[ 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: 84 KB, 800x800, 1520738376471.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9752594 No.9752594 [Reply] [Original]

Absolute 80 IQ brainlet here. Why does everyone like photovoltaics so much? Why are there people that don't like nuclear or natural gas? why don't people invest in ways to better make "photothermal" plants? ( I don't think they're called photothermal, I just pulled that out of my ass. I mean the fields of mirrors that direct sun to a water tank and then powers a turbine with the steam produced)

>> No.9752668

>>9752594
>extremely simple to install
>no moving parts (eg. turbines)
>no super-heated fluids involved
>you can slap them anywhere
>no maintenance (nukes need hundreds of people 24/7)
>no radioactive waste
>no meltdown
>no birds roasted alive mid flight
>no emissions (after they are made)
>no meddling hippies
>no need to import gas/fuel rods
what's not to like?
they have flaws - the costly and "eco-unfriendly" manufacturing process, day/night cycle and low energy density (still orders of magnitude better than biofuels though), which is why gas, coal and nukes won't go away any time soon

I've actually run some calculations a few years ago for a project and for a family house it's actually cheaper to install a photo collector and use electric water boiler than to install a basic thermal collector for heating water because of all the extra gizmos like pumps, tanks and pipes
It's very similar with solar towers

>> No.9753956

>>9752668

At the moment I've seen alot of people saying that the efficiency of photovoltaics isn't high enough to reap the benefits of just having plates of stuff producing an electrical potential. The amount of space needed to be covered by photovoltaic cells to power even low demand areas is kind of gigantic, plus there's still a need for a very efficient storage medium. How's progress in increasing the efficiency of photovoltaics? what about excess energy storage?

>> No.9754047

>>9752594
Because of pseudo-science fear mongering. A lot of the early anti-nuclear environmental groups were funded by the fossil fuel lobby. Today, the anti-nuclear movement has taken on a life of its own through nonsense issues like "the waste problem", and also exaggerated and poorly understood issues like "nuclear power plants lead to more nuclear weapons". The same group also peddles pseudoscience that non-nuclear green technologies can power our society, when they cannot. At least not existing tech, and not any tech on the foreseeable horizon.

>> No.9754057

Photovoltaics consume renewable energy. Gas and nuclear arent renewable. Gas a nuclear will be around for a long time, but some day, gas and nuclear energy will be scarce. In those days, people will depend on renewable energy. So people today make decebt money gathering renewable energy in an effort to supply renewable energy and expand its influence.

>> No.9754060

>>9754057
>nuclear arent renewable.
>nuclear will be around for a long time, but some day, [...] nuclear energy will be scarce.
False.

Seawater extraction.

Also granite extraction with breeder reactors.
http://energyfromthorium.com/cubic-meter/
With breeder reactors, nuclear fuel is practically limitless. We'll run out of sun before we run out of rock.

>> No.9754074

>>9753956
>At the moment I've seen alot of people saying that the efficiency of photovoltaics isn't high enough to reap the benefits of just having plates of stuff producing an electrical potentia
>How's progress in increasing the efficiency of photovoltaics?
Depends. The biggest considerations are power output and whether they can generate more energy than what's needed to fabricate/dispose of them. The most efficient panels are pretty decent (something like 40-50% solar energy is captured), but expensive and require chinese minerals. Not only is that an issue in itself, but if poorly regulated, it could end up being a matter of pump-and-dump of cheap chinese garbage, with zero consideration for environmental effects and turnover, basically turning it into a glorified mining operation.
Organic photovoltaics are a meme. I forget exactly why, but some scientist I met showed a graph about how some exponential regression of lifetime vs power output limits the efficiency to something like 10%. Barring some breakthrough, that shit isn't going anywhere

>> No.9754080

>>9754074
Actually, the biggest problem is not the solar cell itself, but the intermittency. Energy storage at the necessary scale is basically impossible.


https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/09/got-storage-how-hard-can-it-be/
https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

>> No.9754145

>>9754060
Sea water extraction is not renewable. The sea will run out of materials before the sun starts to die.

>> No.9754153

>>9754145
Not if Chinese sciences allies die domesticated African anal rape babies to prostrate the rendered meat for creamatio *sandwiches*

>> No.9754221

>>9754145
Uranium in the oceans is probably replenished by weathering and volcanism over the long term.

>> No.9756383

bump

>> No.9756707

>>9752594
>The amount of space needed to be covered by photovoltaic cells to power even low demand areas is kind of gigantic

There's a lot of otherwise useless land that gets lots of sunshine.

>> No.9756740

>>9756707
I don't think you understand the logistical problems that paving over the entire Sahara desert, e.g. all of northern Africa, would entail, and replacing it all every 30 years, generously.

>> No.9757487

>>9752594
>nuclear
The main issue is disposal of nuclear waste. Normies are mostly scared that their house might get nuked if something goes wrong, which isn't really the case. It's pretty easy to just evacuate an area. Despite this, nuclear still produces a huge amount of the first world's energy supply with only a few plants.
>natural gas
Because natural gas is highly poisonous. It's fossil fuel. Don't let it being called 'natural' confuse you. Cannibalism is natural.
>photothermal (People usually call it solar thermal)
It's not very efficient. You have to build a rather large disk to focus all the heat into one point. It works well for heating up water in your house but honestly photovoltaic is just better, and photovoltaic isn't even that good.

>> No.9757568

>>9757487
The problem is not nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is not a problem. Perhaps the largest problem is a political problem - the unsubstantiated fear of nuclear waste.

>> No.9757610

>>9752594
Nuclear has a lot of "spooky" risks, and fracking for natural gas is destructive as fuck. Most "solar" plants work as you describe. Solar's just more expensive and not as efficient or reliable.

Also, you've come to the right board, as /sci/ loves nuclear and hates solar.

All you really need to generate power is to turn a wheel - a large one slowly, or a small one very quickly. There are many, many clean and simple solutions to do this, but only the messy ones that use non-renewables are really profitable.