<< It's .... solar panels that work in lower light levels at night time. I would hope that you are aware that we do still have light at night times...if we didn't you could not see anything. >>

They might work quite well in towns if they faced the street lighting - it would be a way of getting back a little of one's council tax payment. Can't see much use in deeper countryside except when a full mon is out perhaps.

I mentioned this new wind turbine some time ago which imo looks better and can work in almost no wind, but is possible to make them stacked which is in another video, so tech is improving and I think much better looking without taking up so much room with massive blades

also being worked on is a solar panel that charges from the night sky though that needs more work to produce the same amount of electricity the standard panels do

Wow, wind turbines that work without wind and solar panels that work at night....

Is it April the first already?

It's wind turbines that work with less wind, not no wind. And solar panels that work in lower light levels at night time. I would hope that you are aware that we do still have light at night times...if we didn't you could not see anything.

You really think that solar panels will generate that much electricity from street lights, lights in/on buildings, vehcile headlamps reflected off the clouds and the light from the moon and stars other than our own?

You'd be lucky to get a couple of Watts per night, given the ambient light level, which is significantly below that of a cloudy day. BTW - I'm counting night time as dusk (not sunset) when we have zero light from our sun, so obviously the time of the 'day' is meaningless.

I'm hoping you just mean PV panels that are more efficient at lower light levels in the evening and early mornings when the sun is at a low elevation (including and especially in winter).

What would be more useful are, at least for flat roofs and on level ground, PV panels that rotate and pitch up/down to get the optimum angle to get the most sunlight. Obviously impractical for pitched roofed buildings.

There was research into hydrogen as a fuel for combustion engines years ago before hydrogen fuel-cell powered electric cars became a reality. But these never gained popularity either because advances in battery technology have made the battery EV the strongest contender.

With a battery EV, the energy that goes into the battery through the charging cable has been generated once. With a hydrogen powered car, whether i.c. or fuel-cell, energy is consumed by hydrogen production before it goes near the car.

It is also argued that if we all switch to EVs, there'd be no net increase in electricity demand because the amount of energy (mostly electricity) saved by not having to refine oil to make petrol or diesel fuel would cancel out any increase.

They say you get about 3 times as much energy back from petrol or diesel than the refining process consumes. But then an internal combustion engine is only roughly 1/3 thermally efficient, cancelling that out. An EV is much more efficient at round about 75% from grid to wheels. The main problem with EVs has been the weight / bulk / cost of batteries with sufficient range. The weight and bulk problem has been solved enough to make EVs a practical alternative so it's really only cost that's still a problem. There's still the search for greater energy density batteries though.

Edited by Sofa Spud on 19/05/2021 at 12:07