Posted by Scott on May 30, 2009, 10:58 pm
On Sat, 30 May 2009 20:07:17 +0100, in alt.energy.homepower, Eeyore
>I don't believe PV solar is ever going to get further than tripping up
>over its own shoelaces. The basic physics determines the efficiency.
Depends on how long a view you take. If your horizon of interest is the few
scores of years we get before we die, then no, not much hope of seeing PV
outside of niche applications. But it seems reasonable to expect
incremental improvements in efficiency.
Looking at centuries or eons, who knows? After the oil is gone and we can't
find any more nuclear fuels, then maybe parking a few million hectares of PV
into solar orbit will make financial sense. But I'd bet money on deep
geothermal before orbital PV.
Posted by Eeyore on May 31, 2009, 4:35 pm
Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 20:07:17 +0100, in alt.energy.homepower, Eeyore
> >I don't believe PV solar is ever going to get further than tripping up
> >over its own shoelaces. The basic physics determines the efficiency.
> Depends on how long a view you take. If your horizon of interest is the few
> scores of years we get before we die, then no, not much hope of seeing PV
> outside of niche applications. But it seems reasonable to expect
> incremental improvements in efficiency.
How ? It's determined by physics and energy levels and stuff. You might as well
say, given long enough, we'll get perpetual motion.
Graham
--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address
Posted by Scott on June 1, 2009, 12:56 am
On Sun, 31 May 2009 17:35:57 +0100, in alt.energy.homepower, Eeyore
>Scott wrote:
>> Depends on how long a view you take. If your horizon of interest is the few
>> scores of years we get before we die, then no, not much hope of seeing PV
>> outside of niche applications. But it seems reasonable to expect
>> incremental improvements in efficiency.
>How ? It's determined by physics and energy levels and stuff. You might as well
>say, given long enough, we'll get perpetual motion.
Obviously not, but it may be approached asymptotically. Knowing that you
cannot get there does not make it pointless to try getting closer.
Based on past performance, I really do expect science and engineering to
present us with incremental improvements in all areas. Unlike those who
seem to be conceited enough to believe that we've already learned everything
and done everything, I will only be surprised if there ISN'T progress.
Posted by Eeyore on June 1, 2009, 11:52 am
Scott wrote:
> >Scott wrote:
> >
> >> Depends on how long a view you take. If your horizon of interest is the few
> >> scores of years we get before we die, then no, not much hope of seeing PV
> >> outside of niche applications. But it seems reasonable to expect
> >> incremental improvements in efficiency.
> >
> >How ? It's determined by physics and energy levels and stuff. You might as
well
> >say, given long enough, we'll get perpetual motion.
> Obviously not, but it may be approached asymptotically. Knowing that you
> cannot get there does not make it pointless to try getting closer.
> Based on past performance, I really do expect science and engineering to
> present us with incremental improvements in all areas.
Not beyond physical boundaries.
> Unlike those who seem to be conceited enough to believe that we've already
learned
> everything and done everything, I will only be surprised if there ISN'T
progress.
You read too many newspapers written by clowns who shouldn't be in charge of as
much
as a pencil.
We're in the process now of just refining things. The major breakthroughs were
made
LONG ago.
Graham
--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my
email address
XML site map
>over its own shoelaces. The basic physics determines the efficiency.