Also you can't compare FUCKING NASA GRADE solar panels with commercial-grade solar panels. They are MUCH MUCH more efficient, not because it's unobstructed, but because of the technology they use. Their panels have probably double the efficiency of regular ones
Tried and true technology is always more reliable than cutting edge. I’m
Assuming 14 percent is more than enough given that it’s in space. One or two percentage points is less important than making sure that the panels don’t suddenly stop working.
Would make the counterpoint that that is not necessarily true even though solar and wind is garbage.
If they actually wanted emission free energy that was viable they would be very pro nuclear. They’re just dumb.
And if we were able to actually create a working fusion reactor as opposed to fission, then that would literally launch us into a new age of technology...like going from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age.
I meant in the context of wind. If I’m racing a 100 miles race give me the latest buggati. If I’m running a 1 million mile race, give me a Toyota Tercel
Solar power has its place as sort of a back up energy production or in places where powerlines aren't very viable. And calculators. But there is a reason why water wheels are more common than windmills.
Also you can't compare FUCKING NASA GRADE solar panels with commercial-grade solar panels. They are MUCH MUCH more efficient, not because it's unobstructed, but because of the technology they use. Their panels have probably double the efficiency of regular ones
Sadly no, the panels on the ISS are roughly 14% efficient. Most home solar panels are in the 10-15% range, with the premium models pushing 20%.
Oddly, the 14% panels on the ISS weren't even the best available when they went up.
Tried and true technology is always more reliable than cutting edge. I’m Assuming 14 percent is more than enough given that it’s in space. One or two percentage points is less important than making sure that the panels don’t suddenly stop working.
Would make the counterpoint that that is not necessarily true even though solar and wind is garbage.
If they actually wanted emission free energy that was viable they would be very pro nuclear. They’re just dumb.
And if we were able to actually create a working fusion reactor as opposed to fission, then that would literally launch us into a new age of technology...like going from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age.
Still upvoted because solar and wind are garbage.
I meant in the context of wind. If I’m racing a 100 miles race give me the latest buggati. If I’m running a 1 million mile race, give me a Toyota Tercel
What's the difference between Fission and Fusion?
Solar power has its place as sort of a back up energy production or in places where powerlines aren't very viable. And calculators. But there is a reason why water wheels are more common than windmills.
I was mainly talking about satellites, ISIS is pretty old. Though I'm sure they could upgrade the solar panels someday.
Solar efficiency is capped at around 30% anyway, it’s the theoretical limit.
So that would be 3 for the big guys. Biden approves.