• j5906@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Agree, the quantum-chem of it is amazing… Then again, solar has an efficiency of ~30% compared to the 90% for spinning steam

    • crater2150@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      19 hours ago

      I don’t think it makes sense to compare those efficiencies, as one is for converting heat to electricity, while the other is for converting sunlight. If you use sunlight to heat water and then use that for a steam turbine, the efficiency is similar to a photovoltaic panel. The efficiency numbers are still useful, but only when they refer to the same starting point for the conversion (e.g. only comparing things that turn heat into electricity).

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

        Yeah, it’s comparing apples to crabs. It’s only looking at the very final stage and ignoring the efficiencies of the fuel, etc.

        If you wanted to make the comparison more fair (and also show how bad it is), a coal power plant maybe has an efficiency of 35%. You can calculate that by dividing the thermal energy in by the electric energy out. You feed in enough coal to generate 8MW of heat, which generates 2.8MW of electricity, so 2.8/8 = 0.35. By contrast, a photovoltaic power plant generates say 2kW of electricity with 0 fuel, so it has an efficiency of ∞%.

      • j5906@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        56 seconds ago

        I am a big solar fan, but the moving part inertia thing is actually great for stabilizing the grid.

    • Geobloke@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      20 hours ago

      But it’s all profit baby! Let something else figure out cousin, put 0% effort in and collect the rewards!