/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2253687]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12051167

ok niggers this system is between between 0.7% and 0.8% efficient, how would you improve it?

[Anonymous No.2253692]

glass casing?

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2253707]

Make fuzzy wool ceria

[Anonymous No.2253709]

pipe dream, just like solar and wind , invest in improved oil drilling would be better

[Anonymous No.2253710]

Rub cheetah blood on it?

[Anonymous No.2253714]

flatten it out like actual plant leaves? thinner ceria layer but more spread?

[Anonymous No.2253715]

depends on the atom economy of the reaction. im guessing this is similar to photosynthesis. to make it more efficient (and replace the H and CO with O2) use a fucking tree.

[Anonymous No.2253726]

>>2253715
tree's dedicate there enrgy to themselves

[Anonymous No.2253727]

make it from diamond

[Anonymous No.2253728]

>>2253709
>pipe dream, just like solar

Yeah solar will never happen.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2253734]

>>2253709
http://theenergycollective.com/oshadavidson/40559/study-solar-power-cheaper-nuclear
http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/10/duke-study-finds-solar-power-cheaper-than-nuclear-coach-k-stron/

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2253742]

>>2253734

- Solar power doesn't have the energy density (Mass-to-wattage ratio) of nuclear power
- Solar power: Miles upon miles of superconductor spread out beneath high-efficiency nanotech solar cells VS. a tiny pack that lasts thirty years and produces equivalent power

Also,
>first link comes from a site with an oust against nuclear power

[Tautologic No.2253752]

>>2253742

LOOK IT`S DAVE CHAPPELLE ! !

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2253754]

>>2253742
+ Solar power is relatively easy to set up, minimal operating costs and produces no excess waste while in the process of power generation. People do not mind solar panels next to their house. But if it's nuclear, they do.
+ And you can put solar practically anywhere where the sun shines.

I'm still waiting for fusion.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2253762]

>>2253754

Variable weather, day/night cycles, seriously though, if we're going to start using solar power then we're going to have to Asimov Array the Moon. I mean, there is plenty of cratered wasteland to go around in this solar system.

[Anonymous No.2253765]

>>2253687
bbc

sure is liberal bias technology, next youll be explaning how christfags are holding this back

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2253771]

>>2253762
I would be extremely interested in a way of generating power from solar panels on Mercury's poles and then transmitting that energy back through lasers or something of the sort.

[Samefag !SHjzCSZsqE No.2253776]

>>2253771
The power loss from the laser sending and laser reception inefficiency is likely much greater than the power gain from putting the solar panels on mercury.

[Anonymous No.2253774]

>>2253742
Pahaha.

We can already make 40% efficient solar plants using stirling engines, fuck the the PV panel bullshit.
My image, suck it, faggot.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2253775]

>>2253765
Ohboyherewego.png.gif.tar.gz

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2253783]

>>2253776
Damn.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2253785]

>>2253776

how curious I just saw that same comic a few minutes ago. Were you on the Cowboy Henk thread?

Also, all you would need is a lens capable of focusing microwaves into a tight beam (Maybe some sort of diffraction grid?) and have it converge at the midpoint and diverge until it's the same size of a geostationary lens near Earth, then it converges again into a receiving antenna on the ground.

Thinking about it, it's easier to just do it all on the Moon which is closer and involves less fucking diffraction grids everywhere.

[Anonymous No.2253793]

>>2253765
...reporting on advances in science is now liberal?

The soviets used to have "science cities" where everyone was educated and did the scientific research. No one was allowed in or out, in order to curb the spread of "liberal" ideas.

Food for thought.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2253795]

>>2253793

>mfw Star City

[Samefag !SHjzCSZsqE No.2253799]

>>2253785
Or you could just focus the laser coherently onto a photoelectric receiver either on earth or in orbit and save billions of dollars on reflectors and refractor stations in space.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2253806]

>>2253799

Unless we have some serious combination of megascale/nanoscale engineering it's going to be impossible to focus the light that much without requiring several lenses spread out along the path.

[Anonymous No.2253846]

>>2253806
>>2253799

PV panels are irrelevant. If, instead of spending $3 trillion (and rising) on extracting oil from iraq, the US government had created a solar farm in the nevada with stirlings/ collecting towers, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO ECONOMIC CRISIS. Energy would be practically free in the US today.

Fucking conservitards.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2253860]

>>2253846

The main worry is not electricity but liquid fuels for transportation and such.

[Anonymous No.2253872]

solar is 10x expensive than nuclear.
capacity factor of solar is about 15%.

[Anonymous No.2253877]

>>2253860
>transportation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roads_Must_Roll lol

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2253893]

>>2253872
see
>>2253734

[Anonymous No.2253911]

>>2253742
>Solar power doesn't have the energy density (Mass-to-wattage ratio) of nuclear power

Do you even know what energy density means?

Solar doesn't have an energy density, because it has no fuel.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2253917]

>>2253911

... Forgot the mass of the solar panels, the area they occupy and, above all: The fucking wattage per area.

[Anonymous No.2253946]

>>2253917
The energy density refers to the amount of energy obtainable per mass of fuel.
The mass of the panel is irrelevant.

Wattage per area is admittedly, smaller than for nuclear, but the US has how much wasted land? A metric fuckton?

Besides, if>>2253774 image didn't convince you, then nothing will.

Nuclear has no future.

[Anonymous No.2253963]

>>2253946

you're talking to someone who is a fan of the retarded american general in Avatar

give up now

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2254257]

>>2253946

>nuclear
>no future

Gee I guess we will just hook up underground bunkers, submarines, underwater cities and interstellar spacecraft to solar panels, eh?

[Anonymous No.2254329]

>>2253946
how do you figure?

I'd like some clarification.
Do you mean just fission or fusion too?
Are we talking about a timetable of a decade?
A century?
A millennium?
An eon?

Of course you are right that near timelike infinity nearly all elements have either fused or decayed to iron. And then that too will be swallowed up into the great black holes or dissipated by proton decay into energy, finally making any kind of nuclear energy impossible.

[Anonymous No.2254430]

bump