Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Shermann

(9,061 posts)

16. The 130% number being bandied about in the article refers to quantum efficiency

Reply to harumph (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 28, 2026, 01:23 PM

Yesterday

This isn't the overall efficiency of the panel. I think the dream number for panel efficiency would be approaching 50% but the article isn't clear.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We may not need any stinking oil after all.. [View all] multigraincracker Yesterday OP

Someone please explain how this doesn't break the first law of thermodynamics. harumph Yesterday #1

it is harnessing a 'second' source of energy, in addition to the solar stopdiggin Yesterday #2

Not if it's harnessing solar power, which is infinite as long as we have a source FakeNoose Yesterday #7

'solar power' doesn't do anything like 'revising' thermodynamics ... stopdiggin 20 hrs ago #30

I have no science background Eddie Haskell 60 Yesterday #9

No, that is thermodynamics. mr715 Yesterday #18

cool Eddie Haskell 60 Yesterday #21

I'm not buying any of this. To start with, there is no such thing as 100% efficency in any realm. flashman13 Yesterday #12

The 130% number being bandied about in the article refers to quantum efficiency Shermann Yesterday #16

I am always raising my eyebrows James48 Yesterday #3

Why? mr715 Yesterday #19

It isn't 130% efficient if it is 2 energy harvesting events. mr715 Yesterday #4

I discussed this badly misinterpreted wishful thinking case in another thread on the topic. NNadir Yesterday #5

No angrychair Yesterday #6

Mercury in the exhaust smoke. BidenRocks Yesterday #8

That is appalling and dangerous nonsense. When confronted... NNadir Yesterday #10

I was just using it as an example angrychair 23 hrs ago #28

Again, the question is, did radioactivity from nuclear power plants kill as many people in 70 years as died in the... NNadir 19 hrs ago #32

So by your logic angrychair 17 hrs ago #33

poster said absolutely nothing of the sort stopdiggin 3 hrs ago #39

After coal is burned fly ash has to be disposed of. What goes into the air stays in the air. twodogsbarking Yesterday #11

Coal ash has radioactivity and heavy metals IbogaProject Yesterday #14

More people have died in coal processing, burning than nuclear. mr715 Yesterday #15

Nonsense Disaffected Yesterday #24

Coal's main byproduct is CO2 NickB79 23 hrs ago #29

you could not be more completely misinformed - or wrong about a particular subject. stopdiggin 20 hrs ago #31

Hanford angrychair 17 hrs ago #34

Trade offs for any decision. mr715 15 hrs ago #37

No. They do not. (say differently) stopdiggin 4 hrs ago #38

Isn't this a peer review journal? multigraincracker Yesterday #13

Its a popsci distillation. mr715 Yesterday #17

No. I accessed the paper on which this pop misinformation is based. NNadir Yesterday #23

It's not a perpetual motion machine swong19104 Yesterday #20

Link to the actual scientific paper mentioned in the press report JHB Yesterday #22

The paper if not talking about energy conversion efficiency. Disaffected Yesterday #25

Wait!?! H2O Man Yesterday #27

Recommended. H2O Man Yesterday #26

Violates the first Law of Thermodynamics Smells like BS Melon 16 hrs ago #35

Whatever bankrupts the wretched Saudi oligarchs, the better! Initech 16 hrs ago #36