so we have coal, solar, gas, nuclear, etc etc etc.
in the future, what types of energy will power the world?
in the future, what types of energy will power the world?
the next major power source?
- Thread starter Chloraseptic
- Start date
Fusion, hopefully.
The problem is of course that no one is willing to invest the neccesary money since coal and oil is too cheap, but that is true for all new power sources.
The problem is of course that no one is willing to invest the neccesary money since coal and oil is too cheap, but that is true for all new power sources.
Cogman
Lifer
- Sep 19, 2000
- 10,286
- 145
- 106
I would love to see fusion take off. Unfortunently, like f95toli said it really is not a sound investment as currently there is no material known to man the can withstand the power of a fusion reaction, and investing in finding such a mirical is like investing into a cure for HIV, Like a cure for HIV it would have many applications elseware, but you are not garanteed that the profit will come within your lifetime 
BurnItDwn
Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 26,353
- 1,862
- 126
In the next 20 years or so,
I think Solar will become much more efficient
I think by then cheeply mass produced printed, flexible and, paper thick panels would be available.
In the long run ... I would think Cold Fusion would be possible ... I don't know how long though
I think Solar will become much more efficient
I think by then cheeply mass produced printed, flexible and, paper thick panels would be available.
In the long run ... I would think Cold Fusion would be possible ... I don't know how long though
The problem with solar power is that it will never work in some places of the world (not enough sun), even if the efficiciency was 100% you would still have to cover a huge area with solar cells if you would like to replace all current power sources with energy from the sun.
Fusion WILL work given enough time and mony, there are several small reactors that do work the way we expect them to. However, the "next step" in the research ( known as ITER) is to build a full-scale experimental reactor and that is very expensive, they were suppose to start building it around 1990 but they are still negotiating.
Fusion WILL work given enough time and mony, there are several small reactors that do work the way we expect them to. However, the "next step" in the research ( known as ITER) is to build a full-scale experimental reactor and that is very expensive, they were suppose to start building it around 1990 but they are still negotiating.
Wind shows great promise at present.
With modern turbines producing as much as 5 MW each and costing about $1/W for a 25 year life time, they compare very favourably to coal/oil and even gas burning power plants.
The major disadvantage of wind is that of availability, although sophisticated control electronics and load-balancing plants (essentially giant batteries) have been of some benefit.
There are some new variations on the nuclear fission reactor in development at present. One that strikes me as most interesting is the very high temeperature gas-cooled reactor. By producing an ouptut at nearly 1000C, the heat could be used directly in heavy industrial processes such as steel making, or used to generate hydrogen directly from water by high temperature chemical reactions.
With modern turbines producing as much as 5 MW each and costing about $1/W for a 25 year life time, they compare very favourably to coal/oil and even gas burning power plants.
The major disadvantage of wind is that of availability, although sophisticated control electronics and load-balancing plants (essentially giant batteries) have been of some benefit.
There are some new variations on the nuclear fission reactor in development at present. One that strikes me as most interesting is the very high temeperature gas-cooled reactor. By producing an ouptut at nearly 1000C, the heat could be used directly in heavy industrial processes such as steel making, or used to generate hydrogen directly from water by high temperature chemical reactions.
Fusion power has been "practical in 50 years time" for the last 50 years . We've made great strides but we've also discovered how much further we need to go. Solar and wind would be the main two renewable ones. Most others dont have enough power to sustain more than a small percentage of the world's energy budget. Being able to tap into things like Lightning strikes and Tornados would be ultra-cool as well but a HUGELY difficult engineering feat.
. We've made great strides but we've also discovered how much further we need to go. Solar and wind would be the main two renewable ones. Most others dont have enough power to sustain more than a small percentage of the world's energy budget. Being able to tap into things like Lightning strikes and Tornados would be ultra-cool as well but a HUGELY difficult engineering feat.thanks a lot fellas, does anyone have some good links to research and get an overview of this?
appreciate it
appreciate it
Fusion is too energy intensive and more time and research is needed. Solar is at best 20% efficient. Wind is too variable to be used around the world. The best fusion reactor built today could only sustain an equal amount of energy in/out, no usable positive energy. I think that was the Tokamak. In addition, the money that was going towards the fusion effort has been reduced without any prospect of new money.
Anyways, energy goes only where the money goes. Presently, the push is nuclear energy (fission) and hydrogen generation and storage. Frankly, an untapped amount of energy could lie under the oceans, methane hydrates. All of these are present day researched energy alternatives to fossil fuels, however that can change as the price/demand for oil increases and more alternatives will be researched.
Just use keywords in your search engine with my energy alternative comments.
Anyways, energy goes only where the money goes. Presently, the push is nuclear energy (fission) and hydrogen generation and storage. Frankly, an untapped amount of energy could lie under the oceans, methane hydrates. All of these are present day researched energy alternatives to fossil fuels, however that can change as the price/demand for oil increases and more alternatives will be researched.
Just use keywords in your search engine with my energy alternative comments.
I agree that fusion needs more time and research, there won't be a working reactor for another 25-30 years. But the problem is that unless more money is spent on the research it will never work (if the money had been spent in 1990 we could have had a working reacton in 15 years from now). This is true for all new sources of power, we need to spend lots of money NOW if we want new source in 25 years. Research costs money.
I've heard of methane hydrates but I don't see why that would be that much better than oil, even if the exhaust fumes are cleaner you are still adding new CO2 to the atmosphere.
I've heard of methane hydrates but I don't see why that would be that much better than oil, even if the exhaust fumes are cleaner you are still adding new CO2 to the atmosphere.
My physics teacher is a researcher in the subjext fusion, he was explaing the problems and reactors to us, all very interesting here is a link of papers he wrote and somewhat of an explination. he is one of the smartest people ive ever met. He's given speeches in europe and before congress about it. I think it will take off in next couple of years, hopefully.
Actually, I think nuclear FISSION could still prove to be VERY useful. Because of many protests in the 70s (in particular), land-based, power-generation nuclear reactors basically ceased production. And while the waste storage problem is truly an issue.... if you've ever seen the "ash pond" at a coal-fired power plant, even the most devoted "greenies" will realize that nuclear power is definitely something that needs to be explored. Even fission is very "efficient" in terms of fuel and downtime...... not to mention, the technical aspects of fission are relatively well-explored (the steam generation part of a nuclear plant is much like a traditional coal fired plant--except temperatures and pressures are typically much LOWER, but with much higher mass flow rates).
As far as "new" generation techniques, I think fusion is probably next. We need a true source that can be implemented nearly anywhere, regardless of weather. I think solar will have some "personal" generation possibilities (a solar-power hot-water heater would be awesome in the summer)... but large-scale solar power would be tough for year-round supply. Wind power is interesting... and getting more efficient--but ask someone who is living near a large wind turbine plant how loud it is (the one here in the NC mountains is TERRIBLY loud.... but its really interesting to visit). Not to mention, err, the wind doesn't blow all the time.
As far as "new" generation techniques, I think fusion is probably next. We need a true source that can be implemented nearly anywhere, regardless of weather. I think solar will have some "personal" generation possibilities (a solar-power hot-water heater would be awesome in the summer)... but large-scale solar power would be tough for year-round supply. Wind power is interesting... and getting more efficient--but ask someone who is living near a large wind turbine plant how loud it is (the one here in the NC mountains is TERRIBLY loud.... but its really interesting to visit). Not to mention, err, the wind doesn't blow all the time.
Sadly, what "should" be developed and what "will" be developed do not coincide.
The most efficient energy generation I can think of would be a cylendrical chamber with a piston in the center being oscillated by synchronized, alternating energized noble gases. The idea is that if you expose a certain mix of noble gases to a static-electric field the mixture will expand drastically due to accentuated inter-atomic repulsion, then collapse a fraction of a second later, but since the charge will not have dispersed they simply expand again for several thousand cycles. The practical hurdle to overcome is the immense speed at which this happens, which makes it imperative to synchronize the expansion-contraction cycles precisely on both sides of the piston, plus the need to make the piston fit perfectly with near-zero friction.
The power is generated by placing a powerful rare earth magnet in the piston, and placing the assembly inside a tight coil. Voila, instant AC. Not sure if it's possible on a practical level, but a nice idea.
Also any of Tesla's ideas concerning magnetic resonance or wireless transferal of energy deserve far more attenion than they get; especially when you consider than high-frequency electricity can actually be beneficial to organic life, as compared to current low-frequency current, which is fatal.
There was also a cold-fusion device developed a while back that actually ran in a stable mode for nearly two minutes - the problem was the huge number of neutrinos generated that would kill any organic life in the vicinity(couple thousand miles, maybe more). Unlike conventional radiation, this cannot be shielded as of yet.
Also there have been experiments into "clean burning" fossil fuel stations, but that was ditched - too efficient and the fuel monopolies hate anything that might make people spend less on petrol.
From what I'm seeing these days, it's probably going to end up being more fossil fuels, maybe some geothemal and wind/solar, with gradually increasing interest in fuel cells and the like.
Not particularly optimistic though.
The most efficient energy generation I can think of would be a cylendrical chamber with a piston in the center being oscillated by synchronized, alternating energized noble gases. The idea is that if you expose a certain mix of noble gases to a static-electric field the mixture will expand drastically due to accentuated inter-atomic repulsion, then collapse a fraction of a second later, but since the charge will not have dispersed they simply expand again for several thousand cycles. The practical hurdle to overcome is the immense speed at which this happens, which makes it imperative to synchronize the expansion-contraction cycles precisely on both sides of the piston, plus the need to make the piston fit perfectly with near-zero friction.
The power is generated by placing a powerful rare earth magnet in the piston, and placing the assembly inside a tight coil. Voila, instant AC. Not sure if it's possible on a practical level, but a nice idea.
Also any of Tesla's ideas concerning magnetic resonance or wireless transferal of energy deserve far more attenion than they get; especially when you consider than high-frequency electricity can actually be beneficial to organic life, as compared to current low-frequency current, which is fatal.
There was also a cold-fusion device developed a while back that actually ran in a stable mode for nearly two minutes - the problem was the huge number of neutrinos generated that would kill any organic life in the vicinity(couple thousand miles, maybe more). Unlike conventional radiation, this cannot be shielded as of yet.
Also there have been experiments into "clean burning" fossil fuel stations, but that was ditched - too efficient and the fuel monopolies hate anything that might make people spend less on petrol.
From what I'm seeing these days, it's probably going to end up being more fossil fuels, maybe some geothemal and wind/solar, with gradually increasing interest in fuel cells and the like.
Not particularly optimistic though.
Epimetreus: Where do you read about these things? Most of these ideas are just "internet legends".
There has never been a "working old fusion reactor", if someone managed to build one and it produced lots of neutrinos that would not matter: Neutrinos are perfectly safe since they hardly interact with matter, you are right no beeging irradiated by millions of neutrinos from the sun.
"Clean fossil fuel" does not exist PER DEFINITON, the point is that even if you managed to burn the fuel in a "clean" way you would still be ádding new CO2 to the atmosphere which casues the green house effect. Tthe keword is "new", the CO2 in fossil fuels has been embedde in the ground for a long time, when we release it into the air we change the global CO2 balance. So there is no "clean fossil fuel".
'
There has never been a "working old fusion reactor", if someone managed to build one and it produced lots of neutrinos that would not matter: Neutrinos are perfectly safe since they hardly interact with matter, you are right no beeging irradiated by millions of neutrinos from the sun.
"Clean fossil fuel" does not exist PER DEFINITON, the point is that even if you managed to burn the fuel in a "clean" way you would still be ádding new CO2 to the atmosphere which casues the green house effect. Tthe keword is "new", the CO2 in fossil fuels has been embedde in the ground for a long time, when we release it into the air we change the global CO2 balance. So there is no "clean fossil fuel".
'
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
Stable cold fusion is currently not possible. If that device you mention generated a lot of neutrinos, it would have had to generate a LOT of them to cause damage to much of anything, considering that neutrinos generally pass right through matter without interacting with it at all. So even if there was a large number of neutrinos produced, they would just shoot right through any people without incident. Or, if there were more of them, like many orders of magnitude more, they would have likely killed everything on the planet already.
Clean burning fossil fuels...there are scrubber smokestacks, which use chemicals to reduce the number of contaminants that get into the air. But the products of combustion still will exist in some form - just not in the air.
Fuel cells seem like they could be promising, but only for mobile applications, as they are for storing energy, not producing and trasmitting it like electricity. But even so, hydrogen powered cars then - we need ways of coming up with lots hydrogen. Electrolosys maybe? Fine, we just need lots of electricity to do that. And the discussion cycles back to the beginning from there.
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Stable cold fusion is currently not possible. If that device you mention generated a lot of neutrinos, it would have had to generate a LOT of them to cause damage to much of anything, considering that neutrinos generally pass right through matter without interacting with it at all. So even if there was a large number of neutrinos produced, they would just shoot right through any people without incident. Or, if there were more of them, like many orders of magnitude more, they would have likely killed everything on the planet already. Clean burning fossil fuels...there are scrubber smokestacks, which use chemicals to reduce the number of contaminants that get into the air. But the products of combustion still will exist in some form - just not in the air. Fuel cells seem like they could be promising, but only for mobile applications, as they are for storing energy, not producing and trasmitting it like electricity. But even so, hydrogen powered cars then - we need ways of coming up with lots hydrogen. Electrolosys maybe? Fine, we just need lots of electricity to do that. And the discussion cycles back to the beginning from there.
Epimetreus, this cold fusion reactor you speak of is not real. What these scientists claimed they created, they never could reproduce. As anyone in any science related field knows, that in order for something to be "real" it must be reproducable. i could say I created a fusion reaction by squeezing a rubber ball in my hand. This is a nice idea, but if no one else can do it, then it can not happen. Also, as previously stated, neutrinos pass through matter without interaction. As I am typing this, trillions upon trillions of neutrinos have passed through me, and I am still alive, unharmed.
Originally posted by: KraziKid
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Stable cold fusion is currently not possible. If that device you mention generated a lot of neutrinos, it would have had to generate a LOT of them to cause damage to much of anything, considering that neutrinos generally pass right through matter without interacting with it at all. So even if there was a large number of neutrinos produced, they would just shoot right through any people without incident. Or, if there were more of them, like many orders of magnitude more, they would have likely killed everything on the planet already. Clean burning fossil fuels...there are scrubber smokestacks, which use chemicals to reduce the number of contaminants that get into the air. But the products of combustion still will exist in some form - just not in the air. Fuel cells seem like they could be promising, but only for mobile applications, as they are for storing energy, not producing and trasmitting it like electricity. But even so, hydrogen powered cars then - we need ways of coming up with lots hydrogen. Electrolosys maybe? Fine, we just need lots of electricity to do that. And the discussion cycles back to the beginning from there.
Epimetreus, this cold fusion reactor you speak of is not real. What these scientists claimed they created, they never could reproduce. As anyone in any science related field knows, that in order for something to be "real" it must be reproducable. i could say I created a fusion reaction by squeezing a rubber ball in my hand. This is a nice idea, but if no one else can do it, then it can not happen. Also, as previously stated, neutrinos pass through matter without interaction. As I am typing this, trillions upon trillions of neutrinos have passed through me, and I am still alive, unharmed.
A friend of mine showed me the website of some European scientist who claimed to have created "cold fusion in a bottle." The website was complete with video of several experiments. Of course, upon closer inspection, the cold fusion turned out to be some sort of electrolosis at high voltages (causing the H2 and O2 to ignite). The scientist guy was pretty certain that his mix of potassium-salts and tap water was creating cold fusion. We had a good laugh.
Just my 2c worth, as you Americans would say
, but:1. I don't think solar is going to get gradually more efficient anytime soon - not without a new technology emerging. Crystalline silicon panels are selling in ever greater numbers, which is probably what will drive cost down in the next few years - not increased efficiencies. THe flexible amorphous/thin film solar cells you talk about are cheaper to produce than crystalline silicon, but typically only have ~1/3 effiency of xstal Si and degrade over months rather than decades.
2. I wouldn't think cold fusion possible - certainly not thinking with todays's science (which means it's probably a loooooooonngg way off).
3. "Normal" fusion is probably still ~50 years or so away, if at all.
4. Best likelhood for renewable energy deployment at the moment is tidal/wind power. We do a lot of this in Scotland. Off-shore wave power will IMHO be the next big thing, especially when combined with wind power. There will always be a place for solar power, but the financial limitations at todays manufacturing output are for the moment fiarly prohibitive.....
However a recent study in Germany showed that if you were to generate all your electricity from solar, you'd need ~ 20,000 pounds worth of Xstal Si - but if you were to spend 5,000 on energy saving applinaces, you could do it with 5,000 pounds worth of cells.
We need to conserve as much as we innovate - if we did this there would not be much a problem IMHO.
Cheers,
Andy
I think that wind power when it is exicuted correctly could become the principal global power supply. as Mark R stated the principal problem is controlling and storing the energy. Batteries of cells are impractical as the energy loss generated by the conversion of DC nto AC is far too great, let alone the initial cost of the Cells. For this technology ReiAyanami's sugestion must be taken into consideration. This is because the most abundant source of creatin potential energy in an object is through gravity. Lets say that we use the Wind farms to pump water up some sort of slope into a dam or tank complex. We now have the wind energy in a form that we can controll as we like, being controlled like a hydroelectric power supply, being systematicly refilled by the wind farms. Whilst there would be some enerby loss due to the conversion of the kinetic energy (wind) to potential energy (the water ion the dam) and then converting it into electrical energy, this would, in most cases have a higher overall energy output at the grid than would that of the battery idea. Furtermore the availability issue will never be a problem. If the wind blows a gale at 2 a.m. in the morning the energy captured is stored cheaply and efficiently for later recovery.
As others have noted, the problem is not generation, it's storage.
7.5KW of solar cells today cost about $12000, and cover about 35 m^2 of area. Living in sunny Phoenix, AZ, it makes great financial sense to shingle my roof with Si rather than normal roofing materials. Half of my roof would be about 120 m^2, meaning I should be able to generate 25kw * 10 hrs = 250 KW-Hrs of electricity a day, at a capital cost of about $35000 (at today's costs). Hell, I could sell half that back to the Electric company, and probably pay back my costs in a few years! The finances go out the window when you start talking banks of batteries to store the daily excess for use at night, however.
The current electrical distribution is simply ridiculous - over 75% of my electrical bill is associated with the cost of getting electricity to my house, not the actual cost of generating the electricity. Wires, lines, substations, etc., all cost money, and cost more than the substance they are transporting. To solve California's electrical woes, a bunch of Natural Gas fired power plants have sprung up in the Arizona desert near the California border. Natural gas is imported from Texas as well as California, transported to Arizona, where it is burned, converted to Electricity, and transported back into California, and can still be sold for a profit. There's just something wrong there.
If our president wanted to leave a lasting legacy (well, ok, how about a Positive lasting legacy), I would love to see him shed his Big Oil background. JFK galvanized the nation to put a man on the moon by giving us a clear, understandable goal, a BIG goal, and by pouring money into the goal. Bush could do the same with Energy - by declaring a goal of making the Middle East irrelevant, by declaring a goal of making the US (and by extension, the world) independent of reliance on fossil fuel deposits, by declaring a goal of cleaning up our air, and by declaring a goal of enabling individuals as well as the nation to be energy independent.
Decide on a form of energy. Hydrogen is great, but difficult to store (I shiver at all those proposals to have vehicles with super-pressurized hydrogen tanks on board). So, store it in a form that we already know how to handle - liquid. Specifically, as Methanol (or Ethanol). We already have a nationwide distribution network for the volatile, hazardous, poisonous liquid called "gasoline", so shipping, storing, pumping methanol into vehicles is a well-understood, SOLVED problem.
Let the market decide how Methanol powered vehicles are gonna be driven - fuel cell, internal comustion, whatever you've got. A fuel cell powered by Methanol is a bit more complex than one powered by pure Hydrogen, but the technology is well understood. For example, NEC and Toshiba are using Methanol for their tiny fuel cells.
Fund the technologies necessary to let me, as a homeowner, generate my own methanol. Solar cells running an electrolytic cell that splits H20 and combines it with a source of Carbon (CO2 is about 0.035% of atmospheric gases, so you might not be able to extract CO2 from the air. Perhaps from my compost heap?) and drips the result into a home storage tank. I can fill my car, run my furnace, run a fuel cell or generator for house electricity. I can be energy-independent, and there is one less vital national infrastructure whose protection requires stripping more rights from the populace.
This won't work in all areas of the county; those of you in the not-so-sunny northwest might be out of luck. The advantage of this, however, is that your lives don't change much - rather than filling up at home like I might be able to do, you would fill up with Methanol at the local gas station. The electrical grid would still be intact, but now there would be a strong market incentive to keep prices down (prices go up, people buy fuel cells/generators to run their homes), an incentive that simply doesn't exist at the moment.
I think the argument is compelling that, at least for the far future, solar power with an intermediate storage step (batteries, chemical storage, mechanical storage (e.g. pumping water uphill)) is probably the least environmentally damaging power source. Centralized political power-blocks (for example, energy companies) may force a different path - for example, nuclear power generation - because it keeps them in business.
JMHO.
/frank
7.5KW of solar cells today cost about $12000, and cover about 35 m^2 of area. Living in sunny Phoenix, AZ, it makes great financial sense to shingle my roof with Si rather than normal roofing materials. Half of my roof would be about 120 m^2, meaning I should be able to generate 25kw * 10 hrs = 250 KW-Hrs of electricity a day, at a capital cost of about $35000 (at today's costs). Hell, I could sell half that back to the Electric company, and probably pay back my costs in a few years! The finances go out the window when you start talking banks of batteries to store the daily excess for use at night, however.
The current electrical distribution is simply ridiculous - over 75% of my electrical bill is associated with the cost of getting electricity to my house, not the actual cost of generating the electricity. Wires, lines, substations, etc., all cost money, and cost more than the substance they are transporting. To solve California's electrical woes, a bunch of Natural Gas fired power plants have sprung up in the Arizona desert near the California border. Natural gas is imported from Texas as well as California, transported to Arizona, where it is burned, converted to Electricity, and transported back into California, and can still be sold for a profit. There's just something wrong there.
If our president wanted to leave a lasting legacy (well, ok, how about a Positive lasting legacy), I would love to see him shed his Big Oil background. JFK galvanized the nation to put a man on the moon by giving us a clear, understandable goal, a BIG goal, and by pouring money into the goal. Bush could do the same with Energy - by declaring a goal of making the Middle East irrelevant, by declaring a goal of making the US (and by extension, the world) independent of reliance on fossil fuel deposits, by declaring a goal of cleaning up our air, and by declaring a goal of enabling individuals as well as the nation to be energy independent.
Decide on a form of energy. Hydrogen is great, but difficult to store (I shiver at all those proposals to have vehicles with super-pressurized hydrogen tanks on board). So, store it in a form that we already know how to handle - liquid. Specifically, as Methanol (or Ethanol). We already have a nationwide distribution network for the volatile, hazardous, poisonous liquid called "gasoline", so shipping, storing, pumping methanol into vehicles is a well-understood, SOLVED problem.
Let the market decide how Methanol powered vehicles are gonna be driven - fuel cell, internal comustion, whatever you've got. A fuel cell powered by Methanol is a bit more complex than one powered by pure Hydrogen, but the technology is well understood. For example, NEC and Toshiba are using Methanol for their tiny fuel cells.
Fund the technologies necessary to let me, as a homeowner, generate my own methanol. Solar cells running an electrolytic cell that splits H20 and combines it with a source of Carbon (CO2 is about 0.035% of atmospheric gases, so you might not be able to extract CO2 from the air. Perhaps from my compost heap?) and drips the result into a home storage tank. I can fill my car, run my furnace, run a fuel cell or generator for house electricity. I can be energy-independent, and there is one less vital national infrastructure whose protection requires stripping more rights from the populace.
This won't work in all areas of the county; those of you in the not-so-sunny northwest might be out of luck. The advantage of this, however, is that your lives don't change much - rather than filling up at home like I might be able to do, you would fill up with Methanol at the local gas station. The electrical grid would still be intact, but now there would be a strong market incentive to keep prices down (prices go up, people buy fuel cells/generators to run their homes), an incentive that simply doesn't exist at the moment.
I think the argument is compelling that, at least for the far future, solar power with an intermediate storage step (batteries, chemical storage, mechanical storage (e.g. pumping water uphill)) is probably the least environmentally damaging power source. Centralized political power-blocks (for example, energy companies) may force a different path - for example, nuclear power generation - because it keeps them in business.
JMHO.
/frank
As a bit of an update, the British governement has today announced a major drive for wind power. They propose to install approximately 6 GW of wind generating capacity in off-shore wind farms by 2010. By comparison, the UK currently has 530 MW of installed wind capacity, with the world having less than 30 GW.
Over here solar electricity is simply not effective. The panels simply won't pay for themselves, even at domestic electricity rates. The pay-back time is about 30-40 years, but the life-expectancy for the panels is only 25 years.
I've been thinking a bit about one of my wilder ideas, which is essentially to make better use of the installed electrical generation capacity - attempting to maximize demand when it is normally slack (improving generation efficiency), and reduce demand when it is at its peak (avoiding black-outs). Some countries already use a simple system of tiered pricing. In France one electricity supply option offers a variable tarrif with 3 tiers. On slack days, you pay less than for average days. On peak days, you pay more. You are told the prevailing rate by 1 of 3 lights on the electriciy meter (red, white and blue - obviously).
There is the potential to enhance this idea, with the use of energy storage. In the UK this is commonly used in the form of night-storage electric heaters. Heavy blocks of concrete are heated overnight when the electricity is cheap. During the following day, the heat is slowly released. In shouldn't be too difficult to implement a similar storage technique for AC, which traditionally has its peak load in the middle of the day.
At the other end of the spectrum, you could have individual premises equipped with batteries. They would charge during off-peak times, and supplement your consumption at peak times. A radio broadcast could transmit spot local prices, allowing a computer at your place to decide when to charge and when to supplement.
One particular type of battery seems quite interesting - the vanadium redox flow battery. This battery is unsual in that it uses 2 liquid electrolytes, which is the key to its flexibility. Increasing the capacity of your battery simply means getting a bigger pair of tanks and filling them up - no need to change the electrical parts (unless you want to change the maximum charge/discharge rates) and because the electrolytes are liquid, they are easily transported. So, your house could be equipped with a vanadium battery for load-levelling, which could be supplemented by solar panels / wind energy / whatever. Your car could be equipped with a similar battery, which means that recharging could be carried out at home in a couple of minuted. Drain the car's tanks into the house tanks, and refill the car from the house tanks which are kept near full charge.
Over here solar electricity is simply not effective. The panels simply won't pay for themselves, even at domestic electricity rates. The pay-back time is about 30-40 years, but the life-expectancy for the panels is only 25 years.
I've been thinking a bit about one of my wilder ideas, which is essentially to make better use of the installed electrical generation capacity - attempting to maximize demand when it is normally slack (improving generation efficiency), and reduce demand when it is at its peak (avoiding black-outs). Some countries already use a simple system of tiered pricing. In France one electricity supply option offers a variable tarrif with 3 tiers. On slack days, you pay less than for average days. On peak days, you pay more. You are told the prevailing rate by 1 of 3 lights on the electriciy meter (red, white and blue - obviously).
There is the potential to enhance this idea, with the use of energy storage. In the UK this is commonly used in the form of night-storage electric heaters. Heavy blocks of concrete are heated overnight when the electricity is cheap. During the following day, the heat is slowly released. In shouldn't be too difficult to implement a similar storage technique for AC, which traditionally has its peak load in the middle of the day.
At the other end of the spectrum, you could have individual premises equipped with batteries. They would charge during off-peak times, and supplement your consumption at peak times. A radio broadcast could transmit spot local prices, allowing a computer at your place to decide when to charge and when to supplement.
One particular type of battery seems quite interesting - the vanadium redox flow battery. This battery is unsual in that it uses 2 liquid electrolytes, which is the key to its flexibility. Increasing the capacity of your battery simply means getting a bigger pair of tanks and filling them up - no need to change the electrical parts (unless you want to change the maximum charge/discharge rates) and because the electrolytes are liquid, they are easily transported. So, your house could be equipped with a vanadium battery for load-levelling, which could be supplemented by solar panels / wind energy / whatever. Your car could be equipped with a similar battery, which means that recharging could be carried out at home in a couple of minuted. Drain the car's tanks into the house tanks, and refill the car from the house tanks which are kept near full charge.
I was just reading of a company in California that is working on a new slant on solar.
Instead of trying to use solar panels(photovoltaic?), they are using a small array of parabolic mirrors to focus solar heat on a "hot cup". That in turn drives a Stirling engine which is connected to a generator.
They were hoping that a few of these arrays would be able to power an average house.
I wish i had some links handy, but my magazine is at work.
edit- Here's a link to this project.
Sunflower
Instead of trying to use solar panels(photovoltaic?), they are using a small array of parabolic mirrors to focus solar heat on a "hot cup". That in turn drives a Stirling engine which is connected to a generator.
They were hoping that a few of these arrays would be able to power an average house.
I wish i had some links handy, but my magazine is at work.
edit- Here's a link to this project.
Sunflower
Hi,
I really think you should double check your numbers before buying anything!!!
BTW - the costs you quote are extremely good compared to the UK (skeptically good!). For instance, here you would pay ~$11,000 per kW (this is for a complete grid connected system). And here, 1kW peak gives around 750kWh per year!!!!
Are you absolutely sure on your numbers? If we work out your efficiency from the numbers you give, we get:
(7.5/35) x 100 = ~21% This cannot be correct as the most you would ever hope for currently is ~10 to 15% for crystalline silicon, unless you're employing some sort of state-of-the-art non-commercial lab system. These numbers don't even account for wiring AC/DC inversion losses!
Furthermore - this probably doesn't apply to you because of your location - the peak power quoted for cells of ~1kW/m^2 is only valid with sun levels being roughly that of being at the equator.
Assuming you get the best sun levels, I'd estmate that if you used 120m^2 and crystalline silicon you'd *only* generate ~120 kWh per day before any electrical losses - no way on earth you're ever going to get near to 250 kWh per day. Just a bit of trivia - ~40000 kWh per year (which is what you'd generate at peak efficiency with 10 hours sunshine per day using your numbers) is 13x the average household electrical consumption in the UK! You could power over 13 UK houses off yours!
One last question - if you're grid connected as you currently are, and plan to sell your excess power to the "company", why can't you just buy from them at night? Is the buy/sell rate about equivalent? This is how most people get over the need for storage in relation to solar power. I guess if 75% of your bill is delivery then you might not make that much money out of just selling the power back to the grid.
Thank for the info and don't spend anything until you've reviewed your numbers! IMHO the very best you could hope for, per square metre of cells, and before any electrical losses is ~1.2 kWh per day. Mulitply this up as you like for whatever area you wish to use. I have assumed a more realistic 8 hours per day (could be slightly wrong on that, but I'd imagine it averages out just so).
Cheers,
Andy
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter