Problem with solar energy is the solar power reaching the earth is about 100watts per square feet and our best solar panel efficiency is about 30%, so replacing a 5 Mega Watts Nuclear central will needs a States wide area of solar panels.
5 MW translates to 150,000 sq ft which is just 400ft x 400ft
"Even after turning off the power of a device, IGZO allows the image to continue to be displayed on the screen,"
Interesting, an alternative to E-Paper too maybe? If Apple uses this tech, would I actually be able to read an E-Book on an iPad in broad day-light, without the screen being washed out? That would be very nice indeed..! Probably too good to be true though.
When the iPad mini was rumored and then announced, I was hopeful that Sharp's IGZO would be a lock-for the first-gen mini-until I heard about the production difficulties. I suspect that it just was not ready, yields were unsatisfactory to meet demand/margins, etc. In typical fashion, Apple chose to launch the iPad mini anyway for the holiday season and to gain a foothold in the market. If my suspicions are correct, arguably, that was a smart move.
5 MW translates to 150,000 sq ft which is just 400ft x 400ft
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclancer
wow, that is a lot. Maybe in the future we will be able to find some way to get more solar power, 100watts per 1/4 of a millimeter. I know, I know... I am a dreamer
Sure we can. What is it, something like 200 square miles of solar panels (of current efficiency!) will power the entire planet. We absolutely have the technology. Couple that with geothermal and modern fossil fuels (because, yeah, we'll be using them until we literally don't have anything else to burn, and I wouldn't have it any other way) and it's more power than we need.
And if the French ever decide to build a fusion plant that isn't just a proof of concept, we'll have hot fusion, too. What would be neat is devising a means of fusion that used spent fission fuel sources as its fuel source. Build a fission plant and a fusion plant across the street from one another…
The 10sq miles Topaz Solar farm project in California will be able to produce a peak zenith about 500MW and solar power like wind power are not reliable and steady power sources, at best over a year they can only produce at 50% of the time. The other big issue is energy storing, we don't have any efficient way to store unused electrical energy. That is why we still depend so much of gas and coal central for peak period.
Beside I'm thrilled about the French fusion reactor project ITER, sure is a proof of concept, have you see the size of that thing it need for being the first fusion reactor to break even? The next phase DEMO due for mid 2020s will be the first commercial fusion reactor, but we still have a long way to go before mastering fusion reactor like we do for fission.
OLED seems to be the future as it does not require backlight and allows much thinner and lighter design...
From what I gather, IGZO could be the last technical improvement to LED before OLED technology can beat it in terms of image sharpness and color quality. IGZO is simply a transparent conductor technology, like transparent wires. LCD panels (and OLED panels too, for that matter) have used amorphous silicon conductors in those "transparent wires" for decades. IGZO is more transparent than, and is a 40 times better conductor than, amorphous silicon. So less energy will be needed to drive the transistors in the display panel, whether LCD or OLED. And less energy will be needed to achieve the same brightness.
The video is quite amazing, but that technology that they show in there, i am pretty sure its destinated for rich people. I will never going to see it in regular house. Maybe in 100 years or more. When we all dead already.
I don't know about that...
In 1978 I bought an Apple ][ 8K RAM -- no display, no external or internal SDD/HDD -- had to buy an expensive cassette deck ($100) and Display ($250)... Total about $2,200 -- $8-10,000 in today's dollars. Later things like a 5 MB hard disk cost $4,000. I purchased a 1978 Ford Grenada (middle of the line) -- AIR, it cost $15,000, loaded.
When things get popular and mass-produced, the costs come down quickly.
I am personally opposed to redesigning objects and tools that function well without the use of a power supply so that they only function by using electricity.. Why do we need anything in this video in our homes? A table made with an led screen? A bathroom mirror that works as a scale or other purposes? I know this video makes for a nerdy Jetson's future world but until we take a serious look at our energy consumption and learn to control it we may not have such a bright future.
We're not even a 1 on the Kardashev scale. And we have plenty of energy to tap before we even have to think about looking at space-based sources.
The problem isn't needing energy to power devices. The problem is when you have TOO MUCH energy to tap. We don't yet, and that's good. The bottleneck is our ability to provide it, not our ability to design uses for it. We're smart enough for the latter right now, not the former. If we were to remove the "bandwidth cap" on energy use right now, Earth would be Venus in 50 years.
LOL... with a quick look at your post I read: "We're not even at a 1 on the Kardashian scale."
A pretty frightening thought, any way you look at it -- especially from behind!
Quote: bigmac2 "While it doesn't require backlighting it fade after time.Organic Light Emitting Diode lifespan is very short (3 to 5 years), like any other organic based products it degrade after time."
Been there done that already and no more OLED for me. What a waste of money!
IZGO does look interesting as long as it doesn't gradually die.
If it was a dead end we wouldn't be seeing significant advancements almost every year. Effectively LCD has gotten to the point that resolution is better than the eye can make use of. At this point other features are evolving to keep LCD technology around as the most viable.
OLED seems to be the future as it does not require backlight and allows much thinner and lighter design...
Thinner and more flexible it may be but beyond that OLEDs suck badly. Let me count some of the ways:
Each pixel is made up of multiple LEDs. This means each pixel has to turn on three LEDs to produce color.
Due to item #1 above OLED screen are only power efficient when dark.
When white light needs to be produced each OLED pixel is burning maximum energy. Thus you often see UI's built upon OLED screens as being very dark so that battery power may be conserved.
The O in OLED stands for organic or carbon based chemistries none of which are stable, thus such screen age rapidly. Put simply OLED screens are not color stable.
Maybe one day they will bet there but right now OLED screens are not the sorts of things you would epwant to see on Apple products.
I am personally opposed to redesigning objects and tools that function well without the use of a power supply so that they only function by using electricity.. Why do we need anything in this video in our homes? A table made with an led screen? A bathroom mirror that works as a scale or other purposes? I know this video makes for a nerdy Jetson's future world but until we take a serious look at our energy consumption and learn to control it we may not have such a bright future.
If we get over our fears associated with nuclear technologies we won't have any problems.
And I'm in favor of the "launch the spent material into the sun" idea, myself. First, it's launching crap into the sun, which is always cool. Second, it gives us a nice new high-volume cargo technical goal for future spaceflight, which we need. Third, it gets rid of the mess without lead-lined, miles-deep concrete bunkers.
This is baloney. The problem right now is will and fear.
Nobody has the will to force acceptance of even modest solar approaches on homes. In fact in some locations there actually exists laws that prevent the use of solar technologies on homes. The answer is not big industry solar production farms that just waste land mass but rather a realization that production should be supplemented by the very houses we live in. It is really sad that standard for homes done require at least some ability to offset power usage by local production.
Then we have the issue of fear. The fear of current nuclear technology is irrational and has resulted in minimal investment in research and development for new techniques with respect to fission systems and fusion techniques. Basically we are throwing away the future of the planet due to irrational fears.
More than 50% of the energy we consume comes from fossil fuel and we currently don't have any better technology to replace this with better and clean energy. I agree with you, we got enough energy on earth but beside fossil fuel, nuclear fission and hydro, we can't tap efficiently most of it.
Problem with solar energy is the solar power reaching the earth is about 100watts per square feet and our best solar panel efficiency is about 30%.
Yep which means the approach of build central solar power plants is simply asinine. So much land mass would be forever wasted that it would end up being more harmful than coal mining. Apples solar plant next to their latest data center is a perfect example. It is a huge amount of land mass that is forever wasted.
However this doesn't mean we should discount the value of solar offsetting some of our energy needs. Rather it should become policy to require that solar features be built into all new buildings and homes. Real incentives for retro fits to existing buildings need to be put in place. Sadly previous attempts resulted in some significant corrupt behavior where the incentives simply went to contractors through inflated prices and other schemes. The economics of solar systems aren't clear but if installed systematically it will impact future growth in centrally produced power.
When the iPad mini was rumored and then announced, I was hopeful that Sharp's IGZO would be a lock-for the first-gen mini-until I heard about the production difficulties. I suspect that it just was not ready, yields were unsatisfactory to meet demand/margins, etc. In typical fashion, Apple chose to launch the iPad mini anyway for the holiday season and to gain a foothold in the market. If my suspicions are correct, arguably, that was a smart move.
Yes a smart move as the market was primed for the Mini. Like all Apple devices Mini will evolve over time. As it is IGZO looks like a significant step forward if it lives up to its hype.
Actually ITER is an international effort that just happens to be located in France. As it is it takes far to much in the way of research funs that ends up sucking money from other possible avenues of fusion research.
The 10sq miles Topaz Solar farm project in California will be able to produce a peak zenith about 500MW and solar power like wind power are not reliable and steady power sources, at best over a year they can only produce at 50% of the time. The other big issue is energy storing, we don't have any efficient way to store unused electrical energy. That is why we still depend so much of gas and coal central for peak period.
The big issue is the waste of land mass. This is what sucks about solar "plants". Think about it coal strip mines don't have the long lasting impact on the environment that solar plants do.
Beside I'm thrilled about the French fusion reactor project ITER, sure is a proof of concept, have you see the size of that thing it need for being the first fusion reactor to break even? The next phase DEMO due for mid 2020s will be the first commercial fusion reactor, but we still have a long way to go before mastering fusion reactor like we do for fission.
Honestly it has been managed like a jobs program for physicists. Between that and the fact that it drys up funs for alternative systems I don't think our money's are being well spent. Or maybe better said well allocated.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2
Problem with solar energy is the solar power reaching the earth is about 100watts per square feet and our best solar panel efficiency is about 30%, so replacing a 5 Mega Watts Nuclear central will needs a States wide area of solar panels.
5 MW translates to 150,000 sq ft which is just 400ft x 400ft
Interesting, an alternative to E-Paper too maybe? If Apple uses this tech, would I actually be able to read an E-Book on an iPad in broad day-light, without the screen being washed out? That would be very nice indeed..! Probably too good to be true though.
I doubt Apple/Foxxcon would have invested so heavily in sharp if this was not destined for a mobile device. It seems it's a matter of when, not if.
An IGZO iPad mini to fit between the iPhone and MBA? So. Drool-worthy.
When the iPad mini was rumored and then announced, I was hopeful that Sharp's IGZO would be a lock-for the first-gen mini-until I heard about the production difficulties. I suspect that it just was not ready, yields were unsatisfactory to meet demand/margins, etc. In typical fashion, Apple chose to launch the iPad mini anyway for the holiday season and to gain a foothold in the market. If my suspicions are correct, arguably, that was a smart move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagen
5 MW translates to 150,000 sq ft which is just 400ft x 400ft
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclancer
wow, that is a lot. Maybe in the future we will be able to find some way to get more solar power, 100watts per 1/4 of a millimeter. I know, I know... I am a dreamer
Yeah I got my math mixed up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Sure we can. What is it, something like 200 square miles of solar panels (of current efficiency!) will power the entire planet. We absolutely have the technology. Couple that with geothermal and modern fossil fuels (because, yeah, we'll be using them until we literally don't have anything else to burn, and I wouldn't have it any other way) and it's more power than we need.
And if the French ever decide to build a fusion plant that isn't just a proof of concept, we'll have hot fusion, too. What would be neat is devising a means of fusion that used spent fission fuel sources as its fuel source. Build a fission plant and a fusion plant across the street from one another…
The 10sq miles Topaz Solar farm project in California will be able to produce a peak zenith about 500MW and solar power like wind power are not reliable and steady power sources, at best over a year they can only produce at 50% of the time. The other big issue is energy storing, we don't have any efficient way to store unused electrical energy. That is why we still depend so much of gas and coal central for peak period.
Beside I'm thrilled about the French fusion reactor project ITER, sure is a proof of concept, have you see the size of that thing it need for being the first fusion reactor to break even? The next phase DEMO due for mid 2020s will be the first commercial fusion reactor, but we still have a long way to go before mastering fusion reactor like we do for fission.
Originally Posted by jason98
Is LCD of any kind actually a dead end?
OLED seems to be the future as it does not require backlight and allows much thinner and lighter design...
From what I gather, IGZO could be the last technical improvement to LED before OLED technology can beat it in terms of image sharpness and color quality. IGZO is simply a transparent conductor technology, like transparent wires. LCD panels (and OLED panels too, for that matter) have used amorphous silicon conductors in those "transparent wires" for decades. IGZO is more transparent than, and is a 40 times better conductor than, amorphous silicon. So less energy will be needed to drive the transistors in the display panel, whether LCD or OLED. And less energy will be needed to achieve the same brightness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Where would we be in a world with zinc...?
Zinc! Come back! Zinc!
You said you wanted to live in a world with no zinc, Jimmy!
That's a best summarization I've read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclancer
The video is quite amazing, but that technology that they show in there, i am pretty sure its destinated for rich people. I will never going to see it in regular house. Maybe in 100 years or more. When we all dead already.
I don't know about that...
In 1978 I bought an Apple ][ 8K RAM -- no display, no external or internal SDD/HDD -- had to buy an expensive cassette deck ($100) and Display ($250)... Total about $2,200 -- $8-10,000 in today's dollars. Later things like a 5 MB hard disk cost $4,000. I purchased a 1978 Ford Grenada (middle of the line) -- AIR, it cost $15,000, loaded.
When things get popular and mass-produced, the costs come down quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by kerryb
I am personally opposed to redesigning objects and tools that function well without the use of a power supply so that they only function by using electricity.. Why do we need anything in this video in our homes? A table made with an led screen? A bathroom mirror that works as a scale or other purposes? I know this video makes for a nerdy Jetson's future world but until we take a serious look at our energy consumption and learn to control it we may not have such a bright future.
We're not even a 1 on the Kardashev scale. And we have plenty of energy to tap before we even have to think about looking at space-based sources.
The problem isn't needing energy to power devices. The problem is when you have TOO MUCH energy to tap. We don't yet, and that's good. The bottleneck is our ability to provide it, not our ability to design uses for it. We're smart enough for the latter right now, not the former. If we were to remove the "bandwidth cap" on energy use right now, Earth would be Venus in 50 years.
LOL... with a quick look at your post I read: "We're not even at a 1 on the Kardashian scale."
A pretty frightening thought, any way you look at it -- especially from behind!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
"Even after turning off the power of a device, IGZO allows the image to continue to be displayed on the screen,"
My PC monitor could do that back in the 80's
bigmac2
"While it doesn't require backlighting it fade after time.Organic Light Emitting Diode lifespan is very short (3 to 5 years), like any other organic based products it degrade after time."
Been there done that already and no more OLED for me.
What a waste of money!
IZGO does look interesting as long as it doesn't gradually die.
Thinner and more flexible it may be but beyond that OLEDs suck badly. Let me count some of the ways:
Maybe one day they will bet there but right now OLED screens are not the sorts of things you would epwant to see on Apple products.
Originally Posted by wizard69
If we get over our fears associated with nuclear technologies we won't have any problems.
And I'm in favor of the "launch the spent material into the sun" idea, myself. First, it's launching crap into the sun, which is always cool. Second, it gives us a nice new high-volume cargo technical goal for future spaceflight, which we need. Third, it gets rid of the mess without lead-lined, miles-deep concrete bunkers.
Nobody has the will to force acceptance of even modest solar approaches on homes. In fact in some locations there actually exists laws that prevent the use of solar technologies on homes. The answer is not big industry solar production farms that just waste land mass but rather a realization that production should be supplemented by the very houses we live in. It is really sad that standard for homes done require at least some ability to offset power usage by local production.
Then we have the issue of fear. The fear of current nuclear technology is irrational and has resulted in minimal investment in research and development for new techniques with respect to fission systems and fusion techniques. Basically we are throwing away the future of the planet due to irrational fears.
Yep which means the approach of build central solar power plants is simply asinine. So much land mass would be forever wasted that it would end up being more harmful than coal mining. Apples solar plant next to their latest data center is a perfect example. It is a huge amount of land mass that is forever wasted.
However this doesn't mean we should discount the value of solar offsetting some of our energy needs. Rather it should become policy to require that solar features be built into all new buildings and homes. Real incentives for retro fits to existing buildings need to be put in place. Sadly previous attempts resulted in some significant corrupt behavior where the incentives simply went to contractors through inflated prices and other schemes. The economics of solar systems aren't clear but if installed systematically it will impact future growth in centrally produced power.
Yes a smart move as the market was primed for the Mini. Like all Apple devices Mini will evolve over time. As it is IGZO looks like a significant step forward if it lives up to its hype.
The big issue is the waste of land mass. This is what sucks about solar "plants". Think about it coal strip mines don't have the long lasting impact on the environment that solar plants do. Honestly it has been managed like a jobs program for physicists. Between that and the fact that it drys up funs for alternative systems I don't think our money's are being well spent. Or maybe better said well allocated.