You’re getting downvoted for pointing out that this technology, at optimal efficiency on Earth, generates about 1/100,000 that of a solar panel. “Not very useful” is an understatement (it’s currently fucking useless). Even worse: the title saying “at night” implies a terrestrial usage and misdirects from this technology’s only potential useful application in the future once and if it becomes much better – namely on deep-space missions.
This research is interesting. I hope it yields something useful. Your comment is still 100% correct for the foreseeable future.
That 1/100,000 comparison doesn’t seem right if these panels generate 1W per square meter as the parent poster said. It sounds like you’re saying regular solar panels generate 100kW per square meter but I’m pretty sure that’s orders of magnitude too high. Am I misinterpreting what you said?
No that’s not right, it’s about 1000 watts/m2 on the surface. But it is on a totally clear day with the sun directly overhead. So depending on your latitude you get less per m2 because the Earth is round.
Wikipedia says it’s 1361 watts per m2 just outside the atmosphere.
On the power outside the atmosphere I didn’t comment because I was too lazy to look it up, the and I knew the number of the previous commenter was in the ballpark.
Regarding the surface: my apologies, I quoted a number from university that must have been a simplification for a calculation exercise, and I made the mistake of never thinking about it critically. Turns out I was wrong.
One watt per square meter. Not very useful.
You’re getting downvoted for pointing out that this technology, at optimal efficiency on Earth, generates about 1/100,000 that of a solar panel. “Not very useful” is an understatement (it’s currently fucking useless). Even worse: the title saying “at night” implies a terrestrial usage and misdirects from this technology’s only potential useful application in the future once and if it becomes much better – namely on deep-space missions.
This research is interesting. I hope it yields something useful. Your comment is still 100% correct for the foreseeable future.
even if it only helped eek out 1% returns, on missions depending on an RTEG that could be years added.
worth keeping an eye on.
That 1/100,000 comparison doesn’t seem right if these panels generate 1W per square meter as the parent poster said. It sounds like you’re saying regular solar panels generate 100kW per square meter but I’m pretty sure that’s orders of magnitude too high. Am I misinterpreting what you said?
Agreed. It’s 1/100 with old panels at 1/300 with modern high performance panels, being up to 300w/m.
Edit: solar radiation is only 1.3kw/m2
Outside earths atmosphere. Only ~650 Watts/m^2 reach the surface of our planet.
No that’s not right, it’s about 1000 watts/m2 on the surface. But it is on a totally clear day with the sun directly overhead. So depending on your latitude you get less per m2 because the Earth is round.
Wikipedia says it’s 1361 watts per m2 just outside the atmosphere.
On the power outside the atmosphere I didn’t comment because I was too lazy to look it up, the and I knew the number of the previous commenter was in the ballpark.
Regarding the surface: my apologies, I quoted a number from university that must have been a simplification for a calculation exercise, and I made the mistake of never thinking about it critically. Turns out I was wrong.
Clearly you don’t know how much longer sketchy hallways get in the dark. It’s at least a 20 fold increase.