Insane when you think about it

I My solar comes in as DC to the batteries, then is converted to AC by the inverter. Then its converter to DC to charge my new cells, I wonder how much power I lose in all that?

PsychoticEpisode said:

I My solar comes in as DC to the batteries, then is converted to AC by the inverter. Then its converter to DC to charge my new cells, I wonder how much power I lose in all that?

Click to expand...

Around 20% loss depending on the inverter and converter.

You think that is insane? Consider this:

Decades ago, someone thought of a song. Their brainwaves ordered their muscles to move and with air passing over their vocal cords they sang the song. The soundwaves traveled through the air and struck a microphone, where they were converted back to electricity. This in turn was recorded on a wax disc, the electric signal converted to little lumps and bumps. Many years later, the record is played. The needle converts the lumps and bumps back into electricity. This signal is then imposed upon an RF signal and transmitted. It travels hundreds of miles and strikes the antenna of a radio. There the signal is demodulated and sent to a speaker where it is once again converted to kinetic energy. The soundwave produced travels across the room and enters your ear, where once again it becomes some sort of electrochemical signal and is deciphered by your brain and lo and behold, you understand the words sung by someone decades before.

Now THAT is insane. And truly, actually much less insane than many other things out there.

Follow the journey of a molecule of matter from a supernova, into the earth, through a volcano, to stone, through the hands of ancient humans, only to wind up being part of a statue's pecker in a museum that half of the population has seen.

boondox said:

You think that is insane? Consider this:

Decades ago, someone thought of a song. Their brainwaves ordered their muscles to move and with air passing over their vocal cords they sang the song. The soundwaves traveled through the air and struck a microphone, where they were converted back to electricity. This in turn was recorded on a wax disc, the electric signal converted to little lumps and bumps. Many years later, the record is played. The needle converts the lumps and bumps back into electricity. This signal is then imposed upon an RF signal and transmitted. It travels hundreds of miles and strikes the antenna of a radio. There the signal is demodulated and sent to a speaker where it is once again converted to kinetic energy. The soundwave produced travels across the room and enters your ear, where once again it becomes some sort of electrochemical signal and is deciphered by your brain and lo and behold, you understand the words sung by someone decades before.

Now THAT is insane. And truly, actually much less insane than many other things out there.

Click to expand...

That made my brain hurt.

Insane compared to what? The grid?

PsychoticEpisode said:

I My solar comes in as DC to the batteries, then is converted to AC by the inverter. Then its converter to DC to charge my new cells, I wonder how much power I lose in all that?

Click to expand...

What is even more mind blowing is how inefficient solar panels themselves are versus what they might be in the future. We talk about 21% efficiency as being really good. So just imagine if we could get that up to 85%. Those whole house 28 panel systems could be reduced down to maybe 7 panels. Imagine every house just having a tiny section of the roof powering everything.

robby said:

What is even more mind blowing is how inefficient solar panels themselves are versus what they might be in the future. We talk about 21% efficiency as being really good. So just imagine if we could get that up to 85%. Those whole house 28 panel systems could be reduced down to maybe 7 panels. Imagine every house just having a tiny section of the roof powering everything.

Click to expand...

I believe there's a video about explaining why that's largely impossible by the laws of physics and that a radical new technology would be required to get past a certain hard limit of silicon cells.

There's a couple new types of cells that can do it but the lifespan is horrendous compared to what we have now, and cost is high.

I forgot what the details were but basically the limitation is on which wavelengths we can utilize, inherent losses, and some other voodoo.

Though recovering electricity from the heat the panels wind up rising to its one way to increase efficiency beyond that, it too is subject to hard limits.

Further, a lot of energy is spent on cooling (at least in the US and other hot regions) and there's supposedly a radiative technology out there that works like a reverse solar panel and can pull an indoor space below outdoor ambient temps, reducing energy requirements by more than the equivalent size solar panel can generate. AC is still needed in some cases though.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in a few decades.

This is almost as bad as 10kw of toast.

I don't worry about the ineficiencies. My batteries are usually floating by 8am on sunny days, I've got power to burn.

boondox said:

You think that is insane? Consider this:

Decades ago, someone thought of a song. Their brainwaves ordered their muscles to move and with air passing over their vocal cords they sang the song. The soundwaves traveled through the air and struck a microphone, where they were converted back to electricity. This in turn was recorded on a wax disc, the electric signal converted to little lumps and bumps. Many years later, the record is played. The needle converts the lumps and bumps back into electricity. This signal is then imposed upon an RF signal and transmitted. It travels hundreds of miles and strikes the antenna of a radio. There the signal is demodulated and sent to a speaker where it is once again converted to kinetic energy. The soundwave produced travels across the room and enters your ear, where once again it becomes some sort of electrochemical signal and is deciphered by your brain and lo and behold, you understand the words sung by someone decades before.

Now THAT is insane. And truly, actually much less insane than many other things out there.

Click to expand...

Odysseus?

I heard of that lad!

Short_Shot said:

I believe there's a video about explaining why that's largely impossible by the laws of physics and that a radical new technology would be required to get past a certain hard limit of silicon cells.

There's a couple new types of cells that can do it but the lifespan is horrendous compared to what we have now, and cost is high.

I forgot what the details were but basically the limitation is on which wavelengths we can utilize, inherent losses, and some other voodoo.

Though recovering electricity from the heat the panels wind up rising to its one way to increase efficiency beyond that, it too is subject to hard limits.

Further, a lot of energy is spent on cooling (at least in the US and other hot regions) and there's supposedly a radiative technology out there that works like a reverse solar panel and can pull an indoor space below outdoor ambient temps, reducing energy requirements by more than the equivalent size solar panel can generate. AC is still needed in some cases though.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in a few decades.

Click to expand...

Short_Shot said:

I believe there's a video about explaining why that's largely impossible by the laws of physics and that a radical new technology would be required to get past a certain hard limit of silicon cells.

There's a couple new types of cells that can do it but the lifespan is horrendous compared to what we have now, and cost is high.

I forgot what the details were but basically the limitation is on which wavelengths we can utilize, inherent losses, and some other voodoo.

Though recovering electricity from the heat the panels wind up rising to its one way to increase efficiency beyond that, it too is subject to hard limits.

Further, a lot of energy is spent on cooling (at least in the US and other hot regions) and there's supposedly a radiative technology out there that works like a reverse solar panel and can pull an indoor space below outdoor ambient temps, reducing energy requirements by more than the equivalent size solar panel can generate. AC is still needed in some cases though.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in a few decades.

Click to expand...

Given that NASA is already using 32% efficient panel I think that solar panels 20-30 years from now could easil be doing 65-70%. Who knows we may have breakthrough design before that and it might do 85%

robby said:

Given that NASA is already using 32% efficient panel I think that solar panels 20-30 years from now could easil be doing 65-70%. Who knows we may have breakthrough design before that and it might do 85%

Click to expand...

One does not follow the other as a "given".

They also have a 15 year expected life and cost a lot more than what us peasants use.

It's not just a matter of high efficiency, but also practicality of cost and life which factor into ROI and end use.

It's also very easy to extrapolate wild claims with very limited data lol

Short_Shot said:

One does not follow the other as a "given".

They also have a 15 year expected life and cost a lot more than what us peasants use.

It's not just a matter of high efficiency, but also practicality of cost and life which factor into ROI and end use.

It's also very easy to extrapolate wild claims with very limited data lol
View attachment 71161

Click to expand...

Yes and what we do as humans is to find solutions to problems. We are especially good at finding solutions for problems when they exist on silicone or other materials that can be reformulated and reworked. The 15 year life expectancy was not a problem for NASA as it's "Good Enough" for the missions. If we had needed 30 Years the panel design would have gone in another direction. Solar panels made today are adequate for most applications but once we start going more and more green the new directives will be smaller and more power. You can bet your life that with this much money being funneled into an industry that within 30 years it will not be recognizable when compared to today's systems. No more than a Motorola Brick is comparable to an iPhone 13.

boondox said:

You think that is insane? Consider this:

Decades ago, someone thought of a song. Their brainwaves ordered their muscles to move and with air passing over their vocal cords they sang the song. The soundwaves traveled through the air and struck a microphone, where they were converted back to electricity. This in turn was recorded on a wax disc, the electric signal converted to little lumps and bumps. Many years later, the record is played. The needle converts the lumps and bumps back into electricity. This signal is then imposed upon an RF signal and transmitted. It travels hundreds of miles and strikes the antenna of a radio. There the signal is demodulated and sent to a speaker where it is once again converted to kinetic energy. The soundwave produced travels across the room and enters your ear, where once again it becomes some sort of electrochemical signal and is deciphered by your brain and lo and behold, you understand the words sung by someone decades before.

Now THAT is insane. And truly, actually much less insane than many other things out there.

Click to expand...

Reminds me of one of the common opening questions during the final qualification board to get your 'dolphins' (Enlisted Submarine Warfare pin): "You are a molecule of water: Explain how you end up powering the light in your rack (bunk)." The goal was to demonstrate integrated plant knowledge of things like the various water systems (sea water -> evaporator plant -> potable water -> reactor coolant / secondary steam) and electrical systems (generating three-phase AC via steam-driven generators, various electrical switchgear, and distribution panels). Sometimes for fun the board members would throw in road blocks like a certain piece of equipment was down for service, forcing the trainee to go down a different path (and prevent rote memorization in lieu of actual understanding). *Occasionally* they'd slip up and ask that question of a nuke...

"The maximum theoretical efficiency calculated is 86.8% for a stack of an infinite number of cells, using the incoming concentrated sunlight radiation. When the incoming radiation comes only from an area of the sky the size of the sun, the efficiency limit drops to 68.7%"

upnorthandpersonal said:

"The maximum theoretical efficiency calculated is 86.8% for a stack of an infinite number of cells, using the incoming concentrated sunlight radiation. When the incoming radiation comes only from an area of the sky the size of the sun, the efficiency limit drops to 68.7%"

Solar-cell efficiency - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thermodynamic efficiency limit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

Seriously a Wikipedia link The Internets number one source of incomplete and incorrect info.
A theoretical calculation of 86.8% comes from using what kind of cell technology/chemistry in infinite numbers?
Incoming radiation from an area the size of the sky the size of the Sun rated at 68.7% is based on what area of the sky?
The radiation from the Sun varies greatly from place to place across the planet.
Does this Author take into account that we waste most of wavelengths of light with current panels and only extract energy from a limited wave length? Does he factor in what would happen if doping mixtures or new techniques allowed us to tap into all of the energy. NASA gets to 30%+ by tapping into a wider wavelengths using multi layers bonded by Selenium. Allowing them to use each layer to tap into different wavelengths.

Please don't Quote me Wikipedia unless your going to put an asterisk next to it. Half the people who keep Wikipedia going know almost nothing about the subjects they are writing on.

Check the references below in the Wiki article. Peer reviewed scientific papers.

upnorthandpersonal said:

Check the references below in the Wiki article. Peer reviewed scientific papers.

Click to expand...

I did check a few of them and it already confirmed what I thought. It's another speed read by a Wikipedia writer on a topic they are not personally familiar with. They then site these articles for numerous Wiki articles that they manage on subjects that are related. If your looking for accurate Wiki articles I highly suggest sticking too subjects about the Star Wars universe or the MCU. At least those articles are under constant revision by even more fanatical people than the Wiki Author himself.

Did you look at his References?
The first and most prestigious one is from Berkley but it deals with NanoTubes (I Assume). It does not matter as the article is 10 years out of date on a field that is evolving every year. It's so irrelevant that the authors evidently pulled it as the link does not work.

I could go on but all of his sources are from 10 year old research papers, even ones dealing with PN junction application limits. Yow I would not want to even speculate on what they assumed where the limits in 2011. And BTW he seriously threw in a 1961 paper from Shockley himself about limitations of PN junctions

Then you have the lovely Stanford paper which is also from 2011 that is titled "An Assessment of Solar Energy Conversion Technologies and Research Opportunities". I don't know how ten year old conversion technologies and a paper on Thermodynamic efficiency limits in 2021 work, but it sure was well put together and from skimming the article it seemed to add nothing to his paper but it did look good.

Honestly I just don't have time for peer reviewing the work of Wikipedia writers. I have seen enough ones on topics that I know extremely well and they almost always seem to be done by some well wishing high school kid who is trying to score points with Wikipedia.

​

Sigh... ok, let me give it a shot. It doesn't matter how old the papers are. Take for example the papers "On the Thermodynamic Limit of Photovoltaic Energy Conversion" (1981) and one that builds upon that and generalizes this "Absolute limiting efficiencies for photovoltaic energy conversion" (1993). First:

robby said:

A theoretical calculation of 86.8% comes from using what kind of cell technology/chemistry in infinite numbers?

Click to expand...

Comes from taking the full spectrum of the sun, and surrounding an infinite stack of cells with it. It doesn't consider any materials in particular - it considers an ideal PN junction for every band gap, thus every wave length, everything you mention in your other post. This is thus in ideal situations with the sun essentially wrapped around the infinite stack, with ideal materials that don't exist.

robby said:

Incoming radiation from an area the size of the sky the size of the Sun rated at 68.7% is based on what area of the sky?

Click to expand...

Size of the sun in the sky. 100% of the radiation coming to the cells. Nothing to do with location on earth - ideal situations as is always done to find the theoretical limits in science.

The second paper I mentioned also generalizes this to the extent that it proves that innovative ideas (quantum wells, impurity photovoltaic effect, etc.) cannot overpass the limiting efficiencies. In other words, it is physically impossible according to every known law of physics to surpass this limit. Sure, you will say, but what if new physics is discovered. Sure, I say, and I quote you this from one of my fields of research:

"These numbers have nothing to do with the technology of the devices; they are the maximums that thermodynamics will allow. And they strongly imply that brute-force attacks against 256-bit keys will be infeasible until computers are built from something other than matter and occupy something other than space." (Bruce Schneier)