>>12055598They are from an energy perspective because of
i) the suns longevity
ii) the actual power that hits the earth from the sun - enough sunlight hits earth in 1 hour than all the energy consumed by humans in one year (not just electrical).
That is not to say it is the solution to
i) limmiting carbon emissions
ii) providing a cheap/ more secure resource for the 21st century
However in the long run...yes definitely solar.
We can bump up the efficiency of solar panels by increasing the number of photons that successfully promote charge transfer.
Lots of chemists are working on this issue as it bridges academic and engineering interests.
eg Dye-sensitised solar cells (academics love this as getting a good dye is basically transition metal chemistry)
Organic solar cells (beauty about this is lack of pollution) which essentially incorporate main group inorganic cluster and electrochemistry. This surpasses the 'solar cells pollute lots' argument as the small organic materials are readily synthesised.
>>12055643You can just direct solar power to fill up a reservoir and use it at peak time...exactly the same thing we do with fossil fuels!
Also chemical pollution is a really bad argument- everything pollutes its just about management, which can just as easily be applied to solar cells.
