World's Largest Solar Power Deal

WildHorse

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,006
0
0
World's biggest Solar Energy Deal

using parabolic trough technology which is known to be less efficient than several other methods.

Either the newer methods are perceived by lenders as too risky, or it may have something to do with some cost/benefit analysis disfavoring newer methods.

If anybody here knows about some of the newer solar energy harvesting technologies, perhaps photovoltaic cell systems or chemical systems using sunlight as a reactant or others, please tell about them.

 

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
I like chlorophyll engines. Self-replicating and incredibly efficient, plus they're decorative. :)
 

WildHorse

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,006
0
0
Sun-tracking mirrors focused on a water tower was the same technology they used in the California desert when I was a little kid.

But in 2008 and beyond, they're still planning on just cooking water (or other liquid), which also is really all a nuclear reactor does.

I would've thought that by now, photovoltaic cell panels would be the way, or at least a amore modern way, to harvest sunlight.
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
Originally posted by: scott
Sun-tracking mirrors focused on a water tower was the same technology they used in the California desert when I was a little kid.

But in 2008 and beyond, they're still planning on just cooking water (or other liquid), which also is really all a nuclear reactor does.

I would've thought that by now, photovoltaic cell panels would be the way, or at least a amore modern way, to harvest sunlight.

Thats kinda strange, I always sorta saw photovoltaic as the less modern way to go about things. I can understand how its obviously a more recent invention. But in terms of the enviromental movement, photovoltaic is expenisve, inefficent, and produces tons of dangerous chemical waste streams. Meanwhile solar thermal its just simple metals and glass and boilding water like you said. Alot more "elegant" design in my view than having to produuce millions of microscopic PV cells using dangerous heavy metals and corrosive chemicals etc. I mean something about using crazy metals\metaloids like indium selenium galium tellurium and arsenic etc seems very sexy, but exactly how enviromentally friendly is it to mine these rare elements? Deffinitely no better than minniung uranium for example, and some of them are more expensive to boot.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
I mean something about using crazy metals\metaloids like indium selenium galium tellurium and arsenic etc seems very sexy, but...

Only in highly technical will you read something like that.

Okay... I've got space. I have a nice field where I wouldn't mind giving up a half an acre to solar. Those parabolic troughs really don't look like they'd be that expensive to manufacture, or to even fabricate on my own. (giving up efficiency in favor of reducing costs) Dead end to be even thinking about something like that to provide a kilowatt or two? How much would it cost to build something along those lines capable of 5 kilowatts on a sunny day in Western NY?

I'm already hoping that I'll have time to switch to solar hot water from spring through fall. Should be a fun weekend project to build. I'll post here when I have time, seeing if anyone has ideas that would tweak my project to make it better.
 

WildHorse

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,006
0
0
DrPizza
Elite Member


Sorry I don't understand;

is your quote meant as an indication that this is a rehash of some previous discussion on this forum?

or what?

The thing that got me was that still in 2008 and going forward, all they're doing is cooking water.

After BrownTown's explanation, which I hadn't thought of in the light as he explained it, I do now see his good point.

 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
No, it was an accident. I never use the buttons at the top to put in quotes. I manually type in the [ q etc. Ditto for links and stuff. Somehow I put a " at the end and the [q at the beginning. Brain fart.

edit: brain fart #2 - I meant to click reply on your post and edit on my other post. Somehow I started editing your post with the explanation above. Ooops!
 

hellokeith

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2004
1,664
0
0
We really really need to get serious about solar power and get on it asap. As forementioned, of course we need to be conscious of the enviro-impact, but that is the beauty of solar.

* Start with a simple design like trough/mirror/water heating
* Use the heated water to spin turbines (producing non-fossil-fuel electricity) and for residential (air heating & water heating which reduces fossil-fuel electricity usage)
* Take the gains in $ and enviro-impact from the above, and reinvest them into photovoltaic production (i.e. run all the lathes and modling machines etc on the solar electricity)
* Rinse and Repeat, and you have a top-to-bottom cycle which builds on itself and supports itself with ever reducing fossil fuel requirments
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
Originally posted by: hellokeith
We really really need to get serious about solar power and get on it asap. As forementioned, of course we need to be conscious of the enviro-impact, but that is the beauty of solar.

* Start with a simple design like trough/mirror/water heating
* Use the heated water to spin turbines (producing non-fossil-fuel electricity) and for residential (air heating & water heating which reduces fossil-fuel electricity usage)
* Take the gains in $ and enviro-impact from the above, and reinvest them into photovoltaic production (i.e. run all the lathes and modling machines etc on the solar electricity)
* Rinse and Repeat, and you have a top-to-bottom cycle which builds on itself and supports itself with ever reducing fossil fuel requirments

The problem currently though is that solar electricity is approximately 5-10 times more expenisve than other methods, not to mention the fact that it doesn't nescecarrily follow load all that well, so it can only meet a at best 50% of capcity. So, barring a huge cost reduction it can never be more than a niche product.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,284
138
106
Originally posted by: hellokeith
We really really need to get serious about solar power and get on it asap. As forementioned, of course we need to be conscious of the enviro-impact, but that is the beauty of solar.

* Start with a simple design like trough/mirror/water heating
* Use the heated water to spin turbines (producing non-fossil-fuel electricity) and for residential (air heating & water heating which reduces fossil-fuel electricity usage)
* Take the gains in $ and enviro-impact from the above, and reinvest them into photovoltaic production (i.e. run all the lathes and modling machines etc on the solar electricity)
* Rinse and Repeat, and you have a top-to-bottom cycle which builds on itself and supports itself with ever reducing fossil fuel requirments

heated water doesn't just spin a turbine, it has to be steam. Not only that, but it needs a fair amount of heat being dumped into it before you have enough steam to be somewhat effective.

If you are implying having flowing water move a turbine, then really you are just asking for a hydro-electric generator, not solar.

the beauty of solar power is that it only uses the sun, the ugliness is that its materials are expencive, some rare, and in-efficient. we might as well use an array of sterling engines because they are only slightly less practical then solar power.

Instead of dumping in money to solar research, I think it would be far more cost efficient to dump all our money into nuclear research. If we can get down fusion then our energy problems are solved. Electrolysis could provide us will all the hydrogen we need and fusion could provide us will the energy we need. Not only that, but the worlds supply of helium would increase a fair amount (Yay squeaky voice)
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
Originally posted by: scott
dump all our money into nuclear research. If we can get down fusion -Cogman

Can they manage the waste from the fusion process better than from fission?

The horror of nuclear power is inability to manage the "eternal" waste.


As the mighty COGMAN, do you feel like a cog in something turning?

Fusion doesn't produce any long term nuclear waste. At least not in the sort you are talking about, there will still be "low level" waste streams, but those are put in landfills not much different than normal trash (they are only slightly radioactive, no more deadly then the sort of stuff you would find in a regular landfill). There is none of the spent fuel issues you have with fission, and the sort of radioactive fuels are stuff like tririum which has a half life of just 14 years and is only an alpha emitter (its used in stuff like exit signs and glow in the dark watch pieces or gun sights).
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,284
138
106
Originally posted by: scott
dump all our money into nuclear research. If we can get down fusion -Cogman

Can they manage the waste from the fusion process better than from fission?

The horror of nuclear power is inability to manage the "eternal" waste.


As the mighty COGMAN, do you feel like a cog in something turning?

I don't quite understand the youtube video, if you where wondering my nickname came from an old game, Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II and its use of a scripting language called "cogs"

But anywho, like BrownTown said, the waist from fusion is a moot point because for the most part, there is none (at least, none that is harmful to anything)

As for current radio active waste, How radio active is it really? It has a halflife of 1000s of years, yes, but doesn't that mean that it is emmiting very little radiation? If I remember my chemistry/physics correctly the more radioactive a substance is the less time it spends being radio active.

Either way, I think the fear in radiation is something that we really need to get past as a society. Yes, too much radiation can kill you, but so can driving your car. The likely hood of being injured in both depend completely.

If I had my way, then we would be using our highly radioactive waste materials in the food industry in place of refrigeration. Imagine, food that never goes bad. It doesn't have to be exposed to the radio active material, just to the radiation. And contrary to popular belief, it won't cause genetic mutations, just massive bacteria death.
 

WildHorse

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,006
0
0
I don't quite understand the youtube video - Cogman

Was I being too esoteric ?

In that song Joni Mitchell has the famous line about "and I feel just like a cog in somethiongh turning." Cog, get it? Cog-man?
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,284
138
106
Originally posted by: scott
I don't quite understand the youtube video - Cogman

Was I being too esoteric ?

In that song Joni Mitchell has the famous line about "and I feel just like a cog in somethiongh turning." Cog, get it? Cog-man?

ahh, ok, now I understand. Sorry, I couldn't listen through the whole song (not my generation)
 

WTurner

Member
Feb 21, 2008
93
0
0
Originally posted by: hellokeith
We really really need to get serious about solar power and get on it asap. As forementioned, of course we need to be conscious of the enviro-impact, but that is the beauty of solar.

* Start with a simple design like trough/mirror/water heating
* Use the heated water to spin turbines (producing non-fossil-fuel electricity) and for residential (air heating & water heating which reduces fossil-fuel electricity usage)
* Take the gains in $ and enviro-impact from the above, and reinvest them into photovoltaic production (i.e. run all the lathes and modling machines etc on the solar electricity)
* Rinse and Repeat, and you have a top-to-bottom cycle which builds on itself and supports itself with ever reducing fossil fuel requirments

You should ask people with solar pool heaters how easy it is to heat water via the sun.
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
Originally posted by: WTurner
You should ask people with solar pool heaters how easy it is to heat water via the sun.

unfortunately to get a decent efficiency the heat source and heat sink have to be FAR apart in temperature, heating up some water to 10 degree warmer than the air sin't going to do it, you want hundreds of degrees higher temperatures to get decent efficiency, and that requires far more complicated schemes like these parabolic troughs, or "power towers", and even those are not gonna be as efficient as you would want compared to other sources of energy. Its all great in theory, but in practice it just can't be done economically, and the best places to do it (deserts) are usually far from population centers.
 

lousydood

Member
Aug 1, 2005
158
0
0
I don't think current fusion generator research focuses on hydrogen fusion. Someone figured out that the easiest way is helium-3, and that's not exactly common on Earth. Even if we did master hydrogen fusion, splitting water into its components is quite energy intensive.

What's neat about the Stirling engines is that all they require to work is a temperature gradient. That can be supplied by focusing sunlight -- or by geothermal heat, or by anything. There were even Stirling engine driven cars running on gasoline that were supposedly twice as efficient as the usual internal combustion engine.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: lousydood
I don't think current fusion generator research focuses on hydrogen fusion. Someone figured out that the easiest way is helium-3, and that's not exactly common on Earth. Even if we did master hydrogen fusion, splitting water into its components is quite energy intensive.

What's neat about the Stirling engines is that all they require to work is a temperature gradient. That can be supplied by focusing sunlight -- or by geothermal heat, or by anything. There were even Stirling engine driven cars running on gasoline that were supposedly twice as efficient as the usual internal combustion engine.

The energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen is negligible compared to the amount of energy available from fusion of that hydrogen. Probably the best way to compare the difference between chemical reactions and nuclear reactions is this: 1 ton of TNT: chemical reaction. 1 nuclear bomb measured in megatons of TNT = millions of times more energy.
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
Originally posted by: lousydood
I don't think current fusion generator research focuses on hydrogen fusion. Someone figured out that the easiest way is helium-3, and that's not exactly common on Earth. Even if we did master hydrogen fusion, splitting water into its components is quite energy intensive.

What's neat about the Stirling engines is that all they require to work is a temperature gradient. That can be supplied by focusing sunlight -- or by geothermal heat, or by anything. There were even Stirling engine driven cars running on gasoline that were supposedly twice as efficient as the usual internal combustion engine.

I dunno what this thing is these days where everyone thinks Sterling engines are the shit these days, people seem to be pimping them out as the cure to all our ills, but in reality they are worse in many ways then the sort of stuff we use now. The statement about "only needing a heat gradient" is silly because thats the same way a steam turbine or gas turbine works. Also, getting twice the efficiency from a sterling engine doesn't make sense to me becaue and ICE is like 25% efficienct, which would mean that the Sterling engine would have to be 50%, and that is better than even a supercritical coal plant which has a seriously high combustion temperature. I really dobut a sterling powered solar plant would be any more efficient than boiling water, the advantage would be simplicity, not efficiency.
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Originally posted by: scott
dump all our money into nuclear research. If we can get down fusion -Cogman

Can they manage the waste from the fusion process better than from fission?

The horror of nuclear power is inability to manage the "eternal" waste.


As the mighty COGMAN, do you feel like a cog in something turning?

Fusion doesn't produce any long term nuclear waste. At least not in the sort you are talking about, there will still be "low level" waste streams, but those are put in landfills not much different than normal trash (they are only slightly radioactive, no more deadly then the sort of stuff you would find in a regular landfill). There is none of the spent fuel issues you have with fission, and the sort of radioactive fuels are stuff like tririum which has a half life of just 14 years and is only an alpha emitter (its used in stuff like exit signs and glow in the dark watch pieces or gun sights).

Mr. Nit Pick says tritium is a beta emitter. ;) Your point is still correct of course, because it's an extremely low energy beta.
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Mr. Nit Pick says tritium is a beta emitter. ;) Your point is still correct of course, because it's an extremely low energy beta.

yeha, alpha would be pretty retarded since an alpha particle has more protons than tritium, so pretty much imposible there for it to break into parts bigger than the origonal :p.
 

dkozloski

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,005
0
76
Solar power comes and goes with nightfall, weather, and seasons. Without backup from conventional generating sources it'll always be marginal. As long as you have to build and maintain backup generation to fill in the gaps in the solar scheme it'll never be the major player on the grid.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
Solar could have been much more advanced than it is.

The problem is that the research dollars went elsewhere as its cost/benefit wasn't high enough.
Now that it could be useful they are all scrambling to try to make up for lost time.


I still think hydrogen is the answer.
Its plentiful.
Burns cleanly.
And packs quite a bit of energy in a small space.

The method below is not renewable in the long term, since eventually all the aluminum would be used up. It would take a very very very long time to use it up though.
It might be good to use along with solar though.


Serendipity at its finest:

http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html
Hydrogen is generated spontaneously when water is added to pellets of the alloy, which is made of aluminum and a metal called gallium. The researchers have shown how hydrogen is produced when water is added to a small tank containing the pellets. Hydrogen produced in such a system could be fed directly to an engine, such as those on lawn mowers.

"When water is added to the pellets, the aluminum in the solid alloy reacts because it has a strong attraction to the oxygen in the water," Woodall said.

This reaction splits the oxygen and hydrogen contained in water, releasing hydrogen in the process.

The gallium is critical to the process because it hinders the formation of a skin normally created on aluminum's surface after oxidation. This skin usually prevents oxygen from reacting with aluminum, acting as a barrier. Preventing the skin's formation allows the reaction to continue until all of the aluminum is used.

The Purdue Research Foundation holds title to the primary patent, which has been filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and is pending. An Indiana startup company, AlGalCo LLC., has received a license for the exclusive right to commercialize the process.

The research has been supported by the Energy Center at Purdue's Discovery Park, the university's hub for interdisciplinary research.

"This is exactly the kind of project that suits Discovery Park. It's exciting science that has great potential to be commercialized," said Jay Gore, associate dean of engineering for research, the Energy Center's interim director and the Vincent P. Reilly Professor of Mechanical Engineering.

The research team is made up of electrical, mechanical, chemical and aeronautical engineers, including doctoral students.

Woodall discovered that liquid alloys of aluminum and gallium spontaneously produce hydrogen if mixed with water while he was working as a researcher in the semiconductor industry in 1967. The research, which focused on developing new semiconductors for computers and electronics, led to advances in optical-fiber communications and light-emitting diodes, making them practical for everything from DVD players to automotive dashboard displays. That work also led to development of advanced transistors for cell phones and components in solar cells powering space modules like those used on the Mars rover, earning Woodall the 2001 National Medal of Technology from President George W. Bush.

"I was cleaning a crucible containing liquid alloys of gallium and aluminum," Woodall said. "When I added water to this alloy - talk about a discovery - there was a violent poof. I went to my office and worked out the reaction in a couple of hours to figure out what had happened. When aluminum atoms in the liquid alloy come into contact with water, they react, splitting the water and producing hydrogen and aluminum oxide.

"Gallium is critical because it melts at low temperature and readily dissolves aluminum, and it renders the aluminum in the solid pellets reactive with water. This was a totally surprising discovery, since it is well known that pure solid aluminum does not readily react with water."

The waste products are gallium and aluminum oxide, also called alumina. Combusting hydrogen in an engine produces only water as waste.

"No toxic fumes are produced," Woodall said. "It's important to note that the gallium doesn't react, so it doesn't get used up and can be recycled over and over again. The reason this is so important is because gallium is currently a lot more expensive than aluminum. Hopefully, if this process is widely adopted, the gallium industry will respond by producing large quantities of the low-grade gallium required for our process. Currently, nearly all gallium is of high purity and used almost exclusively by the semiconductor industry."

Then more recently:
http://media.cleantech.com/248...urdue-aluminum-gallium
Since then, the Woodall lab has increased the amount of aluminum in the alloy, finally producing a material made of 95 percent aluminum and 5 percent gallium, indium and tin combined, with only a very small amount of the expensive gallium.

And that's got the researchers, and some industry observers, excited.

Here?s how the reaction works: the aluminum in the alloy reacts with water at room temperature to give off hydrogen, leaving behind aluminum oxide or alumina. The material can then be recharged several dozen times back into aluminum using a process that Woodall described as more ?competitive with other energy technologies,? with a cost of just 10 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Originally the process was thought to require a small puddle of gallium alloy as a catalyst; Woodall?s lab found out last year this wasn?t the case.

"That was a fantastic discovery," Woodall said. "What used to be a curiosity is now a real alternative energy technology."

The research is to be presented for the first time at the Feb. 26 session of the Materials Innovations in an Emerging Hydrogen Economy conference in Cocoa Beach, Florida.

Visitors to this weekend?s REMC national convention in Anaheim, California, however, will get to see a demonstration of the 95/5 alloy in action.

Water will be carefully added to small plugs of the material arranged in serial form to produce enough hydrogen to power a one-kilowatt generator purchased from Wal-Mart for 4-5 hours.

?This is like the Holy Grail,? Kurt Koehler, co-founder and CEO of the Indiana-based company AlGalCo told Cleantech.com.

?95/5 is huge. With the 95 alloy, we hit all the U.S. Department of Energy energy density standards. That was always Jerry [Woodall]?s goal.?

"Using pure hydrogen, fuel cell systems run at an overall efficiency of 75 percent, compared to 40 percent using hydrogen extracted from fossil fuels and with 25 percent for internal combustion engines," Woodall said. "Therefore, when and if fuel cells become economically viable, our method would compete with gasoline at $3 per gallon even if aluminum costs more than a dollar per pound."