this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2026
70 points (89.8% liked)
Technology
82801 readers
4000 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
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
That 1/100,000 comparison doesn't seem right if these panels generate 1W per square meter as the parent poster said. It sounds like you're saying regular solar panels generate 100kW per square meter but I'm pretty sure that's orders of magnitude too high. Am I misinterpreting what you said?
Agreed. It's 1/100 with old panels at 1/300 with modern high performance panels, being up to 300w/m.
Edit: solar radiation is only 1.3kw/m2
Outside earths atmosphere. Only ~650 Watts/m^2 reach the surface of our planet.
No that's not right, it's about 1000 watts/m2 on the surface. But it is on a totally clear day with the sun directly overhead. So depending on your latitude you get less per m2 because the Earth is round.
On the power outside the atmosphere I didn't comment because I was too lazy to look it up, the and I knew the number of the previous commenter was in the ballpark.
Regarding the surface: my apologies, I quoted a number from university that must have been a simplification for a calculation exercise, and I made the mistake of never thinking about it critically. Turns out I was wrong.