New solar panel info

[--Pete]

Hi,

Well, the last energy thread got locked by Bolty after it became a series of personal attacks. Too bad. Against the risk of generating another flame war (which that thread really wasn't, but different people have different tolerance) is the desire to disseminate some new information. Although this article is very non-technical, it does give a glimpse into potential developments. Perhaps solar power is less than the canonical twenty years away.

--Pete

[LochnarITB]

"I'll take a large pepperoni, extra cheese, and 2000 watts of solar cells please. Is that 30 minutes or it's free?"

[kandrathe]

Hi,

Well, the last energy thread got locked by Bolty after it became a series of personal attacks. Too bad. Against the risk of generating another flame war (which that thread really wasn't, but different people have different tolerance) is the desire to disseminate some new information. Although this article is very non-technical, it does give a glimpse into potential developments. Perhaps solar power is less than the canonical twenty years away.

--Pete

I found a more through description of the process (wasn't easy), and some applications in the works. link link link link

I also need to provide the obligatory wet towel stating;

___Hydrogen is not the answer
X__Solar is not the answer
___Wind power is not the answer

Blah blah blah, diluteness, storage, efficiency, coal, nuclear, blah blah blah......ramble ramble massive calculations proving my point, mumble jumble technical jargon I learned from energy physics class, or articles on the internet, blah, blah, blah. Also, add in 4 or 5 links to technical sources too lengthy and complicated for anyone to read. Oh, and Petr Beckmann is a physics god...

Solar constant.

There, we are caught up to the other thread.

Edit: I found a good article on CATO for discussion, Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not "Green" by Robert L. Bradley Jr

[--Pete]

Hi,

___Hydrogen is not the answer
X__Solar is not the answer
___Wind power is not the answer

Depends on what the question is. If the question is "What *one* energy source should we use?" then the answer is either "All of them." or "You are an idiot." depending on how charitable you feel.

If the question is "What technologies can we use to augment our energy sources?" then McCain's "All of the above." is a pretty good answer.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I agree, that they all have a niche where they make economic sense. What I rail against is the "silver bullet" approach to the energy debate.

Even the article you linked, highlights the advantage of these cheaper solar cells to be used in areas where electricity has been traditionally unavailable. I too advocate micro solar applications (currently about $.12/kWh, where access to grid power is nonexistent.)

[ShadowHM]

I agree, that they all have a niche where they make economic sense. What I rail against is the "silver bullet" approach <strike>to the energy debate.</strike>

There. :) Fixed your quote. :lol:

That propensity to seek silver bullets is at the root of policy floundering on all too many of the problems of our times.

[kandrathe]

There. :) Fixed your quote. :lol:

That propensity to seek silver bullets is at the root of policy floundering on all too many of the problems of our times.

Thanks! Too often our "problem solvers" try to boil down the issues to one dimension, resulting in what they try to sell us as a right (black) and wrong (white) answer. While in fact, most of our problems are multidimensional and polychromatic.

[eppie]

Thanks! Too often our "problem solvers" try to boil down the issues to one dimension, resulting in what they try to sell us as a right (black) and wrong (white) answer. While in fact, most of our problems are multidimensional and polychromatic.

This has been a point of discussion here often, but I wonder; who is thinking about a single answer?
I have never heard anybody say that we have to go 'only' for solar power.

[kandrathe]

This has been a point of discussion here often, but I wonder; who is thinking about a single answer?
I have never heard anybody say that we have to go 'only' for solar power.

You didn't pay close attention then. ;)

[Jester]

There. :) Fixed your quote. :lol:

That propensity to seek silver bullets is at the root of policy floundering on all too many of the problems of our times.

Be fair, we've made tremendous progress in the war against werewolves.

-Jester

[Urza-DSF]

Be fair, we've made tremendous progress in the war against werewolves.

-Jester

And yet the zombie threat is ever there. Lurking, waiting, and watching for a failing of vigilance.

[Lissa]

I personally would like to see a major push towards Fusion power. Fusion provides the highest power density and we have enough fuel to never worry about running out.

Solar is nice, but there are problems with it (lower power density, ~200 W per sq ft, best efficiency is in area where there is little cloud cover where you get that ~200 W/sq ft)

Geothermal you have to have an area where the crust is thin so you can tap into the magma flowing underneath.

Tidal is only useful in places where you see a large tidal variance.

Fission would be good if we return to reprocessing of fuel as about 0.5% to 0.75% of the total pulled from a reactor after burning fuel for a year is truly junk, the rest is useable in some manner (as fuel, medicinal uses, and for other industrial uses).

Hydroelectric is specific areas and there are only so many times you can put a dam on a river (see the Columbia in Washington state).

Fossil fuels have the polution issues to deal with.

[kandrathe]

I personally would like to see a major push towards Fusion power. Fusion provides the highest power density and we have enough fuel to never worry about running out.

I agree for phasing in a replacement to grid power.

Solar is nice, but there are problems with it (lower power density, ~200 W per sq ft, best efficiency is in area where there is little cloud cover where you get that ~200 W/sq ft)

I think there are some specific roles that Solar power could play in every home, like providing hot water. We could easily change the paradigm from that insulated tank sitting near the water source, to add a simple device mounted on the roof that takes advantage of solar heat when possible.

Geothermal you have to have an area where the crust is thin so you can tap into the magma flowing underneath.

Geothermal heat pumps are viable almost everywhere for home heating, and take advantage of the massive average temperature that exists just 10 to 15 feet below the surface. They work like an air conditioner, only on a more massive scale.

Tidal is only useful in places where you see a large tidal variance. Hydroelectric is specific areas and there are only so many times you can put a dam on a river (see the Columbia in Washington state).

Agreed, very few limited opportunities.

Fission would be good if we return to reprocessing of fuel as about 0.5% to 0.75% of the total pulled from a reactor after burning fuel for a year is truly junk, the rest is usable in some manner (as fuel, medicinal uses, and for other industrial uses).

Agreed. It is almost criminal to not reprocess spent fuel.

Fossil fuels have the pollution issues to deal with.

The pollution issues can be eliminated with efficient burning and costly scrubbing, but the carbon dioxide issue will be very hard to overcome economically.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I personally would like to see a major push towards Fusion power. Fusion provides the highest power density and we have enough fuel to never worry about running out.

Has there been any breakthroughs in the past thirty years or so that give fusion a chance to be viable? Other than the sun and weapons, no fusion process that we've tried has generated more than one millionth the energy it took to start it. And in most cases, no energy was generated at all.

Yes, fusion is a great *concept*. It's clean, the fuel is plentiful (even if we have to use deuterium and tritium), the 'waste' product (helium) is almost totally harmless, the enbrittlement problem can (probably) be solved. But the problem is that we have no clue how to set up, ignite, and maintain a fusion reaction. None of the attempts to date have worked, and (AFAIK) there are no new ideas to explore.

So, as nice as fusion can be, it is not a solution for the present nor for the foreseeable future. Thus, research, yes. But don't include it in an energy program. Right now, fusion is a problem, not a solution.

As to your other comments; valid, but each of those forms of energy conversion are established and proven. And each can contribute. Perhaps, one day, we'll run the whole grid on dilithium crystals and mass annihilation. Until then, we need to use all the resources we have, wherever we have them.

--Pete

[Lissa]

Hi,
Has there been any breakthroughs in the past thirty years or so that give fusion a chance to be viable? Other than the sun and weapons, no fusion process that we've tried has generated more than one millionth the energy it took to start it. And in most cases, no energy was generated at all.

Yes, fusion is a great *concept*. It's clean, the fuel is plentiful (even if we have to use deuterium and tritium), the 'waste' product (helium) is almost totally harmless, the enbrittlement problem can (probably) be solved. But the problem is that we have no clue how to set up, ignite, and maintain a fusion reaction. None of the attempts to date have worked, and (AFAIK) there are no new ideas to explore.

So, as nice as fusion can be, it is not a solution for the present nor for the foreseeable future. Thus, research, yes. But don't include it in an energy program. Right now, fusion is a problem, not a solution.

As to your other comments; valid, but each of those forms of energy conversion are established and proven. And each can contribute. Perhaps, one day, we'll run the whole grid on dilithium crystals and mass annihilation. Until then, we need to use all the resources we have, wherever we have them.

--Pete

Several years back the Europeans got just shy of the energy they put in back from a Tokamak (magnetic confinement). So yes, there is a chance for fusion and if the money was put towards it, achieveable easily within our lifetimes (20 to 30 years max if funding was raised, possibly even less).

[Sir_Die_alot]

The cost is the limiting thing on the solar cells. I've talked to a lady who had cells put on her house (a fairly average sized house too) to reduce the electric bill (not taken completely off the grid, but during the day they get it from their solar cells) and she told me that she hasn't paid anything to the electric company since she put them up. They also cost her $20,000. If that cost comes down, putting a couple cells on your roof becomes a very practical thing to supplement what you pull out of wires. The downside would be the electric company goes broke.:P

[kandrathe]

The cost is the limiting thing on the solar cells. I've talked to a lady who had cells put on her house (a fairly average sized house too) to reduce the electric bill (not taken completely off the grid, but during the day they get it from their solar cells) and she told me that she hasn't paid anything to the electric company since she put them up. They also cost her $20,000. If that cost comes down, putting a couple cells on your roof becomes a very practical thing to supplement what you pull out of wires. The downside would be the electric company goes broke.:P

The power plant and the wires she depend on cost money, and currently due to incentives alternative energy is artificially cheaper. Tax payers are subsidizing her power use. If everyone had a solar array, subsidies would go away, then the cost of the power she does use will rise to cover the cost of the plant and wires. This lady is actually paying about $150 per month, plus the cost to maintain her own power system. She just paid for it in advance. She is not telling you the truth, since you have to pay for the connection itself, but maybe her power generation exceeds her use enough for the balance to be in her favor.

[eppie]

Several years back the Europeans got just shy of the energy they put in back from a Tokamak (magnetic confinement). So yes, there is a chance for fusion and if the money was put towards it, achieveable easily within our lifetimes (20 to 30 years max if funding was raised, possibly even less).

There are ideas on how to make fusion work. The fact is just that it is practically to difficult. Could you post a link about the experiment you are talkign about Lissa, I would like to take a look at that.

The main problem as far as I understand is indeed confining the plasma.......it is very very hot...
The chance of getting commercially (very) viable solar cells that could give us a nice chunck of our energy needs in and around the house is much higher than the chance of getting a working fusion reactor in the coming 30 years.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The main problem as far as I understand is indeed confining the plasma.......it is very very hot...

Yes, it is hot. And the escaping protons have pretty high energies. Thus they are easily embedded into the materials of the confinement facility. The resulting hydrogen enbrittlement can cause failure and puts a limit (short) on the lifespan of a fusion reactor. So, even if the primary problem of generating and controlling a sustainable fusion reaction is solved, there still remains an assortment of secondary problems before fusion becomes fully viable as an energy source.

The chance of getting commercially (very) viable solar cells that could give us a nice chunck of our energy needs in and around the house is much higher than the chance of getting a working fusion reactor in the coming 30 years.

Probably, but that's one horse race where I'll not wager.

-Pete

[Sir_Die_alot]

The power plant and the wires she depend on cost money, and currently due to incentives alternative energy is artificially cheaper. Tax payers are subsidizing her power use. If everyone had a solar array, subsidies would go away, then the cost of the power she does use will rise to cover the cost of the plant and wires. This lady is actually paying about $150 per month, plus the cost to maintain her own power system. She just paid for it in advance. She is not telling you the truth, since you have to pay for the connection itself, but maybe her power generation exceeds her use enough for the balance to be in her favor.

Well actually the price I listed was the full cost. The rebate thing she said was about 5000. Still her issue was she wasn't giving her money to the power company and in 20 years she hoped to break even.:PI'm fully aware that the cost of these things are not insignificant. The people in question here don't hurt for money. The house may not be huge but due to the location is not cheap. Her husband is a doctor, so is their neighbor, so is their neighbor's son (to give you an idea of the caliber of people here). I think they are more worried about WHO gets their money instead of just how much they spend.:)