otivaeey Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 In this case, I go through their specs. Peltier is very effiency, just only 38.44 cm^2 it can yield 882W of energy from heat. In the other hand, solar cells which only absorbs a small portion of the light spectrum, stretching about 1m^2 they can only harness 200 - 400W of energy. While, solar panels are more dear than peltier modules, very much higher in price. SO, i need advices and reasons from all of YOU. "TQ YOU" for our Advanced future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BhavinB Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 You'd still need a broad wavelength absorbing material to first convert solar energy into thermal energy. I'm sure it's been thought of. After such a material is in place, what is the efficiency and power output? Thats the big question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 In this case, I go through their specs. Peltier is very effiency, just only 38.44 cm^2 it can yield 882W of energy from heat. At what [math]\Delta T?[/math] That's very important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otivaeey Posted August 3, 2006 Author Share Posted August 3, 2006 At delta 68'C, it yields 882w. just have to get the temperature difference on the two sides, that's it. what the peltiers get is infrared which is very abundant in sunlight, even solar cells which can harness infrared could only increase the output to 30%. While Effiency, i got no experiment on peltier before. BUt it is surely higher than solar panels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 At delta 68'C, it yields 882w. just have to get the temperature difference on the two sides, that's it. what the peltiers get is infrared which is very abundant in sunlight, even solar cells which can harness infrared could only increase the output to 30%. While Effiency, i got no experiment on peltier before. BUt it is surely higher than solar panels. That's the problem, though. Where are you going to get a 68K temperature difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BhavinB Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 That's the problem, though. Where are you going to get a 68K temperature difference? Not just the temperature difference, even assuming we can get that, how can we get 882 W of solar energy absorbed (assuming 100% efficiency..hah)? Whats the surface area of this specific Peltier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 That's the problem, though. Where are you going to get a 68K temperature difference? The edge of a shadow on the Moon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket Man Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 That's the problem, though. Where are you going to get a 68K temperature difference? from a modified solar cooker, just use a parabolic dish to focus light down to the peltier (one side painted black), heatsink a silvered copper pipe to the other side and bury the other end in moist soil. you can easily get over 68k difference isnt peltier a heat pump? your taliking sebeck plates, same construction, different direction. these things are pricey, a plate to put over a cpu costs about $20, you are NOT going to cover a roof. also, a respectable voltage is a big ask, a thermopile cell in a nuclear reactor (deep space satellites) only deliver a few watts. and thats with over 200k difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now