How low can you go? https://goo.gl/u7BRDj
Originally shared by YouTube How low can you go? https://goo.gl/u7BRDj
Popular posts from this blog
#vegetarian #vegan #evolution
#vegetarian #vegan #evolution Originally shared by Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran +Eve Volve: "Meat allowed us to evolve" Really? I think you're mistaken to believe this is a certainty, but what causes you to believe this is so, +Eve Volve ? As I understand it, there have been healthy, thriving vegetarians and vegans for as long as there have been humans. Some were so due to moral or ethical concerns, others due to resource utilization issues, others due to cultural taboos. All other factors being equal, the veg(etari)ans have thrived, and continue to do so. For some more recent historical examples of vegans, we can look at Pythagoras, the "Pythagoreans" (as vegans were called for the following 1300 years), along with a plethora of like-minded contemporaries (e.g. goo.gl/lgDBL ). Buddhists, Jainists, et al., have been doing grand as veg(etari)ans since around the 6th century BCE. Prior to this, there's compelling reason to believe that most people were veg...
Logic
Logic Originally shared by Mathematics Lets have some fun. Describe mathematics in one word 😃😃
Hi
ReplyDeletePlease share more details, it's really great
ReplyDeleteSo nice jessica Meyer am from Tanzania
ReplyDeleteThanks
ReplyDeleteDgh
ReplyDeleteYou belong to which country
ReplyDeleteVery good concept, A+ if it works.
ReplyDeleteThey say solar panels are expensive, but I don't know...I don't own a house....Im trying to convince my bro in law to try to nascar race with solar panels, but he says they don't put out enough energy......
the future of battery and solar racing is in thought!~A
Waoh advanced technology but its so expensive for African society and we really need it the problem is coastfully
ReplyDeleteZimbabwe
ReplyDeleteWHAT'S STOPPING THE PROCESS
ReplyDeleteMy neighbour cec
ReplyDeleteAdam Reed It would help to actually read the article before commenting. Also, I can see that you clearly pulled that "1-2%" metric out of thin air, but a 1-2% efficiency would actually be pretty incredible given that most solar cells today are still in the 10-12% range. Having a cell let visible light through and still be 1-2% efficient using just UV and infrared spectrum would be a pretty amazing achievement.
ReplyDeleteQuoting the article:
=======
"Previous claims toward transparent solar panels have been misleading, since the very nature of transparent materials means that light must pass through them. Transparent photovoltaic cells are virtually impossible, in fact, because solar panels generate energy by converting absorbed photons into electrons. For a material to be fully transparent, light would have to travel uninhibited to the eye which means those photons would have to pass through the material completely (without being absorbed to generate solar power).
So, to achieve a truly transparent solar cell, the Michigan State team created this thing called a transparent luminescent solar concentrator (TLSC), which employs organic salts to absorb wavelengths of light that are already invisible to the human eye. Steering clear of the fundamental challenges of creating a transparent photovoltaic cell allowed the researchers to harness the power of infrared and ultraviolet light."
========
So it lets visible light through, and uses ultraviolet and infrared to generate power. This is actually pretty brilliant, as UV is what contributes most to sunburns and skin cancer, and infrared is what contributes most to the heating of your home in the summer. So these guys built a PV cell that uses the "harmful" spectrum that you can't see anyway that would dramatically cut your electric needs for air conditioning and actually use that energy to generate electricity instead of having it heat your house... Seems like a pretty impressive technological feat to me.
Excellent view of the topic Jeremy Akers !
ReplyDelete"You obviously lack in Common Sense."
ReplyDeleteGreat way to start anything: with an unsubstantiated claim insulting someone and using improper capitalization in the process.
"The placement of solar panels on roofs is intentional, they give the building owner the ability to fill up unused space with productive items."
What's your point? I have said nothing relating to using a roof for solar. I have a 17.56 kW solar array on my homes roof as well as a 500 watt solar array on my RV. Please continue your education about solar since I clearly know nothing about it.
"The average solar panel has an efficiency of %15. Every square meter of the world, assuming it's flat, receives 164 Watts every 24 hours. We receive 24.6 Watts of power per 24 hours with every square meter of solar cell."
And I'm the one lacking common sense? First of all, this isn't true. My Solar installation covers 102 square meters, and it generates about 100 kilowatt-hours of energy a day on sunny days (We hit 93.3 kWh today). That's close to 1000 watt-hours of power per day per square meter. Obviously places closer to the equator get more sun than places closer to the poles. Locations further from the equator get more sun in the summers than in the winters. And most importantly, anyplace not ON the equator gets more sun if you TILT the panels towards the equator.
The further you are from the equator, the more tilt you need. The closer to winter solstice it gets, the more tilt you need. In the morning you need to tilt to the east, in the evening you need to tilt to the west. The numbers you rattled off are an average for all flat surfaces across the globe. It doesn't account for tilt. The thing about windows is that they are often already tilted towards the sun especially during times of the day that are the hottest. I have a LOT of windows in my house that face south and west, which are ideal directions for taking in lots of sunlight in the northern hemisphere, but it also takes in a lot of heat. Our summer electric bills were $400+ a month to keep the house at 77 degrees here in Texas prior to me installing solar panels. You're telling me that a type of glass that can absorb the heat radiation, and turn that into a small amount of electricity instead of having it cost me electricity has no value? None?
"I'm going to be generous and assume it's 3% efficient."
Good thing we don't have to rely on your (clearly very educated) assumptions. The actual researchers working on this say it's 5%.
"You're now producing 2.5 Watts of power per day per square meter with this new material.
It's useless as an energy generator."
First, how do you, with a straight face, say something can generate free energy and in the very next sentence claim it's useless? And I'm the one with no "Common Sense"?
Second, given that I've already dis-proven your numbers using my real world solar array, which produces 40 times more energy than you claim is possible (And I don't even have the super efficient expensive panels), and given the researchers building this technology know it can theoretically provide up to 5% efficiency with their current design that brings us to about 300 watt-hours per square meter per day.
Yep, you're right, it clearly has no value. That would only produce about 17 kWh a day given the size and number of the windows in my home, or about $1.70 a day ($600/year) in electrical production. And that doesn't count the energy savings of not having to run the A/C as much because less infrared radiation is making it through the glass. I mean, who the hell would want windows that keeps their house cooler in the summer and takes $50 off your electric bill just in energy production?
Good thing you were here to educate all of us. Maybe you should get in touch with the Michigan State University and let them know they are wasting their time before they make any further technological breakthroughs. I'm sure once they see your clearly impressive credentials they'll realize that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
ReplyDelete