• @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -18 months ago

    That’s why Photovoltaic Cells got the Nobel Prize, imo. The only new way to generate electricity actually put to use AFAIK.

    Of course it’s completely inefficient at large scale and they just revert back to mirroring light into a collection tower where steam happens.

      • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -18 months ago

        There is an argument to be made that the wind power is technically steam power, given the moist gaseous fluid turning a turbine, but that’s silly.

        • @theonyltruemupf@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          17 months ago

          20% for static panels is fine though because they are spamable. They are cheap and you can just put them on roofs and parking lots.

          • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            07 months ago

            Nobody was arguing anything otherwise, I was just answering questions about why we swap back to steam power for largescale. If you’re powering some LEDs and a Toaster then yeah it’s fine, if you’re powering 10,000 then heliostat time.

    • AggressivelyPassive
      link
      fedilink
      English
      08 months ago

      Wasn’t the main appeal of the mirror installations that you can store the heat somewhat efficiently? Rooftop solar is cost effective even here in Germany, where darkness and shadows loom around every corner.

      • @skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        08 months ago

        it’s both, but i’m not sure if these large solar concentrators (ivanpah or these things in spain) are more efficient than current pv panels

        • AggressivelyPassive
          link
          fedilink
          English
          08 months ago

          I mean, if they’re dramatically cheaper, they don’t have to be efficient.

          That being said, solar cells get around 20% efficiency, steam generators maybe 50% on a good day, subtract the reflection, collection and storage inefficiencies and you might get roughly in the same ballpark as solar cells.

          • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -18 months ago

            Non-tracking solar panels are closer to 12% actual efficiency, 20% would be a theoretical efficiency. I only mention this because you used an actual efficiency estimate for the steam generator but not the solar panel.

      • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -1
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        These numbers change every year, but: solar panels on roofs don’t track so they’d be lucky to get 20%, average closer to 12%, efficiency and slowly degrade over a few years. Sun tracking panels can reach a maximum of around 40%, theoretically, but on average more like 20%-30%. You have to subtract the negative impact of creating and assembling the materials from it’s lifetime effectiveness, in Germany I believe Hydrogen Steel exists which is much greener than other types of smelting, or otherwise Aluminum is the higher grade material used for such things, and Photovoltaic Panels have a very specialized Glass in most cases that has to be exceptionally clear and strong. If the capacitance of the system is not enough to hold the produced power then an electrical failure will occur, so you must also include large commercial and industrial batteries.

        Meanwhile, a Heliostat (a Collection Tower and Mirror Array) out in the desert has a theoretical efficiency just below 70%. Furthermore, if the capacity of the grid fills up then the array can be disable by adjusting the mirrors and excess power can be stored for extremely long periods of time by utilizing molten salt beneath the tower.

        These efficiency numbers refer to how much of the heat energy from full spectrum light hitting the array is converted into electricity. Home panels are nice because you can put them on your home

        • Turun
          link
          fedilink
          English
          08 months ago

          Yeah, but PV is dirt cheap nowadays. Also

          degrade over a few years.

          If by “few” you mean like 30-50 then sure, they degrade. But it certainly beats anything with a spinning turbine. Or anything with moving parts really. PV is purely solid state physics, you can’t get more longevity than that.

          If the capacitance of the system is not enough to hold the produced power then an electrical failure will occur, so you must also include large commercial and industrial batteries

          That’s not true. You can also simply turn PV off. The inverters only run when they sense 50 Hz on their output terminals, it’s easy to have them turn off when it’s 50.2 instead. Basically all big powerplants follow that rule already, ordered by things like shutoff time etc.

          a Heliostat (a Collection Tower and Mirror Array) out in the desert

          Funny that you specified in the desert. The appeal of PV is not only that it’s cheap and easy, it also scales down to small investments and local power generation. If base load actually becomes a problem concentrated solar power will be relevant. But for now, slapping a few solar panels on your roof just makes sense.