D
Deleted member 1888
Guest
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?
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?
That made my brain hurt.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.
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.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?
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.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.
Odysseus?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.
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.
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%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.
One does not follow the other as a "given".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%
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.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
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.
Seriously a Wikipedia link The Internets number one source of incomplete and incorrect info."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
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.Check the references below in the Wiki article. Peer reviewed scientific papers.
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?