An 'Anti-Solar Panel' Could Generate Electricity At Night, Researchers Say (inverse.com) 115
monkeyFuzz quotes Inverse: One of the problems with solar panels is that they don't generate electricity at night, so we have to store the electricity they generate during the day to power things during the evening. That works fine, but what if we could develop solar panels that did generate electricity at night? It's possible, and the way it works is pretty surprising.
Researchers from the University of California, Davis explain in a new paper that was just published in the journal ACS Photonics that if you want to create a solar panel that generates electricity at night, then you just have to create one that operates the exact opposite way solar panels work during the day. It's being referred to as the 'anti-solar panel.'
The paper's author explains to Inverse that as heat flows from Earth to outer space, "it's picking that off and converting that into power," using a thermoradiative cell instead of a photovoltaic cell, and he's now working with his team to develop prototypes.
And another paper in September from Stanford researchers also explored the idea of generating electricity at night.
Researchers from the University of California, Davis explain in a new paper that was just published in the journal ACS Photonics that if you want to create a solar panel that generates electricity at night, then you just have to create one that operates the exact opposite way solar panels work during the day. It's being referred to as the 'anti-solar panel.'
The paper's author explains to Inverse that as heat flows from Earth to outer space, "it's picking that off and converting that into power," using a thermoradiative cell instead of a photovoltaic cell, and he's now working with his team to develop prototypes.
And another paper in September from Stanford researchers also explored the idea of generating electricity at night.
An "anti-solar panel", you say? (Score:3, Funny)
I've got a bingo card here for the /.ers who are going to turn up and bloviate.
Popcorn, ready
Beer, ready
Bingo card, ready
Re: An "anti-solar panel", you say? (Score:4, Funny)
I have my anti-bingo card here, just waiting for all the anti-matches to start rolling in.
Re: (Score:1)
But then..... we'd cancel each other out!
NOOOOOOOooooooooo!
Re: An "anti-solar panel", you say? (Score:1)
YESSSSsssssss!
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder how long it will be before Thunderf00t chimes in on this...
Re: (Score:1)
You forgot Deniers. Here we'll have anti-solar deniers.
Re: (Score:2)
First number of course is "dupe."
And for my number, "can, not could."
Color this bloviation "cromulent."
But Not On Cloudy Nights? (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be theoretically possible to generate power using the temperature difference between the ground and space. But if there are clouds, then the temperature difference is between the ground and the clouds, which is far less. And I'd be somewhat skeptical that you could generate productive current.
Re:But Not On Cloudy Nights? (Score:5, Interesting)
True, but that would mean that the best places for solar: deserts, are also the best place for anti-solar. Hardly any clouds, hardly any CO2 offsetting vegetation. You could have the top of a panel solar and the bottom part anti-solar.
That is if this actually works..
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Boltzmann died because of mental condition, not because "he realized what it really means".
Re: But Not On Cloudy Nights? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For example if you want your device to be based on any of the known thermoelectric effects to benefit from the temperature difference between the ground and space you'd have to build a device that is exposed to both ground and space. So how would you do that?
Better invest money in those space elevator projects that want to figure out what kind of materials we need for this in the first place. Or come up with some enti
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't need to be in space... exposed to space means it is facing a cloudless sky, just like a solar panel doesn't need to be "in" the sun to do its work.
Re: (Score:2)
If you just let it face the sky but still keep it close to the ground, there won't be a lot of a temperature difference on its own during the night. Whether the sky is cloudless or clouded doesn't even matter that much. Sure a clouded night is generally warmer than a cloudless night under otherwise the same conditions, but what matters isn't absolute temperature but the gr
Re: (Score:3)
If you just let it face the sky but still keep it close to the ground, there won't be a lot of a temperature difference on its own during the night.
The device is based on radiation, not on convection.
You put it into a vacuum tube and have heat radiation from below. However I agree that on the first glance he yield might be very low.
Re: (Score:3)
For reference: https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
Simply put as long as the TRC's temperature is higher than that of its environment it will generate electricity. So in the end you need some kind of temperature gradient for it to work, despite not being based on thermometric effects like Seebeck or Peltier.
I wonder h
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind that you didn't read the summary, but generally you should have looked it up somewhere else then, or else have a basic clue what it is about.
The temperature gradient is between the two ends of path of the photons; the emitter, and the receiver. Same as with a regular solar panel.
And like a regular solar panel, one of the ends is here on Earth, the other end is somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to guess a piece of anti-solar panel at 20 degrees C is not producing a lot of high-energy photons.
Re: (Score:2)
Now convert that to Kelvin and get back to me. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
300 K? Still nothing compared to sunlight, which is produced by something at 5000 K.
Re: (Score:2)
if you think the difference between 300 and 5000 approaches zero, you're having a very bad rotten awful day.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Theoretically a lot is possible. Practically we would have to solve some problems first.
RONG If you want to know how to solve the associated problems, read the paper.
...you'd have to build a device that is exposed to both ground and space. So how would you do that?
Place on ground. Point towards sky. Done.
Until then, maybe some more tangible solutions would be preferable.
You mean like, a machine that can brainwash people to go from aliteracy to literacy? Now there is an unsolved problem!
Re: But Not On Cloudy Nights? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed.
To test this for yourself, use an infrared thermometer, and point it to clouds.
Now point it to the clear sky, it will not detect any infrared and therefore will read out of range.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be theoretically possible to generate power using the temperature difference between the ground and space. But if there are clouds, then the temperature difference is between the ground and the clouds, which is far less.
No, because you use only the infrared window that does not have absorption(/emission) lines from water molecules. So clouds don't matter.
What is it with this fake solar storage "problem"? (Score:1)
Pump water up to store energy, use it like a dam to release it.
Wrap it in plastic, top and bottom, and it'll last forever.
Use some shitty quarry hole if you want. (Do it in reverse, if needed.)
Also, manufacturing can happen during the day. The night is for sleeping, you greedy fucks.
What's the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, nobody's stopping you building your dam....
The problem is the 'why bother?' effect, you have plenty enough energy for yourself just now, and when you don't, it's too late to deal with it, because dealing with it requires the very energy you no longer have access to.
Re: (Score:3)
Batteries take less space, are more efficient, and for these small setups are cheaper.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: What is it with this fake solar storage "probl (Score:2)
There is also an environmental impact of the chemicals in batteries.
Re: What is it with this fake solar storage "probl (Score:2)
If you run the numbers you will see that this doesnâ(TM)t store all that much energy. You need convenient topography to make this work even borderline economically, like a hill with a flat top and enough water at the bottom.
Gravity storage of energy doesnâ(TM)t really scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Pumped hydro has rare geological requirements in needing both great elevation differences and large year-round mountain lakes. Each storage site on its own has very low electrical output compared to a traditional hydroelectric dam, and only a capacity of a few hours. In Europe, the only areas with significant potential are in the Scandes and Alps, but dotting them with hydro installations might ruin the aesthetic beauty and ecology of those areas.
Re-purposing old mines also has geological requirements, in n
Re: (Score:3)
I think people are trying to bash solar when the complain about it not working at night. Solar is not a 100% of the time power source, it will not replace all power sources. But the peak power usage times are during the day: air conditioners, office equipment, washer/dryer, etc. Reducing demand for traditional fossil fuel power sources during peak periods helps quite a lot even if it doesn't eliminate 100% of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that if we try to power our heating without emitting CO2, then night-time electricity use will skyrocket. Which just might move that "peak power usage" time a bit....
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly my heat pump cycles on and off around the clock from Late September until May. And how much power will they get from snow-covered ground at -10 F? The heat pump is good to - 5, after that the resistors come on, and power demand doubles or more. Natural gas service is not available here, so it's electricity or propane.
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually one aspect of switching to solar that was solved decades ago. [wikipedia.org]
Solar power has earned it's bad reputation. (Score:2)
I think people are trying to bash solar when the complain about it not working at night. Solar is not a 100% of the time power source, it will not replace all power sources. But the peak power usage times are during the day: air conditioners, office equipment, washer/dryer, etc. Reducing demand for traditional fossil fuel power sources during peak periods helps quite a lot even if it doesn't eliminate 100% of it.
No, solar power does not help. Look up "duck curve" on why utilities hate solar power.
The hottest part of the day is not at noon when the sun is highest, it's about 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon. This became apparent growing up on a dairy farm as it was customary to stop work at that time of day to sit out the worst of the heat. The heat would still linger until after the sun set, meaning people would still want lots of electricity for air conditioning, fans, and iced drinks.
This means peak demand for el
Re: (Score:2)
The duck curve was a worry a decade ago, but only because researchers thought there might be problems stabilizing the grid without base load. It turned out to be a non-problem... the (for example) CA grid is actually more stable now with less base load than at any time in the past.
The reason is that DC inverters used with solar and battery systems can react to changes in voltage and frequency on the grid in mere milliseconds, even microseconds, whereas traditional base-load sources actually take on the ord
Re: (Score:3)
I work with utilities. They hate solar because it cuts into their profits.
Re:Solar power has earned it's bad reputation. (Score:4, Informative)
I work with utilities. They hate solar because it cuts into their profits.
Is it other people's solar that cuts into their profits? There is a fix for that, the utilities can buy solar power generation of their own.
Is it their own solar power that cuts into their profits? There is a fix for that too, stop investing in solar power.
So, tell me, which of the above is true? Is there something that the above two situations do not cover? I believe that there is, the government is incentivizing, or even mandating, more solar on the grid. The utilities cannot free themselves from this profit loser except by having the laws changed.
I believe that solar power can be profitable, that is not the issue. The issue is that this profit from solar power is lower than that from other energy sources available to us. Large nations like the USA, Canada, Russia, China, and India have some ability to space out solar collectors to avoid some of the issues of weather and night/day cycles interfering with solar power generation. Small nations, especially those surrounded by water or nations with which they do not have good trade relations, cannot spread out solar power generation.
Japan, UK, Israel, South Korea, and many more cannot rely on solar power for much of anything. They will need something more reliable, that takes less land area, and preferably minimizes CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.
This means they will need nuclear power. As they develop nuclear power then the costs will come down, and the ability to produce profit increases. This means that, at some point, even in large nations where solar power might have the highest profit potential there will still be greater profit potential in nuclear power. This "anti-solar" technology has many of the same limitations of solar power, and will do little to help in the long run for energy production.
Re: (Score:3)
Allow me to explain. Most states have passed laws or regulations that require the utilities to pay wholesale rates for the electricity you generate.
So before these rules, they could gouge small scale power generators like home PV installations and only pay half of wholesale. They still get to keep the whole delivery portion of the charges, and they usually don't deliver it; it gets consumed by the nearest ratepayers in the same neighborhood. But they calculate what they think they deserve based on the highe
Re: (Score:2)
Allow me to explain. Most states have passed laws or regulations that require the utilities to pay wholesale rates for the electricity you generate.
Meaning that instead of prices for solar power being set by the market forces of supply and demand the price for solar power is artificially tied by law to that of natural gas.
So before these rules, they could gouge small scale power generators like home PV installations and only pay half of wholesale. They still get to keep the whole delivery portion of the charges, and they usually don't deliver it; it gets consumed by the nearest ratepayers in the same neighborhood. But they calculate what they think they deserve based on the highest historical estimate of how much they could gouge people, so simply earning extra profits from PV isn't enough for them, they perceive it as a "loss." This is what happens when people learn statistics, but not planning.
This is what happens when people don't learn economics. The solar power industry exists only because the government is propping it up. This will have to end somehow. We can do this by realizing that solar power will have to someday live or die, sink or swim, in the market on it's own, which is perhaps the best outcome. Or, we can
Re: (Score:2)
If you wave your hands hard enough, you'll find something to feel right about in the margins.
I never denied that. Pat yourself on the back; you're feeling superior.
Nevertheless, everything I said stands.
Re: (Score:2)
Other people's solar cuts into revenue (they probably hate those people more than those who just go off the grid). But also they aren't getting as much revenue that they feel they are owed, so they want to charge solar panel owners extra fees to help pay for costs of maintaining the grid. They don't want to deal with solar generated electricity coming onto the grid either, too much expense in equipment and accounting. Essentially, doing things differently than they've been done in the past is expensive,
Re: (Score:2)
Two little ducks !
Re: (Score:2)
I work with utilities. They hate solar because it cuts into their profits.
How does that work? If solar power is in fact the cheapest source of electricity, as I keep being told, then how in the world can solar power cut into anyone's profits?
Maybe because it is not as cheap as it is being claimed. Or, there are costs associated with solar power that has not been included in these calculations.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean they dislike customer owned solar.
Re: (Score:2)
Legs Eleven !
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What's the problem?
Cost, that's the problem. Solar collectors cost a lot of money for the power they produce, a problem only made worse with the problem of how the power can go away from clouds or nighttime.
Pumped hydro energy storage is a very useful technology, and one that has been used for a very long time. Some of the earliest pumped hydro dams were pre-1900 and by 1930 their use spread fairly quickly. What people seem to forget is that there are cheaper means to produce electricity than solar power and that energy st
Re: (Score:3)
Don't know where you're getting your information from, but you have it exactly wrong. Solar and wind are now two of the very cheapest sources of energy [forbes.com]. Coal and nuclear are much more expensive, and even natural gas is starting to fall behind. From the article I just linked,
According to the organisation's database, over 75% of the onshore wind and 80% of the solar PV capacity due to be commissioned next year will produce power at lower prices than the cheapest new coal, oil or natural gas options. "Crucially, they are set to do so without financial assistance," it noted.
Re: (Score:3)
I noticed your citation made no mention of storage. How much will the storage cost? Without taking into account the cost of storage such cost estimates are worthless.
Here's an article showing what happens in the real world with an over reliance on wind and solar energy.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/m... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't the whole point of your post that storage is useful for other sources too? "What people seem to forget is that there are cheaper means to produce electricity than solar power and that energy storage technologies can store energy from any electrical source." No, solar is one of the very cheapest means to produce electricity. And you made it very clear, you were claiming wind and solar were more expensive even before considering the cost of storage. "Solar and wind cost a lot of money, which is onl
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wasn't the whole point of your post that storage is useful for other sources too?
It is.
"What people seem to forget is that there are cheaper means to produce electricity than solar power and that energy storage technologies can store energy from any electrical source." No, solar is one of the very cheapest means to produce electricity.
Then why are utilities being forced to pay artificially high prices for solar power? If rooftop solar PV produces power cheaper than natural gas, which is where the USA gets the plurality of it's electricity, then why force the utilities to pay the same for solar power that they pay for natural gas?
And you made it very clear, you were claiming wind and solar were more expensive even before considering the cost of storage.
There is ample evidence of this being true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Anyway, the cost of storage has been dropping very fast, much faster than any source of energy. It's now becoming cheap enough so that renewables plus storage are cost competitive with fossil fuels.
Tell me something, how does a natural gas CCGT plant combined with storage compare with natural gas single cycle turbines? CCGT
Re: (Score:2)
What's the problem?
OK, Beaver, get too it and come back when you figure out what problems you encounter, since you've been bleating this same bullshit for 10+ years and you're incapable of comprehending the replies. Just go and try to build it, and document all the hurdles you encounter.
PV vs thermal effects (Score:5, Insightful)
Solar panels that generate electricity are based on the photovoltaic effect. Light coming to the panel is converted into an electron flow in the wire. The opposite, an anti-solar panel, is a bulb.
This proposal refers to thermal effects, so the summary should focus on thermal solar panels, which are used to heat water.
Yes, I'm that guy. (Score:4, Informative)
Ironically the bulb would be more like the anti-thermal solar panel. Because it converts electricity mostly into heat, with incandescent light as a byproduct.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can use an LED as a low sensitivity photodiode for example, but usually with a very narrow bandwidth for wavelengths shorter than what it emits. With an appropriate OP amp or decent enough micro controller they can be somewhat useful.
Certain photodiodes can also emit light, but in general I wouldn't recommend this.
Re: (Score:2)
The proposal refers to thermally emitted long wave infrared radiation, like a bulb. Also, if you'd actually read the article, this generates electricity using the photovoltaic effect.
Not 1/4, but 1/16 of the effectiveness (Score:5, Informative)
Riiiiight... The sun sends us around 1kw/m2 in solar energy. The earth emits about 250w/m2 in longwave infrared. That's where TFA gets their "up to quarter" claim. Sure, usable solar energy isn't actually 1kw, but neither can you cound on the full 250w of longwave radiation. For example, the actual available energy is going to depend on clear skies, just as with solar generation.
What TFA avoids mentioning: longwave infrared is much more difficult to use than the higher energy photons in visible light and UV. Thermoelectric generation efficiency is around 5%, whereas solar cells are around 20%. So: 1/4 of the available energy multiplied by 1/4 of the efficiency yields 1/16 of the energy generated per panel.
Granted, this is an interesting idea, but with 1/16 of the effectiveness of solar panels? It's not going to be any sort of economic hit...
Re: Not 1/4, but 1/16 of the effectiveness (Score:2)
Yeah, itâ(TM)s more curious than useful. Still, an interesting idea.
Re: (Score:3)
That will depend on the costs to install these, and when you need the energy most (like in the evenings or winter). Solar is abysmally bad in winter, and that's when the energy is needed most. Forget about batteries, they won't work either in winter as you'd actually need decent sunshine over a long enough period to get those charged.
Re: (Score:2)
That will depend on the costs to install these
It's right there. It's 16 times the cost of solar panels for the same amount of energy.
If something is 1/16th the efficiency of something else it means you need to install 16 times more of that thing.
And panels create power PER square meter.
It's nonsense. They are trying to beat the laws of physics with marketing.
Same as the guys who try to do that same thing in the summer, claiming they've invented a magical new system of cooling. [slashdot.org]
Only difference is their idea needs 16 times as many panels merely to get a 1
Re: (Score:3)
The earth emits about 250w/m2 in longwave infrared ... Thermoelectric generation efficiency is around 5%
About 100 W/m2 of radiative heat transfer seems to be a typical value quoted whe I google 'radiative cooling'. I don't think the 250 W/m2 number is valid at sea level., with an atmosphere full of water vapor and CO2 above it.
Thermoelectric generation is ultimately limited by the Carnot limit. If the heat reservoir is 300 K and the temperature difference is 20 K (corresponding to 100 W/m2), the Carnot efficiency would be about 7%. To achieve that in a thermoelectric device, you need materials with infinite
Re: (Score:3)
This article [arstechnica.com] gives some more detail. It includes an important part of the research that the other article didn't mention:
The really interesting part, however, comes when Deppe and Munday look into what can be done with waste heat. With a starting heat source of 170C, a thermoradiative cell could produce roughly the same number of watts/meter as a solar panel. While that temperature is hot--it's well above the boiling point of water--it's within the range of what might be considered waste heat for industrial plants and steam generators. And if linked to things like geothermal or solar-thermal plants, it would provide a way of extracting more energy from an existing renewable resource.
Re: (Score:2)
Riiiiight... The sun sends us around 1kw/m2 in solar energy. The earth emits about 250w/m2 in longwave infrared. That's where TFA gets their "up to quarter" claim. .
No it's not.
The sun sends us around 1kW/m2 and you get about 5 solar hours (equivalent of noon sun normal to the panel) per day. A 100% efficient panel would be good for about 5kWhr / day (absent clouds and the like.)
The infrared window - about an octave around 8 microns - is good for dumping about 95 W/m2 of heat 24/7, for a bit over 2 kWhr /
novel, but still sceptical (Score:2)
Heat traps have been part of heating systems for a long time. I'm sceptical that this new approach could be anywhere near as efficient as the ground heat source systems currently available, which are renowned for their efficiency. Converting heat to electricity and electricity back to heat simply cannot compete with just using the heat. Thermodynamics 101.
Re: (Score:3)
Difficult to move heat, electricity not so much. Regardless, the research is an important starting point. Few technological feats started at "works great" from the get-go, it takes years of learning and innovations.
Re: (Score:2)
Heat traps have been part of heating systems for a long time. I'm sceptical that this new approach could be anywhere near as efficient as the ground heat source systems currently available, which are renowned for their efficiency. Converting heat to electricity and electricity back to heat simply cannot compete with just using the heat. Thermodynamics 101.
Right, you didn't understand the physics at all, so you just took the words you recognized, and used what they mean in a different context, and presumed that was what it was about.
Consider this: What they're saying about heat is already true with a PV panel. Does that help you understand which parts you didn't understand?
Your ignorance (Score:2)
is not my problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling me names does not in any way change that you were discussing the entirely wrong physical effects.
You wear your aliteracy on your sleeve when you use accusations of "ignorance" to argue with people who read before they decide they understand the subject.
Oh, right, you can't comprehend that word, because it is too new of a word. Aliterates can only comprehend words that made it into a dictionary before they were born, or were featured in a cartoon. Those are the only routes inside your head; through m
Connect it to a heat pump (Score:1)
Re: Connect it to a heat pump (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't dump heat like that into space, it's a vacuum so you'd only be able to give off some infrared radiation. Hence why the dark side of the Earth doesn't cool down very fast at night.
Re: (Score:3)
I take it you have never lived in the mountains ? During certain parts of the year on clear nights the day-v-night temperature delta can be as much as 80F. A 50F delta is more typical, though. But its still a lot.
-Matt
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but that isn't solely space radiation. It's mostly convection in the air. The OP was talking about placing a heat exchanger (heat pump) in space. Such thing would simply overheat and melt down or you'd pump it full of heat energy and it would take a lot of time to dissipate the energy into space.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to do this is to radiate at frequencies that punch through the atmosphere, which is precisely what these radiative panels do. With careful selection of the frequency, the panel is basically 'seeing' the near absolute zero temperature of space and can thus radiate into it.
However, the efficiency of this mechanism is quite low. We're talking, at best, a few watts per meter squared (verses one to two orders of magnitude more energy when operating normally as a solar panel during the day).
So in
Re: (Score:3)
Earth receives on average 300W per sq. m., it reflects ~30% of that, leaving 200W per sq. m. and affordable energy panels have been ~15-20% efficient for the last 30 years, so they can only ever generate 30W/sqm on average (yes solar energy peaks at 1000W/sqm - or 150-200W/sqm, but it can't generate that 100% of the time).
Even at peak solar plant efficiency, we'd require something like the area of California covered in solar panels to supply the US with solar energy.
At night earth radiates some (12%) of abs
Re: (Score:2)
It actually doesn't, because the ambient temperature of the air will keep it 'warm' relative to the near absolute zero of space that it is radiating into.
But again, we are not talking very much power generation here. Only a few watts per meter squared at night, at best.
-Matt
I will believe it when I see it (Score:2)
So many supposedly "revolutionary" inventions get touted and then end up not actually being possible to turn into a product you can buy and use (or the product becomes available but is insanely expensive)
Let me know when you can buy these for your roof and maybe I will start taking it seriously :)
Re:I will believe it when I see it (Score:4, Funny)
Electricity. It turns out Jonwil the Ancient Barmy Geezer was around in the 1700s. Electricity was in its infancy. When told of electricity, Jonwil the Ancient Barmy Geezer was heard to whine, "Bah humbug, let me know when I can light my house with this stuff."
It's cold outside (Score:2)
Oh great (Score:1)
If green house gases were not traping enough heat already. Let's make sure every bit stays on Earth.
ill believe it when i see it (Score:2)
Obvious question (Score:2)
Electricity use is significantly lower at night (Score:2)
Given that electricity use is significantly lower at night, does solar power really need supplementing?
You would have to somehow store the "anti-solar" power overnight (batteries?) so that it would be useful during times of peak demand in the day. I'm struggling to see how this could be economically viable.
There's a reason why electricity rates are cheapest at night.
Re: Electricity use is significantly lower at nigh (Score:2)
With the push to electric cars.... We might need some power at night to feed all these batteries.
42 comments in (Score:2)
Anti-solar? Oh, you mean these
*sunglasses*
Just another idea. Where's the beef? (Score:2)
Just another idea, wake me when you have made something.
Translated into common sense: "Energy and heat transfer are taking place in many situations. If only we could tap into that current and suck up some of the energy, wouldn't that be nifty and solve the world's problems?"
Well - yes! It would be nifty to tap into a huge reservoir of heat exchange. And if someone can figure out a way to tap into XYZ scenario and get the energy cheaply, efficiently, and without wrecking some other part of the environmen
solar cells get hot (Score:3)
Something like this could be used to absorb the heat that solar panels "collect" as part of being exposed to the sun.
Right now, that's generally ignored, since you're going for the PV. Cooling the cells could be used as a heat source for many things, including these thermal generators.
Re: (Score:2)
At best it can take away a few watts per meter squared and during the day you have roughly 1000W/m^2 hitting the panel. So as a cooling mechanism for the panel in the daytime its a big fail.
-Matt
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Take a water tank and strap the solar cell to one side. Strap the radiative anti-solar cell to the other side. Flip the tank over whenever the light conditions favor it. This way you don't lose surface area to the relatively inefficient anti-solar cells unless they're actually operating, and they'll have the stored hot fluid as an energy source. I'm guessing water would be pretty suitable for the purpose, so long as the panels don't run hot enough to boil it.
I can't imagine this would be useful... (Score:2)
I mean in theory it seems like an interesting idea. First let me say I'm no physicist, but it seems to me like the amount of electricity you can get from this is going to be pitiful.
Mojang did an Arthur C. Clarke. (Score:2)
Daylight detectors in Minecraft have had an inverted "night sensing" mode for years now. It took a while for life to imitate art yet again.
Why solar panels? (Score:2)
anti solar panel naming (Score:2)
Could they please call it a lunar panel?
Ancient method (Score:2)
People used to make ice in the desert by radiative cooling:
https://theculturetrip.com/mid... [theculturetrip.com]
I don't think they knew thermodynamics, let alone what "space" was, but they were able to pick up on the technique. Using clear skies and some engineering they were able to get water to send the heat to coldness of space.
So it is not only theoretical, it is quite possible to use this in practice.