this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025
1240 points (99.6% liked)
[Dormant] moved to !space@mander.xyz
10419 readers
1 users here now
This community is dormant, please find us at !space@mander.xyz
You can find the original sidebar contents below:
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Picture of the Day
The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula
Related Communities
๐ญ Science
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
- !space@lemmy.world
๐ Engineering
๐ Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The most efficient, a NASA solar panel that cost tens of thousands of dollars and uses fucking gold foil, is only 30% efficient. So try again.
Who said you need to catch all of it in a single panel??
The reason nasa goes overboard (though, not really), is because it's worth it for space stuff. On the surface we have an abundance of space
Modern residential solar panels are around 22-24% efficient.
And why are you worried about the rest of that energy? You worried it's gonna be lost?