|
Nuclear power and storage tech don't really have much to do with each other, so that shouldn't be hard. There's plenty of good movement in energy storage, particularly at grid scale. Energy storage is challenging to report on reliably because the field is indeed chock full of charlatans punching in to collect subsidies for subsidies sake. If it's research on realistic vs nonviable storage tech and the hallmarks of each that you're looking for, nothing specific comes to mind rn but I'll bear that in mind going forward. For starters, this is going to be more of a public policy / strategic energy research focus, so start there. Fake edit: add transmission tech research & policy to your reading as that's almost inseparable from the topic of storage.
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
What I'm always curious about is how household storage will factor in long-term. With every single household with money to spare around here getting solar panels, batteries and electric cars at the same time more and more households are practically off-grid (bar winter ofc).
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:What I'm always curious about is how household storage will factor in long-term. With every single household with money to spare around here getting solar panels, batteries and electric cars at the same time more and more households are practically off-grid (bar winter ofc). In the long term it will probably break our dependence on ze grid stabilite and/or give us a taste of power access gap injustice. But I don't expect prices for storage to really collapse until re-used EV batteries enter the market in real numbers. Currently most home solar setups do not have attached storage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
Given that all of these renewables have really high mineral input requirements for the energy they produce even before we consider the battery problem we should probably just find a non-emitting source of Base load generation that uses mineral inputs more efficiently and oh what do you know we have one already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:What I'm always curious about is how household storage will factor in long-term. With every single household with money to spare around here getting solar panels, batteries and electric cars at the same time more and more households are practically off-grid (bar winter ofc). I need to get some quotes about solar panels because me electricity bill is pretty hefty. I'm curious to how long the payoff period would be when accounting for the reduced power bill. Too bad my province is run by conservative morons and have almost no incentives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
A dry assessment of energy storage is even on wikipedia with sources to start your search for a deeper climb into. As noted though, if you want to see what dreams can get you, there are plenty of spruikers out there in the energy storage space. Anyone seriously looking how storage integrates into a grid and its implications though is likely going to mention/investigate nuclear* or delineate just how far away the 100% renewable dream is for large industrial grids and hence trip over the true Scotsman clause.** * The two ends on the range of using storage is to either use dispatchable (ideally non-fossil) power and storage to cover intermittent loads (to reduce the amount of overbuild) or use intermittent generation and storage to cover the base load (to again reduce the required overbuild). I say range because it will likely be a mix/on the range, for eg, solar correlates so well with space cooling loads that it is a no-brainer to use solar to cover that intermittent load where space cooling / air conditioning is a thing. **A true non-ideologically committed to nuclear and open minded Scotsman would never mention nuclear in an analysis on energy generation or imply that there are currently unbridgeable issues with an entirely non-fossil/nuclear grid. On rooftop solar / household storage, it is a more expensive way to generate /store electricity than doing it industrially except that it is a cheap way for a government to source land and capital for the buildout (people's savings / borrowing capacity) at the expense of complicating the grid and incurring higher rates of accidents versus other generation/storages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Yeah, I'd be interested in sources on that too. I would award bonus points for sources which: If ever you again feel the desire to piggyback on someone else's more direct and helpful question as an excuse to imply pro-nuclear people are neo-Nazis or whatever you thought you were doing here, I instead very strongly recommend you not do that instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 18:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1562589041677152256 https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1562600350288293889 https://twitter.com/Abundant_Power/status/1531928503771332608 https://twitter.com/Jkylebass/status/1562799846758555649 This is what happens when you blow up your own nuclear industry for no good reason. golden bubble fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Aug 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Yeah, I'd be interested in sources on that too. I would award bonus points for sources which: if you've got a 90 minute attention span https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P3A_-pcEEA
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:if you've got a 90 minute attention span Is a good watch, surprised at the argument for CCS as I had it written off as a pipe dream (even more than nuclear) but they say it will be necessary. I will have to look into it more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Is a good watch, surprised at the argument for CCS as I had it written off as a pipe dream (even more than nuclear) but they say it will be necessary. I will have to look into it more. I got the feeling they said it was necessary because everyone knows we're not going to ween off natural gas in the next 20 years no matter what. You can drag industry kicking and screaming into carbon capture but trying to decommission plants to switch to solar + nuclear is a non-starter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:if you've got a 90 minute attention span  The capacity here is how much peak capacity the grid needs under various baseload+renewables scenarios to meet year-round reliability targets.  My jaw dropped when it was pointed out that installing enough battery-wind-solar infrastructure in California to completely do away with other baseload technologies would be so expensive that it could hypothetically $800/ton (34 minutes) to do Direct Air Capture sequestration on natgas baseload and still be one cent cheaper (5 > 1 + 3) than all-battery-wind-solar power. 35:20 "The benefit of firm clean power is the elimination of the cost of overbuilding solar and battery installations."  Before a certain someone calls me a chud, note that all these scenarios are counting on a plurality of solar/wind power generation regardless. It's not like the presenter has a hate-on for renewables. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Aug 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
fwiw i consider those models to be very conservative, as academic research generally should be. they don't model demand response or rooftop solar as meaningful contributors, they don't assume that offshore wind in CA will prove out, and they assume a solar price range of only about a third cheaper by 2045 when it could EASLY be much lower than that. also, and i'm not saying this is a good thing, but i think the simple truth is that reliability standards will get lower. i'm not betting on a pseg renaissance. if you give americans the choice between a nuke plant nearby or enduring a brownout or three every summer... they're already choosing the latter... I expect that will continue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 01:37
|
|
|
I like to hope that one day we will pay people to live near nuclear power plants and will tell them it's a reward for taking the risk but really it's just a back door ubi
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 01:48
|
|
|
Chicago's had half a dozen nuke sites within 50 miles for the last ~40 years. People living around them are their biggest boosters, partially because they're huge employers and partially because they're better than anything else that generates power. Seriously, around Clinton Power Station in midstate IL you'll run across anti-wind yard signs all over the place, bitching about the low frequency vibrations. Way more hate than the nuke plant. I mean, the worst thing about that nuke plant was how scattershot the buildout was, it was supposed to be 3 units but they only built 1. In terms of living around it, nobody cares, nobody minds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 02:51
|
|
|
If given the option of living 5km away from a nuclear power plant or 25km away from a coal power plant I'd choose nuclear in a heartbeat, but I suspect I'm in the minority.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 04:05
|
|
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:If given the option of living 5km away from a nuclear power plant or 25km away from a coal power plant I'd choose nuclear in a heartbeat, but I suspect I'm in the minority. That'd be an interesting survey. I wouldn't be surprised that people that live within 25 km of otherwise unnoticeable coal power station will feel more comfortable with that over nuclear and visa versa. The devil you know and all that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 07:59
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Are there specific recent developments you have in mind, s_k? Technology improvements have enabled wind and solar electricity to greatly drop in price. A lot of resources on electricity shared in this thread predate this development and so are totally obsolete. Here is an excerpt from one obsolete source, recently shared in this thread http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter14.html: quote:Let's try to understand what a marvelous accomplishment this would be. An ordinary cement sidewalk costs about $30 per square meter. The program goals are, therefore, to be able to cover the ground with solar cells for about twice the cost of covering it with a layer of cement. A solar cell is a highly sophisticated electronic device, about one inch in diameter, based on advanced principles of quantum physics developed in the 1950s. It is made from materials of extremely high purity, a purity that was unattainable even in scientific laboratories until the late 1940s. Cells are manufactured by processes that have taken some of the best efforts of modern technology to develop. They must be capable of standing up to all the vagaries of outside weather for 30 years. To cover the ground with these sophisticated devices for just twice the price we pay to cover it with a thin layer of cement, manufactured simply by grinding up rock and heating it, would indeed be an impressive accomplishment. This is in the chapter 'The Solar Dream'. The author is kind of being a smart rear end here and is basically claiming that the predictions made by US government solar PV researchers at the time were wrong--it is impossible for solar panel cost to dramatically drop. However, recent history has proven him to be totally wrong. The technology made it. We're there dude. By the way, to address claims made earlier in the thread that I am strawmanning the posters in this thread with respect to their denial of nuclear electricity’s cost problem--the above source talks a lot about how nuclear electricity would be very cheap if it weren’t for the US government sabotage of the price of nuclear electricity and used to be quoted a lot in the earlier history of this thread. The author worked in the nuclear industry and likely had an ideological commitment to the technology. He's also kind of scientifically wrong in the above quote about the physics of solar cells too--the quantum mechanical nature of solar cells, LEDs, transistors, etc. is usually overstated for dramatic effect. Semiconductor electronics is really not that quantum mechanical. Here is an excerpt from another obsolete source which over the years often was shared in this thread https://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_41.shtml: quote:The solar power capacity required to deliver this 50 kWh This source is out of date, too. Solar cells aren't only produced in research labs in one inch diameters anymore--it's a real technology now and is a very economical source of electricity. It would be irresponsible to NOT build solar farms, given that it is such a low cost source of electricity. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Aug 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 11:32
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Given that all of these renewables have really high mineral input requirements for the energy they produce even before we consider the battery problem we should probably just find a non-emitting source of Base load generation that uses mineral inputs more efficiently and oh what do you know we have one already. I don’t understand why your source claims that PVs use rare earth metals. None of these elements are used in non trace amounts in silicon PV production. This is a misconception that has persisted for a long time, and was present at the beginning of this thread. Maybe they are mis-categorizing cadmium, indium, gallium, selenium, tellurium, etc. as rare earth metals? But these are only used in thin films of the non-dominant PV technologies. In addition, I’m not sure whether this is really a very important figure of merit. History is loaded with people making hyperbolic claims of mineral scarcity. One example: indium tin oxide is a material which has a very interesting physical property—it is a pretty good conductor of electricity while being transparent to light. At least historically, for this reason it was used in thin films in displays. Many predicted that material scarcity and usage of indium would doom the display industry. But they were wrong—displays are now cheaper and more abundant than ever. Another example: many people, including goons in the Laissez Faire sub forum over 10 years ago, used to believe that we were going to run out of oil very soon, leading to the imminent downfall of modern civilization. They were 100% totally wrong. There is something in the lizard brain of humans that psychologically draws them to these narratives about elemental scarcity. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Aug 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 12:20
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Technology improvements have enabled wind and solar electricity to greatly drop in price. A lot of resources on electricity shared in this thread predate this development and so are totally obsolete. The source was quoted not as an up to date location of information, but as a great summary of information at the time and things that were predictable 30 years ago. Old mate was not going to get everything right considering how comprehensive the analysis is but lets take a look at your "gotcha"; After 30 years, the price to install PV grid solar is about $1.3k per kw https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf which considering inflation https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1992?amount=1000, is +/- 50% of his estimate. At the time of his estimate, it seemed to be north of $7k /kw ($15k /kw today $) in 1992 dollars so I think it is being hyperbolic that to say he was totally wrong ($2.1k his estimate increased for inflation* vs $1.3 k), he foreseen great decreases in PV costs continuing. Incidentally, rooftop solar is north of his estimate but I assume he was talking grid scale in isolation and not the average installed cost of PV across the country. In the following paragraphs he lays out why he thinks solar thermal is in a lot more precarious a place (because PV solar is quantum where tech miracles could happen, solar thermal is just engineering) and he was right, solar thermal is going the way of the dodo nowadays due to costs just not improving sufficiently. Additionally old mate in another section, straight up assesses that there will always be a place for solar so it seems he is less ideologically opposed to renewables than you are to nuclear. *If I was being a smart arse, then I would say he is literally right because he estimated it not less than $1k and it is currently $1.3k /kw after a long run of very low inflation. The price per kw installed is only going up from here. Of course then he is REALLY wrong on nuclear ($2k / kw vs $7k now).
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 13:42
|
|
|
I think he’s citing an at the time US gov’t researcher prediction for panel cost and not total cost, including installation. The stuff about solar cells being super complicated quantum mechanics and therefore are fundamentally expensive is just a boogie man. Solid state electronics is now a normal part of people’s lives and is very common. It’s also kind of scientifically wrong. People often overstate the quantum mechanical nature of solid state electronics. They really aren’t that quantum mechanical. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Aug 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 14:34
|
|
|
When he says "covering the ground" I assume he meant more than just laying them down in his back yard. He literally says quote:In addition to the cost goals quoted above for photovoltaic cells, there is a somewhat larger cost for mounting, electrical hook up, power conditioning, and other standard engineering operations that cannot be easily reduced. It therefore seems unlikely that an operating solar power plant can ever cost less than $1,000 per peak kilowatt. Agreed that it is not quantum physics but nuclear (heh) physics that goes into PV panel design. Electron resting states, etc. VVV oops, I was  That's what I get for trying to meet halfway and going with 2022 S_K rather than 1992 ideologically committed nuclear guy VVV
Electric Wrigglies fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Aug 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Agreed that it is not quantum physics but nuclear (heh) physics that goes into PV panel design. Electron resting states, etc. The whole concept of a bandgap is a quantum phenomenon. It is not possible to understand it classically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 16:00
|
|
|
From the source:quote:According to the directors of the government program, for photovoltaics to penetrate the utility market,2 the module cost must be reduced to $45 per square meter if the efficiency is improved to 15%, or to $80 per square meter if the efficiency can be raised to 20%, assuming that the system life expectancy can be extended to 30 years (all costs are in 1987 dollars). These are the program goals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The whole concept of a bandgap is a quantum phenomenon. It is not possible to understand it classically. If you posit the existence of an energy gap in the semiconductor, then semiconductor device physics isn’t really that quantum mechanical. The quantum mechanical nature of solid state electronics is usually overemphasized for dramatic effect. The way semiconductor material science works is not by solving the Schrodinger equation from first principles and letting the calculations drive the material science. It’s too complicated. The theory isn’t that good. It’s not a lot like particle physics or whatever and is more like chemistry or engineering. It’s very empirical and experiment/measurement driven. This is not to mention that phenomena usually associated with quantum mechanics like (non electro-magnetic) interference, entanglement, the probabilistic nature of measurement, etc. aren’t really important in solid state electronics. The quantum size effect matters a little bit and quantum mechanical tunneling happens (current flows through almost every single metal-semiconductor ohmic contact/junction through tunneling), but that is mostly it. The way people model these things in practice isn’t in a very first principles, quantum mechanical theory-driven way—in practice it is very empirical. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Aug 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If you posit the existence of an energy gap in the semiconductor, then semiconductor device physics isn’t really that quantum mechanical. Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln. quote:The way semiconductor material science works is not by solving the Schrodinger equation from first principles and letting the calculations drive the material science. It’s too complicated. The theory isn’t that good. It’s not a lot like particle physics or whatever and is more like chemistry or engineering. It’s very empirical and experiment/measurement driven. Hardly anything works by solving the Schrodinger Equation from first principles. By that definition, quantum electrodynamics isn't really quantum mechanics because Feynman diagrams are a thing. I get what you're saying, and you're right, but understanding semiconductors and how they work is absolutely a quantum phenomenon. quote:The quantum size effect matters a little bit and quantum mechanical tunneling happens (current flows through almost every single metal-semiconductor ohmic contact/junction through tunneling), but that is mostly it. The way people model these things in practice isn’t in a very first principles, quantum mechanical theory-driven way—in practice it is very empirical. Ditto the LHC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I get what you're saying, and you're right, but understanding semiconductors and how they work is absolutely a quantum phenomenon. If you were nerdly and technically right about it you’d have to say that quantum mechanics is involved in solid state electronics, but I’d argue that most of the important features of solid state devices are classical. I’d argue e.g. a transistor isn’t really a ‘quantum device’. People, including those versed in the art, often play that up to make it sound more fancy than what it actually is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I’d argue e.g. a transistor isn’t really a ‘quantum device’. How about a tunnel diode?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
People got very excited about tunnel diodes in the 1950’s and believed they would revolutionize electronics (a guy got a Nobel prize for it too) and they ended up being wrong. They are sometimes used but I wouldn’t say that they embody the spirit of semiconductor electronics. Edit: I’m really not sure if they are used for their original intended purpose and for the reason why people got so excited about them (they exhibit power gain at very high frequencies). Transistors have improved in function since the 1950's and now many transistor technologies exhibit power gain at very high frequencies and are used instead. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
Germans are going nuts for firewood. https://qz.com/germans-are-looking-to-firewood-for-energy-as-natural-g-1849461406 But hey, it's "renewable"!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 03:18
|
|
|
If it grows locally and harvested in quantities that are sustainable sure. Something tells me that since it's the germans, they'l probably import it from abroad in quantities that are anything but and probably fell some old growth forests while they're at it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 05:40
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If you were nerdly and technically right about it you’d have to say that quantum mechanics is involved in solid state electronics, but I’d argue that most of the important features of solid state devices are classical. Classical E&M does not possess a consistent model for describing transistor physics. Quantum mechanics does. The GOAT himself Richard Feynman doesn't talk about transistors at all in his E&M lectures but has a chapter dedicated to them in his QM lectures. This is because transistors are quantum devices https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_14.html It's not a matter of "playing up" the role of quantum mechanics; to whom and for what purpose would that even serve?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 06:01
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Classical E&M does not possess a consistent model for describing transistor physics. Quantum mechanics does. The GOAT himself Richard Feynman doesn't talk about transistors at all in his E&M lectures but has a chapter dedicated to them in his QM lectures. This is because transistors are quantum devices In the webpage you linked, Feynman at the end in a few paragraphs describes the physics of transistor action in a bipolar transistor. The explanation mostly works for field effect transistors as well. A transistor is an electrical device where the conductivity of the device between two terminals is actuated by a third control electrical terminal--it exhibits 'transfer conductance' or 'transconductance'. A third control voltage applied to the transistor can raise or lower a potential barrier inside of the device. When the potential barrier is sufficiently low, the electrons have enough thermal energy to jump over the barrier and the transistor conducts electricity. When the potential barrier is sufficiently high, electrons do not have enough thermal energy to go over the barrier, they have no place to go, and the transistor does not conduct electricity. This is the physics of 'transistor action'. Not a lot is quantum mechanical about the above paragraph. I argue that transistors aren't really quantum devices. QuarkJets posted:It's not a matter of "playing up" the role of quantum mechanics; to whom and for what purpose would that even serve? If your job is to sell your research services to the government, then it makes a lot of sense to exaggerate the novelty of the science in your work. Alternately, if your goal is to make a [terrible] argument that technology X is fundamentally expensive, it also makes sense to exaggerate the novelty of the science and engineering involved in technology X. It is really hard to predict cost. A lot of things go into how much something costs, and many of them cannot be reasoned about using zeroth-order science principles. Scientists who don't directly work on the hyper-applied engineering/business problem of reducing the production cost routinely get costs wrong. "Technology X is fundamentally high cost therefore fundamentally low cost Technology Y [which also happens to align with my specialty/career] is the way to go" is often stated and is often wrong. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 12:27 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 09:56
|
|
|
And the point made by pointing it out was that because PV driving principles are quantum and that quantum is not as well understood as classical engineering, there was a lot more scope for technological advances for PV cells. He was making the case that solar was more likely going to get better in greater leaps and bounds!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 10:45
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:And the point made by pointing it out was that because PV driving principles are quantum and that quantum is not as well understood as classical engineering, there was a lot more scope for technological advances for PV cells. He was making the case that solar was more likely going to get better in greater leaps and bounds! No, the author was clearly making a bogus argument that PV will always be fundamentally expensive because the science and technology is just SOOO exotic. Here it is quoted again: quote:A solar cell is a highly sophisticated electronic device, about one inch in diameter, based on advanced principles of quantum physics developed in the 1950s. It is made from materials of extremely high purity, a purity that was unattainable even in scientific laboratories until the late 1940s. Cells are manufactured by processes that have taken some of the best efforts of modern technology to develop. They must be capable of standing up to all the vagaries of outside weather for 30 years. To cover the ground with these sophisticated devices for just twice the price we pay to cover it with a thin layer of cement, manufactured simply by grinding up rock and heating it, would indeed be an impressive accomplishment. But solid state electronics aren't really rare or exotic--they are now a normal part of people's everyday lives. They are very common and people rely on them everyday. Yes electronics-grade silicon is very pure (I think solar-grade silicon is a little less pure), and might be the purest material known to man, and yes, the purity of the silicon is very important for the solar cell to be efficient at converting sunlight into electricity, but electronics-grade or solar-grade silicon is not particularly rare or scarce. They are commodity products. -------------- Solar cells are unique when compared to other solid state devices in that they are large area (but so are displays) and so there is a lot larger (cost/area) pressure on solar cells than other products. Solar cell silicon purification/production and cell manufacturing had to improve upon production efficiency/cost beyond what is done for silicon integrated circuits because of the more stringent cost/area requirement. Here is one example of technological improvement that I have heard: in integrated circuits, they waste a lot of the silicon material when sawing the thin wafers from the large silicon boule/crystal in the form of silicon sawdust. This is acceptable in integrated circuits because the bulk silicon wafer material cost does not drive the integrated circuit cost. But for the solar application this waste was considered unacceptable. So they came up with better ways to separate the boule into wafers without creating so much silicon sawdust. What is so quantum mechanical about that? silence_kit fucked around with this message at 12:11 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 11:28
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:If it grows locally and harvested in quantities that are sustainable sure. Something tells me that since it's the germans, they'l probably import it from abroad in quantities that are anything but and probably fell some old growth forests while they're at it. The vast majority of wood used for heating (especially pellets) is sourced from production scrap/sawdust. Old growth forests are not being razed just to produce firewood.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 12:03
|
|
|
On one hand, a field heavy with AMO physicists. But on the other, some guy on the internet who claims that transistor conductance is no longer quantum mechanical because it's now a commodity and thus not exotic. I'll go inform the AMO physicists, I guess. Edit: I have made solar cells that are in space right now, ask away if you want to know something that wasn't thrown together from Wikipedia and Feynman recordings intended for the general public  iirc either in here, the spaceflight thread, and/or the physics thread that's a few others who have made cells or flight validated them and whatnot. There's others who make or design terrestrial pv. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 12:36
|
|
|
You know, you could engage with my argument instead of writing that post. But hey, it's a free country. You can believe whatever you want. edit: Potato Salad posted:Edit: I have made solar cells that are in space right now, ask away if you want to know something that wasn't thrown together from Wikipedia and Feynman recordings intended for the general public Would you be willing to make an argument against what I have posted in this thread, instead of name-dropping credentials? If I am so obviously wrong, it should be very easy for an expert such as yourself to correct me. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 12:39
|
|
|
E: vvv no you're right I should read better before posting, especially in D&D. Sorry.
Maugrim fucked around with this message at 13:20 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 13:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
No that’s not the case, sorry. Try again. However, the idea that quantum physics dominates the physics of solid state devices making them totally incomprehensible without QM is very untrue. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Aug 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2022 13:04
|
|