3 ms·
Plus, the conversion of sunlight to wood is maybe 0.5-1% efficient if you’re lucky, compared to ~20% for solar. So about 0.001-0.002% as efficient as solar, up
by Robotbeat 6y ago
Plus, the conversion of sunlight to wood is maybe 0.5-1% efficient if you’re lucky, compared to ~20% for solar.
So about 0.001-0.002% as efficient as solar, up to 5 orders of magnitude worse. With the advantage of less intermittency, I suppose, but both are solid state energy converters; I wouldn’t claim thermoelectric is “lower tech” except that it’s way less efficient and with more environmental footprint due to that inefficiency. A battery to solve the intermittency would be still a much better trade IMHO.
- koverda 6y agoHowever, solar panels don't make more solar panels at 20% efficiency
- vchak1 6y agoThey do, if you power a solar panel making plant with solar panels.
- Robotbeat 6y agoNeither do thermoelectric converters grow on trees. I’m not saying that biology isn’t great. Self-replicating machinery is pretty awesome. But if you’re using advanced machines anyway, you should skip the biological middleman if you can and go right for the source of energy.