Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
This could be revolutionary. Virtually anything could now be producing electricity in the sun. A backpack, a tent, a tarp, the entire body of your car, your roof. Check our this article.
As you might know, I'm into the whole off-grid living and solar power lifestyle. That said, I was out exploring the latest news in sun-capturing tec...
Get back to us when they've made the necessary leap in battery technology to make a net-zero economy possible.
Until then, it's all a pipe dream by sheeple that don't understand math
This could be revolutionary. Virtually anything could now be producing electricity in the sun. A backpack, a tent, a tarp, the entire body of your car, your roof. Check our this article.
As you might know, I'm into the whole off-grid living and solar power lifestyle. That said, I was out exploring the latest news in sun-capturing tec...
I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial period other than converting visible light on a global scale which would have produced heat and converting it into kinetic energy in the middle of an ice age when the net warming is only 0.6 W/m^2.
Get back to us when they've made the necessary leap in battery technology to make a net-zero economy possible.
Until then, it's all a pipe dream by sheeple that don't understand math
I can't think of a better way to usher in the next glacial period other than converting visible light on a global scale which would have produced heat and converting it into kinetic energy in the middle of an ice age when the net warming is only 0.6 W/m^2.
Not the actual kinetic energy (work) itself; just the losses associated with doing the work. Which relative to the work performed is low. Somewhere around 10 to 20% of the total energy.
And the same thing for potential energy. Converting electricity into potential energy does not produce heat except for losses from the conversion process.
Not the actual kinetic energy (work) itself; just the losses associated with doing the work. Which relative to the work performed is low. Somewhere around 10 to 20% of the total energy.
Work to move the Tesla 100 miles north and then 100 miles south back to the point of origin
results in heat from friction. Pretty much 100% of it. Can you calculate otherwise?
Work to move the Tesla 100 miles north and then 100 miles south back to the point of origin
results in heat from friction. Pretty much 100% of it. Can you calculate otherwise?
Friction is subtracted from total energy not work.
What waste heat there is from electricity usage doesn't heat the surface of the planet. It radiates back to space. Solar radiation heats the surface of the planet. Reduce solar radiation enough and it will affect the planet's climate.
www.autoevolution.com
