[fisherwithac]

Despite my strong skepticism of this technology being used as a replacement or even supplement for solar panels anytime in the near future, I really admire the creative thought process that led them to get even the miniscule results they did.

I'm not a chemist or phyhsicist in any regard, so I can't say whether this could be the stepping stone to something more large scale down the line. Could anyone shed light on whether there are any physical limits given the materials used (slilcone, snow, etc.) to how much energy you could extract?

[cogman10]

In the paper, the product produces 0.2 mW/m^2

Solar panels produce 175W/m^2 for comparison.

If this ever produced 1W/m^2 I'd be shocked.

[jerf]

And that's the production during snowfall. Even here in Michigan, the sun shines a great deal more than we literally have snow falling. And if the snow is falling all day, it's going to be a light snow that probably isn't reaching 0.2mW/m^2.

Plus, if I'm seeing the physics here in my head properly based on their description, you can't just stick this out in the snow like a panel and get a consistent 0.2mW/m^2 even under optimal snow conditions. As the snow accumulates on the collector it'll insulate the collector from the rest of the snow. You really want the snow to be brushing the collector and then departing having given up its excess charge, not accumulating on it. Sunlight obviously does not present this problem, since it basically is 100% made out of charge (if you'll pardon the sloppy terminology, asp precision wouldn't really buy anything here), so there's no additional mass to dispose of, just any waste heat issues that may arise.

I'm pretty sure that in real conditions the difference between the two would be another two or three orders of magnitude larger, which is why my other post is so grumpy. It's multiple orders of magnitude obviously not even remotely feasible, to the point it's almost insulting that it was said.

[cogman10]

I'm pretty skeptical as well that this is useful for really anything. That energy density is so low that I can't think of a single application where either batteries, solar, wind, or some combination of the above wouldn't both work better and be cheaper.

Just to put a little perspective out there, 0.2 mW/m^2 means that 1 square meter of this stuff would take 600 days in ideal production to match the amount of energy stored in one charge of a single rechargeable AA (~3Wh).

1 clear day, plus a tiny solar cell and a AA and you can get 600 operating days of energy really easily.

And here's the thing, if this thing gets buried, it isn't going to generate electricity. So you have to imagine an environment where the snow is constantly melting, you can get a giant sheet of this stuff, and for whatever reason there is no battery chemistry that would work.

You could say "Well, it would make a good snow detector".. but even that it somewhat silly. Because, again, if it gets buried it won't be detecting more snow. So now you need some complex rigging to keep it from collecting snow so it can register that snow is falling. Why not a camera? A weight sensor? etc. Plenty of pretty cheap and low power equipment can do just this without the additional concerns introduced by this piece of tech.

This thing is useless. Maybe interesting to make, definitely not practical for really any application.

[xbmcuser]

Is the power enough to melt the snow to clear the panels of the snow. That could be a good use for it. Solar pan

[cogman10]

It is not.

It takes 2.09J/g to heat ice 1 degree.

[chabes]

> Despite my strong skepticism of this technology being used as a replacement or even supplement for solar panels anytime in the near future

I doubt the point is to replace or supplement solar. The point is probably to have a less bulky or expensive way to run remote sensors

[fisherwithac]

My skepticism comes from this particular line in the article:

> The new device could be integrated into solar panels to provide a continuous power supply when it snows, [El-Cady] said.

The abstract of the researh paper itself[0] also reflects this sentiment:

> We envision these devices could potentially be integrated into solar panels to ensure continuous power supply during snowy weather conditions.

Granted, it's more of a pipe dream for the future than an original design goal for the technology, which does work well for said remote sensors

[0] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221128551... (Link may not be accessable to all, feel free to reply with a mirror)