this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
1402 points (99.0% liked)

Science Memes

17705 readers
730 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Geobloke@aussie.zone 24 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Well, hydro is just spinning water again, wind is spinning air. Solar is stealing electrons from the sun (i think?) So that's cool

[–] tja@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well, the sun is sending them to us, so it's not really stealing!

[–] scutiger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I promise I'll return them when I'm done with them.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

stealing

reappropriating :D

[–] SirHery@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Getting electronics knocked around by photons.

[–] SavinDWhales@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Domestic Appliance Violence

[–] j5906@feddit.org 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Agree, the quantum-chem of it is amazing... Then again, solar has an efficiency of ~30% compared to the 90% for spinning steam

[–] crater2150@feddit.org 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don't think it makes sense to compare those efficiencies, as one is for converting heat to electricity, while the other is for converting sunlight. If you use sunlight to heat water and then use that for a steam turbine, the efficiency is similar to a photovoltaic panel. The efficiency numbers are still useful, but only when they refer to the same starting point for the conversion (e.g. only comparing things that turn heat into electricity).

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Yeah, it's comparing apples to crabs. It's only looking at the very final stage and ignoring the efficiencies of the fuel, etc.

If you wanted to make the comparison more fair (and also show how bad it is), a coal power plant maybe has an efficiency of 35%. You can calculate that by dividing the thermal energy in by the electric energy out. You feed in enough coal to generate 8MW of heat, which generates 2.8MW of electricity, so 2.8/8 = 0.35. By contrast, a photovoltaic power plant generates say 2kW of electricity with 0 fuel, so it has an efficiency of ∞%.

[–] j5906@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago

You are right it doesnt really makes sense to compare them that way, it was just what the initial comment was doing. Nuclear fission is in itself only like 30% efficient. There are of course tons of metrics to compare these things, I personally like space-time efficiency or CO2/MWh.

[–] Geobloke@aussie.zone 4 points 1 week ago

But it's all profit baby! Let something else figure out cousin, put 0% effort in and collect the rewards!

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

but crucially no moving parts. very little maintenance, especially compared to anything steam driven.

[–] j5906@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago

I am a big solar fan, but the moving part inertia thing is actually great for stabilizing the grid.

[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 3 points 1 week ago

They pump water through it. The water gives energy, all our energy is hydrogen baby