Technology

59377 readers

3769 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

218

If the first solar entrepreneur hadn't been kidnapped, would fossil fuels have dominated the 20th century? (techxplore.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee to c/technology@lemmy.world

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The first commercial PV solar product was nah just in 1909.

See story above, and original article in Modern Electrics magazine in 1909:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015051407073

EDIT

Since people didn't read past the headline, the article is about a startup company in 1905 that developed a commercial electrical solar panel by 1909 and was worth 160 million in today's money.

In 1909, the inventor of the solar panel was kidnapped and ordered by his kidnappers to destroy all information about this solar panel. He was eventually released, although he did not destroy the solar panel or his documentation, he did shut down his company.

So this is a pretty fascinating development considering that at this time period we actually did have early production electric cars that were manufactured in larger quantities than gas vehicles, and now we learn that solar panels were commercially available, at least for a short time.

And the solar panels could generate a fair amount of electricity:

500 volts per 10 square ft, and a smaller demonstration panel that was 3 ft x 4 ft could generate 60 watts of power (10 volts @6 amps).

Additionally, the panels were designed to charge a battery backup system.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That being said, free electricity is free electricity. There are so many use cases for distributed small power systems, particularly in rural areas. I would bet that early solar could have found widespread use while yes, fossil fuels would still have dominated.

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's not free though, solar panels back then would be prohibitively expensive for the number required to get any amount of useful power. I suspect they weren't all that durable or weatherproof either, so that's even more cost in periodic replacement.

Meanwhile your neighbour is burning this black stuff that's almost as cheap as dirt and getting huge amounts of energy out of it.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Coal required someone to dig the mine, build the railroad and powerplant, not to mention build the electricity infrastructure. That was a huge expense and made a lot of people rich.

We do t have a cost information to judge these by, but the infrastructure costs were certainly far lower for solar panels.

[–] SimplePhysics@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I fully agree. In cities and places with a grid, fossil fuels will absolutely dominate, while rural grids/independent homeowners could use solar. However, I do think the cost of acquiring such panels could be prohibitively expensive for some rural homeowners.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, but in 1909 they didn't have a grid yet.