Nanotubes May Improve Solar Energy Harvesting 93
eldavojohn writes "Scientists are hoping that the 'coaxial cable' style nanotube they developed will resolve energy issues that come with converting sunlight to energy. The plants currently have us beat in this department but research is discovering new ways to eliminate inefficiencies in transferring photons to energy. Traditional methods involve exciting electrons to the point of jumping to a higher state which leaves 'holes.' Unfortunately, these electrons and holes remain in the same regions and therefore tend to recombine. The new nanotubes hope to route these excited electrons off in the same way a coaxial cable allows a return route for electrons. End result is fewer electrons settling back into their holes once they are elevated out of them yielding a higher return in energy."
Re:Concentrating existing power also important (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact, they even have clear glass windows that college solar energy as well (might have been on slashdot?) We definitely have the ability, were just willing to spend the resources.
Centralization is the wrong way to go (Score:3, Insightful)
A panel on your roof may not be as efficient, but it's yours. In an sunny place, you may be able to sell power to the local grid during the daytime peak hours. (You might buy it back at night, but the rates are lower then.)
There will always be a need for a grid, and some big power plants, but making as much new capacity decentralized and as local as possible means addressing political, social, and security externalities that have been ignored thus far.
Only 5 Years Away (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wrong headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Just the small matter of tdynamics and economics.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus on the economic issue, most nano-things cost kilobucks per square centimeter. Even if the cost came down by a factor of 10,000, it would still be uneconomical at ThunderDome prices.
Re:Concentrating existing power also important (Score:5, Insightful)
Zeno's power cell (Score:2, Insightful)
Plants have us beat? (Score:5, Insightful)
--
Sprout Silicon Leaves: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re:Centralization is the wrong way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
Halving the amount of energy doesn't just double payback time when you consider cost amortization. It increases it many more times, often making it so that it will never pay back.
Now, up here, self-generated wind power is an economically viable alternative to grid power... *if you don't live in a city*. I've crunched the numbers. Inside city limits, your towers are more expensive (you can't use guyed towers -- not enough space) and your heights are limited too close to the ground. On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable for farms (and power companies) to invest in. One great thing about the big tower wind turbines is that you lose almost no ground area; you can farm nearly up to their base.
This depends (Score:5, Insightful)
Commercial buildings can often benefit from lower cost, low efficiency panels because they are gaining from using space that they otherwise would not and they are more bottom line driven and can't cover they're full electic use under either senario.
--
Go Solar for what you already pay anyway: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re:This depends (Score:4, Insightful)
OTOH we have Swedish troops in Afghanistan.
Speaking of our relationship, I do feel that we and the US, in fact the entire Europe and the US, need to be much stronger allies than we are, in spite of the differences that we have. We need to make every effort co-operate in those areas where we agree. We have lots of common goals, and there are lots of areas where we agree.
In fact, even when we disagree we could often co-operate. For instance, we might play good-cop/bad-cop roles when dealing with recalcitrant nations. That's far more constructive than building rivalries.
I think we could achieve lots of great things together if we could just co-operate better.