Submitted by TimeSpentWasting t3_z60rfh in gadgets
Comments
seidler2547 t1_ixz4yde wrote
Fact about solar cells you should know:
> 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%.
longreading t1_ixz5txa wrote
Amazing! Keep up the great research NREL!
ContinuallyGroovy t1_ixza119 wrote
So Amazing indeed . Well done
TimeSpentWasting OP t1_ixzcmaf wrote
Never knew why, now I have the answer without googling. I'm lazy, so thank you
I have high hopes that humanity will reach that maximum value as tech gets smaller. I wonder how much efficiency is reduced under heavy cloud cover?
GoldenWizard t1_ixzj1da wrote
Literally impossible lmao
AmonWeathertopSul t1_ixzjvkl wrote
We just need to cover the whole sun in a sphere of these things. Oh and a long enough wire to reach Earth.
heisian t1_ixzkty3 wrote
dyson sphere program
Xenofiler t1_ixzlztr wrote
So even though this comes from US research will it be mass produced in China?
For those who don’t like my cynical comment, here is a link to the history: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/solar_timeline.pdf Which includes major US Dept of Energy and other US funding - although not exclusive US. First invented at Bell Labs. current production 70% China, 20% other Asian countries, 3% US.
[deleted] t1_ixzm7m7 wrote
[deleted]
Solid_Hunter_4188 t1_ixzmjmr wrote
Do you have a battery?
mybreakfastiscold t1_ixzmppo wrote
"Couple of marine batteries should do the trick"
25x10e21 t1_ixznp54 wrote
My roof is maybe 40% covered, and it generates 106% of my electricity use. Are you super shaded? Or is your electricity use just insane?
Willsie777 t1_ixzpfck wrote
For us dumb dumbs, what efficiency level is the typical retail panel today?
phatelectribe t1_ixzpk67 wrote
Same here but I have the roof space - unfortunately there’s absolutely nonsensical code that sates panels must be placed a certain distance from the roof ridge and also can’t be too close to the edge meaning that I can only use about 30% of my roof space. So If I max out my entire allowable roof space I only get about 70% of my power needs (even with everything in the house being high efficiency such as new appliances and led lighting etc).
Having panels that are twice as efficient (which is what this development means in real terms) would easily solve that issue.
stinkypantsmark t1_ixzqjqj wrote
Mine-Shaft-Gap t1_ixzqtbf wrote
Oh, just need a couple 6v kirklands!
LoL_is_pepega_BIA t1_ixzr9is wrote
Coal just died even harder.. (provided this new tech is mass producible)
Solar is already dirt cheap at ~20% efficiency..
Solid_Hunter_4188 t1_ixzrcv3 wrote
You joke, but I know people that got solar, didn’t think to store it, and are upset that they don’t have power at night. As stupid as it sounds, never underestimate peoples lack of understanding.
michaelb1 t1_ixztq57 wrote
My roof has a bunch of facets that makes it difficult to get a lot of panels up there. Not to mention the rules about panels have to be minimum distance from the edges.
skittlesmcgee33 t1_ixzuftk wrote
That maximum is functionally impossible. Functional limit is in the 40-49% range so we’re already most of the way there.
MysteriousSophon t1_ixzutly wrote
From the article, previous records were 39.2% in 2020 by NREL and 37.9% in 2013 by the Sharp Corporation of Japan. So its safe to say it would take a while to reach the mass consumer market.
Commisioner_Bush t1_ixzvgjg wrote
Almost all PV is connected to the grid, there's no point in having a battery unless you're totally off the electric grid, in which case obviously you need more infrastructure, like a backup generator, than what you'd need in a regular PV installment.
Uffffffffffff8372738 t1_ixzvyxt wrote
Considering that the record from 9 years ago is 37.9%, this will take like 20 years to be for consumers.
Anasterian1408 t1_ixzw3c3 wrote
I wouldn't say nonsensical.... Fire setbacks are if firefighters ever have to get on your roof, that have room to move and walk without tripping over the panels.
What's your actual kwh usage?
blastradii t1_ixzx406 wrote
What’s the science behind the inability to reach this type of efficiency?
SlackerAccount t1_ixzxbyr wrote
MoonFall 2
Ragingsysadmin t1_ixzzs8c wrote
Why not look into the solar panels that replace your shingles then?
Edit: Solar Panels not door Panel
darkgothmog t1_iy01q99 wrote
Batteries are useful to have higher autonomy. What you produced and not used during the day can be used during the night without buying it. Of course it’s useful
a11en t1_iy02dc1 wrote
It will never reach mass market as a triple junction device. These aren’t cost effective to use terrestrially. The reality is we have space to spread out down here, and up in space there’s no elbow room. So triple junctions head to space and we get single junctions - if we’re lucky at 19% efficiency.
ripped014 t1_iy03yci wrote
lol yep, just like raytheon outsources production of the missile components to china
Korvanacor t1_iy048w4 wrote
Solar works by using the energy of photons to bump electrons from the valence bands up into the conductive band. These bands are separated by what is called the band gap. If the gap is 2 electron volts (eV) wide and the photon has 3 electron volts, the extra energy is “lost”. Photons with less than 2 eV don’t contribute anything. It’s possible to stack multiple layers with different band gaps to more efficiently capture a wider range of photons but there will still be losses due to interfacial physics that I don’t understand. Each layer adds to the cost of the cell as well
ZenerWasabi t1_iy049bx wrote
Sprinkler-of-salt t1_iy05upz wrote
What if we don’t aim for the conductive band of electrons? What if there’s another way to harness the incoming energy?
Or what if there’s a way to “prime” the electrons in the cells such that the valence electrons are already at the conductive band, or somehow less than 2eV away?
If this requires a new atom, why not make one?
What if we forget about atoms altogether, and capture energy at the quarks and gluons?
What if we forget about photons, and harness dark energy instead?
michaelb1 t1_iy06i3x wrote
Door panels?
jobe_br t1_iy06std wrote
AnonymousWritings t1_iy079bu wrote
Could be a typo of roof panel
AnonymousWritings t1_iy07kcm wrote
Only where utilities have idiotic net metering policies right now that let you effectively use your noontime summer production at any time of the year. Resulting in oversupplies if electricity during daylight hours.
Sensible policies that paid people differing amounts depending on what time of day electricity was released to the grid SHOULD be in place and would favor batteries.
8isinfinitystanding t1_iy08rj7 wrote
What's the theoretical limit?
iamnotazombie44 t1_iy09lw8 wrote
Yeah, IMM tech at NREL is something nutty.
Haquestions4 t1_iy0cia2 wrote
What if we just forget all this science and get energy through our outlets?
Haquestions4 t1_iy0d89h wrote
What news?
musicantz t1_iy0edbz wrote
The payback period on solar is pretty long. It’s even worse without subsidies.
Sprinkler-of-salt t1_iy0ftr3 wrote
Nah, come on now, that’s unrealistic. The outlets have to get it from somewhere.
Maybe they should be fiber optic instead of electric… then we could send the light directly from the sun into devices!
Sun-powered blender would probably make even healthier smoothies!
Tigen13 t1_iy0hz75 wrote
If firefighters have to get on your roof, your house is likely toast anyway.
General_Ts0_chicken t1_iy0ip9r wrote
NREL is amazing, I had the opportunity to do some work there and was blown away by the place.
kevinraisinbran t1_iy0jhyk wrote
Wow, this news is NREL!
migueeel t1_iy0kwmt wrote
At least solar doesn't have as much maintenance cost as coal, I'd say.
For starters, you don't need to import the sun!
migueeel t1_iy0kz6a wrote
Maybe it's more for if there's a strong hail storm and it wrecks them?
Commisioner_Bush t1_iy0l9ql wrote
The energy grid is fundamentally a battery, it would be asinine to have distributed battery sources storing energy for individual units when literally everybody is connected by a giant battery. The fact that it's not super profitable to store energy isn't a failure of the energy system, but the economic system that the grid must adhere to.
trichomesRpleasant t1_iy0p5wo wrote
As opposed to 2 suns?
PM_Your_Wololo t1_iy0pk6k wrote
Can you ELI5 why the difference is so large?
shouldbebabysitting t1_iy0pvi5 wrote
What does the number of junctions matter as long as long as it can be manufactured cheaply?
a11en t1_iy0pzuj wrote
There’s no way to do this cheaply. It’s directly related.
jjayzx t1_iy0qc52 wrote
What? Why wouldn't they keep it that long? I've never heard about anyone just ripping their shit out or disconnecting it if it isn't broken.
jjayzx t1_iy0r0gh wrote
For single junction it's 68% and for infinite 86%. But that's under perfect conditions, so it's a little less than that.
yourwaifuslayer t1_iy0r5e5 wrote
FAKE NEWS!!!
Ragingsysadmin t1_iy0sqct wrote
Solar panels, more specifically they are called Solar Shingles.
ThatOtherGuy_CA t1_iy0ubqo wrote
Material costs, eventually the amount of materials you need to add per extra % is more than just building a second panel at the same efficiency. So around 50% in order to get an extra 1% in efficiency, you need a panel with double the cells. So you might as well just build 2 50% efficiency panels rather than 1 51% one.
That’s basically why most panels are stuck around 23% right now, it’s more cost effective to just build 2 panels than to build a panel 1% more efficient.
Basically as technology advances it gets easier to improve the efficiency with less waste, but around 50% is when you can’t really make anything smaller to get those efficiency gains in a similar sized panel.
ThatOtherGuy_CA t1_iy0uu8y wrote
Warranty doesn’t cover physical damage, the warranties usually just guarantee that the cell will have more than 80% of its rated power generation after 20 years or they will replace it.
Most panels only lose about 1% efficiency a year, so it’s basically a meaningless gesture that looks good, unless you have a genuinely defective cell.
psybes t1_iy0v7o7 wrote
just go near the sun, get the energy and beam it with a laser to earth.
ThatOtherGuy_CA t1_iy0vbfp wrote
There’s no reason to get rid of them though, they’ll lose some generation capacity over time, but for the vast majority of situations it’s easier to just add an additional panel to make up for those loses than to replace the entire system.
[deleted] t1_iy0vm07 wrote
[deleted]
ThatOtherGuy_CA t1_iy0vnjn wrote
Right now it’s about 10 years without subsidies and 5 years with in most places.
Obviously the exact economics depends on your location and your local price of energy. But my companies been installing systems for commercial and industrial, and the saving off of their power bills straight up pays for the system, and once it is paid of, it’s free energy for the life of the panels.
[deleted] t1_iy0vycd wrote
[deleted]
Prowler1000 t1_iy0xgsj wrote
I'm not quite sure where you're getting that there's no elbow room in space.. the biggest reason they'd be used up there is because of the launch cost as well as ease of repair.
CX-001 t1_iy0yk1r wrote
> no elbow room in space
The other guy was probably talking about cost per unit of weight.
Prowler1000 t1_iy0yr48 wrote
Yeah but saying that "there's no elbow room in space" is such a weird way to word it to the point that it becomes misleading. There isn't, as far as I know, a misconception about the amount of room in space but comments like that are how those misconceptions are born.
25x10e21 t1_iy1081y wrote
I don’t live alone either, and I don’t have an abnormal electricity use. Not sure what tech you’d have over me that would increase your consumption significantly.
zeuszoso t1_iy10kez wrote
The practical limit given by Shockley and Quiesser for a single-junction solar cell under 1 sun illumination is 33% power conversion efficiency.
Valmond t1_iy10l2x wrote
So when we close in on the theoretical max, should prices drop more?
PM_Your_Wololo t1_iy10rlt wrote
Great answer, thank you!
AnonymousWritings t1_iy1146o wrote
It's not a battery. It's a set of generation sources that have to be ramped up and down to meet demand. And ramping up variable sources to meet peak demand times tends to be expensive for the grid.
[deleted] t1_iy11jhk wrote
[deleted]
dropkickoz t1_iy1228j wrote
Supercomputer and a time machine. Solar simply can't give me what I need yet.
25x10e21 t1_iy127u9 wrote
I think you’re making that up. Why aren’t you using better panels from the future?
musicantz t1_iy12grd wrote
Solar def has more maintenance cost because it’s so diffused.
[deleted] t1_iy12m5n wrote
[deleted]
4RealzReddit t1_iy12sqm wrote
dropkickoz t1_iy136wo wrote
Can only go backwards and return. :(
Emu1981 t1_iy13ap7 wrote
>Almost all PV is connected to the grid, there's no point in having a battery
It really depends on your usage patterns. For me it could be a great investment to get batteries if I had PV. The Feed In Tariff is about 20% of the cost of grid supplied KWh which means that having a battery to cover the period between when the sun goes down and the off-peak rates hit could save a decent amount of money. I would have to gather data (power consumption vs time of day) and do the maths to figure out if the cost savings would pay for themselves though and I am not going to bother to do that without having the option to put up PV in the first place.
tim3k t1_iy13jhl wrote
There are actually so many factors you can't compare your solar panels and electricity consumption with random strangers on the internet.
-
he might live much further away from equator than you or just in an area with a lot of cloudy days
-
he might have electric heating so his consumption is much higher
-
his roof might be much smaller than yours
-
his modules might be older so producing not as much power per square foot/meter
-
might have larger family or simply different lifestyle with more cooking/ night activity
-
he might have an electric car
[deleted] t1_iy13wda wrote
[deleted]
DelusionalPianist t1_iy16hnx wrote
It depends on what you install. If you install 13kWp then sure it may take a few years. But if you install like 800Wp then the amortization may be less than 5 years, without selling excess energy or subsidies.
25x10e21 t1_iy16opg wrote
Future you doesn’t feel like bringing you back panels?
DaveInDigital t1_iy175bf wrote
are those a viable option? seems they'd be super expensive, limited availability (don't think i've ever seen one in real life, imagine only super wealthy people have them right now?), limited styles, etc.
they seem so neat tho. i just haven't tracked what's going on with that tech since before the pandemic 😅
JackIsBackWithCrack t1_iy17pqd wrote
This is why I plug my power-strip in to itself to achieve infinite energy.
dropkickoz t1_iy189cs wrote
From what I understand, after 2028 the new panels/accumulators won't arouse unwanted interest from a local utility board. Have to wait until then.
cortez985 t1_iy18l8u wrote
Could have a pool too. Damn thing take a lot of power
Sexual_tomato t1_iy19f8j wrote
Idk if this is a joke or not but that's called a Dyson Sphere
bobniborg1 t1_iy1apdv wrote
Some companies will move vents and stuff to fit more panels. A sunpower rep (I think it was them) mentioned that as an option instead of a tilt mount if necessary.
calvin4224 t1_iy1bsw7 wrote
The Shockley Quiesser theoretical limit for single junctions is at ~33%.
calvin4224 t1_iy1c1rw wrote
Aye, there is a big difference between what's technically possible in the lab and what is viable for mass production.
calvin4224 t1_iy1c9ba wrote
Um where do you get those numbers from? Shockley–Queisser limit is 33% for single junctions, no?
muwenjie t1_iy1cavh wrote
mrw somebody invents a material with a complex bandgap that breaks the shockley queisser limit
dustofdeath t1_iy1cmxg wrote
Location also matters, the further away from equator, the worse it gets.
Poor angles, shorter days, longer winters.
calvin4224 t1_iy1cwpz wrote
Concentrated solar is measured in suns. So if I use a mirror or a lens of 2 m^2 area and direct this light on on a 1m^2 solar panel, people talk of in this case two suns reaching the solar panel. The panel still has a similar efficiency, but double the power output due to more light shining on it. I simplified a bit but thats the idea.
Type "concentrated solar" into an image search engine, it's fascinating!
dustofdeath t1_iy1dbuh wrote
Most problems are with durability / lifespan. So they never make it outside the lab until some breakthrough.
Alexstarfire t1_iy1easc wrote
It really annoys me they couldn't get it to 40%.
[deleted] t1_iy1ek7x wrote
[deleted]
muwenjie t1_iy1gi0k wrote
Typically increasing the number of suns on solar cells increases their efficiency by a small amount, but the tradeoff is that the increased temperature decreases their efficiency - one terrestrial application of these sorts of cells is to sit at the centre of a field of heliostats in a kind of similar concentrating setup to solar thermal power plants, so you only need a small amount of high-efficiency solar cells operating at hundred/thousands of suns to harness a large amount of solar
These cells don't seem to be designed for that though
25x10e21 t1_iy1gie8 wrote
I live veeeeery far away from the equator.
ThellraAK t1_iy1gzwo wrote
A good chunk of firefighting had more to do with protecting life not property and keeping things from spreading.
ThellraAK t1_iy1hpxn wrote
Yeah, the equipment to not kill linemen is kinda spendy all on its own though.
HORSELOCKSPACEPIRATE t1_iy1j71r wrote
Residential payoff takes a lot longer unless your roof, weather, and/or local electric regulations are really good, especially now that interest rates went up. Most are paying 4 cents per watt financed at at 3%+.
I got in at .99% and it still wouldn't be obviously worth it in terms of ROI if not for the tax refund. A big cash infusion when the market is low like this could tangibly impract retirement age. But without it, especially with interest rates as they are now I could see people taking longer than the 20-25 year life of their loan to net positive.
a11en t1_iy1ka9r wrote
This is a good point. I was meaning as payload. The amount of cash necessary to take a unit of weight up is otherworldly. ;)
a11en t1_iy1kjj8 wrote
Yes, absolutely correct. Both weight and size are considerations for payload.
HaikuBotStalksMe t1_iy1me0y wrote
Just lower the price. Easy.
HaikuBotStalksMe t1_iy1mgm2 wrote
Now Google "word play" or "joke".
themangastand t1_iy1ol2l wrote
Not exactly true. Because in the summer our days are far far longer. In peak summer it's only is dark for about 5 hours here.
So you make up for it. As long as your allowed to supply back to the grid during that point it should balance out
stuartpinne t1_iy1pzkr wrote
Hope for humanity
a11en t1_iy1q0xn wrote
I tip my hat to you my fellow Solar researcher. Lol
SquanchMcSquanchFace t1_iy1q3ma wrote
They’re typically a lot less efficient than panels so it probably wouldn’t get them any more power
a11en t1_iy1q8ls wrote
Yes. True. The amount of effort to even approach that and the insane amount of energy in purifying the precursors or chemically creating the precursors is insane. Cradle to grave- the use case is limited. And you’re right we’ll likely never even approach the SQ limit. But even if we did it would still be a losing energy proposition.
cybercuzco t1_iy1rjx1 wrote
Try using electric heat in winter in Minnesota
gramathy t1_iy1sb78 wrote
What about houses on either side? Behind?
Yours isn't the only house at risk.
theartificialkid t1_iy1vrei wrote
Ha they thought they were joking
theartificialkid t1_iy1vzna wrote
> I'm not quite sure where you're getting that there's no elbow room in space.
Launching stuff is incredibly expensive, so you can’t afford to have a whole room just for elbows on a space station.
kinokomushroom t1_iy1w1q2 wrote
Why aim for so low? Let's go for 120% efficiency!
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
sjbglobal t1_iy27yfq wrote
If you live in a country with lots of hydro power then it kind of acts like a battery
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.
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.
psybes t1_iy2ckwh wrote
i am not Dyson but cool idea!
LurkintheMurkz t1_iy2cm2s wrote
Usually thats just a sales tactic. Unless the company does in house roofing, they're likely pulling your leg
BookishByNaturee t1_iy2d0m1 wrote
I use about 1200 kWh a month. I live in a townhome so a very small roof compared to a house.
I had someone do a mock-up and it was 17 panels. Is it possible to get 15,000 kWh (or more, I’d like to go ev) out of 17 panels?
In Texas , south east facing roof (relatively flat)
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.
TheeMikeman t1_iy2h9p0 wrote
Like im a ten year old please someone
[deleted] t1_iy2hjow wrote
[removed]
veggiewater t1_iy2hnvn wrote
r/silenthill
[deleted] t1_iy2hujw wrote
[removed]
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
bacondesign t1_iy2kbkt wrote
Just for comparison an internal combustion engine's efficiency is usually between 10-30%
Soopah_Fly t1_iy2mwxe wrote
I wonder if 100% efficiency is possible in the future. Imagine having a pair of panels powering your entire house.
Then again, I'd rather we have better batteries.
Lumpy-Dingo-947 t1_iy2nuul wrote
I’ll bet their team lead felt the same way.
[deleted] t1_iy2seg9 wrote
MINIMAN10001 t1_iy2srgk wrote
Yes they are crazy expensive, but as it turns out redoing the roof is also super expensive, so when you're doing it anyways, that's when it evens out.
Efficient_Ad_8530 t1_iy2vvy3 wrote
The Tesla solar roof is also a option but that means replacing your roof
k0bra3eak t1_iy2wkyx wrote
They gave a legitimate explanation to something people may not know about how solar is measured even if it is a joke, you're just being an ass
k0bra3eak t1_iy2xbco wrote
Tell me more about FTX then
DublaneCooper t1_iy2y0no wrote
JafaKiwi t1_iy2yfp1 wrote
There are many free online estimators where you can enter your exact location and the number of panels or peak power installed (17 panels x 400W = 6.8kW peak power) and it will calculate month by month generation. Some even take into account a typical weather patterns.
funkadunk8 t1_iy2zuhq wrote
It would have to actually exist in reality for it to be an option
Efficient_Ad_8530 t1_iy30415 wrote
It exists, you can go to their website and order right now…
hanzoplsswitch t1_iy32zhg wrote
Or an electric car. Then again you save on gas.
TheRealASP t1_iy330hw wrote
Was looking for this. Thanks!
BasvanS t1_iy337c7 wrote
Get an EV and you kill two birds with one stone
dgsharp t1_iy33kqj wrote
There’s one a couple of blocks away from me. Looks pretty slick. That said, it’s the only one I’ve ever seen and they have 2 Teslas, if that tells you anything.
zeed88 t1_iy35ssy wrote
How about using thermoelectric coupler underneath it to absorb the heat and turn it to energy, will that increase the percentage?
anglesideside1 t1_iy36zrs wrote
Efficiency gains are great, but the bigger gains are to be had in manufacturing, installation, and overhead costs. If we’re just talking residential, companies spend a couple thousand in customer acquisition costs per installation. The utility scale stuff is MUCH cheaper per kW, but can still wring out some more savings in siting, permitting, interconnection, and overheads. Panel efficiency gains tend to help more when space is more of a concern. If you can spread out, then much cheaper, less efficient panels are often the better choice.
TimeSpentWasting OP t1_iy39dh8 wrote
The article says it's just really expensive to produce, until they find a cheaper way
trichomesRpleasant t1_iy3e25y wrote
Thanks this makes a lot sense
callebbb t1_iy3hmi4 wrote
FTX is a perfect example of the folly of man. People took a decentralized money, where no trust in counter parties is necessary, and put it back in the centralized box.
FTX was a scam pretending to be an exchange. Ultimately, the users who withdrew their Bitcoin the moment it was purchased were unharmed.
A failure, no doubt, but not due to Bitcoin. It’s also not the first time this has happened. It will happen repeatedly, until people realize Bitcoin is a bearer asset, and they must take custody of their own money.
Tigen13 t1_iy3j595 wrote
I am not a firefighter nor do I have experience in the biz. I just don't see why a firefighter would ever want to walk on a roof in a bad fire. Every room has a window and provides better access to a fire without endangering a firefighters life. The roof is one of the most dangerous places to be in a fire because if the fire has weakend the roof the firefighter could be a step away from falling to their death. It's much safer to hang the ladder over the roof and spray from there.
Anyway, dumb code in my opinion which is why it isn't the norm.
Chewbock t1_iy3lxw3 wrote
callebbb t1_iy3odvj wrote
People want to believe there is something strikingly different about the Federal Reserve Bank (a private entity) and the Dollar. It really is just another shitcoin produced by insiders for nothing. Meanwhile, we have a sound money that is a technological innovation that won't be outdone for awhile, with no insiders, no permission required, no middlemen, no reliance on physical security or power projection, real scarcity, digitally native.
The cost to produce $1 is the same as producing $100 or $1 Billion or $6 Trillion.
Humans have trouble thinking in exponents... I use this example to show how large of a number $1 Trillion is compared to $1 Billion.
A million seconds is about 12 days.
A billion seconds is about 32 years.
A trillion seconds is 32,000 years...
The cost to produce example goes for every FIAT currency that exists globally. They are all digital ledger entries. And it is a permissioned landscape, wherein if you become an enemy of the state (easily these days), you are ostracized. Look at Kanye. Look at Venezuela. Look at Romania. Look at Turkey.
Billions of people NEED something like Bitcoin. The modern financial landscape excludes them, on purpose. For an in-group to exist, there must be an out-group.
LouSanous t1_iy41cti wrote
Triple jct cells are insanely expensive. This article is a bit out of date, but the cost difference holds true. When I was working on the solar car for my university back in 2009, the GaAs cells were hundreds of thousands of dollars in total.
https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/nrel-developing-tech-lower-cost-multi-junction-solar-cells
>To give a cost comparison, utility-scale solar projects now cost about $1 a watt for solar power. A gallium arsenide multi-junction solar cell costs up to $300 a watt at this point.
LouSanous t1_iy4302w wrote
>So you might as well just build 2 50% efficiency panels rather than 1 51% one
The most recent info I was able to find shows it to be like 300:1. Standard utility scale solar panels in the 20% efficiency range are 1/300 the cost of triple junction GaAs.
LouSanous t1_iy45muh wrote
>solar efficiency and limitations
It's really important to note that this "limitation" isn't much of a limitation.
There is functionally infinite sun. The amount of energy reaching the earth at sea level from the sun every second is well over 100 times the total yearly energy consumption of the entire world.
Modern nuclear uses only 5% of the energy in the fuel. Then, the conversion to electricity is somewhere around 35%. So from the energy contained in the fuel, nuclear is about 1.75% efficient.
Coal plants are around 35% as well.
Combined cycle gas is 55-60%.
ThatOtherGuy_CA t1_iy47zui wrote
Yup, which is why you pretty much only see them in space applications. Because the weight saved can save enough fuel costs to offset the insane price increases.
WarOnFlesh t1_iy4coqc wrote
percentage of houses that would benefit from a firefighter on the roof in its lifetime: 0.000001%.
percentage of houses that would benefit from maximizing solar panels: 99.999%
we're holding back billions in energy savings just in case a firefighter needs to get on the roof. a thing that almost never happens.
a11en t1_iy4els3 wrote
Combustion is still the most energy efficient.
And Nuclear would be more efficient if they allowed refacing/recycling the rods.
Believe me- the MOCVD toll is huge and does play a factor. We don’t pay attention to cradle to grave, and it’s absurd not to. (Used to be the thing to do- for example for plastics- why ignore it for solar and wind?)
LouSanous t1_iy4f2dz wrote
Everything not directly a part of profits in capitalism in an externality.
LouSanous t1_iy4fmek wrote
I'm not sure how much it costs spaceX with their reusable rockets (and given that Musk is in charge, I would bet that he never did achieve the multiple orders of magnitude cheaper costs he promised), but prior to the space shuttle cost per kg into space was $18,500. After the space shuttle, $54,500/kg.
Billy_Goat_ t1_iy5nakg wrote
How much electricity do you use? I have 6.1 kW of panels and easily make double my electricity consumption per day (~35kWh). The issue is that I do not make power when I need it most, after sunset when cooking/heating/cooling the house.
[deleted] t1_iy6h3fw wrote
[removed]
DanceDelievery t1_iy6pwvn wrote
We could probably get more suns to move into our neighbourhood if we start getting our shit together.
AutoModerator t1_ixyrqho wrote
We have multiple giveaways running!
Phone 14 Pro & Ugreen Nexode 140W chargers Giveaway!
WOWCube® Entertainment System!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.