Solar rather than nuclear energy should be the UK government’s priority in planning future energy production, according to scientists writing today in the journal Nature Materials. Challenging advocates of the nuclear option, researchers from Imperial College London argue in their Commentary article that photovoltaics, the direct conversion of sunlight to electricity, could match and exceed the nuclear industry’s current output before any new reactor could begin operating.
“Fusion is still perhaps 40 years away from being effectively developed and in any case is likely to produce electricity at one quarter the electrical power density which the solar cells that we are working on are already producing in London. It’s absurd that these funding bodies are putting huge amounts of money into something that may not deliver rather than supporting something that already does.”
The next generation of photovoltaic cells, known as quantum well cells, now under development convert direct sunlight and can track the sun to keep light focussed on the cell. Early testing suggests that these concentrated systems could produce twice as much electricity per unit area as the conventional systems now in use. Professor Barnham adds:
“These new cells are highly efficient and are based on technologies similar to those used for the amplifiers in mobile phones, so the ability to manufacture them on a large scale is already in place.
If these new systems work well enough for the UK solar profile, think of what might be accomplished in the U.S. — with our significantly higher proportion of usable solar territory.
So how will they produce the energy during the half of the day that the sun is down?
When did solar power become a new technology?? (Wind?)
It isn’t like our sweet government, couldn’t use some of that alternate energy funding to get nationwide solar. Oh, wait, they don’t have big money sponsors like oil and nuclear do. My mistake…
Only use what pollutes, it’s the American way.
Nuclear – at least fissile nuclear – also involves the same thing we’re in trouble with in oil – you may well end up buying it from overseas. I think the reason nobody wants to support solar is that people could pop the cells on their roofs and not have to use the utility companies.
Solar is good but will never be more than supplemental part of the mix. Long term we need nuclear.
To add to Mikes point:
Isn’t the UK (esp London) famous for its fog and cloudy weather? how is solar power going to work unless we allow global warming to clear away the clouds?
Steve,
So your think you can store up a city’s entire nightime energy requirement in batteries (assuming you can produce 24hrs worth of energy during the time the sun is up) to make up for the fact that solar power only works during the day?
I think I’ll go with nuclear power – it cranks out juice 24/7.
Near future energy will have to come from a variety of sources, perhaps to include more nuclear. However, the notion of the nuclear energy panacea is like the “hair of the dog” solution to a hangover. Over emphasizing nuclear energy will simply create a new set of long term problems. If the government subsidized wind and solar to the extent that they have for nuclear power then we would see some technological strides in these areas.
I don’t care what they use as long as 1) it does not cost me more, 2) does not involve any sacrifice on my part.
I’m all for finding more efficient ways to generate power, light, heat, etc. Just don’t make people cut back on anything.
Can we please just go Nuclear now add/switch to these renewable sourse when they prove viable. Just think how much CO2 would be in the air if we didn’t stop building nuclear plants in the 70s. By the way I have been hearing about Solar since then too.
The only thing that keeps me from getting excited about direct photo-voltaic is the solar constant, the mean value of which appears to be 342.5-watts/square meter.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/SolarConstant.html
Even with 100% efficiency in conversion it would take panels totaling 2,919.7m^2 to produce 1-megaWatt [1×10^6] – and the aticle states Germany plans on producing 12,000-times that amount [12-gigawatts = 12×10^9] with panels converting at less than 100% efficiency?
At 100% efficiency it would be 2,919.7 x 12,000 = 35,036,496-m^2 – so more than that will be needed to reach their goal.
What will be the unintended/unexpected consequences of placing that many panels?
i.e. wind turbines shredding birds & bats, or the hydro-electric dams – here in Oregon – being retro-fitted with turbines which don’t puree the salmon.
yeah i’ll believe that this is possible when/if solar cells have an energy conversion rate of 60% – currently its like 18%.
I think solar and wind should be part of the mix. Nuke power, with other types of power would be good. Maybe we could even get along with just the oil that we produce ourselves that way.
The U.K. is seriously considering more nuke plants because it can’t meet the Kyoto standards as it is now. And with it’s average days of sunlight, it would be very difficult to make up the power needed to replace fossil fuels. They are building large wind farms, mostly in Scotland, but the enviromentalists are screaming, and they seem to be winning the arguement. It’s a no win, no win situation for most goverments. No matter what source of energy they come up with it’s going to have some drawback and the far left is going to scream.
I think that the idea of hydrogen for auto’s is a good idea that needs to be explored. Bush brought it up in his speech in January, and from what I can dig up, he’s quite serious about it.
So….either we try to use a sane mix of energy types or we go on as before or we go back 100 years in energy use.
Eveyone talks about “swiching” like its an exclusive or. What if all these ideas suplimented themselvs. Wind, solar, geo-thermal, nuclear, etc. Maybe if the government suplimented in some way, the option for people to put solar panles on their roof hooked into the power grid powerd by one of the conventional sources. No extra property would be wasted and it could cut down a bit on peoples bills.
15 makes sense, 14 is still afraid to read what environmentalists actually say and do — and in nations where there is some level of leadership from the government, from the UK to China, a pretty broad mix relevent to local needs/potential is supported.
This can be as basic as the “suitcase” wind generators in the UK which save homeowners $20-40/month. Or wave-or-tide-generated electricity where coastal conditions permit. No shortage of choices — commitment is the scarce commodity.
But, even with support, NIMBY’s and other self-centered members of our species will join with the ignorant rather than change. We really have a fearful lot of timid folks on this planet. That includes, of course, those who endorse killing as an alternative to change.
MV — commercial solar firms consistently accept a solar constant of 1.35 kw/sq.meter with about 70% of that available at sea level. Perhaps that’s why sources cited in the article are more optimistic than you are.
But, then, birds and bats being shredded haven’t expecially been a major factor since Altamont days. People who actually work at this stuff aren’t chartered to be destructive. There are environmental standards to be met. You’re decades out of date on that presumption.
I don’t care what they use as long as 1) it does not cost me more, 2) does not involve any sacrifice on my part.
I’m all for finding more efficient ways to generate power, light, heat, etc. Just don’t make people cut back on anything.
Comment by Me — 3/3/2006 @ 12:24 pm
Gee, now I understand how you picked such a narcissistic handle.
Me has it right. Why should people have to sacrifice for this? Everyone seems to have this goal of replacing oil, and that evceryone needfs to do their part towards that goal, when it should be about getting the cheapest energy.
when it should be about getting the cheapest energy.
Comment by AB CD — 3/4/2006 @ 8:39 am
No matter what the cost to our health and planet? Who gives a damn about how using that energy destroys the environment! Who gives a damn how much it costs to store the spent nuclear fuel for 10 eons or so! It’s cheap, so WTF!
Hey AB CD and Me — I’ve got some toxic waste I’d like to store in your living room. You don’t mind, do you? It went towards making a whole lotta neat disposable fast food containers. We could bury those in your back yard.
Every technology has come at our expense, either through taxes or through buying version 1.0 to pay for the development of version 2.0. Not developing clean, renewable energy sources NOW when we have the luxury of expendable (and dirty) resources like oil and nuclear fuel to get us through their development is just plain stupid.
its all well and good thinking just for now, but what we do to the planet now we are leaving behind for our future generations! the reality is that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing radically and the longer we try and put it off without addressing these issues with a sane alternative the worse it is going to get. global warming is a major issue and looking back at past weather information if nobody has noticed the freakish changes in weather in recent years and global mishaps killing thousands it makes one think…….?