'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution

[gallardo]

In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.
Until now, solar power has been a daytime-only energy source, because storing extra solar energy for later use is prohibitively expensive and grossly inefficient. With today's announcement, MIT researchers have hit upon a simple, inexpensive, highly efficient process for storing solar energy.

Read more on the subject


Good news for all. I would like to have a house that gets its power from the sun, or a car that charges on solar energy. Now all we need is cheap and efficient solar panels.

[m0da]

and major companies sponsoring it. what will the electric companies do? or the major car companies...? they've already killed a nice concept electric car project. let's see what happens.

i'm all for it though, this is great! i never knew why solar power never went full-blown mainstream

[003]

Solar panels are obnoxiously inefficient, it's best to just move to nuclear energy.

[xlink]

it's called plants. they're notoriously efficient at storing solar power.

then you burn them.

[Marvin_The_Martian]

Where I live, our city been building an emission neutral neighbourhood. Lot's of green, and ALLOT of solar pannels ( every house has their own ), and central heating with geo storage. Makes me kind of less pessimistic about being able to still walk here in 20 years or that rising sea water would ensure we'd have to swim.. If they hurry with these innovations, the future is looking very dry ..erhm.. I mean good

I'm abit confused though, electrolyse has been known for ages and I can't really grasp the MAJOR change this time around, maybe a native englisch speaking person can explain what I am missing from the article?

[Quest_7F]

Makes me kind of less pessimistic about being able to still walk here in 20 years or that rising sea water would ensure we'd have to swim.

YES!



Well of course its a great find. Lets just get it to a proper means of energy before out country rapes it as well as it has everything else.

Ill compare t to an RTS, we are at a Tech Level 1, we have found a resource, but need to find other resources and more efficient ways to get it. Also, we need to get that Tech Level 4 so we can get those scholars.

[Shintai]

Solar panels are obnoxiously inefficient, it's best to just move to nuclear energy.

Not really. Also something like 0.3% of Sahara could supply the entire EU with current cheap tech.

Another point is energy conservation, people simply waste too much on nothing.

Lastly, the price for nuclear pwoer will go up rapidly. We got plenty of Uranium. But its abit like oil. Supply and demand plus harder and harder time mining it.

And unlike nuclear plants, you dont have some high danger risk lurking.

The point is simply to mix solar, wind, wave, thermal, bio etc energy.

Where I live, our city been building an emission neutral neighbourhood. Lot's of green, and ALLOT of solar pannels ( every house has their own ), and central heating with geo storage. Makes me kind of less pessimistic about being able to still walk here in 20 years or that rising sea water would ensure we'd have to swim.. If they hurry with these innovations, the future is looking very dry ..erhm.. I mean good

I'm abit confused though, electrolyse has been known for ages and I can't really grasp the MAJOR change this time around, maybe a native englisch speaking person can explain what I am missing from the article?

Honestly, the sea rise would be the least of your worries. Sea current changes, extreme weather, failed harvests etc is what you will worry even more about.

[Marvin_The_Martian]

Shintai I know, it's only used to be more recognizable. Think with the current state of the north pole the gulf stream is already in big trouble ( beyond our intervention atleast ). Ice age here we come again ( isn't the first time, so I think we as a race will deal with it, just not sure how my country will manage being in the spot where it's at.

Edit: I mean I seen the images off the Ice cap from the last five years, they scare the hell out off me since I know the role off a cool artic ocean in sustaing the heatpump which is the gulfstream.

Edit2: And I wouldn't mind someone explaining to me what's the catch with this as like I said I used electricity to create hydrogen and oxygen when I was 12 or so and got a physics kit.

[Hornet331]

Solar panels are obnoxiously inefficient, it's best to just move to nuclear energy.

oh yeah... the only problem photovoltaic has right now is price, if it gest cheaper, lets say 2-3€ per m² and has a efficency of 2-3% hell yeah i take that any day over nuclear energy. With that price efficency doesn't matter. I just plaster my roof with that.

Nuclear energy is only a short term solution, we already consume more uran than it is mined and it doesn't get better, there are 93 plants planed worldwide with 24 in china alone.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/info.html

[Movieman]

snip...

The point is simply to mix solar, wind, wave, thermal, bio etc energy.

EXACTLY!
The answer to me is to take a look at where you live, and use the parts that benefit you best, and cheapest to implement.
If all of the options are put to use the answer is there.
We just as a society just have to make up our minds to do it.
I look at where I live. Solar doesn't give the return that it does in Arizona, but almost 70% of what they get.
Not a lot of fast running large rivers but we do have the Merrimack and Connecticut rivers and they aren't exactly little streams.
Wind? The highest winds ever recorded were on top of Mt. Washington 70 miles from me(239MPH)
It is there, even in a place like I live where it's not that obvious.
This announcement made my morning!

[Shintai]

Shintai I know, it's only used to be more recognizable. Think with the current state of the north pole the gulf stream is already in big trouble ( beyond our intervention atleast ). Ice age here we come again ( isn't the first time, so I think we as a race will deal with it, just not sure how my country will manage being in the spot where it's at.

Edit: I mean I seen the images off the Ice cap from the last five years, they scare the hell out off me since I know the role off a cool artic ocean in sustaing the heatpump which is the gulfstream.

We will be fine, as in rich countries. However there will be billions elsewhere that will die. We will have alot of troubles.

One thing is sure, it aint the end of mankind. Just the end of the world as we currently know it

We even now talk about using the icefree northpole for faster shipping...

[strange|ife]

one small (cought large hurdle)

what about the energy companies? Shell, Cheveron..etc..local gas companies, they wont be keen on something they can't package and sell by weight.

I cant wait for the day when solar goes mainstream though.

and about the ice age stuff, luckily i live near the equator..and hopefully it wont get to cold down here, heck it might actually be nice..60-70f in the summer instead of 112

[Marvin_The_Martian]

I don't think people understand the scale of climit change which can happen though. We will not be fine. Canada will become the world's leading food producer in most climate models, has to say something right?

[Glow9]

Solar panels are obnoxiously inefficient, it's best to just move to nuclear energy.

Yes and Germany didn't have to build another nuclear reactor due to the amount of solar panels used in their country. But hey lets poison the Earth right? Go play your banjo

[Hornet331]

The point is simply to mix solar, wind, wave, thermal, bio etc energy.

thats not possible for most countries (norway is an exeption, and it also might be possible for austira to subtitute all of its electrical power generation with alternative power sources) but we are only talking about elelctrical electrical power generation. When you take heat genearation into the equation you simply cant satisfy the demand with alternativ energy sources alone.

The biggest problem you have is the economic growth, people/industry always need more energy and theres only a limited potential to exploit in each country. Take france for example, they nearly have used all there hydropower potential but it only makes up for a tiny ammount of there energy needs, even with windpower and so on. Right now they need nuclear energy or they have no electrical energy at all.

[Marvin_The_Martian]

You're forgetting it's possible to use geo storage for heating and cooling, it's very efficient and can be done almost everywhere. With such a system the energy required to generate the needed heat is reduced allot, making it much more viable to use solar energy. Like I said, that's the makeup of the zero emission neighbourhood my city is building.

[Shintai]

one small (cought large hurdle)

what about the energy companies? Shell, Cheveron..etc..local gas companies, they wont be keen on something they can't package and sell by weight.

I cant wait for the day when solar goes mainstream though.

and about the ice age stuff, luckily i live near the equator..and hopefully it wont get to cold down here, heck it might actually be nice..60-70f in the summer instead of 112

You would end up even worse...and 112F would be nothing. All in the name of money.

[Shintai]

thats not possible for most countries (norway is an exeption, and it also might be possible for austira to subtitute all of its electrical power generation with alternative power sources) but we are only talking about elelctrical electrical power generation. When you take heat genearation into the equation you simply cant satisfy the demand with alternativ energy sources alone.

The biggest problem you have is the economic growth, people/industry always need more energy and theres only a limited potential to exploit in each country. Take france for example, they nearly have used all there hydropower potential but it only makes up for a tiny ammount of there energy needs, even with windpower and so on. Right now they need nuclear energy or they have no electrical energy at all.

Its quite easy actually. Hell here in Denmark some 20% comes from wind alone. And that could easily be 100%.

But its about will and money. Capitalism simply dont have any interest in it. Since oil=massive profit.

If we had "civileconomics" so to say. We would have been without oil 10-20 years ago. Its easy to supply all the energy and 100 times more with renewable. Its comparable to the 50s with doctors says smoking is good to believe we cant live without oil. nuclear, coal etc.

However on a capitalistic point. Conserve energy to reduce the actual price is the key. takes countries like USA where 1 citizen wastes about 3 times more than the average european. And for what? Nothing...and even in europe we got plenty to save.

[Movieman]

thats not possible for most countries (Norway is an exception, and it also might be possible for Austria to substitute all of its electrical power generation with alternative power sources) but we are only talking about electrical electrical power generation. When you take heat generation into the equation you simply cant satisfy the demand with alternative energy sources alone.

The biggest problem you have is the economic growth, people/industry always need more energy and theres only a limited potential to exploit in each country. Take France for example, they nearly have used all there hydro power potential but it only makes up for a tiny amount of there energy needs, even with wind power and so on. Right now they need nuclear energy or they have no electrical energy at all.

The key is that each countries "answer" is different based upon what they have to work with.
Solar, to some degree, works for all.
no, it isn't the total answer but a part of that answer.
Then countries with large fast flowing rivers use hydro in addition.
Some can use Geo thermal..
It's looking at the entire problem and then applying what "you" have for resources that can solve the problem.
Even if the best case scenario in some countries is to only do 50% of the needs thats one hell of improvement over what is done now.
My personal feeling is that to start I'd like to see a law passed that every new home built HAS to be self sufficient in it's needs in electrical power to a 20% overbuild of projected needs then any extra not needed gets sold back to the grid. It would add a chunk to the price but that new additional home would not be furthering the degradation of the planet or adding additional loads to an already overburdened electrical grid( in the USA)

[Glow9]

thats not possible for most countries (norway is an exeption, and it also might be possible for austira to subtitute all of its electrical power generation with alternative power sources) but we are only talking about elelctrical electrical power generation. When you take heat genearation into the equation you simply cant satisfy the demand with alternativ energy sources alone.

The biggest problem you have is the economic growth, people/industry always need more energy and theres only a limited potential to exploit in each country. Take france for example, they nearly have used all there hydropower potential but it only makes up for a tiny ammount of there energy needs, even with windpower and so on. Right now they need nuclear energy or they have no electrical energy at all.

Well potentially they could switch to a breeder reactor which is much more efficient but nobody is willing to insure a nuclear power plant nor do many people want them in their back yards. So having something thats running on plutonium is kinda terrifying. Ironically I wouldn't be surprised if brainwashed people in Southern states would be fine with them considering they seem to think everything is fine climate wise since theirs never changes and oil companies control everything. Unlike the rest of us who have seen drastic changes in the last 20 years especially people living in colder climates.

The key is that each countries "answer" is different based upon what they have to work with.
Solar, to some degree, works for all.
no, it isn't the total answer but a part of that answer.
Then countries with large fast flowing rivers use hydro in addition.
Some can use Geo thermal..
It's looking at the entire problem and then applying what "you" have for resources that can solve the problem.
Even if the best case scenario in some countries is to only do 50% of the needs thats one hell of improvement over what is done now.
My personal feeling is that to start I'd like to see a law passed that every new home built HAS to be self sufficient in it's needs in electrical power to a 20% overbuild of projected needs then any extra not needed gets sold back to the grid. It would add a chunk to the price but that new additional home would not be furthering the degradation of the planet or adding additional loads to an already overburdened electrical grid( in the USA)

Having tax / subsidies for older houses which are drastically inefficient would be better. Think of the millions and millions of houses who haven't changed since the the 50s upgrading them is relatively easy compared to some which were built in the early 1900s. 2 years ago I lived in a 100 year old house and our heating bill for 1 month in winter was $400. Plus these upgrades are good for local economies and yes putting rules on new houses would be great too. The thing is you can go to cities now where they need to meet code X and they are only built to code Y.

[Movieman]

Well potentially they could switch to a breeder reactor which is much more efficient but nobody is willing to insure a nuclear power plant nor do many people want them in their back yards. So having something thats running on plutonium is kinda terrifying. Ironically I wouldn't be surprised if brainwashed people in Southern states would be fine with them considering they seem to think everything is fine climate wise since theirs never changes and oil companies control everything. Unlike the rest of us who have seen drastic changes in the last 20 years especially people living in colder climates.



Having tax / subsidies for older houses which are drastically inefficient would be better. Think of the millions and millions of houses who haven't changed since the the 50s upgrading them is relatively easy compared to some which were built in the early 1900s. 2 years ago I lived in a 100 year old house and our heating bill for 1 month in winter was $400. Plus these upgrades are good for local economies and yes putting rules on new houses would be great too. The thing is you can go to cities now where they need to meet code X and they are only built to code Y.

No argument from me on this at all.

[ownage]

We will be fine, as in rich countries. However there will be billions elsewhere that will die. We will have alot of troubles.

One thing is sure, it aint the end of mankind. Just the end of the world as we currently know it

We even now talk about using the icefree northpole for faster shipping...

There will be an ice age soon. At least that is what it looks like.
Rich country's have not much to worry but the third world country's do.
The 'ice age' is just a 'Recovery' function of our planet Earth, or a Reset button.

[Movieman]

No argument from me on this at all.

Just this year, we put on a new roof, resided the house and instead of the R1 underlayment custom ordered the R4 underlayment, dumped a 18 year old 25 cu ft refrigerator that was still working fine and replaced with a new $1500.00 21 cu ft model that takes 1/10th the elec to run.
Add new Low E double pane windows, 13w halogen bulbs vs the 100w incandescents and you understand how I feel about this issue.
Two days ago I had 112 gallons of heating oil delivered. $502.54..
Need I say more?

[Hornet331]

My personal feeling is that to start I'd like to see a law passed that every new home built HAS to be self sufficient in it's needs in electrical power to a 20% overbuild of projected needs then any extra not needed gets sold back to the grid. It would add a chunk to the price but that new additional home would not be furthering the degradation of the planet or adding additional loads to an already overburdened electrical grid( in the USA)

Great idea, and i also would like to see that, but electric supply company and the FBCs would hate that with passion. Just as shintai mentioned this is not a technical problem but more like a financial problem.

[Marvin_The_Martian]

There will be an ice age soon. At least that is what it looks like.
Rich country's have not much to worry but the third world country's do.
The 'ice age' is just a 'Recovery' function of our planet Earth, or a Reset button.

Why do people believe in that false feeling of security??

You do know that the worlds food production/economies all will crash? I think the west will likely starve to death ( or large portions of it ) if a sudden ice age happens ( and sudden means within a decade which now is been seen as a possibility and not fantasy ). The speed on which they think this change can occur is increasing dramaticly, and no surprise if you look at the new data.