• scrungus [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 month ago

    Also, from a “science is neat!” perspective, they’re like one of the only forms of power generation we have that doesn’t involve spinning a turbine

    • SootySootySoot [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      In a weird way this is the wildest bit. It’s because they don’t have moving parts that really makes them incredibly portable, incredibly easy to mass produce, little-to-no maintenance, magic endless electricity squares. Anything with a turbine is basically impossible to both mass-produce and install on unattended/domestic properties.

      From another science is neat perspective, we’ve actually reached insane levels of efficiency. Average panels get about 20% nowadays, degrading to about half that after a couple decades. Top-end commercial panels are about 25% efficient. Experimental panels have claimed up to 40% efficiency in real-world conditions. Plant photosynthesis solar->usable energy is, depending on how you calculate it, somewhere between 3 and 11% efficiency.

      • scrungus [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        I knew they were getting more and more efficient, but seeing the hard numbers is wild! Like literally enough to help push back on my ever present climate related doomery, ty comrade fidel-salute

    • mrfugu [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      I always find this neat. As cool and as futuristic as nuclear energy may seem it’s still just hot thing makes steam to turn wheel same as a fossil fuel plant.

      Compared to that, solar panels might as well be magic.