Tell me more ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 5 down vote favorite
1

I was wondering what subjects a freshman in mathematics ought to choose in the future if s/he wanted to help working on energy and environment-related issues we are currently facing, and will very likely be even more profound in the future.

I am currently day-dreaming about using the skills I will acquire as a mathematician to create more efficient solar cells or wind-mills, but I guess a little understanding of the physics involved wouldn't hurt.

Which subjects should I choose to enhance my knowledge on this subject? Could you perhaps suggest a rough pathway by means of which I could deepen my understanding of the subject matter?

share|improve this question
High-school physics and chemistry are a good start. For solar cells - semiconductors and/or plant biology. For wind-mills, some basic electro/mechanical engineering. – Mike Dunlavey Oct 24 '11 at 14:31

5 Answers

up vote 6 down vote

The most important observation I have about your question is that it is, as of yet, technology agnostic.

You need to ask yourself, do you want to research in a specific technology, or do you want to deal with the bigger picture? I know a lot of people who have pursued an engineering career that actually encompasses a broad range of energy technologies. One professional I know, for instance, started out in steam turbines, and wound up in energy efficiency.

If you're interested in a bigger picture, I would strongly point you to smart grid technologies and power systems. You can go pretty far into that education, learning about the promise of different technologies, before deciding on a more specific path. There are several active and growing smart grid and smart grid technology centers where a strong background in math would serve you well. In fact, given no other information about your interests, this would be my #1 suggestion. I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to link to something so specific, but the FREEDM center is an example of what I talk about.

Smart grid also has the unique distinction of being something that no one credibly disagrees with the imperative for. Let's say, for instance, that you really want to do photovoltaics. Why? Solar thermal has always been cheaper and remains cheaper today. The challenge in both technologies lies in better scaling for manufacturing. Surely, you're not holding your breath for an efficiency revolution. Provided you agree with me in that decreasing price per area in manufacturing is the worthwhile approach, maybe thin film is the way to go? Need I remind you of the fact that Silicon Valley recently failed to make headway with 1,100 employees and a $500 million federal loan backstop? Maybe we'll look elsewhere. The cost of many residential systems is about half in the power conversion systems. Maybe the panels are already cheap enough and we should look to the power system technologies and business model. We're mostly back to the smart grid at this point.

Any technology you choose will have problems. You need to get more specific with your direction, but you also need to realize that you will always be looking back if your direction is "energy and environment" and your background is mathematics. Right now, diversification of energy research is often agreed to be worthwhile. Browse through the ARPA-E catalog if you haven't already.

share|improve this answer
I recently learned about Nanoholdings, which I think is good ideological match with the OP, although, we could spend all day listing these. nanoholdings.com – AlanSE Oct 24 '11 at 17:40
up vote 3 down vote

I suggest you have a look The Azimuth blog, which is John Baez's move to address environmental issues as a Mathematician/Mathematical Physicist. He's had that focus for about a year, and if you read through the posts you'll find a number of possibilities gathered together there. Good luck.

share|improve this answer
up vote 3 down vote

Environmentalists and ecologists and climatologists all need a reasonably strong background in statistics in order to analyse whether something actually works or not in the field, so do not forget Statistics. This is needed no matter what technology you work with, and is even more needed in order to find out what damage existing technology is doing.

share|improve this answer
up vote 1 down vote

Can I recommend hot fusion, instead of cold fusion? It works in the sun and other stars and may yet work here on earth.
If it works well, it will have many advantages.

A standard general physics sequence will be a good start for this. Pay particular attention to electromagnetism.
Eventually you would specialize in nuclear physics.

share|improve this answer
-1: Hot fusion is a fraud, cold fusion is not. – Ron Maimon Aug 27 '12 at 21:15
up vote -2 down vote

You should research Pons/Fleischmann cold fusion, which also goes by the name LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions). This field is taboo to all mainstream researchers, but the effect is obviously real, and extremely important.

Unfortunately, there are frauds in this field, like Rossi. Avoid the frauds, and try to find the serious people--- you can see who these are on lenr-canr.org.

You can read more about this here: Why is cold fusion considered bogus?

share|improve this answer
4  
Recommending anyone to go to the Pons/Fleishmann experiment is actually pretty poor advice unless you want to also recommend they read papers on ESP and Auras. – Larian LeQuella Jan 15 '12 at 20:10
I would suggest you read the extensive peer reviewed literature available on lenr-came.org first, and see if this literature can be dismissed before making presumptuous comments. – Ron Maimon Jan 15 '12 at 23:05
@LarianLeQuella though I would not suggest such a career to a student who is waffling about decision of study, I would not discourage somebody who sensed there might be something interesting behind all this, though probably not what the original researchers thought. It is a risk with research that one may end with a lemon and not a discovery, but true researchers take it. In a sense it is good to offer the community the references of the status up to now. – anna v Jan 16 '12 at 7:06
@anna v: What is happening is most likely exactly what Pons and Fleischmann thought--- nuclear reactions mostly of d-d fusion type driven by the Pd environment. The evidence for this is He production, unnatural elements produced with strange isotope ratios, copious X-rays, copious alpha radiation (the He) at MeV energies, trace fast neutrons (SPAWAR), trace tritium (several groups), and trace gamma radiation. There are reliable systems now, Arata's gas loaded Pd essentially always works to produce heat. The theory I gave in the link can qualitatively account for nearly everything people saw. – Ron Maimon Jan 16 '12 at 7:51

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.