The Dark side of the roof

[d000hg]

he is saying that solar is efficient as petrol has been for the last 150 years so we shouldn't dismiss 20% as poor.

But solar energy is far more diffuse, and the equipment needed to gather it far more expensive - and relies on rare resources. So it's not quite the same thing - you don't need high efficiency when petrol is so energy-rich and you can just top up the tank in a few moments (until we run out of course)

[FatLazyContractor]

FLC Villa and gardens are so massive that when covered with these efficient solar panels, Yorkshire will never need any fossil fuel electricity. Sweet.

[vetran]

But solar energy is far more diffuse, and the equipment needed to gather it far more expensive - and relies on rare resources. So it's not quite the same thing - you don't need high efficiency when petrol is so energy-rich and you can just top up the tank in a few moments (until we run out of course)

£5k for a 4kw installation, I suppose you could buy half of a fiat 500 for that.

4kw Solar System - Get up to 4 Quotes On Solar Panels for Free | GreenMatch.co.uk

Non rare earth
New solar panels made with more common metals could be cheaper and more sustainable - American Chemical Society

You know petrol is a finite resource, it will run out before the dinosaurs come back? True the Sun is as well but it should last us a few millenia.

[scooterscot]

So what? Genuinely what point are you making?

Also, the downstream impact of modern F1 technology is going to make a big difference here. I think they're at 53% now.

The point was to convey a sense of achieved efficiency by comparing technologies. Comparing a technology in its infancy against that which is 120 years old says a lot imo.

I think society is more likely to be absorbing the benefits of solar technology than F1 technology. But that's just my opinion.

[OwlHoot]

Anyone who can crack storage is going to be SOOOOOOO rich

Without needing huge tanks of pressurised liquid oxygen or hydrogen or something, which any half competent terrorist could easily turn into a giant bomb!

[vetran]

The point was to convey a sense of achieved efficiency by comparing technologies. Comparing a technology in its infancy against that which is 120 years old says a lot imo.

I think society is more likely to be absorbing the benefits of solar technology than F1 technology. But that's just my opinion.

Actually I think we are seeing benefits from F1 technology and a greater concentration on fuel efficiency. Automatic cars are now more fuel efficient than manual something that was driven by racing. Fuel economy ad lightness (carbon fibre) also are slowly appearing. Cars that do more than 15 miles to the gallon.

[vetran]

Without needing huge tanks of pressurised liquid oxygen or hydrogen or something, which any half competent terrorist could easily turn into a giant bomb!

Hydrogen looks interesting at a house level , imagine cutting your gas bill as well.

[scooterscot]

But solar energy is far more diffuse, and the equipment needed to gather it far more expensive - and relies on rare resources. So it's not quite the same thing - you don't need high efficiency when petrol is so energy-rich and you can just top up the tank in a few moments (until we run out of course)

Jeepers creepers. All new technology is expensive.

I'm all for growth. If the country if to compete with east we need to build smarter, be innovative and invest. Fine tuning yesterday's tech is not going to do that. If government had more than one scientist they'd might understand where our priorities exist. Heck we might even attract home grown engineering graduates.

[scooterscot]

Actually I think we are seeing benefits from F1 technology and a greater concentration on fuel efficiency. Automatic cars are now more fuel efficient than manual something that was driven by racing. Fuel economy ad lightness (carbon fibre) also are slowly appearing. Cars that do more than 15 miles to the gallon.

Which is great. Especially if there is a future for internal combustion engines. I'm part of the belief that be the end of my generation or certainly the next will see them confined to museums.

[OwlHoot]

I thought 34% sounded a bit too good to be true, given the theoretical limit on solar cell efficiency of about 33% which I vaguely recalled.

But it turns out this so-called Shockley–Queisser limit applies only to a single "layer", and can be far exceeded by stacking layers.