The Best Of What's New 2007 66
BlaineZilla pointed us to one of the earliest annual 'best of' roundups: Popular Science's Best of What's New awards. The winner this year is a nanosolar powersheet that may someday change the way we think about renewable energy. Other winners include the corot satellite, a project aimed at searching out habitable planets in other solar systems, and the world's most advanced bionic hand.
when ? (Score:3, Insightful)
nanoSolar (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as the cells are cheap enough, the applications for it are impressively extensive. The cells themselves are incredibly light and thin, and looks like it can be applied to just about any flat surface. It won't power your car, but it might make your hybrid/electric go a few extra miles before the next charge. Flat-roofed buildings can cover themselves in the stuff, and greatly reduce their energy usage. (Alternatively, a facility such as a warehouse could possibly even break even on its energy usage by keeping itself lit during the day with skylights, and selling the energy from the roof back to the grid. During the night, power for artificial light is taken from the grid)
You might even be able to apply the film directly to the body of a car or to roofing materials, given that the underlying backing doesn't need to be anything terribly special.
The fact that they're doing the majority of their research and production in the US and Germany also suggest that the manufacturing process will be relatively clean, and that their workers will be paid decent wages.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Solar hype again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Proponents of solar power usually talk about how its efficiency is about to jump several times in the near future, but even if you improved the efficicency tenfold ( which would put you above 100% efficiency) you would still not even be within 1% of pressent energy consumption. Seriously, maybe in a century, but photovoltaics just isn't going to replace Oil before it runs out.
To get a slight idea about what will be required to phase out fossil fuels, have a look at this diagram: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_energy_usage_width_chart.svg [wikipedia.org]
Solar and Wind just ins't going to solve that issue alone. Neither is nuclear, biofuels, or clean coal. It should be damn obvious from that diagram alone that we are going to need every piece of clean energy we can get our hands on. Expanding the use of nuclear and biomass 5 times, would take care of the first 50%. Carbon capture and storage with coal sticks you up at 75%, and expanding wind power 100 times can provide the remainder. All of this assumes strict energy conservation measures to keep the overall energy use at pressent levels. Of course, with the developing world industrialising this appears unlikely, so you will need some more energy, but ff we go for the optimistic goal of preventing overall energy consumption from increasing by more than 50%, then it is doable, PROVIDED we use all energy sources we can get. To reject carbon capture and storage, nuclear or other energy sources, based on some delusional pipe-dream of solar power coming to the rescue is however just wishful thinking.
Re:Efficiency? (Score:3, Insightful)
For all the naysayers talking about how energy demand keeps skyrocketing, that's why we're fucked. There is no way in hell we can keep up with demand. It just isn't going to happen. We could have, but we would have had to start building new massive nuclear plants back in the early '90's with the first ones coming on-line TODAY. It ain't happening. We WILL (and have already seen) see brown and blackouts. The guys who've already invested $10,000+ making their houses mostly grid independent with solar roofs, wind generators, and huge Deep-cycle AGM Marine battery installations will be OK (probably, assuming no riots and a minimum of civil unrest) But unless you're a $50+Millionaire, you're probably at significant risk in the coming decades. There is no way to keep up with demand.
Water Shortages (like Atlanta is currently experiences) will probably only get much worse as well. This too could have been avoided, but we would have needed to have the first nuclear powered Reverse Osmosis Desalination plants to supply major metropolitan and agricultural areas at the most risk, coming on-line TODAY. If we started building tomorrow (not happening) it'd still be a good ten years before capacity got up enough to keep us in the clear.
Oh, and by the way, the recent "discovery" that reverse Osmosis water won't work for agriculture, because its mineral content is too low - Great find. Completely ignores that when you run the plants the two outputs are - Water, and a great big pile of SALT. If need be, you can just add measured quantities back in at the end.
Re:when ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because I can't walk into a hardware store and buy a brown paper bag full of carbon nanotubes and a fistful of buckyballs doesn't make them any less relevant or significant.
Good Boost not a solution (Score:1, Insightful)
However, it just isn't a solution for long term major power. We can't just replace everything out ther with solar as much as we'd like to. There are a few reasons why:
1) What happens when it's cloudy, if everything runs on sun in an area, cloudy days could mean blackouts. Now not only is there little light due to a storm, but your lights also don't work.
2) Surface area. Solar requires way more surface area than any other source. Just imagine the ecosystem impact of paving huge tracts of land in solar panels.
It's really not that environmentally friendly unless put on existing structures.