4 ms·

at a meta level, these types of articles with a ridiculous headline and without any meaningful pictures or diagrams are infuriating. w/r/t the actual scientifi

at a meta level, these types of articles with a ridiculous headline and without any meaningful pictures or diagrams are infuriating. w/r/t the actual scientific discovery, i'm fascinated by how much of solving the overall energy/carbon problem is coming down to 'nano' scale material science and engineering. does anyone know of a better media venue for materials science developments that isn't just some loud guy reading wiki articles to a webcam?

rkangel 7y ago
What I find infuriating is units like '30 megawatt hours per year'. Why not just tell us how many megawatts?
- cbmuser 7y ago
  Because you can just divide 30 by 365*24 to get the actual power which would be 3 Kilowatts or 0.003 Megawatts.
- dienciebsiwbsi 7y ago
  It's 3.4 kW, enough for two toasters. So not nearly enough for 400 homes; their math is wrong.
  - yetihehe 7y ago
    But do people run their toasters continuously 24h/365 days a year? THAT's why they used yearly average.
    - jandrese 7y ago
      No, but running 400 homes on that level of power only works if every home is only intermittently using a single high efficiency lightbulb or something. A few refrigerators or electric ranges or electric heat pumps will blow that power budget right out the window.
  - marshray 7y ago
    But that's per square meter of membrane, that's huge! For comparison, the sun delivers about 1 KW per square meter (at Noon, in Arizona). Fig 11: https://www.newport.com/t/introduction-to-solar-radiation https://www.newport.com/t/introduction-to-solar-radiation
    - dienciebsiwbsi 7y ago
      It may very well be huge. I don't have the expertise to know, so I have no position on that. What I do know is that the 400 home figure is way, way off. The average home uses 10 MWh/yr, or 1 kW [1]. This system is enough to power about three homes per square meter. Unless I am missing something, their math is totally wrong. [1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3
      - marshray 7y ago
        I don't think anyone is claiming that "one square meter powers 400 homes". I think it's probably just the usual case of the scientists' actual claim getting garbled by pop-sci writing.
- navaati 7y ago
  Obviously because that’s not a lot of megawatts. For the lazy, that’s 3.42kW ;).
  - cmrdporcupine 7y ago
    That's enough to charge my car. I'll buy two!
- cygx 7y ago
  It's common to measure total electricity production of a nation (eg 650 TWh for Germany in 2018) that way...
vo2maxer 7y ago
The findings were reported recently at the Materials Research Society meeting and have not been published yet. Here is the abstract: https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DFD19/Session/B36.6 https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DFD19/Session/B36.6
pjc50 7y ago
IEEE spectrum is kind of OK for informative popsci?

rkangel 7y ago

What I find infuriating is units like '30 megawatt hours per year'. Why not just tell us how many megawatts?

cbmuser 7y ago
Because you can just divide 30 by 365*24 to get the actual power which would be 3 Kilowatts or 0.003 Megawatts.
dienciebsiwbsi 7y ago
It's 3.4 kW, enough for two toasters. So not nearly enough for 400 homes; their math is wrong.
- yetihehe 7y ago
  But do people run their toasters continuously 24h/365 days a year? THAT's why they used yearly average.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    No, but running 400 homes on that level of power only works if every home is only intermittently using a single high efficiency lightbulb or something. A few refrigerators or electric ranges or electric heat pumps will blow that power budget right out the window.
- marshray 7y ago
  But that's per square meter of membrane, that's huge! For comparison, the sun delivers about 1 KW per square meter (at Noon, in Arizona). Fig 11: https://www.newport.com/t/introduction-to-solar-radiation https://www.newport.com/t/introduction-to-solar-radiation
  - dienciebsiwbsi 7y ago
    It may very well be huge. I don't have the expertise to know, so I have no position on that. What I do know is that the 400 home figure is way, way off. The average home uses 10 MWh/yr, or 1 kW [1]. This system is enough to power about three homes per square meter. Unless I am missing something, their math is totally wrong. [1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3
    - marshray 7y ago
      I don't think anyone is claiming that "one square meter powers 400 homes". I think it's probably just the usual case of the scientists' actual claim getting garbled by pop-sci writing.
navaati 7y ago
Obviously because that’s not a lot of megawatts. For the lazy, that’s 3.42kW ;).
- cmrdporcupine 7y ago
  That's enough to charge my car. I'll buy two!
cygx 7y ago
It's common to measure total electricity production of a nation (eg 650 TWh for Germany in 2018) that way...

vo2maxer 7y ago

The findings were reported recently at the Materials Research Society meeting and have not been published yet. Here is the abstract: https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DFD19/Session/B36.6 https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DFD19/Session/B36.6

pjc50 7y ago

IEEE spectrum is kind of OK for informative popsci?