Is the suns energy enough?

[Red Squirrel]

Stirling engines with mirrors pointed to them is comparable in efficiency to solar panels with mirrors pointed to them. The Stirling engines in that case has the advantage of price at this point with the current efficiency of solar panels.

Solar panels only use the light though, and not the heat. The sun produces more energy through heat, then light... at least I would think so, I'm no expert.

I guess if you wanted something 100% efficient, a solar panel as the focal point of a Stirling engine. it would absorb the light + heat and use both. Though you'd probably just melt the solar cells. They used to sink ships like this way back in the day.

 

[Juncar]

Also, speaking of reading better, steam reforming is not a by product of another industrial process, as you suggested in the previous post. Steam reforming is simply a more efficient process. (Followed on wikipedia by "hydrogen is ALSO produced as a byproduct... " I'm not sure how you're interpreting that to mean the steam reforming process is a byproduct.

My thoughts went ahead of my typing
I was thinking that the reactants can come as by-products from other process. Such as steam from fossil fuel or nuclear power plants after going through the steam turbines, or methane from waste. I was not considering steam reforming process to be a by-product.

RedSquirrel> haha yea, people in the old days were smart and innovative about lots of things.

 

[Born2bwire]

Solar panels only use the light though, and not the heat. The sun produces more energy through heat, then light... at least I would think so, I'm no expert.

I guess if you wanted something 100% efficient, a solar panel as the focal point of a Stirling engine. it would absorb the light + heat and use both. Though you'd probably just melt the solar cells. They used to sink ships like this way back in the day.

It's all the same, heat or light. The only energy we receive from the Sun is in the form of electromagnetic radiation. The "heat" that we feel is the infrared radiation. Some of this comes directly from the Sun, but a lot of it is from the reradiation of the sun's energy by the Earth (the Earth is much cooler than the Sun so its black body radiation peak is at a lower frequency). If you were to look at the power density of the radiation that reaches the Earth's surface, the highest density would be visible light (yay evolution). There is of course a lot of energy outside of the spectrum but it is much more difficult to capture and we get diminishing returns for a given bandwidth. The long wavelength infrared requires a much thicker cell for it to be effectively be captured. In addition, solar cells use bandgaps in their theory. The longer wavelength light like infrared has smaller bandgaps due to their lower energy. This makes it more difficult to make a bandgap because the thermal energy will start to smear the gaps. Finally, it is very difficult to make a wide bandwidth solar cell.

In the end, they concentrate on visible light because right now that is where we get the best gains. But there is research in trying to get the infrared light but it is a difficult problem to solve. There are a lot of different techniques that I have read about to try and extend the bandwidth of current solar cell technology.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Gaatjes, perhaps you should read the article, and it's pretty much exactly what I expected. The bacteria do not use, nor capture the radiation directly. What the bacteria are "eating" is little different than those deep in the sea in the anaerobic environment surrounding volcanic vents. It's only that radiation provides the energy for the chemical reactions that result in chemicals with more energy. Any suggestion that bacteria are capable of nuclear reactions, rather than simple chemical reactions, is absolutely ludicrous.

I know what the bacteria do. Is it not wonderful ?
I already read the article. My previous mentioning of the theory of bacteria using radiation was not based on this article i linked in my previous post. Perhaps i should have mentioned that more clearly.
Nevertheless, the whole process is interesting. The whole process...
That is why i mentioned it. It has some interesting idea's... Is it feasible, has it enough efficiency ? Who knows...

Also, speaking of reading better, steam reforming is not a by product of another industrial process, as you suggested in the previous post. Steam reforming is simply a more efficient process. (Followed on wikipedia by "hydrogen is ALSO produced as a byproduct... " I'm not sure how you're interpreting that to mean the steam reforming process is a byproduct.

I asked a question how it functions. Where do you come up with the idea that i was talking about steam reforming ? I think you should take your own advice a little more : And read a little better. I asked for clarification because i am not an expert. You are the one mentioning this(steam reformation) in your own post with respect to water and electricity. I ask how it works because i find it interesting. And your reply appears hostile.

 

[William Gaatjes]

To come back to fusion energy :

Well, i just found out that the polywell fusion reactor is still actively researched. I am very happy to read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

FY 2009 work

In September 2008 the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake, CA publicly pre-solicited a contract for research on an Electrostatic "Wiffle Ball" Fusion Device[29]. the pre-solicitation was targeted toward EMC2 as preferred supplier.

In October 2008 the US Navy publicly pre-solicited two more contracts[30][31] also targeted toward EMC2 as preferred supplier. These two tasks were to develop better instrumentation and to develop an ion injection gun. Rick Nebel commented "This isn't a big deal. This is small, interim funding. It's called staying alive until they make a decision."[32] Other than Dr. Nebel's comments, there is no direct evidence that these pre-solicitations ever went to award.

In December 2008, following many months of review by the expert review panel of the submission of the final WB-7 results, Dr Richard Nebel commented that "There's nothing in there [the research] that suggests this will not work," but that "That's a very different statement from saying that it will work."

Stephen Chu, Nobel laureate and as of 2009 United States Secretary of Energy, answered a question about Polywell at a talk at Google in 2007, saying "So far, there's not enough information so [that] I can give an evaluation of the probability that it might work or not...But I'm trying to get more information."[33]

In January 2009 the Naval Air Warfare Center pre-solicited another contract for "modification and testing of plasma wiffleball 7"[34] which appears to be funding to install the instrumentation developed in a prior contract, install a new design for the connector (joint) between coils, and operate the WB-7 with the modifications. The modified unit is now called WB-7.1. This pre-solicitation started as a $200k contract but the final award was for $300k, which suggests that the earlier pre-solicitations were included in this one.

In April 2009, the DoD published a plan to provide Polywell a further $2 million in funding as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009. The citation in the legislation was labelled as Plasma Fusion (Polywell) - Demonstrate fusion plasma confinement system for shore and shipboard applications; Joint OSD/USN project.[35] The citation occurs 166 pages into the document, and suggests development of the device for 'Domestic Energy Supply / Distribution'.

In May 2009, Richard Nebel was interviewed in a popular science/futurism blog. He stated: "We are hoping to have a net energy production product within six years. It could take longer, but this definitely won't be a 50 year development project. [...] So if the concept works we could have a commercial plant operating as early as 2020."[36]

In September 2009, the FBO (Federal Business Opportunities web site) confirmed the award of Recovery Act funding under Navy contract in the amount of $7.86M for the construction and testing of WB-8, the next Polywell prototype. This device will have an eightfold increase in magnetic field strength compared to previous WB series devices, with the expectation of higher performance. Of particular importance within the Navy contract is the option for an additional $4.46M for ...based on the results of WB8 testing, and the availability of government funds the contractor shall develop a WB machine (WB8.1) which incorporates the knowledge and improvements gained in WB8. It is expected that higher ion drive capabilities will be added, and that a “PB11” reaction will be demonstrated.[37]

In September 2009, the US Department of Defense announced this award as required by law. The announcement stated that the funding was provided for research, analysis, development, and testing in support of the Plan Plasma Fusion (Polywell) Project. Efforts under this Recovery Act award will validate the basic physics of the Plasma Fusion (Polywell) concept, as well as provide the Navy with data for potential applications of polywell fusion. [38] The basic contract for WB-8 is expected to be completed by April 2011. The optional contract for WB-8.1 has a completion date of 31-Oct-2012.


[edit]
FY 2010 and out year work

Other than the Recovery Act Tracking site,[39] there has been no indication to date (mid February 2010) of the progress being made on this contract.

The contract[37] has these delivery dates for the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs).
CLIN 0001 - 30 Apr 2010 (= plasma wiffleball 8 ) - Completion of device build.
CLIN 0002 - 30 Apr 2011 (= Data) - Completion of WB8 testing
CLIN 0003 - 31 Oct 2011 (= Optional WB 8.1) - Completion of optional device build
CLIN 0004 - 31 Oct 2012 (= Optional Data) - Completion of optional device testing

This is the documentary i was mentioning about the polywell fusor :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606#

 

[beginner99]

1 square mile of solar cells (a very small fraction of the required) is HUGE. Costs billions, and without being subsidized, will never earn back the money that it costs to be built in the first place. (remember, it isn't just solar panels, but DC->ac converters ect). The cells don't last forever either. They have a half life of ~10 years IIRC. and must constantly be maintained (removing dirt, bird droppings, ect). couple that with mining costs and materials manufacturing and you have a really expensive, dirty, power generation method.

Even at near 100% efficiency, those problems will still exist. Compare that to just about any other power generation technology (Except for wind, which is somewhat worse the solar in costs ect) and all the sudden putting any research into solar makes almost no sense.

Want clean? For the same sq mile you would have filled with solar panels, you could fill it with 14,529 years worth of nuclear waste (dig it down a bit, and you can add a few more 0's onto there). And that is antiquated 60-70's fission tech we use now. Employ enrichment and fuel reuse, and you could easily extend that number by a few thousand years. And those are techs that exist today. (the footprints of these reactors are hardly worth mentioning compared to that of solar panels)

Viable fusion reactors could provide humanity with power for the rest of their existence, with its waste materials being mostly harmless.

*sign*

solar and wind take up too much space. Yes, if you draw a square on the sahara dessert that theoretically can provide enough energy for everyone it looks ridicoulisly small. But in reality it would be hunderts of miles per side. -> unmaintanable.

Solar cells take several years till they actually have produced as much energy as their production consumed. They are useful for places that have no connection to powerlines but else? not really IMHO. As far as i know most knew solar plant use mirrors to heat a liquid (water, oil) that thern is used to power a generator. so same prinicple as wih burning coal just different heat source. But also very low energy density.

Nuclear energy could be used for extemley long. Besides uranium you could use thorium for reactors. thoriu, is much more abundant than uranium. so people that say fission is nothing for the future because not enough ressources, they have no idea what they are talking about.

i'm sceptical about fusion. if it will ever be really usable. especially then materials for the reactor are still a riddle. I mean you can't replace them every couple years.

 

[Matthiasa]

Energy production based on fusion is a myth, there are no credible peer reviewed research that was able to in anyway produce fusion in laboratory settings, much less real world scenarios.

Except that isn't true.

 

[DrPizza]

I know what the bacteria do. Is it not wonderful ?
I already read the article. My previous mentioning of the theory of bacteria using radiation was not based on this article i linked in my previous post. Perhaps i should have mentioned that more clearly.
Nevertheless, the whole process is interesting. The whole process...
That is why i mentioned it. It has some interesting idea's... Is it feasible, has it enough efficiency ? Who knows...




I asked a question how it functions. Where do you come up with the idea that i was talking about steam reforming ? I think you should take your own advice a little more : And read a little better. I asked for clarification because i am not an expert. You are the one mentioning this(steam reformation) in your own post with respect to water and electricity. I ask how it works because i find it interesting. And your reply appears hostile.

Geeez, that's two of you. If you read the thread, you'd see I was responding to juncar who had posted immediately before me.

And again, bacteria are NOT going to directly use the radiation from nuclear decay, regardless of where you think you saw an article. The energies are far too high.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Geeez, that's two of you. If you read the thread, you'd see I was responding to juncar who had posted immediately before me.

Well, that was not that obvious to me, in that case i apologize. I am used to responds on a per post basis. Or an addressing of forum poster.

And again, bacteria are NOT going to directly use the radiation from nuclear decay, regardless of where you think you saw an article. The energies are far too high.

I think you are right. On that scale and size of the bacteria, radiation is to energetic to build any form of guided radiation control . Hypothetically thinking : The enzymes would have to be able to absorb the radiation in a precise way and use it directly or store it in another form. Maybe if we would design life over 200 years(assuming a technological leap), we could be able to build such an enzyme. But evolution ? I think the only way that life would appear on the earth capable of using this kind of hard radiation evolution style, is if the electromagnetic radiation would gradually increase in frequency (going to shorter wavelengths) And has to become more energetic as well in level. That must happen over a very long time(millions of years) on a pool filled with life. And no outside interference that threatens this life. And the exact right chemicals and elements on exact the right time.
That way adaptation is possible. But the end product life form would be life that needs large amount of energy. It could not even survive in our current climate on the earth. A hybrid system that is proper designed is only possible if we would make it our selfs. That is , after many moons that is...


Maybe
If it would ever be possible it would be a huge single cell lifeform. There are giant single cell amoebe existing on earth though. But indeed they are predators and do not need electromagnetic radiation or loose ions.

http://microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artsep01/amoeba.html

 

[DrPizza]

If the radiation can pass through a piece of lead, there's no life form the size of a bacteria that will be able to stop it.

 

[Hacp]

The title may be slightly misleading, but this is what I'm wondering about: I watched a documentary yesterday called "Home" and they stated the following: "In one minute the sun delivers enough energy to the earth to feed all of humanities energy requirements for a whole year". Im not sure what they meant by all of humanity, but this statement was supposed to sound shocking as if that were some crazy amount of energy... Now 24*365 = 8760, that would mean to live off just solar energy we would have to cover for example app. 1/9000'th of the whole planet earth with 100% efficient solar panels (assuming the earth never spun and those solar panels were constantly being exposed to the sun) . That doesn't sound very plausible to me. It sounds to me like we would have to have to cut down quite a bit on our energy consumption to be able to live just off renewable fuels...

What am I missing here?

Your calculation is for one day. 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day, 365 days in a year. So you only need 100% efficient solar panels on 1/500000th of the earth.