Scientists develop mega-thin solar cells that could be shockingly easy to produce: ‘As rapid as printing a newspaper’::These cells could be laminated onto various kinds of surfaces, such as the sails of a boat to provide power while at sea.

  • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Clearly you’ve never owned an air fryer wanted a solar powered car. Or imagine shipping containers covered in these powering the trucks that haul them! Or trains! Even boats. Basically any kind of self powered transit, especially ones with greater surface area.

    Second edit: Another idea! Clingfilm solar panels for windows, or blinds and curtains that can power the lights!

    Or wind turbines skinned in thin, light, flexible solar panels. You’d double dip on energy per square meter. You could have a solar farm on a stick that also makes wind energy.

    • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you dream of covering a vehicle with panels and have it driven by that power, I have to burst your bubble. That’s not even nearly enough surface to generate enough power. Perhaps assist in trickle charging battery, sure. But we already have flexible panels, even self-adhesive ones. And again, their biggest downside is not their thickness but efficiency. There will never be a self-propelled vehicle. Just a nature of things.

      As for window blinds, etc. There is already glass that lets enough light through and can generate electricity. Those are even worse when it comes to efficiency due to non-ideal angle, light passing through, etc.

      • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        “We already have technology that doesn’t do those things well enough, so this new technology that won’t see advancement ever has no chance of addressing these issues either.”

        Trickle charge is awesome. Trickle charge the semi during your 8 hour driving shift and then another 8 hours while the trucker is asleep. If that nets half a charge every other day, that’s a charge and a half a week. It’s not self powered like a perpetual motion device, those aren’t real. But regenerative braking is a worthwhile addition to an electric truck. Why wouldn’t solar paper or whatever we want to call it also be part of the solution?

        • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          More like, it would take 8 days of constant sun to have an hour of driving.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There are physical limits at play to how much power this can provide. No amount of technological improvement can break them.

          Imagine the driver plugging in the truck during the 8 hours while they’re asleep. That’s an achievable goal.

          • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Here’s a video of a camper van with traditional solar panels on the roof using a slide-out awning technique.

            https://youtu.be/Ev5C9gf0zFc?si=97piy-3mV9TIsRlu

            You might say that’s impractical for regular use. Sure, it is, but your previous argument was that is was impossible due to physics, which the video clearly shows isn’t physically impossible, so we’re already much closer to a reality. I’m not saying it could drive forever without stopping or be the only power source. That’s silly. But if it reduces the need to charge from a grid by X% it can be a useful technology. Go on now and tell me how it could never ever work.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              A camper van. Which has electrical use for things besides turning a motor. Yeah, that’s useful, but it doesn’t exactly help your case.

              Under optimal conditions, the sun gives us 1000Wh per square meter. Let’s say you have a 100% efficient solar panel. A semi truck trailer has a max of 42 sq meters on top of its trailer. So you get 42kWh out of this.

              It takes about 280kWh to keep a semi truck at cruising speed on the highway. Thus, in this most optimal scenario, it would give you an additional 15%. Even this assumes there is no additional aerodynamic drag from the panels, mounting hardware, or wiring. It wouldn’t take much to completely blow that 15% away.

              If it’s a cloudy day, all of it is now deadweight, and now hurts more than it helps. If you don’t drive on the equator, its output drops and it now hurts more than it helps. If you have solar panels that actually exist that do around 20% efficiency instead of 100%, it now hurts more than it helps.

              I guess we could move the Earth closer to the sun. Won’t help our global warming problems, though.

                  • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You first said is was physically impossible. I’ve shown you it wasn’t and predicted you’d move the goal post from possibility to practicality. And you did. Thanks for proving that you don’t really care about whether it could even possibly work, but just that you wanna dunk on excitement and be right on the Internet. Have a good day.

    • Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Those all sound like efficiency issues still. Covering any form of transportation with solar panels is primarily pointless because of how little power that would generate. Even if you covered every available inch with the most efficient panels invented, it would take over two weeks of sitting in full, direct sunlight to charge a solar-powered car, which you would drain in four hours of driving. As these panels are half as efficient as traditional panels, you could drive maybe a two minutes per hour you sit in full sun.

          • Grimy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If it takes 14 days to charge the battery, you just need to use it less then a 14th of its range per day and this all becomes very feasible, no? First link on google tells me high efficiency EVs output 6.4km per kwh. That’s 30 km a day at 80kwh, nothing to scoff at in my opinion, although its probably less.

            I also think it could become popular to lengthen the in between charging times with higher capacity batteries.

            +1 for the use of wolfram

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Then factor in the extra cost of the panels and connecting hardware. The ones mentioned in OP are supposed to be dirt cheap, but they’re also half as efficient. The tradeoff cancels out the benefit.

              Also, this won’t help highway driving much. EVs have already solved city driving just fine. 100mi range will do, even without good charging stations outside your home (with caveats for apartment dwellers). Highway range is where we need improvement, but you can’t ask people to just drive for 1/14th of the day there.

          • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fair enough. That definitely is true for a car. I would wonder whether the power/surface area/weight/energy consumption all scale linearly or if a vehicle like a semi with more surface area could take advantage of increased number solar panels, or would the amount of work needed to move the larger truck scale equally to the power gained?

            Thank you for your proving reasoning for your opinions and sources. You’re groovy. Don’t feel like you have to again for this random thought of mine unless it’s enjoyable for you as part of our conversation.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Wait, what the fuck, dude. I had given you the math for semi trucks two hours before you posted this. You already had those numbers, and yet you speculate otherwise here.

              • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                That guy isn’t being a dick. You’ve got a bad attitude and I don’t like talking to you. Goodbye.

                • wahming@monyet.cc
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So… You denied reality because you didn’t like the person explaining it to you? Grats, you’re politician material now

                  • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No, I wasn’t enjoying one conversation in the room so I went to talk to somebody else. I’m not required to talk to them and I am free to explore a topic with someone else without citing previous discussions I’ve had. I deny nothing that guy said, though I also don’t take it as face value when they also ignored my points in the thread, I’d just rather talk to this person about it if they’d care to.

                  • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Oh just fuck off. You’re seriously chasing me around the comment section, butthurt because I’d rather talk to somebody less unpleasant. You’re not changing my perspective if that’s why you’re doing it.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Gotta be useful during the zombie apocalypse though. No more raiding gas stations and broken down vehicles.