• DoubleDongle
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    17 hours ago

    One watt per square meter. Not very useful.

    • TheTechnician27
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      You’re getting downvoted for pointing out that this technology, at optimal efficiency on Earth, generates about 1/100,000 the power of a solar panel. “Not very useful” is an understatement (it’s currently fucking useless). Even worse: the title saying “at night” implies a terrestrial usage and misdirects from this technology’s only potential useful application in the future once and if it becomes much better – namely on deep-space missions.

      This research is interesting. I hope it yields something useful. Your comment is still 100% correct for the foreseeable future.


      Edit: I was conflating the optimal efficiency of 1 W/m2 and the actual efficiency of 1/100,000 the solar panel. Sorry for introducing that confusion.

      • cheesemoo
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        16 hours ago

        That 1/100,000 comparison doesn’t seem right if these panels generate 1W per square meter as the parent poster said. It sounds like you’re saying regular solar panels generate 100kW per square meter but I’m pretty sure that’s orders of magnitude too high. Am I misinterpreting what you said?

        • XeroxCool
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          Agreed. It’s 1/100 with old panels at 1/300 with modern high performance panels, being up to 300w/m.

          Edit: solar radiation is only 1.3kw/m2

          • raspberriesareyummy
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            13 hours ago

            Edit: solar radiation is only 1.3kw/m2

            Outside earths atmosphere. Only ~650 Watts/m^2 reach the surface of our planet.

            Edit: I posted regurgitating some simplified assumption from a text book or something I must have read in the past, the 650 W/m² is wrong.

            • Thorry@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              13 hours ago

              No that’s not right, it’s about 1000 watts/m2 on the surface. But it is on a totally clear day with the sun directly overhead. So depending on your latitude you get less per m2 because the Earth is round.

              Wikipedia says it’s 1361 watts per m2 just outside the atmosphere.

              • raspberriesareyummy
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                13 hours ago

                On the power outside the atmosphere I didn’t comment because I was too lazy to look it up, the and I knew the number of the previous commenter was in the ballpark.

                Regarding the surface: my apologies, I quoted a number from university that must have been a simplification for a calculation exercise, and I made the mistake of never thinking about it critically. Turns out I was wrong.

      • borkborkbork@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        even if it only helped eek out 1% returns, on missions depending on an RTEG that could be years added.

        worth keeping an eye on.

    • db2
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Clearly you don’t know how much longer sketchy hallways get in the dark. It’s at least a 20 fold increase.

    • FunkyCheese@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Could be good enough for light in dark places

      But… yes

      Generally not enough. But maybe with more work they could become better