| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"habshi" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2005 05:38:17 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Large scale solar plant? |
Large scale solar thermal means a lot of land.<
Not if its put in space or on the moon and the energy beamed
down.
.
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
29 Mar 2005 08:49:14 AM |
|
|
1 cent kw .
Ill sell you a terrawatt and you can forget about it.
a terrawatt is the world electric bill .
Thats a 20 foot pipe up a mountain river 2300 feet pushing a 20 foot X
30 foot steel plate foward at 1000 psi 30 mph.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
29 Mar 2005 06:01:03 AM |
|
|
habshi wrote:
Large scale solar thermal means a lot of land.<
Not if its put in space or on the moon and the energy beamed
down.
It would still take a lot of land, only it would be more expensive land
than the most expensive land on earth.
NT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred McGalliard" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
29 Mar 2005 09:56:14 AM |
|
|
<bigcat@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1112097663.351224.186750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
habshi wrote:
Large scale solar thermal means a lot of land.<
Not if its put in space or on the moon and the energy beamed
down.
It would still take a lot of land, only it would be more expensive land
than the most expensive land on earth.
Not quite. The "land" is very very cheap. It's the trip there, and the dirt,
that is expensive. But this will eventually become a very good idea. Just
not likely in my lifetime.
#! rnews 1513
Xref: xyzzy sci.energy:127514 sci.physics:861454 soc.culture.indian:1108745
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics,soc.culture.indian
Path: xyzzy!nntp
From: "Fred McGalliard" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com>
Subject: Re: Large scale solar plant?
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: e056750.nw.nos.boeing.com
Message-ID: <IE4F4C.2AH@news.boeing.com>
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
X-Priority: 3
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
Lines: 15
Sender: (Boeing NNTP News Access)
Organization: The Boeing Company
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
References: <1111651583.898612.96380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <d1ub1d$gs6$1@sparta.btinternet.com> <1111886784.751284.258690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <42489544.2168618@news.clara.net> <1112097663.351224.186750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <d2bl0i$nph$1@titan.btinternet.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:00:11 GMT
"Mike Yarwood" <mpyarwood@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d2bl0i$nph$1@titan.btinternet.com...
....
Unfortunately the "rectenna" takes up quite a lot of space on earth too :
Actually, the neat thing, aside from the cost and maintenance of the
rectenna, it is so thin it could be used as a bird cover for a food crop.
While a short drive under the system would be OK, I think you would want to
shut off the beam if you had people taking care of the plants.
And the bigger you make the source antenna, the tighter the beam. The only
thing it does screw up good is the radio astronomy folk.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Yarwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
29 Mar 2005 07:25:38 AM |
|
|
<bigcat@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1112097663.351224.186750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
habshi wrote:
Large scale solar thermal means a lot of land.<
Not if its put in space or on the moon and the energy beamed
down.
It would still take a lot of land, only it would be more expensive land
than the most expensive land on earth.
NT
Unfortunately the "rectenna" takes up quite a lot of space on earth too :
there's limits to the amount of power you can "beam down" into an area
without frying people outside that area , if you put it on the moon then
you either don't see the Sun for long periods or have a really hopeless
aspect ratio and in any case you have to steer your power broadcast beam to
a few remote and uninhabited areas on terra. Put it in near earth orbit and
you can arrange to see the Sun almost all the time but you still need to
steer the power beams and make sure that spill-over doesn't reach inhabited
areas at dangerous levels plus need to patrol your collector areas to keep
pic-niccers out - all very very costly. Most of the space power broadcast
schemes seem to eventually decide to float their rectennas out at sea but
this is also very costly and dangerous compared with just floating large
chunks of solar concerntrators out there.
Best of Luck - Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
29 Mar 2005 07:38:47 AM |
|
|
"Mike Yarwood" <mpyarwood@btopenworld.com> wrote in
news:d2bl0i$nph$1@titan.btinternet.com:
<bigcat@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1112097663.351224.186750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
habshi wrote:
Large scale solar thermal means a lot of land.<
Not if its put in space or on the moon and the energy beamed
down.
It would still take a lot of land, only it would be more expensive land
than the most expensive land on earth.
NT
Unfortunately the "rectenna" takes up quite a lot of space on earth too
: there's limits to the amount of power you can "beam down" into an area
You don't need to beam down most of the power. Move industries into orbit
(LaGrange points L4, L5) and use the energy there. All that would be beamed
down would be for home use.
without frying people outside that area , if you put it on the moon
The earth SUN L4 or L5 points.
then you either don't see the Sun for long periods or have a really
hopeless aspect ratio and in any case you have to steer your power
broadcast beam to a few remote and uninhabited areas on terra. Put it in
near earth orbit and you can arrange to see the Sun almost all the time
but you still need to steer the power beams and make sure that
spill-over doesn't reach inhabited areas at dangerous levels plus need
to patrol your collector areas to keep pic-niccers out - all very very
costly.
If the energy density is low enough, picknickers and farmers would be
working under the rectennas.
Most of the space power broadcast schemes seem to eventually
decide to float their rectennas out at sea but this is also very costly
and dangerous compared with just floating large chunks of solar
concerntrators out there.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G. R. L. Cowan" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
29 Mar 2005 08:50:06 AM |
|
|
Mike Yarwood wrote:
<bigcat@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1112097663.351224.186750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
habshi wrote:
Large scale solar thermal means a lot of land.<
Not if its put in space or on the moon and the energy beamed
down.
It would still take a lot of land, only it would be more expensive land
than the most expensive land on earth.
NT
Unfortunately the "rectenna" takes up quite a lot of space on earth too :
there's limits to the amount of power you can "beam down" into an area
without frying people outside that area
For a 5-gigawatt downbeam there is no chance of frying people
even at the centre of the area; space requirements are imposed
by the beam's limited focusability.
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL2001/lecture34.pdf
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html --
boron: how individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Yarwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
29 Mar 2005 11:48:53 AM |
|
|
"G. R. L. Cowan" <gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote in message
news:42496B1E.FA186410@eagle.ca...
Mike Yarwood wrote:
<bigcat@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1112097663.351224.186750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
habshi wrote:
Large scale solar thermal means a lot of land.<
Not if its put in space or on the moon and the energy beamed
down.
It would still take a lot of land, only it would be more expensive land
than the most expensive land on earth.
NT
Unfortunately the "rectenna" takes up quite a lot of space on earth too :
there's limits to the amount of power you can "beam down" into an area
without frying people outside that area
For a 5-gigawatt downbeam there is no chance of frying people
even at the centre of the area; space requirements are imposed
by the beam's limited focusability.
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL2001/lecture34.pdf
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html --
boron: how individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
Thats a lovely paper. You'd have to carefully defocus the beam this way or
a bit more ( it's well above human safety limits at the center and I doubt
that you can trust the receiving elements to drop the density enough for
people to want to spend time there) so expect to build a slightly bigger
rectenna farm then the assumption seems to be that if you orbit a very
efficient 5e7 m^2 solar array in geo and build a rectenna farm which has
about twice that area in the "stay out zone" you can probably get around
1/4 the power that you would get from solar collectors in your rectenna
area. Has to be based on the idea that you could still continue to use the
land/water underneath the rectenna ( nearly transparent to sunlight) and in
the stay out zone, though people couldn't actually live there, whereas you'd
lose 1/4 of that area building the same capacity on ground (then of course
there are clouds to contend with for on ground collectors but pretty well
transparent at 2.4 GHz so there are more suitable sites available for
rectennas.
Thanks for the link
Best of Luck - Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. R. L. Cowan" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
29 Mar 2005 12:16:02 PM |
|
|
Mike Yarwood included:
"G. R. L. Cowan" <gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote in message
news:42496B1E.FA186410@eagle.ca...
Mike Yarwood wrote:
<bigcat@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1112097663.351224.186750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
habshi wrote:
Large scale solar thermal means a lot of land.<
Not if its put in space or on the moon and the energy beamed
down.
It would still take a lot of land, only it would be more expensive land
than the most expensive land on earth.
NT
Unfortunately the "rectenna" takes up quite a lot of space on earth too :
there's limits to the amount of power you can "beam down" into an area
without frying people outside that area
For a 5-gigawatt downbeam there is no chance of frying people
even at the centre of the area; space requirements are imposed
by the beam's limited focusability.
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL2001/lecture34.pdf
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html --
boron: how individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
Thats a lovely paper. You'd have to carefully defocus the beam ...
As I understand it, defocusing is provided by the laws of nature;
a spot many hundreds of metres wide is as tight as you can get.
Any lack of care could lead only to looser focus, not tighter.
... this way or
a bit more ( it's well above human safety limits at the center and I doubt
that you can trust the receiving elements to drop the density enough for
people to want to spend time there) so expect to build a slightly bigger
rectenna farm then the assumption seems to be that if you orbit a very
efficient 5e7 m^2 solar array in geo and build a rectenna farm which has
about twice that area in the "stay out zone" you can probably get around
1/4 the power ...
1/4 of the *peak* power, but available 672 hours each non-leap February,
i.e., all of them.
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html --
boron: how individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
03 Apr 2005 01:37:12 AM |
|
|
I have looked at the land issue of the cost of PV. What I found was
that if one took ALL the commercial roof space and 1/2 the Residential
Roof Space now present in the US Housing Stock; that is all the area
required to cover a year's worth of US national electrical consumption.
Also, recognizing the need for a Robust Electrical Power Transmission
Grid (including the use of power transisters to transfer across
national grid internal boundaries that operate at different
frequencies), the paths underneath the wires, the need to guard the
paths, the towers and the wires in an age of domestic terrorism
attacks, and the huge amount of both ground-mounted and tower-mounted
PV these Transmission Corridores would yeild allow our nations
eletrical transmission corridores, which already exist, about 10 times
current US electrical power needs, and gives us the energy we need to
make fresh water and to make free hydrogen to drive whatever percentage
of the hydrogen/carbon energy system we choose as optimal to use in the
future.
The bottom line here is that there is LOTs of Available Space for a PV
national grid going just by from rooftop to rooftop, we have many
flat-roofed public buildings, such as schools, and we have space above
parking lots for stadiums and revitalized downtown parking.
The math on this issue is pretty straight up. And the next time you
happen to take a long airplane flight, please take a momnet from time
to time to look down from 30,000 feet and see how much land is used for
the Electric Transmission Paths (i.e. the part that's fenced in and
that they mow)
Finally, using the US national average price for retail electricity of
approxomatly 8 cents/kwh, an acre of scrub farm-land that won't keep a
goat alive can yield $40,000/year of electricity at retail prices.
That has got to help some folks in need, perhaps the Native Americans
of the Southwest should brace for the value of their scrubbiest (and
sunniest) land to increase in value from a yearly rental perspective
that is a small fraction of $40,000, perhaps 1% becomes the land-owners
squeeze in the retail price of electricity that has a scrub-land
dependancy, or $400/acre per year for that mighty poor farmaland.
Now I'm just saying that has to be a good thing for a lot of people
when PV begins to take off like a rocket.
All my best,
Roy Boy
PS The place to watch for PV is Japan. Does anyone have a Japanese
perspective on PV, renewable energy in Japan? Capacities and
timeframes for product, and general degree of committment need to be
carefully observed. RJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
03 Apr 2005 05:13:59 AM |
|
|
`Electriicity is only one fifth of total energy consumption
On 2 Apr 2005 23:37:12 -0800, "Roy Boy" <rjohann710@mindsync.net>
wrote:
I have looked at the land issue of the cost of PV. What I found was
that if one took ALL the commercial roof space and 1/2 the Residential
Roof Space now present in the US Housing Stock; that is all the area
required to cover a year's worth of US national electrical
consumption.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
03 Apr 2005 02:00:04 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, habshi
<habshi@anony.com>
wrote
on Sun, 03 Apr 2005 10:13:59 GMT
<424fc1bb.4786843@news.clara.net>:
`Electriicity is only one fifth of total energy consumption
On 2 Apr 2005 23:37:12 -0800, "Roy Boy" <rjohann710@mindsync.net>
wrote:
I have looked at the land issue of the cost of PV. What I found was
that if one took ALL the commercial roof space and 1/2 the Residential
Roof Space now present in the US Housing Stock; that is all the area
required to cover a year's worth of US national electrical
consumption.
An interesting thought.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/sqft-measure.html
indicates that in 2001 the average square footage for a
US Housing Unit was 2066 ft^2. For some reason, however,
they do not include an estimate of the total *number*
of housing units.
The number of housing units reported in the US Census
(http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/index.html, PHC-3)
is 115904641. The total area measurement is reported
as 3537438 square miles -- but presumably that includes
gardens, estates, large tracts that are undeveloped,
etc. If one naively multiplies 2066 * 115904641 and
adjusts for unit conversions, one gets 8589.41 square
miles of actual housing space, which will probably
include garages. This is also an overestimate because
of apartment complexes; a 10-story complex with 10 units
on each floor has the same square footage available to
sunlight as a 1-story complex with 10 units total,
all other things being equal. There are also problems
with split-levels.
But since most housing is single-family anyway, we'll
try to go with it and see how far we get.
If we convert to metric the aforementioned 8589.41 square
miles becomes 2.22465 * 10^10 m^2 (with the average housing
unit getting 191.938 m^2). Insolation is nominally
1000 W/m^2 on the Earth's surface, if one has the panel
tilted properly -- and this is only during daylight hours
when it's sunny out. The conversion efficiency of solar
power is also about 30%.
So assume an ad-hoc 150 W/m^2 available, over the course
of a day. Total power over this hypothetical "solar
grid" would be about 3.34 teraWatts. How much of the US
electrical needs can be met by this grid?
The CIA World Factbook
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
gives a US electrical consumption of 3.602 trillion kWh,
over the course of the 2001 year. Assuming constant
production (which isn't quite right) this can be divided
by 8765.82 hours in a year to get 4.109 * 10^11 W.
Not bad...but not good, either; the numbers are highly
optimistic at best. For optimum power production one would
have to mount the solar panels on a tiltable platform --
a "tracking mount", apparently, is the name used in the
industry -- which aims at the sun; otherwise one only gets
a part of that solar output. There are also issues in
keeping the panels free from obstructions -- an issue in
certain housing complexes where trees give a fair amount of
shading (keeping the place cool but obstructing the panels'
access to the sun), and in colder climes one has to deal
with snow on the roof.
There are also initial investment costs. ROI appears to be
about 10 years at the very most, and that's for the
relatively expensive single-crystal panels.
http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_solar_new.html
The above page also mentions full batteries at 10AM on
a hot summer morning (which means that the homeowner
doesn't need a tracking mount all that much). Ideally,
that extra power would be channeled into oil production
somehow -- how, I have no clue at this time, except for the
rather time-honored invention which Nature in Her infinite
wisdom gave us -- namely, an algae farm. (If one prefers
something a little more edible one might go for soybeans,
safflower, or rapeseed (canola), or other such oils.)
During the winter, the oil would be burned to produce heat.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1279/is_2002_Feb-March/ai_83040246
mentions a cost of $10/watt, if one uses thin-film amorphous silicon.
And all this does *nothing* -- absolutely *nothing* --
regarding our current transportation fuel shortfall:
skyrocketing oil prices. One might contemplate placing
the surplus power into such things as electric trains and
high-tech magneto-levitation vehicles, if there is any.
Note also that all this is for the US market. I have no idea
how one might address silicon production in the Indian market,
which has 6 times the population density.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
03 Apr 2005 06:03:38 PM |
|
|
With average house prices well over half a million dollars
even $50,000 on solar panels if it gives energy independence doesnt
sound much
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
03 Apr 2005 06:48:56 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics habshi <habshi@anony.com> wrote:
With average house prices well over half a million dollars
even $50,000 on solar panels if it gives energy independence doesnt
sound much
While there are lots of local areas where the "average" house is over
$500k, it is NOT the average for the US, nor is it the average for
an expensive state such as Californa.
Here, for an example, is an entire airport with 45 acres of land for
$445k.
http://www.cableairport.com/cgi/ads/classifieds.cgi?search_and_display_db_button=on&db_id=45&query=retrieval
$50k buys me somewhere between 30 and 40 years of electricity off the
pole; spending that on a solar system would be insane.
By the way, have you figured out yet how many hurricanes hit Florida
each year?
Habshi, ever the idiot.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
05 Apr 2005 10:58:41 AM |
|
|
I only have 2 wrecks to unload in the deep and not tll after summer.
next apr ,,1 year from now the auto plant will explode onto the market
..
Gas will be worthless in 200 - 700 mpg cars.
a TERRAWATT will b biult in California .
enouph electric for the entire planet at 1/10th the cost.
THIS plant is a whale line .
This plant will dimantel all nukes world wide.
Ill run supperconductor cable to evryplace.
Most places wount get a bill like north koria.
wile I biuld yet another 4 TERRAWATT
enouph for the planet again 4 times in rusha.
I can automate a concreat factory to the point
I can make pipes 4 miles long that are launched with the ends closed
wile the other end is still being formed in constant launch motion.
10 feet thick 150 feet id.
electric trains no people 200 feet under the sea around the world.
Ill be dead befor its done.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
05 Apr 2005 04:10:49 AM |
|
|
I was wrong about the potential of residential housing stock to cover
3.6 trillion kWh per year, even with employing 1/2 the commercial
housing stock.
Thank you for going through your analytical exercise.
Never the less, to make 3.6 trillion kWh per year requires a land area
of approximatly 3930 square miles, or a circle of land with a 60 mile
diameter.
There are quite a few arid Western Counties that are this size.
These calculations assume today's commercially available PV
efficiencies, and centralized solar thermal plants would require a
smaller land footprint with proper technical development - with ANY
development.
Silicon production will certainly become a lucrative multi-trillion
dollar business; there is enough silicon dioxide on the beach to keep
us in supply for quite a while. (Some beaches are better than others.)
Indian population density may be 6 times ours, but their per-capita
requirement for electricity is much less than ours, and will stay that
way provided they leapfrog development in thier energy infrastructure
and sidestep our messy centralized system.
Your calculations show that a typical US residence can certainly
produce enough electricity to cover its own annual consumption.
Finally, Japanese production costs for PV are roughly $3/watt at
present; the retail price for solar PV is still in the $6-10 range due
to huge and unmet demand.
A new nuclear plant will run about $2.5/watt to build. Nobody will
build one at that cost with private money due to the risk, perceived
and real; that will make the private money too expensive to borrow.
Roy Boy
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
05 Apr 2005 09:00:03 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Roy Boy
<rjohann710@mindsync.net>
wrote
on 5 Apr 2005 02:10:49 -0700
<1112692249.918215.164640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
I was wrong about the potential of residential housing stock to cover
3.6 trillion kWh per year, even with employing 1/2 the commercial
housing stock.
Thank you for going through your analytical exercise.
You're welcome, though I'm not sure about its validity in light
of its assumptions.
Never the less, to make 3.6 trillion kWh per year requires a land area
of approximatly 3930 square miles, or a circle of land with a 60 mile
diameter.
1.0179 * 10^10 m^2 = 1.0179 * 10^13 W = 8.923 * 10^13 kWh/y
(at 1000 W/m^2 and 100% efficiency)
= 2.677 * 10^13 kWh/y
(at 30% efficiency)
= 1.338 * 10^13 kWh/y
(at 15% efficiency [day/night cycle])
There are quite a few arid Western Counties that are this size.
These calculations assume today's commercially available PV
efficiencies, and centralized solar thermal plants would require a
smaller land footprint with proper technical development - with ANY
development.
Silicon production will certainly become a lucrative multi-trillion
dollar business; there is enough silicon dioxide on the beach to keep
us in supply for quite a while. (Some beaches are better than others.)
Indian population density may be 6 times ours, but their per-capita
requirement for electricity is much less than ours, and will stay that
way provided they leapfrog development in thier energy infrastructure
and sidestep our messy centralized system.
Your calculations show that a typical US residence can certainly
produce enough electricity to cover its own annual consumption.
During the day. At night there are a few issues, mostly of the
"OK, where's the batteries?" sort. :-) Also, not all days are
bright and sunny, especially in winter.
Finally, Japanese production costs for PV are roughly $3/watt at
present; the retail price for solar PV is still in the $6-10 range due
to huge and unmet demand.
A new nuclear plant will run about $2.5/watt to build. Nobody will
build one at that cost with private money due to the risk, perceived
and real; that will make the private money too expensive to borrow.
I'm not sure fission power is all that permanent a solution anyhow,
but I don't know the consumption rate of U-235. (U-238 can be
converted to Pu-240 in so-called "breeder reactors"; three guesses
what Homeland Security will think about *that*. :-) )
Roy Boy
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
05 Apr 2005 11:17:15 AM |
|
|
Roy Boy wrote:
Finally, Japanese production costs for PV are roughly $3/watt at
present;
This is a peak watt. Here in AZ you may get some 35% utilization so
$9/watt + infrastructure.
A new nuclear plant will run about $2.5/watt to build.
And you can build a coal plant for a buck a watt. But cost has to be
considered over the lifetime of a plant. Coal runs some $3-$5/watt. The
last nuke decommissioned in the USA went out at $8.50/watt. The French
are doing nukes for $3.50/watt, very reasonable.
But what's the big deal about grid electricity? We have plenty. If
anything, we might be building more nukes and pumped storage so as to
stop burning what precious little methane we don't have for the grid.
That methane would be better used as a transportation fuel.
Roy Boy
Best, Dan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
05 Apr 2005 09:00:12 PM |
|
|
But you can beat a hydroelectric turbine with a whale sliding vane motor
100 to 1.
Hoover dam would run 100 states.
a 20 inch pipe up a 1100 foot in a stream
pushng the sliding vane forward 20 x 30 inch x 500 psi 300,000 pounds of
thrust at 35 mph held back to 30 mph.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dexx" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
08 Apr 2005 12:39:40 AM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
The above page also mentions full batteries at 10AM on
a hot summer morning (which means that the homeowner
doesn't need a tracking mount all that much). Ideally,
that extra power would be channeled into oil production
somehow -- how, I have no clue at this time.
I'd like to put a big PV panel on my roof if it was cheap enough. My
electricity provider will pay me for putting power back into the grid.
So i wouldnt need batteries. Unfortunately the $10 a day i'd earn would
take decades to pay back the cost of a big panel.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred McGalliard" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
18 May 2005 10:12:47 AM |
|
|
"Roy Boy" <rjohann710@mindsync.net> wrote in message .
....
Sixth, solar-stirling engines can make use of very low temperature
differences; I've watched a model stirling engine run for an hour on
the temperature difference between a cup of hot water and ambiant air
temperature.
Not to disparage the stirling, but while this will run at a very low temp
dif, it will not run efficiently.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
23 Apr 2005 11:47:37 AM |
|
|
dexx,
That's really good news for the PV manufacturers, plus for all of the
additional materials and installation effort that'll seriously
compromise the servicability of your roof. Then if you were to include
batteries, as that too should only pollute mother earth to another
fairlywell while making those battery and shipping companies very
happy.
I believe if you were Bill Gates, thus able to afford the 18% efficient
PV panels, having all the necessary engineering and staff for getting
those properly installed and in some cases needing to be cleaned off
each day, as then you'd get almost 10% of the energy back that it'll
take for manufacturing and sustaining all of that PV stuff in the first
place, not to mention the eventual complexities of recycling much of
that which almost no one wants in their backyard.
Or, you could order up a solar/stirling configuration that's currently
at nearly 250 w/m2 by day and that's without taking further advantage
of the secondary/recoil photons that should be capable contributing yet
another 100 w/m2. Plus having an absolutely massive and insulated fluid
storage tank as the foundation to your multi-million dollar home that's
nicely insulated to R-1024/m via basalt composites and, lo and behold
you've got something that'll actually contribute rather than suck the
very remainders of life out of our polluted environment.
A somewhat new and improved alternative, utilizing a reflectivity of
91% that's based upon roughly 100 m2 = 25 KW = 250 w/m2
http://www.egr.unlv.edu/solar/about/specs.html Peak Efficiency 24.9 kW
= 28.9%, and it's most likely only going to get better. Of course, by
the time this stirling foundation and infrastructure is fully
configured and all systems are go, even Bill Gates is going to need a
second mortgage. Thus individually the one and only viable alternative
is direct solar thermal energy storage and subsequent draw upon that
cash of warm water that's nicely stored within your million gallon and
R-1024/m insulated tank, as that's a win-win without 10% the
investment, not 10% the maintenance and nearly zero recycling potential
with regard to eventually disposing of whatever's related, and you
don't even have to be a certified steam engineer as to operate this
contraption.
Unless you've got a crop of corn that's worth less as food than a third
of it's energy potential, leave the solar/PV and solar/stirling options
up to those honest ENRON and SANDIA types that always have your best
interest in mind (at least those mainstream media published and even
spendy NOVA productions of such impressive infomercials and of their
dog-wagging spin, hype and thereby fostering all of those
disinformation-R-us heathens that are always right as rain), and
otherwise just keep paying $10/gallon of whatever fuel that'll still be
taken from Iraq as $1/barrel, and don't even ask where the other
$99/barrel is going. As long as we have our WMD snipe hunting warlords
like GW Bush at the helm of our good ship LOLLIPOP, there's never going
to be another oil shortage for us. Of course, we'll need to construct a
few new and improved oil refineries, as either that or we'll have to
start importing finished fuel products from the likes of Mexico and
Canada, either of which are fairly certain we've placed them on our
Axis of Evil list by their not going along with our 'NUKES in SPACE'
program.
-
Big township that's situated upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Many alternate topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
18 May 2005 02:53:25 AM |
|
|
Dear Mr. Guth:
That'a a lot of complexity for a simple installation of a PV system on
a roof top.
A few points if I may:
First, while there are a number of factors that degrade roofs,
shielding them from strong sunshine is not one of them. Qualified
installers are quite good at this simple mounting job and make sure
that moisture entrapment is not built into their installation.
Second, I know of very few PV owners with grid-connected systems that
bother with batteries; some do for special circumstances like critical
emergency power.
Third, washing down roof top panels with a garden hose presents no
major diificulties that I am aware of.
Fouth, Solar-Stirling engines work, they do need more development, and
they present interesting co-gen opportunities in more complex systems.
Fifth, solar-stirling engines make a facinating hobby, since they offer
one of the few solar-electric technologies that can be constructed by a
good hands-on back-yard mechanic.
Sixth, solar-stirling engines can make use of very low temperature
differences; I've watched a model stirling engine run for an hour on
the temperature difference between a cup of hot water and ambiant air
temperature. This gets back to the home-based builder who may create a
workable solar system using intermediate-grade solar heat to drive a
top-end stirling and then use the waste heat as a space and hot water
heating source. Again, while the Henry Ford of Stirling Engines may
even now be putting the finishing touches on his breakthrough design,
looking a stirling construction as a hobby can be quite rewarding to
the practicioner.
Seventh, while Jesus may have turned water into wine, GW is not going
to produce a similar miracle when it comes to producing more oil. But
I am moved to pray that he does so, as long as the video cameras are
pointed his way at the time.
Eighth, Mexico has now become a net importer of natural gas (from us),
and Canada has a lot of frozen tarry sludge to offer up for sale at
estimated production costs of $50 - $80 per barrel, depending on which
costing source seams most reasonable and recognizing that, like solar
cost estimates, there is much uncertainty when costing major production
scale-ups of new technology.
Ninth, that tarry Canadian oil needs a lot of hydrogen to sweeten it
up. Obtaining useful hydrogen is a tough nut, as many posts here have
pointed out.
Tenth and Last: How do you know we don't already have nukes in space?
RJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
18 May 2005 04:20:32 AM |
|
|
Superb stuff . Jim please read
On 18 May 2005 00:53:25 -0700, "Roy Boy" <rjohann710@mindsync.net>
wrote:
Dear Mr. Guth:
That'a a lot of complexity for a simple installation of a PV system on
a roof top.
A few points if I may:
First, while there are a number of factors that degrade roofs,
shielding them from strong sunshine is not one of them. Qualified
installers are quite good at this simple mounting job and make sure
that moisture entrapment is not built into their installation.
Second, I know of very few PV owners with grid-connected systems that
bother with batteries; some do for special circumstances like critical
emergency power.
Third, washing down roof top panels with a garden hose presents no
major diificulties that I am aware of.
Fouth, Solar-Stirling engines work, they do need more development, and
they present interesting co-gen opportunities in more complex systems.
Fifth, solar-stirling engines make a facinating hobby, since they
offer
one of the few solar-electric technologies that can be constructed by
a
good hands-on back-yard mechanic.
Sixth, solar-stirling engines can make use of very low temperature
differences; I've watched a model stirling engine run for an hour on
the temperature difference between a cup of hot water and ambiant air
temperature. This gets back to the home-based builder who may create
a
workable solar system using intermediate-grade solar heat to drive a
top-end stirling and then use the waste heat as a space and hot water
heating source. Again, while the Henry Ford of Stirling Engines may
even now be putting the finishing touches on his breakthrough design,
looking a stirling construction as a hobby can be quite rewarding to
the practicioner.
Seventh, while Jesus may have turned water into wine, GW is not going
to produce a similar miracle when it comes to producing more oil. But
I am moved to pray that he does so, as long as the video cameras are
pointed his way at the time.
Eighth, Mexico has now become a net importer of natural gas (from
us),
and Canada has a lot of frozen tarry sludge to offer up for sale at
estimated production costs of $50 - $80 per barrel, depending on which
costing source seams most reasonable and recognizing that, like solar
cost estimates, there is much uncertainty when costing major
production
scale-ups of new technology.
Ninth, that tarry Canadian oil needs a lot of hydrogen to sweeten it
up. Obtaining useful hydrogen is a tough nut, as many posts here have
pointed out.
Tenth and Last: How do you know we don't already have nukes in space?
RJ
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
23 Apr 2005 03:16:30 PM |
|
|
I got a drill that will drill a 12 inch hole 10 miles deep . I use
air to get the dirt out .
Its a mini tunnel machine and will boar for a year to get there but
itwill get there.
Now a heat source is getting cheeper.
The cheeper and deeper we can drill a hole the more steam engines and
lpe will out solar and evrything else out.
drill till its 1000 deg and its stays hot as the earth heats it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
23 Apr 2005 04:47:09 PM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4084-426AAD1E-222@storefull-3212.bay.webtv.net...
I got a drill that will drill a 12 inch hole 10 miles deep . I use
air to get the dirt out .
Hey dumass... set up an hermetically sealed room. Run a 10 mile pipe to it.
Now go inside, seal the room, and try and breathe through that 10-mile long
12-inch diamter tube.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Large scale solar plant? |
05 Apr 2005 03:00:50 AM |
|
|
The primary energy required to produce our electricity is roughly 3
times our electric consumption, so your answer can lead to confusion in
energy accounting.
Never-the-less, counting marginal farming land, destroyed land (from
industrial toxic wastes), roof area, parking lot area, ocean-based
production, and the retail electrical distribution sysem as well as the
national transmission grid, the is ample area available in the US to
easily produce 50 times our current electrical consumption.
Things will get tight and testy when we are up to a factor of 100 in
required electrical production.
But short of this, solar collection area is plentiful in this country.
The Sahara may become of value should we ever be forced to import
energy products once again.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
