5 ms·

In addition, generating electricity in a large power plant is significantly more efficient than doing so on a small scale even after taking transmission loss in

by pavon 4y ago

In addition, generating electricity in a large power plant is significantly more efficient than doing so on a small scale even after taking transmission loss into account. It looks like the primary advantage of a device like this is that you can make use of heat that would otherwise be waste.

sidewndr46 4y ago
Wouldn't that only apply to fossil fuels? I would think the watts per square meter of any solar panel I buy is similar to that of one used in a solar farm. There is no micro nuclear to compare against obviously.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  private ones are often available as a little more efficient as the power/area and power/weight matters for things like RVs
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    Actually thinking about it the conversion scheme (DC -> AC) used by the utility scale operator might be a bit more efficient. They'd care a bit more about getting that last 0.5% or 0.1% of gains than a residential customer.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Conversion losses are on the order of 5-15% Splitting hairs, but a 23% efficient mono perc panel will edge out a 19% poly silicon panel even if utility conversion is a lot better. Although I think in that specific case the perc panels are cheaper now for utilities too. If you're using it at 12V and/or you shelled out the extra money for multi junction in your caravan you're probably still ahead. There will also likely be 5 years or so after hybrid perovskites hit the market before anyone is keen to put down big money on the lifetime predictions.
- kalleboo 4y ago
  The panels may be the same but mounting it on your roof may not be optimal for angle and shade reasons vs putting them in an open field.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    Yeah this is a good point. My roof used to be shaded for most of the day.
oceanplexian 4y ago
This is not necessarily true. A power plant is only like 40% efficient at turning gas into electricity, but fuel cells are 40-50% efficient. This isn’t like comparing a car to a power plant which has a relatively inefficient internal combustion engine. In practical terms, a therm of gas has about 30kWH of heat energy and costs $2.27 in California, for example. That’s $0.075 per kWh. Fuel cells are something like 40-50% efficient at converting gas into electricity and can even recover the rest as heat..so say it costs you $0.15 per kWh. That’s almost 50% cheaper than PG&Es Tier2 for residential electricity, and gas does not have the same issues with brownouts and power cuts, and you get 50% of the power back as heat. Fuel cells are silent, portable, and unobtrusive, and can scale to demand with extreme efficiency (Unlike power plants). Personally, if they were available I would seriously consider one.

by pavon 4y ago

sidewndr46 4y ago

Wouldn't that only apply to fossil fuels? I would think the watts per square meter of any solar panel I buy is similar to that of one used in a solar farm. There is no micro nuclear to compare against obviously.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
private ones are often available as a little more efficient as the power/area and power/weight matters for things like RVs
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Actually thinking about it the conversion scheme (DC -> AC) used by the utility scale operator might be a bit more efficient. They'd care a bit more about getting that last 0.5% or 0.1% of gains than a residential customer.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Conversion losses are on the order of 5-15% Splitting hairs, but a 23% efficient mono perc panel will edge out a 19% poly silicon panel even if utility conversion is a lot better. Although I think in that specific case the perc panels are cheaper now for utilities too. If you're using it at 12V and/or you shelled out the extra money for multi junction in your caravan you're probably still ahead. There will also likely be 5 years or so after hybrid perovskites hit the market before anyone is keen to put down big money on the lifetime predictions.
kalleboo 4y ago
The panels may be the same but mounting it on your roof may not be optimal for angle and shade reasons vs putting them in an open field.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Yeah this is a good point. My roof used to be shaded for most of the day.

oceanplexian 4y ago

This is not necessarily true. A power plant is only like 40% efficient at turning gas into electricity, but fuel cells are 40-50% efficient. This isn’t like comparing a car to a power plant which has a relatively inefficient internal combustion engine. In practical terms, a therm of gas has about 30kWH of heat energy and costs $2.27 in California, for example. That’s $0.075 per kWh. Fuel cells are something like 40-50% efficient at converting gas into electricity and can even recover the rest as heat..so say it costs you $0.15 per kWh. That’s almost 50% cheaper than PG&Es Tier2 for residential electricity, and gas does not have the same issues with brownouts and power cuts, and you get 50% of the power back as heat. Fuel cells are silent, portable, and unobtrusive, and can scale to demand with extreme efficiency (Unlike power plants). Personally, if they were available I would seriously consider one.