08-03-2008, 07:34 PM
Quote:Can you source this? Just because the figures we quote are watts doesn't mean they are based on anything to do with electricity. The watt (symbol: W) is the SI derived unit of power, equal to one joule of energy per second. It measures a rate of energy use or production. (SI is the International System of Units from the French from the French Le Système International d'Unités hence the SI abbreviation). So what is a joule? A joule is the SI unit of work or energy, equal to the work done by a force of one newton when its point of application moves through a distance of one meter in the direction of the force.
You can meaure, heat, electricity, the work done by a horse, etc in watts. What I read from you is saying that you get 200% efficiency from input energy. So that would seem to me to say that you could, if you were clever, create a perpetual motion device. You use an electric lamp to shine UV light on your solar panel which provides the energy for you UV lamp. How can you do this? Because the panel is producing 2 times the power that it is getting.
Sorry. I probably wasn't clear at all about what i was talking about. All i was saying was that mention of efficiencies is blurry when talking about the two different technologies. If we could get 1 electron from each proton collision in a silicon panel that tech would be operating at 100% of it's potential. But if we can get 2 electrons from each proton collision from a nanocrystal panel those panels are also operating at 100%, it's just that the two numbers are referencing different things. Saying "here's how much energy we can get from present panels" and then extrapolating how much of these panels we would need to generate all our energy isn't really the point, as nobody is arguing that solar is efficient or effective at present.
Quote:You can't apply your curve to solar without applying it to nuclear either and you have to keep in mind that where we on the curve for nuclear is somewhat artificial since we were forced to stay there. Nuclear is already cheaper than coal/oil/wood/whatever. But the infrastructure can't be built for it. Again, prehaps I really do let myself be blind to the dangers of nuclear or I weigh things differently. I admit it's hard to weigh the issues of waste disposal and catastrophic meltdowns vs the effects of throwing all that extra carbon in the atmosphere and strip mining, etc. I think the long term and short term impacts of nuclear are lesser though. I could be wrong. And of course projecting it to the future you have to assume that it becomes rapidly cleaner and safer. Heck even the fossil fuels became cleaner and safer and more efficient over time.
Luckily until solar panels destroy and irradiate large areas and populations we won't have to worry about that issue. I have no personal issue with the use of nuclear power and it's an entirely rational argument that we should use that instead of the "dirtier" fuels. Politics, however, dictates that solar is good and nuclear is bad. I don't forsee this changing in the near future.