What is Digg?45 Comments
- paulg2000, on 02/15/2008, -4/+29I'm sorry, but almost 20 years later and that's the best we can do?
- tringtring, on 02/15/2008, -2/+14Every time a solar breakthrough is discussed many peoples' eyes light up, and the reason is there to see - sunlight provides us a massive amount of energy, a small % of which is eniugh to satisfy all our energy needs.
Stuff like biofuels are in a way indirectly deriving energy from sunlight, and obviously these will cost a lot more than would a method that can directly capture sun's energy and utilising it to power our energy needs...but the above statement is true only if the conversion % of sunlight is much higher than what it is today.
So every day that produces a solar energy efficiency breakthrough is a great day for humans! - askjeffro, on 02/15/2008, -1/+9Yup. It's difficult to convert solar energy into AC.
A large part of the reason we are only at 31.25% has been due to low investment in the area as our energy needs have been met through other lower cost solutions. As thoses costs rise, solar is getting a lot more investment lately and being able to get that energy source on the grid is key to its practicality. Solar panels themselves can have a conversion of over 40%, but these are expensive as hell substrates currently.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e ...
The important thing to pull from this article in my opinion is:
"Solar-to-grid efficiency is very different than solar panel efficiency, which already has exceeded 40%. Unfortunately, getting the power from a solar panel (which is direct current) onto the grid (which is alternating current) requires several steps, each of which eats away at efficiency." - BluthBoy, on 02/15/2008, -4/+9with all the tech advances since 1989, why hasn't the record been broken till now?
...oh, wait, cos there was plenty of oil to go around until now. - Ganja420, on 02/15/2008, -3/+8fuel from ethanol is stupid because the price of food goes up... there for less people can afford to eat. but solar is great, my uncle sells his excess energy from his panels back to the electric company's power grid
- deviouskoopa, on 02/15/2008, -4/+7That's all? 2%?! Al Gore is disappointed.
- FaithclubDotNet, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3Sterling Solar and Nano Solar are two promising companies. Nano-Solar is already turning in the revenue because they can produce power 1/4 the cost of coal, but they're selling at the price of coal because they want to maximize money of course. Personally, I'm going to look into trying mirrors and steam engines myself. Solar and Nuclear are going to become big as we move into the Hydrogen and Electric car eras.
- LiceHelpDotCom, on 02/15/2008, -1/+4I love these announcements but WHERE ARE THE PRODUCTS???? When can I run to Lowes and Home Depot to get them? And what are the other costs? How will I store the energy retrieved? How much will THAT cost? Can I just plug my microwave into the solar panel? No? Then what?
I know the questions are rhetorical....but the average person who is most effected by energy cost will have very similar questions. How practical is all this?
I know we have to start somewhere and I promise you that I am all for any alternative energy solutions but the practicality seems elusive. - Dkrz, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Last week this was published, dutch physicists have found a way to get 44% efficiency from solar cells, but it's still a loooong way from practical and commercial applications. I'm sorry but the article is in dutch, just throw it into a translator if you're really interested...
http://www.nrc.nl/wetenschap/article918806.ece/Ren ... - Stratochief66, on 02/16/2008, -0/+2This is for supplying a portion of baseline power, so no batteries required as it is hooked to the mains. Mains power already has a way to deal with this, they can increase or decrease other fuel based sources of peak power (ie natural gas) or pump water into the reservoir of a hydro dam to make sure minimal electricity is wasted.
- askjeffro, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Forgot to add at the bottom, if we assume they used a high efficiency panel, they lost about ~25% of the energy in the panel in the conversion to AC, this actually surpasses coal plants according to the numbers in Wikipedia. ;)
- TrinitronX, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2Actually 2% is quite a good improvement considering a power efficiency increase of 0.1% can translate into thousands of dollars in savings for power distribution companies..
- Ramble, on 02/15/2008, -2/+4Fossil fuels is just indirect sunlight too.
- Barbarino, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2You are an idiot. The reason cars don't get higher mpg as older cars is due to weight. Why do they weight more? Safety gear, such as air bags, abs, traction control etc. They also build cars that people will buy and want. They have to turn a profit. Also know this, in the 80's all those oil companies you railed against went bankrupt.
- piouspeter, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1yeah! The only reason we got to space so fast is because we made it a priority. If we are just passively interested in Energy efficiency, then it will only passively progress.
- wpauli, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Here is another technology that is available today with efficiency above 40%
http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/very_high_temp_ga ...
Why is this not a functional technology in the United States today? Politics. Quit hating on nuclear, its the most viable energy solution for now. 1000MWe is the output of the average sized nuclear power plant (built 20+ years ago) which operates at a combined cycle efficiency of around 33% http://www.nei.org/ - Fxer, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1If you knew a little of energy production, you would realize that if an engineer improved the efficiency of a fossil fuel engine by .01%, he would save the company he's working for millions of dollars. 2% is a huge quantity if solar energy ever becomes mass produced.
- donjuan571, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1 There is only 1 spectrum of light, you are talking about frequency ranges in said spectrum.
- Stratochief66, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Yes, it is the safety systems that kill your fuel milage. I don't agree with Barbarino's statement that they make cars people want though, I would love a car with early 80's level safety equipment, maybe lightened with todays technology. It would save me gas and money.
- Stratochief66, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1I thought the same thing as PresRob, why not shovel some snow onto the cold side of the engine? But since I haven't seen the design I would have to assume that their patent pending radiator works better than whatever idea I came up with in 5 minutes, but it is still worth mentioning just in case...
- torontoliam, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Actually, it's closer to 6%. The summary, to be accurate, should have said 2 percentage points.
- swancher, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1try this: http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2008 ...
- magus_melchior, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Pedant for the day: "Sterling" is most recognized with silver products (sterling silver), or British currency (pounds sterling). The engine mentioned in the article is a "Stirling" engine. They're pronounced the same in English, unless the accent is really different from Midwestern American. The first Google hit on "sterling solar" points to Stirling Energy Systems, so this point is probably moot.
Okay, I'm done. - magus_melchior, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1It's a stupid way to fuel cars if you try to use something other than a simple sugar. It worked handsomely for the Brazilians because they have a LOT of sugar cane. It is a recipe for disaster in the US because not only does it cost more energy to produce from things like corn, but because the currently used methods to grow the fuel crops are very destructive to the soil and groundwater. You think food prices are bad? Wait until the Midwest soil can no longer sustain maize, and when diesel fuel for ships becomes prohibitively expensive.
- crazzy88ss, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1I once accidentally drove into the livermore branch of Sandia Lab... yea that was a fun night :/
- PresRob, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Why are Sterling Engines dependent on ambient temperture? Why not put the other end of a Sterling Engine into a fountain and allow the water to cool it?
- magus_melchior, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1They're not dependent on the ambient temperature, but the efficiency increases with a bigger temperature difference. The Stirling engine will still run with the cold side at ambient temperature because there's a heat source.
- cam0man, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1where is that 4.27mb 300dpi photo they mention? when I click the link I get a 877kb image.... I want that as a wallpaper.
- magus_melchior, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1It's not that geothermal is hard, it's that there aren't very many places where it's easily tapped. Iceland, Hawaii, and Yellowstone are a few good places to look off the top of my head. I don't think we'd want to write it off if it's available.
- magus_melchior, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1I think a stronger argument would question the structural integrity of these islands, how they would affect marine life, and how they're planning to get the collected power to land where people need it.
- donjuan571, on 02/15/2008, -4/+419 Years of technological progress only yields a 2% increase? Thats on the same trend as the automobile, my ford explorer gets less miles per gallon than the Model T, which came out about 80 years ago!
One of the reasons why it has stayed like this, is because for over 60 years now, maybe longer, these trillion dollar companies have been buying up patents, in all countries that issue them, pertaining to inventions of alternative, cleaner, efficient fuel systems.
Makes me ***** sick.
And you know what else is ridiculous? Is that governments and the people in general expect present day auto-companies (which are in bed with oil companies) to invent and modernize the basic automobile.
Step back and think about that for a little. Did horse and buggy companies invent the automobile? Did automobile companies invent the airplane? Did train companies invent the telegraph? Did the telegraph invent the telephone? Did radio companies invent TV? TV companies invent the internet?
The answers to all of those are NO. Established markets are the *Establishment* and they in no way are just going to give into their demise, its ridiculous to actually think they would, just look at history and it speaks for itself.
They in no way will go out easily, and we have to realize it, and provide more protection for private inventors, because there are already guys out there driving across country on ONE tank of fuel. 2K+ miles on one tank. Don't believe me? Do the research, its out there.
Check these:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jcy3JbGjQwo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x56k9q-0QIo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0f52n8JkYEs
http://images.google.com/images?q=free+energy&hl=e ...
http://freeenergynews.com/
http://educate-yourself.org/fe/4 - magus_melchior, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1Why don't you simply bury and move on?
- Barbarino, on 02/15/2008, -2/+22% wow, my checking account is higher than that.. buried for being a waste of time!
- entrophize, on 02/15/2008, -3/+3...another boring, vapid 'article' submitted by Digg's most obsessed bootlicker.
Why the ***** do you people digg such trite excrement? - Mobilemaverick, on 02/15/2008, -0/+0One thing people do not factor in solar power is the cost for the batteries, both retail cost and toxic by products to make them! I am all for solar, but the storage side needs major work.
- rtbguy, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1These systems aren't for intended for individuals to put into their own back yard. They are designed to be sold to utilities. The article indicates that they've got contracts to built 70,000 units to produce 1750MW of electricity -- or about 75% of what is produced by the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station.
- gkiltz, on 02/16/2008, -0/+0Not by as much as it needs to be to make solar power viable at any scale!
- masgrada, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1A little off topic, but: I think we need to put more into solar->thermal(stored) energy as well. So much of our energy is wasted producing heat when we could just save much of it using inexpensive methods. There are also ways of using solar heat to cool homes as well. These need to be researched.
- Sautechef, on 02/15/2008, -4/+3Buried for the article using the worn out phrase "perfect storm".
- Fxer, on 02/15/2008, -2/+1People have to think things through. To mass produce solar energy we would need thousands of acres of solar panels. Don't you think that would have an effect on the temperature of the oceans?
- cockaroachie, on 02/15/2008, -2/+1As soon as Bush and the Republicans find out about this they will send bombers to destroy this laboratory. Big Oil will not stand for this type of progress.
- mcbeefman, on 02/15/2008, -1/+0Yeah man someday this will be what runs this world. becuase when petroleum runs out we are left with wind, water, solar, and of couse biofuel power.
- marc123, on 02/15/2008, -3/+1nice
- DaDiggydiggyDOC, on 02/15/2008, -2/+0I agree, if in almost 20 years your only gains are by a 2% margin on an already minimal return energy wise. Seems that we need to explore like others on here have pointed out invest more money into solar panels. The old panels only were able to absorb one spectrum of light so with the ability to add more spectrum's you can gain more energy. Seem better than having to hope for "perfect" conditions to gain any extra power IMO.
- CC440, on 02/15/2008, -4/+1Now that they are developing super-efficient solar panels I see a revolution in world power supply. On the Equator we will produce giant floating islands of solar panels, that are also supported by wave and wind power. This keeps land use from being an issue, and it takes advantage of 3 of the 4 types of natural energy. Geothermal power is too hard to capture right now, but if solar become as efficient as some people think it can it will be the waveof the future.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
