Submitted by Wagamaga t3_z5ibnc in technology
Comments
thatfreshjive t1_ixwdu6h wrote
I, personally, prefer seeing an image of the actual technology that's being reported. Couldn't care less about the guy, who managed the engineers.
pheoxs t1_ixwvi8l wrote
To be fair what are they going to show … a solar panel? One that looks like almost every other solar panel but with different dots.
Hard to convey any technological breakthrough in a thumbnail pic
hammeredtrout1 t1_ixwhyof wrote
I highly doubt they would share photos of the tech, it seems like pretty valuable IP
SpecificAstronaut69 t1_ixxu1ck wrote
"Oh no, other humans!111!"
g2g079 t1_ixwe546 wrote
Maybe because he's a VP and head of R&D for the company in question?
thatfreshjive t1_ixwhulp wrote
No one interested in technology, beyond monetary value to themselves, cares about who managed a project.
Sorry, not sorry.
HandsOnGeek t1_ixwpjff wrote
Well, considering that articles like this are based largely on press releases from the responsible technology developers, the purpose of said article is to seek financial investors to develop said technology for mass production.
So it reads like an article for people who care about investment opportunities with the project because that's who it's for.
thatfreshjive t1_ixwi4wv wrote
Obviously credentials and accomplishments in your professional field matter - but until it's proven, and scalable, only the tech matters.
thatfreshjive t1_ixwibhf wrote
This is a masturbatory and commissioned article. It doesn't belong in r/technology
iRedditonFacebook t1_ixxn94l wrote
Blogspam and upbotspam in one
MasterpieceBrave420 t1_iy0viwm wrote
I've seen enough Lisa Su fanart to know that you are objectively wrong.
thatfreshjive t1_iy6hiiq wrote
Yup. I am. Was curious what sort of response it would elicit.
I agree, I am 100% wrong
DanSchneiderNonPedo t1_iy0wrsx wrote
Lol.
Have you heard of Elon Musk and his cult of personality?
thatfreshjive t1_iy6sa2h wrote
Who TF is Elon musk?
I_spread_love_butter t1_ixwhq37 wrote
He's actually a solar cell
MrPissedHimself t1_ixwqgih wrote
An agent of the sun. Selling its secrets
gpkgpk t1_ixx0puo wrote
He's a champion of the sun and a master of karate.
MrPissedHimself t1_ixx1lxe wrote
He is a traitor. He has burned me and he'll burn you
[deleted] t1_ixxh3iz wrote
[removed]
asdaaaaaaaa t1_ixwzfj7 wrote
I just keep the thumbnails as small as possible, completely removed when just viewing the whole subreddit and such. It's quite often they're really not related, showing some random picture of a dude or something like this. At least in my experience.
TakeCareOfYourM0ther t1_ixx9coc wrote
Or it’s clearly a biased article about someone and they pick the most horrible cherry picked shit photo of that person to make them look worse.
rkalla t1_ixwe8wg wrote
World changing. I can’t wait for 27% efficiency.
Willinton06 t1_ixwwoaa wrote
Bro 28 is gonna be lit
9-11GaveMe5G t1_ixx7mfy wrote
when this baby hits 29%, you're gonna see some serious shit
Commercial-Prompt-84 t1_ixxyan0 wrote
30 percent. 1/3rd. Really gunna be ground breaking
Famous-Somewhere9191 t1_ixya5ck wrote
that three thee dot three repeat infinity
[deleted] t1_ixy2f0w wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixxnk68 wrote
[deleted]
GWtech t1_ixybpoi wrote
If you have never experienced having some solar panels with an inverter and a small inexpensive battery like a $30 10 amp hour lithium iron phosphate battery then you really can't understand the dramatic gains that have happened in solar panels lately. Suddenly you have an immense amount of power being put out by something that's just sitting there in the sunshine that's not even very big. We're talking about power that can kill you coming out of an inverter. We're talking about power that can make a Big Arc of electricity. Two or three Solar panels today can make whopping amounts of power and not even in bright sunshine. They'll make power even in cloudy skies.
This is radically changed boat ownership because boat owners no longer need to run gasoline generators or their engines to operate their equipment and because they now have an abundance of electrical power they can run things like air conditioners and ice makers and refrigerators and other things and water makers and water purifiers endlessly without returning to port for gasoline for a generator.
It's also changed life for boondockers and rvs.
There used to be an endless quest for free energy on the internet 20 years ago. The primary driver of that I believe was people wanted to get off the money sucking tit of utility companies in governments in general. Well solar panels are that free energy. It's much more understandable than the old free energy quests that used to proliferate but the results are the same. You spend $300 $400 on solar panels and you can have 10 to 15 amps of 12 volt power continually at your fingertips as long as the sun is shining.
This is a big deal.
what many people who don't have exposure to solar panel systems like this don't realize is although they may sit in their house and their house is constantly draining a thousand or more watts all the time with even a little bit of planning that same house can drain no power unless an individual device is actually turned on and used at that moment. Since boats and RVs are set up with systems that are not left on unlike houses. It quickly becomes obvious to boat owners and RV owners that are very small amount of power on tap for short periods of time is really what it takes to provide living quarters for someone. And specially if you're living quarters are well insulated you don't even need much for heating and air conditioning. Some of the window air conditioning units that are now being put into boats and RVs that you can buy for $150 at Home Depot are so efficient that they might only use 3 amps of power and that's plenty to be run by very small solar panel systems in the middle of the day when you most need that air conditioning.
The fabled free energy is here.
Edit:
After reading some of the other comments here I see so many of the old tropes being marched out again. Things like Central utilities need big battery packs and solar power isn't reliable and all these other things which are all true but they missed the point.
The big difference today is you can buy 100 watt solar panels right off Amazon for $89. Those consumer level panels are approximately 20% efficient today instead of 10% efficient like they were five or 10 years ago.
That 20% is enough to mean that you only need to buy three or four of those to run a window air conditioner or to run any other single device for shorts periods of time through a small $100 inverter.
What this means is you can run everything you need to live off of that solar power and small battery setup. Boat owners and RV owners know this but even homeowners can make this work by simply setting up a few solar panels with a very small battery like a 10 amp hour battery that really acts more like a capacitor and an inexpensive inverter and running an extension cord through a window and running a window air conditioning unit In the heat of the day to knock a huge amount off of their utility bill in the summer. They can run 90% of the things they need to run like a computer their phones and other things off of that same solar power setup. The only thing they can't run is an electric heater that's running constantly all night. You can even get around that somewhat though by using your solar panels to heat a large thing of water during the day and having that water radiate its heat all night long when the solar panel isn't available. That alone will cut your room heating cost quite a bit. It's just a modern variation on filling a hot water bottle up before you go to bed and stick it again in the bed with you. That water will radiate heat for a long time. Or the old boy scout trick when camping of putting in a rock into your fire while the fire is burning and then when you're ready to go to bed taking the rock out of the fire and wrapping it in a blanket and putting it in your sleeping bag with you. It makes the heat available earlier available to you all night.
myne t1_ixynt4w wrote
Interesting. It makes me wonder if some boats will move to at least partially electric motors. Keep the diesel for when it's needed.
BasvanS t1_ixzgp1j wrote
Batteries are still expensive, heavy, and motors are energy intensive. While you could replace ballast in sailboats for batteries because you use the engine maneuvering and going in and out of harbors, if you’re only using it a few weeks/weekends a year, I’m not sure it’s worth the transition. I’d stay with diesels for propulsion.
But having on board electricity taken care of by one or two solar panel will make life so much more comfortable on board.
(I’m big on advocating EV driving and home energy management systems, but I just don’t see boats as low hanging fruit right now. However, if you want to, there’s no one stopping you.)
GWtech t1_iy97db1 wrote
But here's what you're missing. You don't need a lot of batteries anymore. When you can buy thousands of watts of solar panels for dirt cheap and you don't need to worry about storing a lot of that electricity and batteries. You can get yourself one 100 amp hour lithium iron phosphate battery for $300 and that thing will last you longer than your life. Literally. Those 100 amp hours will be plenty to run anything except a massive electric heater all night. And with daytime solar panels you won't be draining the battery at all you'll be stuffing it full of electricity while you're using all of your appliances inside. So since solar panels have gotten so cheap it's better to just buy a lot more solar panels and you just don't need to have many batteries anymore. That's the big change.
BasvanS t1_iy9b8w6 wrote
We’re talking propulsion here. I agree on the rest, but boats can’t self-rely on solar for propulsion, except for sailboats perhaps.
For the rest indeed it’s a no brainer.
GWtech t1_iy973pm wrote
Go to any sailboat Marina and you'll find huge numbers of owners are pulling out their diesels and installing electric motors and or many are buying torquedo electric outboards to use when navigating into and out of marina.
The big catamaran makers are switching to solar covering their roof area with panels which gives them enough to navigate purely by solar without draining the batteries and still even charge the battery so they can continue to operate overnight. I actually expect catamarans to get rid of sails pretty much completely and go pure solar as for most latitudes the solar is a guarantee much more than the wind.
thruster_fuel69 t1_ixz2y0f wrote
When can I buy one? I'm about to install a roof worth of solar but this stuff could probably just use 1 or 2 panels. Worth waiting vs electrical savings now??
GWtech t1_iy98f1d wrote
Well I bought panels off of ebay. They're also some places you can buy used panels. But at $89 for 100 Watts on Amazon delivered it's hard to beat it. A pulse with modulated inverter which is not the best but will work with most things will be about 100 bucks for 1,000 W maybe 200 bucks for 2000 watts.
If you shift your appliances to use less Watts for example buy a 700 watt microwave oven instead of trying to get a 2000 watt microwave on and then it'll take 4 minutes instead of 2 minutes to reheat your food but you won't have to buy a more expensive inverter or thicker wires.
I think solar panels are so cheap now that it's worth getting one or two and beginning to offset your energy costs immediately. I mean if you can run a 3 amp 110 volt air conditioner in your window off of a couple of solar panels for a few hours in the middle of the day I would imagine that that's going to save you so much on your energy bill these days in Europe in America that that alone is a good reason to do it. Not to mention the fact that a lot of places in Europe are going to experience some brownouts and things so if you can run an electric heater for a few hours in the day and use that to heat up a pile of sand or some rocks then that can emit heat all night when the sun's gone down and you might have heat when no one else does in freezing europe.
Don't forget that the primary use of electricity is for heating and air conditioning in most houses. And you can skip batteries completely if you just run some resistance wire under a pile of sand and a large 55 gallon metal barrel sitting in the middle of your floor and you heat that all day when the sun is out and when the Sun goes down that will radiate that heat all night. You can also heat hot water and put it in hot water bottles in your bed. Etc etc. It's rather easy to store heat to radiate at night. Air conditioning is a little tougher but you can run an ice maker on your solar panels during the day and again blow air over that ice or put it in a plastic bag in your bed to keep you cooler if it's very hot at night. I literally bought an ice maker that can run off an inverter and runs off a 300 watt solar panel system I have and I stuck a beer or two right inside the little ice maker instead of buying a refrigerator.
thruster_fuel69 t1_iy99434 wrote
I 100% agree!! My other home is already fully solar and saving $600/month peak.
My quandary always is that I'm specialized in things not electrical, so I'm at the whim of the market and their prices. That said, I'm going to do what it takes to save another $600/month 😆
littleMAS t1_ixwhz5a wrote
It is amazing how 'inefficient' power 'generation' seems to be. Imagine if they were 99% efficient. I guess that would be like imagining I was 26.81% efficient.
OddGambit t1_ixwnmke wrote
Energy conversion is a tough game.
The upper limit for a single junction silicon cell is around 30% (can't remember the exact number and it depends on your assumptions), so we are already approaching the point of diminishing returns for this specific configuration.
Multijunction cells or TPV cells can go higher though, we just can't do them as cost efficiently yet.
Cool!
al-in-to t1_ixwt036 wrote
There is a technical limit, about 34%, so we are 80% there. To go beyond that you have to use multi junction cells, which are a lot more expensive. Perovskite does multi cell, but with efficiency level similar to conventional methods
It's generally better to make it cheaper than more efficient, but both is always better.
hammeredtrout1 t1_ixwi9sf wrote
I think it means there’s lots of room for further efficiency improvements. And solar is already the cheapest way to produce energy…imagine what will happen if efficiency continues to rise
thefpspower t1_ixwivsr wrote
It's the cheapest because it has become cheap, not because it's more efficient than before. Efficient panels are way more expensive.
BuzzBadpants t1_ixwzdte wrote
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, you’re absolutely correct.
hammeredtrout1 t1_ixx5fg3 wrote
No they’re not. Energy cost is measured in price per megawatt hour - how much it costs to produce x amount of energy. Increasing efficiency is a major way of reducing cost, and solar has become cheaper than any other source not only because it’s cheaper to produce, but it is more efficient
BasvanS t1_ixzoa4f wrote
Efficiency is about getting more out of the sand amount of surface. If double the surface gives the same amount of electricity, but is 10 times cheaper, the cost per kWh drops by a factor of five.
The cost of solar has come down, because it’s price follow an observed law where a doubling in installed capacity drops the price by 20% (Swanson’s law)
Efficiency is part of that equation, but the efficiency hasn’t gone up that much. It’s mostly production capacity that accounts for the savings.
DrXaos t1_ixxkkoa wrote
Photosynthesis in plants is typically 3%. Solar cells are fighting thermodynamics, so almost 27% is extraordinarily good.
microbug_ t1_ixwynjm wrote
Muscles are about 30% energy efficient, so you’re not far off
[deleted] t1_ixxifp9 wrote
[removed]
hithisishal t1_ixxk3ih wrote
Here is an article with technical details if anyone is interested.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/11/21/longi-claims-worlds-highest-silicon-solar-cell-efficiency/
Seems like it uses more or less the same technology as the previous record set in 2017 (amorphous silicon heterojunction, originally called HIT by Sanyo). But it's a bit noteworthy because everyone struggled to approach Sanyo/Panasonic's efficiency for many years.
MaverickBuster t1_ixxc2c1 wrote
What does large size mean in this context? Article didn't say that I could see.
hithisishal t1_ixxjhgs wrote
Probably a full wafer. There are a few different standard sizes nowadays, but all of them are around 6-8 inch squares or rectangles.
myne t1_ixyo2a0 wrote
If it's a full size wafer it'd be 30cm ~12in
hithisishal t1_ixysc85 wrote
Source? I've never heard of solar using 300mm wafers. I think the largest is M6
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/01/25/the-weekend-read-the-rise-of-m6/
myne t1_ixysxb7 wrote
Those are the largest silicon wafers. No idea if they're used for solar
hithisishal t1_ixztslk wrote
They're not. Solar wafers are pretty different from wafers for IC / transistor fab. They are much thinner, rectangular so they can pack well, and are generally sold rough cut rather than polished.
myne t1_iy0dcf6 wrote
That's all in the cutting/polishing.
Here's an ingot prior to cutting :
ukezi t1_ixydhz9 wrote
Most records are set by thumbnail sized cells. These are full sized cells.
[deleted] t1_ixwbs19 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixwgkhi wrote
[deleted]
Chris77123 t1_iy0508q wrote
Now we just need some cheap batteries, current solar pannels are at 22% so i dont see such a big efficiency increase
bennysoy t1_iy0fmc5 wrote
Who is the most efficient? By spatial and energy efficiency? Definitely not this.
babyyodaisamazing98 t1_ixyv5yd wrote
I just wish the prices would come down. I still got quoted over $20,000 for a 6kW system for my house. The payback time was 30 years with only a 25 year lifetime on the panels.
We need the price to drop another 50% if they actually want people to buy the things.
Lovv t1_ixz5nph wrote
I got a quote 23k for 9kw so yours is really high. With rebate I'm looking at 9.9 years
gurenkagurenda t1_ixzliiz wrote
Also for a 30 year payback at that price, they'd have to be paying like what? Three cents per kWh for grid power?
gurenkagurenda t1_ixz4dbi wrote
They have come down in cost rapidly, and don’t seem to have stopped. The cost per watt is about a fifth of what it was a decade ago, and we’ve blown way ahead of forecasts from that period. Also 30 year payback time? That’s extremely atypical from my own research into this.
CuriousSequoia t1_ixwuzjj wrote
Just go nuclear
Iazo t1_ixxjbfx wrote
Still need both. It's not either-or.
raygundan t1_ixx18h0 wrote
I guess if your goal is to pay many times as much for the same amount of energy, sure... it's pretty "green" when the waste is handled well, it's just suuuuper expensive compared to solar right now.
BLSmith2112 t1_ixx6rzc wrote
If you had a field of these 26.81% efficient solar panels in the same footprint of a nuclear power plant (including all off limit areas and borders), this would generate the same amount of electricity. Throw some batteries in there and you've got yourself a much better system in that you don't need to wait 10 years to put it up.
lease1982 t1_ixxktik wrote
And they can also be distributed directly to the energy consumer much easier than nuclear can. A huge benefit for home and business self reliability and grid reliability.
Majik_Sheff t1_ixy20xp wrote
I thought the turnaround on a new nuclear plant from approval to lights-on was around 30 years. Am I way off here?
danielravennest t1_ixyop61 wrote
The Vogtle Units 3 & 4 reactors in Georgia, the only ones still under construction, started construction on 22 June 2009. They are both planned to start operating next year. #3 has been fueled, but still doing tests before ramping up to full power.
iLikeMeeces t1_ixy7mam wrote
What?! That is completely untrue.
For a solar farm to equal a nuclear reactor's output (let's say 1000MW) it would require about 40 square miles of land. A nuclear facility requires about 1.5 to 2 for that same output.
Tomcatjones t1_ixy9u6a wrote
First of all… your figures are incorrect lol
but you are right the size isn’t the same.
The largest solar park is 21 square miles. And it produces 2.5 GW
7734128 t1_ixyawu1 wrote
There's a greater difference than that. Not that it matters that much, as we have quite a lot of dessert and wasteland globally.
A 2.5 GW solar plant would in reality average between 0.25 and 0.5 GW due to limited capacity factor. A nuclear power plant usually also use multiple reactors, with only limited increase in size.
BasvanS t1_ixzs6tf wrote
A power plant can’t be built on rooftops. Rooftops also have less inefficiency from grid transmissions. HEMS however have lower efficiency when battery power is used. Nuclear power plants are open to attacks. So is the software of inverters. It’s a messy calculation, but below the line to me the decentralized solution, with solar energy generated close to where it’s used and excesses stored in EVs is the winning combo.
ukezi t1_ixydbun wrote
That is 2.5 GW peak, average will be a lot lower.
Tomcatjones t1_ixye4sh wrote
732,874mwh per year
Which is 2000 per day
Pretty damn good. 3.1cents per kWh in 2020
ukezi t1_ixyenrt wrote
So average power of ~83 MW.
Tomcatjones t1_iy0gyfm wrote
I’m confused how you got that?
tdrhq t1_ixyqi9o wrote
Oh cool, which brand of nuclear do you suggest for my rooftop?
[deleted] t1_ixxhpoh wrote
[deleted]
danielravennest t1_ixyoe7v wrote
What do you think the Sun runs on?
ISAMU13 t1_ixx0jsc wrote
Some people that want their investment to pay back within a decade.
cwesttheperson t1_ixxdj5g wrote
Nuclear is the single best option. Still fascinating people argue against it.
There has even constrictive conversation on this but the point stands. Too much of the anti nuclear is talking points trying to weigh pros and cons but it’s clear the picture of nuclear vs. wind and solar is still muddled. Nuclear is the best option, tons of research and information, it’s still pointless trying to deny it, it all leads back.
electric_creamsicle t1_ixxjxci wrote
There's no single best option. They all have upsides and downsides and it's dumb to try and say we should fully commit to any one kind of alternative energy.
Solar and wind don't offer a reliable energy source and require some kind of battery infrastructure to power a grid if there's enough volume to provide enough power to the grid on average.
Nuclear can provide steady energy as the grid requires but has huge overhead in terms of start-up costs. There's also the problem of disposal of waste but I think that's less of a problem.
If we were forward looking enough, we would be building enough nuclear plants to phase out coal and natural gas for energy production in the grid while also building solar and wind to cover the increase in energy usage year after year. That way there's no need to increase coal/natural gas output and they become obsolete once the nuclear plants are built. There's a more nuanced approach where the government heavily subsidizes (more than they have) solar panels so land owners build them on their property that they're not using for things like food anyway and keep energy production as local as possible.
LivingReaper t1_ixxqya3 wrote
Modern reactors use the fuel almost to completion. Smaller amounts of waste and less toxic waste that is safe after a few hundred years.
uhhNo t1_ixxsoup wrote
In a decade, nuclear will be 3x more expensive per unit of energy than wind and solar.
Nuclear is only good up to the baseload of the grid. For the rest, wind, solar, and storage will be more economical while still being reliable.
ttux t1_ixydm51 wrote
But your baseload has to be the same as your entire solar + wind production until electricity storage has been solved so why build both solution when you can build only one. I say this often but Germany spent 600 billion euros on wind and solar since 2000. They would have spent this on building nuclear plants and not closing the ones they already had and would have 100% co2 free and cheapest electricity on the planet. There is a difference between theory and practice. Now we are screwed because we lack energy and building nuclear plants will take minimum 10 years so in the mean time we burn gas and coal for baseload and add more solar/wind. At 40% renewables, 11% nuclear and the rest fossil. And that's just for electricity. So optimistically another 800-1000 billion euros to go? Then 2 times that to replace use of fossil fuel beyond electricity?
source: https://www.aicgs.org/2021/09/germany-has-a-math-problem-and-its-about-to-get-worse/
cwesttheperson t1_ixywyj5 wrote
This guy gets it.
uhhNo t1_iy2cvb4 wrote
All the money spent developing wind and solar should be looked at as an investment for humanity. Wind and solar prices dropped by so much for the entire world. Massive benefit for reducing global emissions.
Wind, solar, and batteries are already the best option for peaking load, but currently providing baseload energy this way is too expensive.
There will still be a huge baseload energy need so it would still make sense to add much more nuclear.
napoleon_wang t1_ixwwg0p wrote
Only if everyone can keep the toxic waste in your bedroom.
Plzbanmebrony t1_ixwyayz wrote
The volume of waste is basically nothing.
lucimon97 t1_ixx4g86 wrote
Your bedroom then?
Plzbanmebrony t1_ixx4tyg wrote
Well if you reduce it to only the longest lasting elements and don't care about heat then yes it would fit.
Willinton06 t1_ixwww2t wrote
Bro leave it in my tub, free hot tub
CuriousSequoia t1_ixxzu26 wrote
Why would you want to dump nuclear waste into your mom’s bedroom?
Aggravating_Head_60 t1_ixwk9ep wrote
Shiiiiit. They better get on it, Wish is selling panels with 8,000,000% effeciency!
Won't too long before Wish has the cure for cancer.
wackywavingarmgumby t1_ixxitea wrote
Wish went too far, now they will only sell a single panel and a lightbulb. Breaking laws of thermodynamics isn't a smart business move.
Aggravating_Head_60 t1_ixxpn6q wrote
You can't stop them, nobody can stop them. Try, and they'll blind your unborn children with their 9,000,000,000,000 lumen flashlights!
PigeonClown t1_ixwxtob wrote
Chinese fluff oriented “news”
lod254 t1_ixxa9un wrote
I swear it's a new record every week. I'm holding out until 99.9%.
Panda_tears t1_ixxe3ha wrote
Wake me up when we get to the 80s
WarOfTheFanboys t1_ixwtg15 wrote
I’ve been waiting 20 years for cost-efficient solar panels. Looks like it’ll be at least another few decades…
Ivanthegorilla t1_ixwgtzt wrote
Using chinese slave labor getting minerals from african slave labor ccp = trash
[deleted] t1_ixwj087 wrote
[deleted]
Oram0 t1_ixwqb4k wrote
Name me one company in the world. That doesn't use the Chinese slave labor getting the minerals. China has the rare minerals market cornered, because its polluting as fuck and no one wants it in their country.
[deleted] t1_ixy2l0t wrote
[removed]
thatfreshjive t1_ixwdhlu wrote
Why is the thumbnail just a photo of some dude? Yes, I read the article.