Would this be avoidable if the production was done in a straight nitrogen environment? May be a stupid question, but I know it works in reducing oxidation of hydrocarbon lubricants.

What is the best solar panel to use currently?

@@Ak3rf3ldt Silicon based technologies are still king

Everything I've ever read about solor panels has talked about basically just one frequency , many modern military industrial complex weapons can see and target in multiple wave lengths of light at once so could there be some kind of hybrid silicone we could try that might be able collect electrons from non visible light???

@@MeatandTatersGaming54 You may be able to separate the infrared to a different panel but you'd need a lot of resources for it to be worth it for just 18% of the solar energy

Hi

The only way to cool solar panels is actively don't fall for thisukposts.info/have/v-deo/gH13eqGAoWym0GQ.html fake news. Batteries are the only way to store energy. Don't fall for this highviewpower.com/ fake news. Also the solar panels are just for show because if they worked they would do this ukposts.info/have/v-deo/j4mlhquGsWqI16s.html When did you notice I was joking?

Alwyn Watson what do you mean joking it’s true look m.youtube.com/watch/dQw4w9WgXcQ

@@alwynwatson6119 Ok bot

@@lizardlegend42 Beep beep hoxs beep

No Solarpanel-Flaw is bigger than BUREAUCRACY. Theres some real 'Accident-Scandals' where good People just wanted to give back Stuff and arent allowed for nonsense-reasons.

what’s a semicondoctor

Except the toxic substances that come off the solar panels over time, specifically heavy metals.

Jonathon Harwell Would love to know your story and how you got into your field!

@ Substances like glass and semiconductors generally aren't recycled. Because it usually takes more energy to melt them down and separate their elements than to just make a new batch. Most electronics recycling is actually concerned only with recovering the gold, silver, copper, and rare earths - the precious stuff - while the rest of the toxic plastic metal silicon garbage is discarded.

@@peterfrying4933 I'm a physicist by trade and now I work in academia researching new materials and designs of solar cells. I did a degree in physics and basically looked for any research group I could find who worked on solar cells and did a PhD with them (it's surprisingly easy to get into a research group as a phd student as you are essentially free labour. Getting funding is the hard bit!). Now I have a PhD I am (slowly) trying to get my own research group started. It's a tough field to work in and there is a lot of competition, but it does at least have job satisfaction!

There is no comparison really, because the extraction, transportation, and storage of coal creates a great deal of waste, and then there is the consequent removal and disposal of ash. Consider also that solar power does not necessarily mean photovoltaic panels, solar thermal plants work on basically the same principle as any fossil fuel powered plant, except the boilers are replaced by solar troughs and heat exchangers. Since solar generation does not require the transport, delivery, and storage of fuel stock, and consequently no rail sidings, docks, etc. (and the carbon emissions associated with all those ancillary activities) all that doesn't even enter into the picture.

@ TLDR - About 90 % of silicon solar cells go to landfill right now, but this is a big field of research right now so it is likely to improve a lot in the future. -By most metrics solar power wins by about a factor of 10 in terms of lifetime costs of energy production, but this can vary a lot depending on what factors you take into account. Full disclosure - I work mostly on prototyping new materials and designs on the small scale rather than dealing with the large, industrial-scale issues. However I can give you what I have learned at conferences etc. The energy costs of production can vary massively depending on the type of solar panel you are describing, but I shall assume you want to know about monocrystalline silicon since that is the most common kind of solar cell. Thin-film technologies use about 1000 x less material to produce than a silicon cell so they have the potential to improve upon the below stats, but they come with their own problems which i won't go into. Silicon cells are made of about 75 % glass, 10 % polymers, 8 % aluminium, 5 % silicon, and the rest is small amounts of copper, silver, and other metals. There is also a small amount of toxic lead and tin because solar panels are allowed to use leaded solder (unlike most other electronics) so this is obviously also a concern. Currently there are no regulations on disposing of solar cells outside of europe, so about 90 % go to landfill because it's currently not profitable to recycle them. There is a lot of research going into this though because it's a potential goldmine if you can make it profitable. The detailed recycling processes are often closely guarded secrets, but the basic process is you heat the cell up and then peel off the glass panels which make up the bulk of the cell, then you burn away the polymers using sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide, and finally you use various acids and chemicals to selectively dissolve all the remaining materials one by one. Hence you can recycle them, but the materials you get out of them are currently worth less than the costs of recycling. Regulation and further research is expected to help with this. It is hard to find unbiased data on lifetime carbon footprints, and it is easy to skew the data by conveniently forgetting certain parts of the life cycle (e.g. the mining costs for coal or the production costs for solar.). Burning coal, you fundamentally get about 340 g of CO2 per kWh of electricity, purely based on how much energy is in coal per molecule and the efficiency of a power station. This does not take into account mining costs or whether you capture the carbon (most places dont capture carbon). A 1 kW solar panel takes between 400 and 500 kg of CO2 to manufacture, and should probably assume that it will only produce an average of about 10 % of its rated output over its lifetime (accounting for night, clouds etc.). Hence this panel will produce about 17,000 kWh over its 20 year lifetime, which works out to about 29 g per Kwh. This ignores the installation costs, space costs, and costs of recycling, but even if these triple the impact then solar still wins. Plus this also doesn't take into account the other pollutants and environmental damage assosciated with coal, so in my view it's hard to argue that solar is worse than coal environmentally. However I'm obviously biased so you should probably look at the arguments I make rather than my own opinion. Solar panels have their own version of Moore's law called swanson's law, where the costs of making them halve roughly every 5 years, so hopefully it won't be long before solar power is no longer a political issue and just one which makes good financial sense. They are already profitable without subsidy in certain places, and once they get cheap enough there will be basically no reason not to integrate them into a new building or whatever (why would you turn down free cash?). It looks like we are approaching that day pretty quickly too! :)

quite annoying tho

Whenever youtubers talk about learning new things, I always know it'll be brilliant haha

@@voxelfusion9894 or skillshare

clean so much that made me see it and didn't skip

@@voxelfusion9894 or Audible

We had a pool heater like this, basically an analog solar panel 😂

Not at all what's being explained in the video, but sure, cool.

Until something goes wrong with the nuclear power plant. How much pollution is created then? How much pollution is created with nuclear waste? Where do we put it? Seems that no matter what we do, there is a problem with it.

@@markchidester6239 Meanwhile, well run plants don't "go wrong".

@@Slicerwizard Well the one in Japan sure did. Mother nature didn't seem to like it.

@@markchidester6239 Oh, the one where TEPCO didn't bother to protect the backup generators from a tsunami - in a major fault zone? That's your idea of a well run plant? Meanwhile, a dam failure triggered by the earthquake killed more residents than the nuclear plant did. Guess you should start crying about dam construction as well.

@@Slicerwizard I never said it was well run. My point was that it polluted the planet. YOU said that a well run nuclear power plant doesn't pollute if it is well run. I don't understand how nuclear waste isn't pollution, but what ever. You know all.

I couldn’t agree more. I was a little worried a few months back but this video is outstanding. Niche point but, I watched it on my new oled tv and the video quality is stunning. A LOT of work went into this and it shows. Bravo

@@1rstTry "A liitle worried", the Nikola video had me unsubscribe in desperation.

Agreed! Such a well-made video. And the segue to Brilliant was also one of the best I've ever seen, doing much to convince me Brilliant can be a truly useful tool, beyond supporting idle curiosity or entertainment. The tragic coincidence of Nicola's troubles occurring so soon after the Real Engineering video encouraged me to re-watch the video: All it's major points still stand, despite using Nicola as the example. The biggest risk, also mentioned, concerns the source of Hydrogen, which prior Real Engineering videos have covered quite nicely. Covering both the uses of Hydrogen and its sources are important: We can only hope they meet well enough to make a functional infrastructure possible.

Agreed, well put.

I could not agree more. Incredible video. The amount of knowledge transferred was impressive, but also the quality of animation.

actually I have this topic in high school never understood it like he did explain also when he's talking about fermi level I strangely understood it, the way he explaining things are "brilliant"

But it's not quite right, he misses a few points in the pn transition.

@@z3lop59 It's good enough for a short solar video. There are entire college courses devoted to semiconductors; not the easiest to fully explain in three minutes.

@@zaidahmed5464 Quick, Watson! The vomit pail!

This is high school chemistry level presentation though. The physics is not actually fully known here. (Go ask about Quantum Hall effect, and that's the more known part.) The electron-hole model is known to be an invalid approximation.

I really don't like Nebula that much and still watch all the videos on youtube.

@@hkr667 You can abuse the free trial on nebula tho

*most brilliant? 😁

Asa9 I think he’s talking about the website brilliant

Yes, but ... I can't take a product seriously when it uses the "first x amount" of people get extra stuff scam.

a most perfect segway

@@_Amilio_ *segue

MeToo

🤔🧐🤨🙂😆😂🤣😂😅🤤😥🤯😵🥴☠️

I swear to God I just heard a rimshot!!!!

Good day Mister Bond👍😲👍😎💣🔪🔫💉💊

🤣

"Failure" I'd like to see anyone or anything do better

​@@BrutuxMusic watch this video ukposts.info/have/v-deo/epmUn4N9f3eLs2Q.html "How Trees Bend the Laws of Physics"

look at that worm eating the leaf....that's called natural selection

We take a lot of inspiration from nature, taking what it has created learning from it and perfecting it

@Renato A dude, nobody mentioned chineses, i think you can rest assured...lolol

Indeed, it was pretty impressive! It worked too, as I'm now inspired to check it out.

yes, it was "Brilliant"

This was the perfect rick roll that I watched all the way through. I clutched my chest and said, "omg he got me at 100% efficiency to watch the ad versus 18% with Linus Tech Tips."

Amen

Amen

Lmao, using only blue light makes the problem worse. You'd be getting even lesser than 10% efficiency

@@vikraal6974 -- Yawn... then pick the best color. Case Closed. PS: Decades ago, when I had a camera repair store/shop, silicon photocells were introduced as a replacement for the then-universal CdS (resistive) photocells. They were as I recall described as "silicon blue" cells that required filtration to counter the silicon photocell's blue sensitivity. I guess the technology has changed in the past nearly half-century. Go figure.

@@This_is_my_real_name "prevent the photocells from heating up so much" Photocell heat is not a problem in real-world installations. "Yawn...Case Closed" Your imagination isn't the final arbiter. "photocell's blue sensitivity" So the blue light was filtered OUT, while you want to filter red and green light OUT. Nonsense.

I'm in Northeast, we mounted panels on our south facing walls! No snow! Plus snow reflection causes massive power. We are offgrd also 12+ years.

@@freetvable Where in NE? I'm in Southern Adirondack mountains upstate NY

@Renato A oh yeah, totally

@ 0.1% .....who hurt you ?

Kind of ironic huh?

@01 % ok ok m8 this was about solar cells and advertising you might be on wrong site i think you might be looking for UP IN SMOKE by Cheech and Chong or some other more " plant " based site

As soon as explanations go into quantum physics, my brain is incapable of understanding. Not smart enough for that shit

@@RealEngineering understandable, have a nice day

@@gabrielbloch8837 Silly. Increased temperatures mean increased electron energies which mean increased chances of electron _tunneling_ across otherwise insulating junctions. IOWs, increased temperatures mean the damn thing gets "leaky" in places where that leakage loss should be low. Put another way, it starts to _hemorrhage_ electrically.

@@RealEngineering well that does mean you should go back to that Brilliant course

@@craigwall9536 Thanks for explanation. Silicon devices degrade with temperature a lot (exponentially!), one can check a datasheet of any seniconductor device (diode or transistor) to see. No surprise it also affects the solar panels.

must the worker's supervisors be supervised too?

Now consider solar panels on liveaboard boats, sea water ;)

@@robinspat Good thinking!

I recommend visiting any other power generation plant. The sheer volume of skilled workers is significant compared to the few people needed to "wash the car".

@@RevAnakin There's one just down the road from me, and yes it does have a lot of highly paid, happy, skilled workers with 401Ks.

M'lady

I see/hear nothing too unusual

they are also scared of heighth

Irish people swallow the h on most words. Thanks becomes t'anks, three, t'ree, think, t'ink and so on.

First, second, turd...

I wish the highschool I went to had a program like that. I would most likely be in a better position now.

They had to make room for Gender Studies and Critical Race Theory, that's why.

@@BaltimoreAndOhioRR No that is not the reason. Critical race theory is not taught in high school, it is an optional course in college only. Too many people thought that the future was in computer use. I told the local board of education in 1980 that in the future everyone would be able to use their own computer and professionals would not be needed. They didn't listen to me and continued to teach data processing which soon became useless. While math and science are very important, not all students are Einsteins. History, music and art are also important, and kids should learn basic skills in using tools and how things work. Thankfully more and more schools are coming around to this idea and bringing back industrial arts and vocational training. AND in addition learning how to be tolerant of people who aren't like them.

Education budgets keep getting cut. Your only gonna find shoo available in upper class neighborhoods and charter schools

Becquerel and Hertz discovered it decades before Einstein, what Einstein did was the Planck constant with you guessed it Max Planck.......... (the quasi scale for Quantum Mechanics)

Well the 1800's solar panels were real, you aren't wrong in thinking they were a joke; they actually kinda were, having an efficiency of only around 1%

@@RandomGuy0400 I think not appreciating their curiosity and innovativion is a tasteless joke . Now that your armed with a lot more info it seems that way. Think about it If you were to meet yourself a 100 years later you can go on ranting you could have done this and that and what not but the fact is that was the start . At that time the electron was not experimentally verified ... It was a different era . Electromagnetism was just picking up the pace .

Exactly(!), the great masquerade begun at the beginning of the 19th century, which transformed planet’s societies into what they are now. It transformed Monarchies into Republics, which replaced all monarchs, convincing peoples on earth, through misleading propaganda, that even the good monarchs were blood thirsty plutocratic tyrants. The great masquerade led initially to the First World War, which began 1914 and ended in 1918, and during this period of caos, the Soviet Communist Revolution (1917) was also achieved, by the Bolsheviks led by Lenin, Trotsky et caterva. The great masquerade did not replace the totality of European Monarchies with democracies. In reality it transformed monarchies into communist, nazi or fascist dictatorships, what lead to the Second World War. After the end of WWII, began the implementation, and consolidation of communist regimes throughout the world, (e.g. Iron Curtain, China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, just to mention the most important), which was achieved by a blood bath never seen in beforehand in the planets history.

@@RandomGuy0400 100 % better than the one they try just before the one that worked

I hosted a TV show in Ireland and I think they may have knocked the fast talking out of me.

@@RealEngineering It's a difficult balance of talking fast enough to not drag on, and not talking so fast that people can't understand you. I think you're struck a pretty good balance here. You might be able to go up be 20% or so, but I definitely wouldn't go any slower. Thanks for the quality content though. :D

@@RealEngineering Video was still great and informative, so it didn't really detract from the experience.

@@RealEngineering woahhh

play it at 1.25x speed

Segue.

@@grantperkins368 Thank you.

No one really recycles old panels as they are past use by dates. So, disposing of panels is a massive future issue. Not to mention 2 things the Greenies will not mention. 1. The resources needed from the planet to build them. Simply put we need to rape and pillage the earth so it is probably more environmentally friendly to stick with coal fired plants or nuclear 2. And destroying acres of land to put solar farms is just dumb and defeats the purpose. Then to this add electric car manufacturing. What a environmental catastrophe that is. Refer to recent talks from Manhattan Institute。

Brilliant.org was around. ;-)

A space elevator would be great!!! Just read the Red Mars, Blue Mars, Green Mars trilogy to see just how "great" they could be...

I mean... They're also just diodes

I've been saying that for a pretty long time now.

They're LEDs in reverse

If you power the solar cell, it can work as a very crude LED, providing IR I believe...

@@ColinTimmins not if it's made of silicon. Silicon has an indirect band gap, which makes it unusable for LEDs

Germany is held up as the world’s solar and wind capital by “renewables luvvies” but Germans are freezing through winter due to “millions of solar panels blanketed in snow” and turbines sitting idle,no wind this is happening now

@dustybroom16 Last time I checked, smoothest didn't mean unexpected... A transition can be smooth and predictable.

Polymatter is much smoother, that dude always caught me by surprise

If only I understood u.

@Renato A wtf ! We were taking about solar cells

Yup you're correct. That's why now we (Solar cell researchers) are moving on from Silicon based Solar Cell to 2nd Generation thin-film and 3rd Generation organic Perovskite Solar Cell. Both are direct bandgap and can be built thinner and more flexible.

@@msb3235 true. But the organics and perovskites are way too sensitive to atmospheric conditions. Exposure to the air and humidity instantly kills them. They need proper encapsulation which further reduces efficiency and increases cost and manufacturing complications. Inside labs these materials are only worked on in a glove box. Sadly we have yet to reach a breakthrough. Cuprous oxide was once thought of as a good candidate but seemed like that research direction is no longer present.

@@EXtREMeBuLLsHyTS & @MS_B Both true! It is a really tough problem. Silicon, as you well know, is cheap as chips, and it works, so if you have the space, then it is not a great hardship to add some extra solar panels to compensate for low efficiency.

I think he's trying to show that some percentage of the energy is reflected. Earlier he has the portion of the arrow post-reflection as faded-out to illustrate it.

@@googiegress7459 Some photons are reflected yes (these don’t liberate electrons). But the photons that liberate electrons are absorbed.

he would haha

prolly not lttt store

The word is segue. "Segway" is just a type of brand of those auto-balancing "scooter" type things, lol.

@@DeathBringer769 Cheers

Commercial solar power is a CANCER on the planet. The technology when paired with the use of FAKE money causes a wealth transfer from the working class to the elite class. Be careful of what you wish for.

@@zucadasilva937 Solar panels cause Toxic waste during their manufacture. The resources that go into the manufacture and installation of solar panels, require mining companies to pollute and burn hydro carbons, like diesel and gasoline. The mining companies dig holes that don't need to be dug. The panels have a 25 year operating life span, then part of the solar panel ends up in the land fill forever. YUCK, I don't like toxic waste.

Perhaps you need to compare that toxic waste against the amount of toxic waste that is prevented by reducing the amount of electricity that needs to be generated by other means.

@@listerdave1240 Let's not forget that the main ingredient, silica, is made by Mining high purity quarts and mixing it with coking coal, and then firing the mixture in a electric blast Furness. I also submit that the thermo/electrical energy consumed is also greater that the pannel will ever produce in the pannels life cycle. You people need to come to your senses. You are destroying the planet when think that your helping it.

@@davidbruce2159 I think you may need to recheck and/or update your calculations with regards to how much energy PVs produce compared to the energy needed to produce them. What you state would have been true about forty to fifty years ago. Today it takes well under a year for a typical PV to offset its carbon footprint. Also, if you were to consider the carbon footprint of building a standard thermal power plant (coal/oil/gas) you will find that even building the thermal plant has a higher carbon footprint per megawatt of capacity even before it starts consuming fuel to produce electricity. Thermal power plants need vast amount of steel, concrete and other materials produced in blast furnaces, kilns and such. The only issue with solar panels is that they currently only offer a partial solution and therefore can only be used to substitute part of the fossil fuel production rather than all of it. That is likely to change very soon though with the introduction of liquid metal batteries and possibly other storage systems.

Lol

Very droll. For your next one, try the student trip to the Sun. They have to go at night, when it's cooler.

"iT Is LiGhT oUtSiDe DuE tO tHe SuN oNlY aNd ThE mOoN rEfLeCtS tHe LiGhT oF tHe SuN. tHe SuN iS tHe SoUrCe Of AlL EnErGy DuMbAsS" - Someone probably

Nicely done sir

@@ayushagarwal7631 there is much power in the light of the moon, for 'tis only under the pale silver light that we can unlock our true nature. The sun sits out more energy, yes. But it's energy is destructive to us. It interferes with he bio-chemical bounds which enables our transformation. - some werewolf

Yes, but without the complicated explanation of how the things work, the fact that they do work in large numbers even with some deficiencies means the future with them is still very bright.

All solar cells underperform their stated (nameplate) power generation rate. Typical actual production rates are about half of what the solar cell is rated to produce. This does not include the fact that they only work about half the time. They also slowly degrade over time. While they are appropriate in locations where more reliable power is expensive (islands without fossil fuel resources) they are still much more expensive than a gas turbine or coal-fired power plant.

the 14% is history long ago. panels are now delivering 19% efficiency on static/fixed tilt systems.

Prem Bajaj sure, this could be possible using a premium brand and panels that are at the top of the range, which possess the best efficiency rate, low degradation over time and longer longevity. Certainly these premiums come to a higher capital costs compared to the average panel used in commercial applications.

Loren Wilson good points! We have come a long way but we certainly need to improve their quality, conversion efficiency and reliability! Let’s hope we can achieve that in the near future as we really need to move away from all forms of fossil fuels.

@@marcozorzi6770 Hi Marco. Knowing fully well a 25 year production outlook. and minor variance in price/kw, but much superior efficiency and generation, lower degradation levels - think the price setoff on cheaper panels doesn't cut the objective of transition for those getting later into the market. Lets not forget, todays market, installing poly 300-330W panels, is already a 5 year old technology (why carry forward another 25?). Surely there are regions where they can be utilised - but not in enterprising / dynamic economies. This' like continuing sales of ICE vehicles thru till natural downfall - which just may not happen?

Hybrid panels also help keep the panels cool, this improves the solar panel efficiency. Remember to get individually rectified panels, smaller cells also help when panels fail and to cover more of the roof

Yep. I'm an Electrical Engineer. We care less about efficiency and more about storage when it comes to practical applications. After all, batteries are much more expensive than solar panels and solar panels are efficient enough these days.

what about using all that surface area to sandwich an insulating material between two conductors to create a parallel plate capacitor behind the solar panel?

It's 8% of the total 80% loss, not 8% of the 20% remainder. So improving it would definitely be of value, but would not reduce efficiency losses by 1/3rd as you imply. And there do exist transparent conductive films (TCFs) but what's holding them back from wide usage in PV cells are cost, but apparently that is improving.

@@waylandsmith That's what I meant with the 2/3rds comment - if we could tap that 8% successfully, we'd achieve 28% total efficiency, compared to 20% now.

Some high efficiency solar cells get around this problem by putting all of the metal grid on the back side. But this doesn't work if you also want to collect light that hits the back side (which is becoming more popular). There is also a lot of work using transparent conducting materials, but most silicon cells still use a metal grid.

actually the animation shows exactly what you just described.

Five years from now commercialized installations of the SAFIRE Project will have begun to render large solar panel farms uncompetitive. Small solar devices will remain valuable for their portability, but solar panels to feed the grid will be a footnote. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/b3d3epykeX2Tlok.html

@@hshs5756 Although the SAFIRE Project looks promising and I hope it makes it to the market, you're assumption that this will render large scale solar farms "obsolete" is incorrect. There are an exponential number of factors that you haven't considered and are jumping to conclusions. SAFIRE is still going the the testing phase and while it has demonstrated a working proof of concept that the technology works, it still has many more tests and hurdles to see if it's commercially viable. Will it be actually be cost effective to build or will it be like the petroleum industry in which the FOP (Factors of Production) keep the costs high and the only way to turn a profit is to constantly produce energy which would put unnecessary strain on the reactor. Years of safety tests and demonstrations still need to be done to ensure potential investors, governments and the average person that this is a technology that is genuinely safe for us to use. Then there is the regulations that will have to be created to protect which ever countries implement this technology. Which also address the elephant in the room, those who would see this technology not come on to market and change the status quo via political entrepreneurship( If you can't innovate, legislate basically). Also, you think solar technology will just stand still or become more efficient at the current pace? As technology gets more advanced, so does the implementation of it and while SAFIRE will probably gain traction, keep in mind that solar technology already has that same tech advancement edge plus the benefit of being available to the masses. Is SAFIRE better as a central technology similar to coal plants as the focus on the grid? Or can their be regional smaller power plants located within city limits? Because many average people will interpret it as the current electric company monopolies as a way of keeping their power over them. I'm not saying I hope SAFIRE fails, I've just seen a lot of "game chaining energy sources" not come to market because a whole host of factors people never considered.

@@hshs5756 Let me guess, they are asking funds to produce their reactors...

@@Buran01 Actually, SAFIRE is extremely well-funded already. There's no shortage of big-money backers who can see where this is going.

@@VinceroAlpha Watch the recent documentary _Planet of the Humans_ and pay particular attention to the solar segments of it, keeping in mind that the film was made by a life-long environmentalist and alternative energy backer. I seriously examined putting solar on my house a year ago until it became apparent that the numbers were not there. The systems are too expensive and have too short a lifespan to even begin to compete with coal-fired grid electricity. Every new technology has teething problems and I expect that for plasma energy. But solar (and wind, and biomass) have had years to work out their problems and so far can't even prove they have a positive EROEI.

that's right, just after 30 years it reduces to 18%

@Randy Alvarado But that drop-off is almost certainly not linear, is it? That doesn't really mesh with what we see elsewhere.

@@deus_ex_machina_ The loss is .5% of the remaining efficiency, meaning multiply .5% times the current year's efficiency, and subtract that amount to get the next year's efficiency. So it is exponential decay, not linear.

@@randyalvarado6401 The solar expert meant to say "the panels would have 50% of their initial efficiency" or they would be only half as efficient as when they were new.

A risk analysis of risk analyses will really shut them up though

Think like an engineer= develop anxiety and overthink everything. Not recommended.

Risk analysis on breathing. Have you ever worn a mask in a dusty environment?

I hope Engineers know a loss from 20% to 18% is not a 10% loss. 01:00

@@xiro6 Not an engineer (just a thinker), but I'm thinking that would be a 2% loss... But I also completely understood what he was getting at, and isn't THAT what truly matters in our interactions with one another (not nitpicking innocuous malaprop or semantic paraphasia)?

They got me too!

its as if the band gap between Videoband and Adband is decreasing, video is doped with Ad. its nice for new comers but someone whos an old subscriber not earning shit and unable to pay for such things and seeing it on every video its kinda annoying.

As a paper reader I have to say the level of information legibility is driven to NIL just to appease graphic designers like yourself who only care about stuff "Looking cool". Seriously blurring the letters, incidence angles, FOV that only obscures information. Hah.

@@nemou4985 tf you mean? He has all the sources referenced in the description. If your boomer brain can't grasp knowledge through video format, read that.

@@apacheattackhelicopter8778 Lol, you mad? probably a graphic design "student"? OK, I will answer your baseless trolling: The point of a VIDEO is to present information in the VIDEO format. If that information is distorted, blurry, and unreadable because of a "fashion statement", then the point is lost. Special effects are for action movies, not the presentation of scientific papers.

Don't have to worry for another 40 years or so. glass and crystalline and the frame can be recycled and the back coating may also find a way to be reused.

reckoning already here. you wont hear the negative side of all the wasted materials, it heresy to speak against renewables.

@@FloryJohann you make it sound so simple. solar panels have been helping fill landfills for the past 15 years. cheaper to make new.

The same reckoning is coming for all the electric vehicle batteries

@BRAVOZULU DWEST boathouse Nice boat boomer, why don't you go and complain about your exwife on a fucking gold course

Well something has to be bad for another to be identified as good.

You replied with a snarky comment without even watching the video. That makes you seem less smart, not more smart.

Actually, vampires and other nocturnal species think night good, day bad. It's a matter of perspective my friend

@@Marahute0 It was a joke. A simple silly joke, you walking humor deficiency. You seem to be having either a very bad day or are very insecure, but I do hope your day improves if it's the former. Hopefully if it does you'll stop policing comment sections for inaccuracies or lighthearted humor like an anemic, constipated killjoy.

@@satelliteprime the comment isn't the answer though...

Well... he didn't use the word diode but -- Diode: and electronic device that allows current to flow in only one direction. Which he did say. I suspect that anyone who knows that definition and understands the upshot didn't need the word used at them, they immediately went, "Oh, a diode." Yeah. It'd have been simple enough to have said it. Also, adding "this is the basis of transistors and other solid-state devices" would have been a good stimulant for people to realize they'd just been taught a bit about a now ubiquitous technolgy... leading some to study futher.

What happen? Did the bubble burst? Or they are a scam?

Maybe. The video's information is still accurate. This is an engineering channel, so I don't really know what I could add to the conversation. I avoided talking about Trevor Milton in the video, despite my apprehension about the guy.

@@caorusso4926 Yeah the bubble bursted. Stocks are way down and Trevor Milton stepped down as ceo.

@@caorusso4926 a "scam" was discovered.

@@RealEngineering Most might be accurate. But there are many relevant issues brought up in the comments, that you have decided not to address. Limits on weight vs volume where storeing hydrogen fx. I understand that the feedback was overwhelming, but still there are so many comments that goes directly to the engineering there.

He makes a lot of flubs. Even down to being incapable of saying photovoltaic.

It's pure and it's crystalline though...so he's _technically_ not wrong. But yes, there are important effects that occur at crystal boundaries which makes the difference between mono and poly non-trivial.

dislike for "took"

@@paddor They changed it.

😑

@@firstthingtocometomind658 Thx for the info. Liked it! 🤣

Haha

Isn't it true then that losers often become teachers?

“If an electron finds a hole it fills it” Yeeee do I feel like an electron

Well, teach yourself? This was merely an overview & intro.

@@franklinblunt69 yep just picked up electrical engineering soooo yeah i will :)

Animation is really much better than just a board and a marker when exposing a subject.