What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

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!

MIT solar PV technology scalable, printable, incorporable into fabrics

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
21,064
Reaction score
3,409
Points
290
Location
N/A
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.

 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
106,559
Reaction score
49,700
Points
2,320
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
Outstanding. I freaking LOVE science.

Science may save us from ourselves one day.
 

johngaltshrugged

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
5,706
Reaction score
12,442
Points
2,288
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
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
107,016
Reaction score
17,817
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
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.

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.
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
21,064
Reaction score
3,409
Points
290
Location
N/A
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
Like you understand math?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
87,616
Reaction score
27,623
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
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.

Of course. Because kinetic energy never results in heat.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
107,016
Reaction score
17,817
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
Of course. Because kinetic energy never results in heat.
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.

total energy = work + losses
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
107,016
Reaction score
17,817
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
And the same thing for potential energy. Converting electricity into potential energy does not produce heat except for losses from the conversion process.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
107,016
Reaction score
17,817
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
Losses are typical due to friction.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
87,616
Reaction score
27,623
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
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.

total energy = work + losses

How much energy hits the panel versus how much would have warmed the ground?

Not the actual kinetic energy (work) itself; just the losses associated with doing the work.

If a Tesla uses 100 KW to go from point A to Point B, how much of that energy ends up as heat?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
107,016
Reaction score
17,817
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
How much energy hits the panel versus how much would have warmed the ground?

Not the actual kinetic energy (work) itself; just the losses associated with doing the work.

If a Tesla uses 100 KW to go from point A to Point B, how much of that energy ends up as heat?
What part of kinetic energy and potential energy do not produce heat did you not understand?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
87,616
Reaction score
27,623
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
What part of kinetic energy and potential energy do not produce heat did you not understand?

How much of the 100 KW used by the Tesla didn't result in heat from friction?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
107,016
Reaction score
17,817
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
How much of the 100 KW used by the Tesla didn't result in heat from friction?
What part of kinetic energy and potential energy do not produce heat did you not understand?

total energy = work + losses
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
87,616
Reaction score
27,623
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
What part of kinetic energy and potential energy do not produce heat did you not understand?

total energy = work + losses

As far as I can tell, assuming no significant change in altitude,
pretty much all 100 KW used by the Tesla is converted into heat by friction.

If you have a different number that supports your global cooling theory, post it.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
107,016
Reaction score
17,817
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
As far as I can tell, assuming no significant change in altitude,
pretty much all 100 KW used by the Tesla is converted into heat by friction.

If you have a different number that supports your global cooling theory, post it.
Calculate the work and subtract it from the total energy. Because work - which can be kinetic or potential - does not produce heat.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
87,616
Reaction score
27,623
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
Calculate the work and subtract it from the total energy. Because work - which can be kinetic or potential - does not produce heat.

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?

What's the work in that 200 mile round trip?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
107,016
Reaction score
17,817
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
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?

What's the work in that 200 mile round trip?
How much work was performed?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
107,016
Reaction score
17,817
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
I think all the work performed was overcoming friction.
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.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top