Recent comments in /f/gadgets

a11en t1_iy2ijuk wrote

This and many others in this thread are great discussions of solar efficiency and limitations. Thank you for adding to the discussion! One other nasty bit is how the multijunctions are connected. In order to get good efficiency you basically need separate cells one atop the other without direct electrical connection- otherwise you are current limited to the smallest current cell - so they attempt to match the current output- but that’s not always possible (think AM1.5 intensity -v- frequency graph and trying to trap the area under the curve to be equal to the other cell’s conversion). It’s tricky business. It’s much easier just to treat them separately. I need to read the article more. I hope and pray it wasn’t MOCVD growth… that type of growth is so nasty and dangerous and dirty… work in the field. The environmental cost alone of MOCVD would tip the scales against this. Lol. So good for payloads perhaps- but please let’s not attempt to make all our roofs out of this. The environmental disaster alone wouldn’t be worth it. Lol

2

zaque_wann t1_iy2et0a wrote

Work in a sector that is one of the contractors involved in putting solar panels as car park roofs, yup they're very expensive due to how they need to have proper support, and water tighting it. Only places I've seeen these being installed in my country at least are universities and similar public institutions.

7

Aspie_Astrologer t1_iy2bhjc wrote

u/Korvanacor explained this in great detail for the reason the limit is much lower in solar cells. But it's interesting that the original comment mentioned 95% because that's actually the maximum possible energy that anything at Earth temperature (300 K) could extract from the sun (6000 K) thermodynamically based on the Carnot efficiency (η=1-Tc/Th=1-300/6000=95%).

The reason that the solar cell limit is lower is because solar cells work based on tradeoffs in terms of current and voltage: if you want high voltage then you need a large band gap so that electrons are extra-excited, but then all the frequencies of light below that bandgap will not get absorbed, meaning less electrons/current. Power output is the product of voltage and current.

5

callebbb t1_iy29xfo wrote

If the grid has a buyer of last resort. This is where Bitcoin mining comes in handy, and is why it will help revolutionize modern grid economics.

There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of terawatt hours of energy, totally stranded. No way to monetize, thus never developed. The development of those assets will now have nigh-instant monetization. All you need is an internet connection.

This means sources of generation can be financed with a much shorter time horizon to cash-flow positive.

This means revolution.

I suggest, before you come at this take in a hostile fashion with pre-conceived notions, dig into Bitcoin a bit. Technically, it’s a marvel. The internet of money.

−24

thetaFAANG t1_iy1zcgf wrote

a lot of people dont do that because getting batteries messes up all the financial math for getting solar

Like, most people look at it and walk away completely, another group looks at it and sees just going solar like the proponents and sales people say would work as long as they dont get the batteries, and a smaller group can just afford it with batteries and isnt doing it to save on an electric bill 15 years from now

4