Solar energy

[LBPB]

Hello,


I'm working on maps with less light (such as night maps or heavy fog maps) as well as heavily sunburned maps (desertic planet close to a sun).

So I'm wondering if their is a way to modify the amount of energy given by solars (ie 0 or 1 for a nightscape map, or 30-40 for sunburned one) ?

Because atm, I'm sticked with the standard value (20)...

[NOiZE]

we are all sticked with 20, but perhaps we can include units with a map, and maybe they will override the default units.

[LBPB]

we are all sticked with 20, but perhaps we can include units with a map, and maybe they will override the default units.

Yeah a simple value, like the tidal one.
It would be nice if this feature could be include in the next spring update.

This would also offer to Spring :
-> More diversity
-> More accurate maps
-> New playing possibilities

[yuritch]

Including units with the map is a bad way to do this - what if it's played on a mod that doesn't have said units? EE or NanoBlobs for example?
TA maps had a tag SolarStrength, but it wasn't used by the engine. Engine support would be good, but all mods utilizing solars will have to be updated with the new FBI tags to really make it work.

[j5mello]

true but thats only 4-5 units per mod, which is not that much when u consider it

[AF]

There are solar panels currently that can operate in total darkness. For example, there're solar panels that run off of infrared background radiation that generate more energy than conventional solar cells and run at night time too.

So I think the arm and core can develop night time solar panels in 4-5 thousand years if we did it in 20-40 years.

[Arco]

There are solar panels currently that can operate in total darkness. For example, there're solar panels that run off of infrared background radiation that generate more energy than conventional solar cells and run at night time too.

So I think the arm and core can develop night time solar panels in 4-5 thousand years if we did it in 20-40 years.

I don't think your statements are accurate. Solar cells made today absorb as much light as they can, typically across the infrared and visible wavelengths. This means that they do generate some current at night due to the infrared radiation present. (There's also some visible light, containing reflected moonlight, starlight, bioluminescent and chemically-produced light, which is why we can see at night.) However, the sun outputs a tremendous amount more energy than this, and even a crappy solar cell that barely reaches into the infrared running during the day will beat the pants off of an IR-optimized cell running at night. Just think about it--at night, things cool off. If there was somehow MORE IR radiation bouncing around at night than total radiation during the day, the night would be hotter.

Regardless of a panel's night time capabilities, you simply won't generate nearly the amount of electricity at night as you can during the day.

And this is only considering the situation here on Earth--in TA, we can have maps based on lone interstellar planetary bodies. They would be extremely cold (and certainly desolate) and the only incoming radiation available would be starlight. The only other source of radiation would be the planetary core, and if we consider it to be a large asteroid or small planetoid, it wouldn't even have a hot core. In this situation, solar collectors simply would not work. (At best, they would collect an extremely small amount of energy from starlight--a fraction so small that you'd never see it expressed as "+1" in the game given TA-level values.)

Such a map would (if kept scientifically reasonable) have no wind either, and only independent generators would make any energy. That would make for some interesting gameplay under the TA paradigm--building construction units and such until a fusion could be slowly built, providing a sudden mad rush of energy.

[Weaver]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/A-Solar- ... 5159.shtml

Here an article that backs AF up somewhat, though this cell would produce more energy during the day.

[Arco]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/A-Solar- ... 5159.shtml

Here an article that backs AF up somewhat, though this cell would produce more energy during the day.

It's just an increase in efficiency over current methods. The fact remains that production is entirely dependent on the amount of light present. The feature suggested by this thread is activating a tag which defines the amount of light present. Therefore the feature is still a good idea, and I don't know what AF was trying to point out. That at "night" solars can still make some energy? Well fine--you can pick any number you want if the tag is properly implemented. New solar cell technology has nothing to do with this. (Although it might explain how AA's advanced solars somehow generate more energy than the standard ones despite having an even smaller apparent surface area--massively more efficient cells. But at present we already have dozens of photovoltaic cell technologies of varying efficiencies and difficulties of production.)

Even 4000 years of technological progress doesn't change the fact that less light will result in lower energy yields for a photocell.

[bwansy]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/A-Solar- ... 5159.shtml

Here an article that backs AF up somewhat, though this cell would produce more energy during the day.

It's just an increase in efficiency over current methods. The fact remains that production is entirely dependent on the amount of light present. The feature suggested by this thread is activating a tag which defines the amount of light present. Therefore the feature is still a good idea, and I don't know what AF was trying to point out. That at "night" solars can still make some energy? Well fine--you can pick any number you want if the tag is properly implemented. New solar cell technology has nothing to do with this. (Although it might explain how AA's advanced solars somehow generate more energy than the standard ones despite having an even smaller apparent surface area--massively more efficient cells. But at present we already have dozens of photovoltaic cell technologies of varying efficiencies and difficulties of production.)

Even 4000 years of technological progress doesn't change the fact that less light will result in lower energy yields for a photocell.

Absolutely right. No matter how advnaced the technology is, it is impossible to defy the law of conservation of energy. You can't have LESS input to get MORE output. Otherwise why don't we put it in a dark room and get a huge output?

[Peet]

Duh! Hook up the output to a TTL inverter

[AF]

Well duh more light more power.

However your AA paradigm may be explained by a similar technology, solar tubing, which works slightly differently to solar cells and is far more efficient, altho solar cells are still cheaper.

And beleive it or not, in the last 5 years we've developed solar generators that are efficient enough to be ran off of starlight.

[bamb]

The power radiating to earth is probably about thousandfold during the day compared to the night (even with full moon), and modern solar cells can already use about 35% of that. So there is no way there's enough energy in the night for even theoretically 100% perfect cells to produce anything close to the amount normal cells produce in the day.

[BigSteve]

Who the hell cares wether the core could build super efficient solar panels that work at night? its a video game made for fun where buildings materialise out of big green blobs. Does that happen IRL?
LBPB's idea is a good one and it might throw up some more intresting strats on some cool looking maps.
Why does every thread turn into a battle to try and prove whos the smartest, 9 times out of 10 by copying and pasting stuff from journals. Nobody cares.

Looking forward to the maps LB, good luck getting the e values sorted.

[Neddie]

Plus, we can model night maps generating almost no solar energy and day maps generating more.

Darkside would be strange, of course...

[mufdvr222]

There are solar panels currently that can operate in total darkness. For example, there're solar panels that run off of infrared background radiation that generate more energy than conventional solar cells and run at night time too.

So I think the arm and core can develop night time solar panels in 4-5 thousand years if we did it in 20-40 years.

Total crap, sorry to be so blunt but that is just crappola, and so is that article which has ZERO credibility.
The most efficient solar panels around are orbiting mars and being driven around its surface on the MER rovers. And the claim thet they can utilise infrared wavelengths, thats just hillarious I think some serious brushing up on ya physics knowledge is in order.

[mehere101]

Please, just let it die. The point is, mappers should have the ability to give a solar modifier so they can tweak how effective solar collectors are.

[bwansy]

Yes. If tidal and wind energy are adjustable, why can't solar energy be, too?

[NOiZE]

Yes. If tidal and wind energy are adjustable, why can't solar energy be, too?

because no-one patched that yet....

[LBPB]

LBPB's idea is a good one and it might throw up some more intresting strats on some cool looking maps..

Yes just imagine all the new strategies that could come with this feature (all mods could gain from it).

Such a map would (if kept scientifically reasonable) have no wind either, and only independent generators would make any energy. That would make for some interesting gameplay under the TA paradigm--building construction units and such until a fusion could be slowly built, providing a sudden mad rush of energy.

Thats another type of map I'm planning to do

Looking forward to the maps LB, good luck getting the e values sorted

btw its the first time I'm requesting something from the devs.
Must I open a thread in the Feature Requests forum for them to take it into account ?

The point is, mappers should have the ability to give a solar modifier so they can tweak how effective solar collectors are.

Yes thats the point.
And if the tag is not specified by the mapper in the smd file, then the game engine automatically stick to the standard value (20)