/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11582532]

*Absorbs 15% of the sunlight in its general direction*

[Anonymous No.11582544]

>>11582532
*Has fallen so much in cost per watt that efficiency is virtually irrelevant at this point*

[Anonymous No.11582550]

>>11582544
*it's basically ugly trash*

[Anonymous No.11582570]

>>11582532
Group IV nanocrystals are going to fucking #REK the bulk silicon industry in like 5-10 years.

[Anonymous No.11583174]

>>11582532
20% if you get the good ones

Also any thoughts on using inductors to generate power?
> muh laws of conservation

[Anonymous No.11583193]

>>11582532
*unsheathes low ongoing costs*
*teleports onto your roof*
>Heh, nothing personell, fossil fuel

[Anonymous No.11583248]

Wouldn't a sinewave capacitance work? It's still ~1:1 Energy in/out maybe?
> Charge during peak capacity at low volt / current amplif
> amplify voltage using capacitance value (!!)

Impossible component?

[Anonymous No.11583271]

>>11583248

Caps suck for storage. Unless you could change the capacitance, your voltage has to increase parabolically to store more charge, but at the same time the impedance increases with charge in the capacitor.
Chemical storage is mostly linear for most of the charging time.

[Anonymous No.11583354]

>>11583248
hmm, they exist but they are tiny, a 1F super varactor would be more like it

> time for some math
inp: 5V 1Amp sec (5 watsec)
buck/ lossless: 1V 5Amp sec (5 watsec)

varactor in high capacity mode : 1milliFarad @ 1V (1 mA/sec @ 0.5v average -> 0.5 mwatsec)

varactor in low capacity mode : 0.2milliFarad @ 5V (0.2 mA/sec @ 2.5v average -> 0.5 mwatsec) * five seconds?

[Anonymous No.11583357]

> Conservation of matter
Electrons can't be destroyed to create a higher voltage

[Anonymous No.11583364]

Current into a capacitor = current out of a capacitor, more or less regardless of voltages, should be right?
Usually it eats power...

> inb4 the varactor just decides it would rather explode

[Anonymous No.11583403]

I think we know who's going to win between conservation of matter and conservation of energy, since matter has a lot of energy in it

[Anonymous No.11583426]

Is it destroying free electrons though?

[Anonymous No.11583438]

Or endothermic?

[Anonymous No.11583444]

> not sure if free energy or solid state refridgerator
^^

[Anonymous No.11583478]

ahem
*Absorbs 90% of the light in its general direction*
*fucks your mother in the ass while whistling dixie*

[Anonymous No.11583731]

>>blows up dinosaur sauce in explosion motor with only 20% efficiency

[Anonymous No.11584023]

>>11583731
>dinosaur sqeezings

[Anonymous No.11584032]

>>11583731
>dinosaur sauce

[Anonymous No.11584033]

>>11582550
self referential posts in the third person like this are a strange in the modern year

[Anonymous No.11584073]

>>11584032
It’s basically just chicken sauce. If we tun out of fossils, we can always run on chickens.

[Anonymous No.11584092]

>>11582532
reminder that 15% of free is a whole lot better than 99% of expensive.

[Anonymous No.11584140]

>>11582570
Sure. Real soon now.
And what efficiency at what cost?

[Anonymous No.11584575]

>>11583174
today lab performance is even better

[Anonymous No.11584590]

>>11583271
>your voltage has to increase parabolically to store more charge
any reason a controlled current source wouldn't work?

[Anonymous No.11584891]

>>11583478
There is just no way human eye is several times less sensitive than a CCD camera, that just isn't possible. Why did you make up this graph?

[Anonymous No.11585145]

>>11582570
>Group IV nanocrystals
Is this the new graphene?

[Anonymous No.11585161]

>>11584092
Except it's not free in any sense. What is the carbon footprint of a single photovoltaic panel? Will it produce enough energy in its lifetime to make up for it and more? And even if it does, what's the ROI on these shits? Fucking 20 years? Lol

[Anonymous No.11585415]

>>11582570
aren't crystal interfaces bad for efficiency

[Anonymous No.11585448]

>>11585161
So you're saying it's LCOE that matters and not efficiency? Whoa... what if....

[Anonymous No.11585487]

>>11585448
this image btfos nuclearfags

[Anonymous No.11585906]

>>11582532
that why we should all use nuclear

[Anonymous No.11586131]

>>11585487
Only because the cost of lawsuits and not just dumping the miniscule waste into the ocean is factored into it.

[Anonymous No.11586311]

>>11585906
get out of here you fucking shill, socialism never works.

[Anonymous No.11586389]

>>11583731
>20%
were you like hibernated for 50 years?

[Anonymous No.11586461]

>>11585161
>recycling the same bullshit arguments over and over
I see the irony, here.

[Anonymous No.11586581]

>>11582532
They're only good in high sunlight areas on buildings, solar farms are garbage

[Anonymous No.11586669]

>>11582532
Why not make red colored solar panels to make it more efficient?

[Anonymous No.11586729]

>>11585906
Integral fast reactors used as a combined heat and power system for cities may be a massive boon for said cities for power and heat supplier. Using fuel waste and breeding it without being research intensive like MSRs and more efficient than LWR or PWRs. Combining it with supercritical CO2 turbines may be a winning combo for mass grid power.
Building microgrids would be a great leap in building energy efficiency as well

[Anonymous No.11587359]

>>11582532
Solar concentrators tho

[Anonymous No.11587431]

When you think about it wood is just solar panel batteries

[Anonymous No.11587478]

>>11585161
>What is the carbon footprint of a single photovoltaic panel?
it's mostly glas and an aluminium frame so the carbon footprint is about the same as for a window
> Will it produce enough energy in its lifetime to make up for it and more?
It will,surprisingly fast. In a sunny place like California it will take a few months. But more important it's the only power plant you can put on your roof. You can become indendend and even make money.

[Anonymous No.11587527]

>>11586389
>muh theoretical maximum efficiency
Meanwhile it's still 0% when you're sitting in a traffic jam.
Maybe up to 5% if you count for a/c and heating.

[Anonymous No.11587796]

>>11584575
>thin flim single cell has reached 29%
When can we see this playout? In the next 5 years? 10? Future is looking sexy.

[Anonymous No.11587908]

>>11585906

[Anonymous No.11588046]

theoretical efficiency is not everything
https://www.wholesalesolar.com/blog/best-solar-panels

[Anonymous No.11588784]

>>11587431
Plants are, but they're around 1% efficiency, also important for soil.

[Anonymous No.11589360]

>>11586669
That does not work. Rather one uses multiple layers for different colours to maximise efficiency.

[Anonymous No.11590771]

>>11586669
there are panels in all colours, even red but
maximum efficiency is black, obviously