▲ 102 ▼ 'Reverse Solar Panel' Generates Electricity at Night (www.extremetech.com) submitted 9 months ago by Innerworld@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] DoubleDongle@lemmy.world 67 points 9 months ago (7 children) One watt per square meter. Not very useful. permalink fedilink source hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 60 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children) You're getting downvoted for pointing out that this technology, at optimal efficiency on Earth, generates about 1/100,000 the power of a solar panel. "Not very useful" is an understatement (it's currently fucking useless). Even worse: the title saying "at night" implies a terrestrial usage and misdirects from this technology's only potential useful application in the future once and if it becomes much better – namely on deep-space missions. This research is interesting. I hope it yields something useful. Your comment is still 100% correct for the foreseeable future. Edit: I was conflating the optimal efficiency of 1 W/m^2^ and the actual efficiency of 1/100,000 the solar panel. Sorry for introducing that confusion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] cheesemoo@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (2 children) That 1/100,000 comparison doesn't seem right if these panels generate 1W per square meter as the parent poster said. It sounds like you're saying regular solar panels generate 100kW per square meter but I'm pretty sure that's orders of magnitude too high. Am I misinterpreting what you said? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child) Agreed. It's 1/100 with old panels at 1/300 with modern high performance panels, being up to 300w/m. Edit: solar radiation is only 1.3kw/m2 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) Edit: solar radiation is only 1.3kw/m2 Outside earths atmosphere. Only ~650 Watts/m^2 reach the surface of our planet. Edit: I posted regurgitating some simplified assumption from a text book or something I must have read in the past, the 650 W/m² is wrong. permalink fedilink source parent [–] borkborkbork@piefed.social 2 points 9 months ago even if it only helped eek out 1% returns, on missions depending on an RTEG that could be years added. worth keeping an eye on. permalink fedilink source parent [–] db2@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago Clearly you don't know how much longer sketchy hallways get in the dark. It's at least a 20 fold increase. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 9 months ago Could be good enough for light in dark places But.. yes Generally not enough. But maybe with more work they could become better permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 60 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children) You're getting downvoted for pointing out that this technology, at optimal efficiency on Earth, generates about 1/100,000 the power of a solar panel. "Not very useful" is an understatement (it's currently fucking useless). Even worse: the title saying "at night" implies a terrestrial usage and misdirects from this technology's only potential useful application in the future once and if it becomes much better – namely on deep-space missions. This research is interesting. I hope it yields something useful. Your comment is still 100% correct for the foreseeable future. Edit: I was conflating the optimal efficiency of 1 W/m^2^ and the actual efficiency of 1/100,000 the solar panel. Sorry for introducing that confusion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] cheesemoo@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (2 children) That 1/100,000 comparison doesn't seem right if these panels generate 1W per square meter as the parent poster said. It sounds like you're saying regular solar panels generate 100kW per square meter but I'm pretty sure that's orders of magnitude too high. Am I misinterpreting what you said? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child) Agreed. It's 1/100 with old panels at 1/300 with modern high performance panels, being up to 300w/m. Edit: solar radiation is only 1.3kw/m2 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) Edit: solar radiation is only 1.3kw/m2 Outside earths atmosphere. Only ~650 Watts/m^2 reach the surface of our planet. Edit: I posted regurgitating some simplified assumption from a text book or something I must have read in the past, the 650 W/m² is wrong. permalink fedilink source parent [–] borkborkbork@piefed.social 2 points 9 months ago even if it only helped eek out 1% returns, on missions depending on an RTEG that could be years added. worth keeping an eye on. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cheesemoo@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (2 children) That 1/100,000 comparison doesn't seem right if these panels generate 1W per square meter as the parent poster said. It sounds like you're saying regular solar panels generate 100kW per square meter but I'm pretty sure that's orders of magnitude too high. Am I misinterpreting what you said? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child) Agreed. It's 1/100 with old panels at 1/300 with modern high performance panels, being up to 300w/m. Edit: solar radiation is only 1.3kw/m2 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) Edit: solar radiation is only 1.3kw/m2 Outside earths atmosphere. Only ~650 Watts/m^2 reach the surface of our planet. Edit: I posted regurgitating some simplified assumption from a text book or something I must have read in the past, the 650 W/m² is wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child) Agreed. It's 1/100 with old panels at 1/300 with modern high performance panels, being up to 300w/m. Edit: solar radiation is only 1.3kw/m2 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) Edit: solar radiation is only 1.3kw/m2 Outside earths atmosphere. Only ~650 Watts/m^2 reach the surface of our planet. Edit: I posted regurgitating some simplified assumption from a text book or something I must have read in the past, the 650 W/m² is wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) Edit: solar radiation is only 1.3kw/m2 Outside earths atmosphere. Only ~650 Watts/m^2 reach the surface of our planet. Edit: I posted regurgitating some simplified assumption from a text book or something I must have read in the past, the 650 W/m² is wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] borkborkbork@piefed.social 2 points 9 months ago even if it only helped eek out 1% returns, on missions depending on an RTEG that could be years added. worth keeping an eye on. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] db2@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago Clearly you don't know how much longer sketchy hallways get in the dark. It's at least a 20 fold increase. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 9 months ago Could be good enough for light in dark places But.. yes Generally not enough. But maybe with more work they could become better permalink fedilink source parent