needs: 41825km². Or 10 times area of Rhode Island (thank you wolfram alpha).

Considering that we, humans, have converted much larger areas for industrial use, agriculture and what not and that we would have to distribute them worldwide anyway... it's not all that much.

>>3381191
i think it's a good idea. let me cobble something together. let's see if this works...

>>3381213
so this thing can surround the process of fusion in extreme electromagnetic fields?

>>3381203
Indeed. It's completely feasible.

>>3381251
Er, pic would have helped.

>>3381251
and the outcome?

>>3381203
What is the area of all rooftops in North America and Europe

First they need an conversion efficiency of greater than ~20%, then we can actually use them.

>>3381279
You don't just need rooftops. There are a fuckton of solar fields in the Desert like in Nevada and shit.

>>3381203
for comparison purposes

>41825km² solar cells needed
3.5 million km² urbanized surface area on the planet.

Slap solar cells on *every* roof and we would have a massive surplus in energy.

>>3381203
And onm the days when it's cloudy over the solar fields? Nighttime? Whats the energy cost of creating a solar panel?

but we black out the sky in 2095.. you need to plan ahead for that.

>>3381340
>And onm the days when it's cloudy over the solar fields?
this is included in the surface figure

>Nighttime?
ok, this isn't. double the area.

>Whats the energy cost of creating a solar panel?
the worldwide primary energy consumption includes all industrial consumption. assuming that producing solar cells is not a process that requires abnormal amounts compared to other industrial processes (compare steel production for example), then their production cost is already covered in the primary energy consumption

>>3381087
>Solar will never take care of ALL our energy needs OP. It's a dead end tech.

Why?

>>3380946
Did you know solar power causes more deaths than nuclear power?

>>3381393
checked a few more sources. effective is around 270W/m² if you take nighttime, angles etc. into account.

The resulting surface area is still significantly below the land surface area covered by roofs.

never because there is no physical mechanism which allows us to capture the energy efficiently and isn't expensive as fuck to manufacture.

no, scale of production will not save it

>needs
or needs grow with time, solar doesn't have the energy density to keep up with that, with all that said it has a lot of room for improvement, and could work for a lot of applications