Australian researchers just unveiled the most efficient solar panels ever. How efficient are they, and what is the most efficient source of energy?
Get 15% off http://www.domain.com's s domain names and web hosting when you use coupon code DNEWS at checkout!
In world first -- UNSW researchers convert sunlight to electricity with over 40 percent efficiency
"UNSW Australia's solar researchers have converted over 40% of the sunlight hitting a solar system into electricity, the highest efficiency ever reported."
New world record for solar cell efficiency at 46% French-German cooperation confirms competitive advantages of European photovoltaic industry
"A new world record for the direct conversion of sunlight into electricity has been established."
Australia develops world's most efficient solar panels
"?Australian researchers have developed a new method of using commercial solar panels that converts more electricity from sunlight than ever before."
What is the efficiency of different types of power plants?
"One measure of the efficiency of a power plant that converts a fuel into heat and into electricity is the heat rate."
"Improving efficiency levels increases the amount of energy that can be extracted from a single unit of coal."
The Most Common Electricity Sources in the U.S.
"Though renewable energy is growing fast, the U.S. still gets the vast majority of its power from conventional power plants."
Increasing the Efficiency of Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants
"Coal has long been the major fossil fuel used to produce electricity."
Coal Will Survive as Efficient Power Plants Boost Demand
"President Barack Obama's plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions left coal with a future even as the industry accuses him of trying to make the fuel obsolete."
How Do Wind Turbines Work?
"So how do wind turbines make electricity?"
Screwy-looking wind turbine makes little noise and a big claim
"Although it's getting increasingly common to see solar panels on the roofs of homes, household wind turbines are still a fairly rare sight."
Wind Energy More Energy Efficient than Fossil Fuels
"Here's something that may surprise you. Wind energy is more efficient than carbon-based fuels."
Wind Energy's Shadow: Turbines Drag Down Power Potential
"As seemingly limitless as the air that swirls around us, wind has proven to be the world's fastest-growing source of renewable energy."
Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors
"The nuclear power industry has been developing and improving reactor technology for more than five decades and is starting to build the next generation of nuclear power reactors to fill new orders."
"Hydro-electric power, using the potential energy of rivers, now supplies 17.5% of the world's electricity (99% in Norway, 57% in Canada, 55% in Switzerland, 40% in Sweden, 7% in USA)."
"It's a form of energy ... a renewable resource."
DNews is dedicated to satisfying your curiosity and to bringing you mind-bending stories & perspectives you won't find anywhere else! New videos twice daily.
Watch More DNews on TestTube http://testtube.com/dnews
Subscribe now! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=dnewschannel
DNews on Twitter http://twitter.com/dnews
Trace Dominguez on Twitter https://twitter.com/tracedominguez
Tara Long on Twitter https://twitter.com/TaraLongest
DNews on Facebook https://facebook.com/DiscoveryNews
DNews on Google+ http://gplus.to/dnews
Discovery News http://discoverynews.com
Download the TestTube App: http://testu.be/1ndmmMq
Solar and Wind related Energy is too intermittent & unreliable to be factored in as base load ; it's too inefficient on the Grid.
Power Factor Correction and Sine Wave Stability are problems that "renewable energy supporters" tend to ignore...
It’s only less than 50% efficient when the sun doesn’t shine. So 50% of the 46% is 23%. Real problem is the storage, if the super capacitors get developed, the wind and solar may have a chance since the storage is thereby available.... power must be readily available whenever it is needed... like at nigh when we need to turn on the lights.
does the Nuke efficiency # include refining the radioactive uranium or whatever they use? Also the next 10k years of maintaining the waste. and the gas efficiency includes well-to-turbine energy consumption? Manufacturing panels and turbines (and dams) is consumes energy too I understand.
Nuclear is only safe so long as it is properly maintained and well not hit by a natural disaster. Given the context of raising temps and sea level building Nuclear reactors on the cost line which is almost definitely gonna raise in the next 100 years is just plain suicidal and genocidal. Lets take a moment to imagine that we fail our emissions goals or the pace of progress is constantly being stalled and held back. So sea level rises and floods these reactors and surrounding areas what do you think will happen then? Oh wait we already saw this Fukushima , Chernobyl, SL-1.W know that the radiation will continue to pollute those areas for hundreds of years to come. We all know why coal plants are bad but at excess heat could be used to power sterling engines just with the temp differential to add to efficiency and we could use bio mass instead of coal to maintain carbon neutrality. This concept could even be down-scaled to supplement energy in a homes heating system. Again solar on every rooftop will go a long way towards meeting our energy requirements for a post oil world. Also Vertical wind turbines have proven to be more efficient and far safer to the local wildlife. Put a couple on every roof alone with those panels. We can also scale down hydro electric to work with rain water collection systems in buildings as another form of supplemental power. Simply have 2 water collection tanks and a pump connecting them. Basically when it rains all the water that hits your roof will be directed to a basement water tank, then a pump will push the water to a water tank in the attic or roof stored as potential energy like a battery. If lets say its been a very damp week and solar output was weak your still gonna get power from wind possibly more than usual during a storm and lots of rain fall to. Of course you could also incorporate that rain water into your pluming if you include a proper filtration and purifying stage. Whats most important is having enough battery storage for the home or businesses needs, and having enough sources of passive energy production to meet the daily demand. As you may be able to tell I am very anti grid lock energy. I believe that energy is absolutely everywhere. In fact everything in the universe is just a state of energy. All we need to figure out is how to use it or how to change its state of energy to a state we can use. SO I heavily advocate for micro grids. That concept alone will give us far more freedom from our huge range of power issues with the current infrastructure. Another passive energy generator is the electrostatic motor which uses static electricity to push a turbine. Thunderstorms are perfect for this generator because lightning charges the air with huge static fields. And of course given the power crisis its just as important to make every kind of technology and appliance as efficient as possible to lower our demand for power.
I notices he talk solely on efficiency not how much power is actually generated by these methods showing the burning of fossil fuels in nuclear reactors as being bad because they are less efficient at collecting the energy not how much energy they are actually collecting from these methods.
😡 I hate YouTubers that have to edit zoom in on things the that average viewer can easily see! They really think their audience is under age and has Toddler Level Attention Spans. And usually it's Digital Zoom anyway so the picture quality gets Worse! I think I blame Pewdiepie for starting this trend a while back in I'd say 2012. And seriously I'm a bit of a Screen Slave but when you quickly zoom in and out on like this, it Strains my Eyes Harder than bright Strobelights! If all consumers weren't using VR Goggles as their everyday TV/Monitor, we would all be suffering from "Motion Sickness" just like Totalbiscuit Did! 😔
I like open-loop solar. Essentially, you install a bit more solar energy than you need, use it as much as possible, and put the waste heat to good use, like for heating water. For example, instead of keeping water at exactly 160F, let it get up to 190F. Heat the floors.
Same for summer cooling. Run the goddamn air conditioner until it snows inside the house.
I think that the TARAPUR NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANT (*nuclear fusion energy from uranium) of INDIA is more efficient as it has an efficiency of 40%(Wikipedia.org) and capacity factor of 83%(World-nuclear.org)
but i have an idea.
how to make unlimited power with just a few power.
first, build a giant power plant. then build a huge turbine. then get some power from another power plant to move the turbine and then the power that the turbine generates can be used to move the turbine itself and the rest is given to the nearby buildings.
Basically the higher the voltage, the lower the losses in the lines. But a 1150 kV line would not be so safe if it came right to your house, would it? For extremely long distances (1000 km and more), high voltage DC lines are the most efficient.
Nuclear energy has a huge problem. The waste generated from nuclear energy lasts forever. Scientists haven't discovered a way of proper disposal of nuclear waste. It is dangerous for humanity.
Hydroelectric dams are destroying rivers and natural flow of rivers. Many rivers in India have become dead zones.
Decentralized Solar, wind and biomass where communities are the joint owners of renewable energy is the way forward. Also, solar, battery, biomass, biogas technologies are evolving rapidly. So, they will only get more efficient in the future.
Just a quick calculation. USA would need around 15,000 TWh of electricity to cover all the yearly energy needs (considering higher efficiency). Considering average solar irradiation of 4 kWh/m^2/day and the efficiency of solar panels of 18 %, you would need around 57,000 square kilometres and this is only the quadrature of solar panels. You would need around 1.5 million 3 MW wind turbines to get the same amount of energy (assuming capacity factor of 0.4). With that you would need a hell of a lot of batteries or some other kind of energy storage. You would also need reserve power plants for the winter and when the wind isn't blowing for a longer period of time. Also, a lot of voltage regulating devices would be needed. An alternative would be to have less than 500 nuclear power plants with 4x1000 MW reactors. This would mitigate the need for energy storage and voltage regulating. Of course we would have to find a suitable high level nuclear waste disposal first. We could maybe even try with thorium and LFTR reactors.
Thanks for sharing a video about solar panels .It is really informative .Solar Power is the conversion of the solar energy from the sun into thermal or electrical energy by way of using photovoltaic, etc.
A Solar panel is typically a panel that absorbs solar energy and uses it as a source of energy to generate electricity. They are basically made up of solar cells or the photovoltaic cells that are arranged as a photovoltaic array making up the photovoltaic system.I know a place which is one of the best solar installation company provides best solar services and products that are not just economical, but also efficient with customized solutions to offer you the best from our vast range of affordable models...
No, less efficient PV cells mean more pristine natural environments needs to be plowed over with concrete or round-up. Commercial PV plants use round-up to stop plants from growing over the panels. Also poor capacity factors mean multitude more capacity required, land and energy storage, or prayers. Reliability has a price especially if you run industry that CAN'T be turned off like aluminum recycling, sewage treatment, or hospitals. You got about 1KW per sqr meter luminosity at around 20% EFF; The capacity factor is around 10-20% annual average (basically uptime) depending on where you live.
Meanwhile a nuclear fuel bundle produces more energy than renewables can in their lifetimes (it has a million times the energy of chemical bonds so what do you expect?). Nuclear plants are mostly concrete and steel while renewables need all sorts of exotic metals in much higher quantities. A 1GW molten chloride fast reactor theoretically only needs 1 tonne of depleted uranium/nuclear waste/thorium/natural uranium for about an entire year to run and require no more space than current power plants. Turbine efficiency goes up because of the higher inlet temperatures of liquefied salt.
+ 22,393,817.40 KWh thermal per kilo of Uranium/Thorium
* 1.00 Burnup (100% in MSR breeder)
* 1,000.00 KWh thermal per tonne
* 0.35 Turbine efficiency
+7,837,836,090.00 KWh of electric per tonne
/ 8,766.00 convert to KWy (year)
+ 894,117.74 KWy per tonne
+ 1,000,000.00 KWy (1GW power plant in 1 year)
/ 894,117.74 KWy per tonne
+ 1.12 Approx tonnes of fuel per GWy
Power Efficiency Guide Will Change Our World Forever
today, in this short video I’ll tell you a life-changing story about how I figured out how to easily generate insane amounts of energy for the past 2 years…
I’m talking about a simple device that can be used by any family around the world and can even change the course of the entire energy industry...
Click here to read the text continues.
Well solar power is much more efficient...look at how long it takes the oil rigs to be made, the oil to be pumped and processes d then shipped across the country or continents...then look at solar and how arrays just have to have arrays built and then the they can transport the power via power lines very quickly across the city or country...then look at how wind turbines kill millions of birds a yr...so solar is obviously better.
Solar: efficiency: 18 %, capacity factor: up to 20 %
Wind: efficiency: 40 %, capacity factor: up to 45 %
Coal: efficiency: 33 %, capacity factor: up to 90 %
Gas: efficiency: 40 %, capacity factor: up to 90 %
Combined cycle gas: efficiency: 55 %, capacity factor: up to 90 %
Nuclear: efficiency: 40 %, capacity factor: up to 90 %
Coal, gas, nuclear cogeneration: efficiency: 85 %, capacity factor: up to 90 %
Solar energy also needs a lot of space, energy storage, voltage regulating devices, devices that introduct additional system inertia etc.
Thorium yes indeed and Thorium is far more abundant than Uranium! If we had made Thorium reactors for electricity instead of Plutonium they would be a lot safer and generate a lot more energy in a smaller space. Radium painted on a solar cell will also create electricity (24/7 and another interesting phenomena is that a very small piece of Plutonium or Thorium pressed against a Beryllium (Emerald) crystal will light it up very, very bright and outlast your mortal lifetime. This light will also convert into electricity via a solar cell and charge a battery 24/7 Nickel/Iron batteries using Hydroxide have now lasted over 60 years.
Forgot to mention how much a solar panel with 46 percent efficiency would cost. The efficiency (ratio of output power and input solar power) wouldn't drop because of the angle, the capacity (load) factor would. This is mixed up in the video too. Efficiency of a solar panel is the same even during night time.
Today's nuclear power plants utilize around 10-15 % of energy you would get from splitting just U-235, not accounting for the rest of fission and decay. Total energy utilization of nuclear energy is a few percent, so it's not really that efficient.
One thing I have yet to see addressed in any sort of video like this is the fact that the power grid is under a constant need for energy, solar doesnt produce at night, wind doesnt produce when the wind isnt blowing. And batteries dont hold enough power to power a city.
It like to point out, all this inefficiency in creating and distributing electricity, is also a problem for EV vehicles. Going straight to mechanical energy is much better. I understand that is not what people want to here. But it is very true. It is just a fact going from fuel to steam to electricity to transmission to charge to storage each stage loses efficiency. (not to mention battery get harder to charge with each charge) The slight of hand is to compare only at the end point. As if all these other stages don't exist. As if 100 watts in an EV only took 100 watts of potential energy. The amount of fuel needed to burn to get the exact same mileage out of a fuel combustion engine will also be more. Each EV vehicles has a greater carbon print to make and operate. Calculating what percent of green energy would be needed to offset EV inefficiency of creating and operating would be a more honest figure. Then to say EV are zero emission, which is completely false.
We could have cheap energy already if we wanted to. We just have to get our smartest people together to work on creating a super efficient solar panel.
Also wind turbines are usually turned off/locked and only a couple will be on because apparently there sometimes wont be a high enough demand or any orders for the company to sell the electricity to. Why dont they just turn them all on and store the energy or give it out for free??
I like Nuclear Fushion although it's not there yet to produce as much as nuclear fission plant, it currently produces as much a coal plant, but nuclear energy is best for now. But for cheaper almost reliable sources solar and wind i also like.
Nuclear, Geothermal, Hydroelectric, Solar thermal, and coal are vastly superior to solar and wind. Also, gasification and pyrolysis should be invested in. Manufacturing of solid panels is very harmful. Also, just using heat from the Sun passively can heat water and air in buildings.
Hi, Talking about Efficiency of generating Electricity from different sources of energy sounds great. Unfortunately, it is not that easy. Yes, we know the theoretical amount of energy in a ton of coal, oil or gas. But how do you compare a ton of Sunlight. ? ? . . How do you ship sunlight to a power station, how can you measure the relative energy available. ( Don't get me talking about kW/m² of sunlight energy, I can give you all the information you want on that. ) But it is the cost of collecting that Solar and Wind energy, not efficiency that counts. . . . Now you appear to have forgotten how to get Solar energy at night time. ! . . . Woops.! Now you start to get into Energy Storage. . . Now that is the big question, the big situation that is hampering all forms of variable energy generation. . .. To use Batteries is very, very, very inefficient, expensive and environmentally harmful, particularly the making and disposing of them. . . And how long before they need replacing. ? ? ? . . . . California had a big problem when their Energy Storage batteries required replacing in just two years. . . . . Basically you have vastly over simplified the problem and presented it all in a very, very distorted point of view
Once the testing phase of the first nuclear fusion power plant is finished in southern France it will be the best option by far. But it will require huge investments and it will take a long time until planet earth goes fully into nuclear fusion. For now the best option is CPV or concentrated photovoltaics. Also we need to improve the electricity storage batteries wether they’re made out of lithium or whatever~
The efficiency is not directly relevant for using solar for commercial energy generation, so comparing the efficiency to other types of commercial energy is pointless. No one cares if sunlight is wasted. The only thing that matters for commercial energy, is the price per kilowatt hour. Usually the more efficient it is, the lower the price per KWH as well, but not necessarily, and nothing even related to the cost, was even mentioned in this video. However, this is still an interesting development with solar tech.
Please compare the [costs of (construction + installation + maintenance)] / [hours of operational lifetime], for produce say something like 10TWh of electric energy in 50 years, distributed uniformly and constant in EVERY second of this period .
Then you will see that photo-electric power plants, ARE A FRAUD!!!
Not "clear" green-energy but clearly a..DEEP-RED one!
Watching this shows the need of having nuclear energy. Watch Pandora Promise completely than you decide. Most people will just ignore these facts, but the case against nuclear is not scientific. Its' fearmongering and if your not for nuclear than your for fossil fuels as this documentary shows.
what is the total picture cost? how much energy goes into coal and nuclear plants vs. solar plants? Land costs, costs of materials and energy to make the solution plus the manhours, plus the possible pollution clean up costs for the manufacturring process? I have yet to see any analysis in that fashion.
Uh, I protest efficiency to some degree. If you 100% efficiently capture all of the energy from wind, you get still air which can stratify or stagnate. If you do that with water, you get stagnant water.
Wind turbines are 90% efficient at the mechanical level.
Engines are 50% thermodynamically efficient, but are over 90% mechanically efficient and have to live with 64% thermal efficiency, but they provide us with a great standard of life when the carbon cycle is closed. The product of 50% and 64% is where their 30% efficiency comes from.
Concentrated solar is extremely efficient if we need sub 1000F thermal work done. I honestly see that as a promising technology because we can put them in sunny areas for a net cooling effect. It's more useful than solar panels in some aspects, though I will not deny that solar panels have their own niche.
The sun only shines during the day, and don't put out much juice when snowed on, no matter how efficient the panels are. The best source of power is methane gas (AKA propane, LPG, or natural gas), it is a byproduct of decomposing organic waste and therefore renewable and very inexpensive.
Nuclear Energy - of the future! These MSR power plants could be online in 10 years - maybe less...
Molten Salt Reactor ....
These work when the Sun won't shine. These reactors are safe, zero (or nearly zero) carbon and efficient - unless most everything else.
does the 30% efficiency of solar panels and the 30% efficiency of nuclear energy produce equal amounts of energy??? Like do they both produce x amounts of joules or solar produces y amounts and nuclear produces z amounts and the only difference between them is that if the source of energy was wasted or not???
Although foreigners may now invest in A-shares, there is a monthly 20 percent limit on repatriation of funds to foreign countries.
Performance of A-shares.
Since its inception in 1990, including a major reform in 2002, the index has seen great fluctuations. Overall, however, it has grown along with the Chinese economy. The years 2015 to 2016 were a particularly difficult period, with a 52-week performance of -21.55 percent as of July 20, 2016.
As China grows from an emerging market to an advanced economy, there is substantial demand for Chinese equity. Stock exchange regulators continue efforts to make A-shares more broadly available to foreign investors and have them recognized by the global investing community.
In June 2017, the MSCI Emerging Markets Index announced a long-awaited decision it would add stocks to its index. According to CNBC, MSCI will add 222 China A Large Cap stocks to its benchmark emerging markets index gradually beginning in 2018. The MSCI website reveals the stocks it will list include the Bank of China, China Merchants Bank, Guotai Junan, Ping An Insurance, according to a document on Tsingtao Brewery, SAIC Motor, Suning Commerce and Spring Airlines.
Current Dividend Preference.
Participating Preferred Stock.
Convertible Preferred Stock.
Cumulative preferred stock includes a provision that requires the company to pay preferred shareholders all dividends, including those that were omitted in the past, before the common shareholders are able to receive their dividend payments.
Non-cumulative preferred stock does not issue any omitted or unpaid dividends. If the company chooses not to pay dividends in any given year, the shareholders of the non-cumulative preferred stock have no right or power to claim such forgone dividends at any time in the future.
Participating preferred stock provides its shareholders with the right to be paid dividends in an amount equal to the generally specified rate of preferred dividends, plus an additional dividend based on a predetermined condition. This additional dividend is typically designed to be paid out only if the amount of dividends received by common shareholders is greater than a predetermined per-share amount. If the company is liquidated, participating preferred shareholders may also have the right to be paid back the purchasing price of the stock as well as a pro-rata share of remaining proceeds received by common shareholders.
Significance to Investors.