Who said that solar energy is not a feasible source of energy?

[Wise Young]

http://www.yannarthusbertrand.com/yann2/Sortie_HTML/img/fondecran/Faits/800x600/TVDC/7df9321d70a40b0cdcb3604734f21335.jpg
http://www.yannarthusbertrand.com/yann2/affichage.php?reference=TVDC%20001-IL0602N-0060&pais=Israel

I believe that this picture comes from Israel. If you look closely, those things on the tops of the buildings are solar energy panels.

[murrey]

Cool... i know it's feasable . Have seen it here also Wise...not quite so abundant.

[Lindox]

I think it's more then feasible..it is doable and vital to the peace on Earth theory.
Imagine how the use of solar energy could change the faces of many impoverished peoples for one thing.

We send so much money to fight poverty and it does nothing in reality..except cause more poverty on a larger basis. We need to develope alternative energy and become even richer then this country is today or ever has been. And safer and healthier.

With the opportunity to help the third world in ways that we have yet only to dream about.

[Mike C]

Those look like affordable solar kits....so many people seem to have them. Looks like 4 solarcell arrays linked up to some kind of control tower. Or could it be a rotator that moves the panels towards the sun automatically? After clicking the link, I clicked on the right arrow on the picture´s edge. The next picture shows the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, and to the left, more solar arrays on the roofs.

I want one now!

[IanTPoulter]

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/China_To_Build_One_Of_Earth_Biggest_Solar_Power_St ations_999.html
by Staff Writers
Shanghai (AFP) Nov 21, 2006
China intends to build one of the world's biggest solar power stations at a cost of 765 million dollars, state press reported Tuesday. The 100-megawatt facility, to be built in Dunhuang, an oasis town in northwest China's Gansu province, will be a collaborative effort between the local government and Beijing's Zhonghao New Energy Investment, Xinhua news said. The project will take five-years to construct, it added.

The report followed plans announced by Australia last month to build the world's biggest solar power station, a 154 megawatt behemoth, which the builder said could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 400,000 tonnes a year. Australia, like the United States, has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, and the station is part of Australia's rethink on national environmental policies that are under sharp criticism at home and abroad.

[Mike C]

Hey Ian, what´s up with that CO2 storage site being built in Austrailia? I heard it will be the largest storage facility in the world for CO2. Do you know how the CO2 is being collected?

[IanTPoulter]

Hey Ian, what´s up with that CO2 storage site being built in Austrailia? I heard it will be the largest storage facility in the world for CO2. Do you know how the CO2 is being collected?
Mike, the Co2 is collected during the processing of the natural gas (I dont know the exact process) Up to now they have been venting it off into the atmosphere. I do know that the building of the storage site is dependent on the new Gorgon gas project being given approval. This is not a given as environmental approval still needs to be given and the greenies are getting a bit toey about the amount of development occurring in this state at the moment. I came across this news snippet though.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=34370
SYDNEY -- The Australian government said Thursday it would pump $60 million ($46.5 million US) into the world's biggest carbon capture and storage system, aimed at cutting a major gas plant's environmental impact.
Owners of the Gorgon gas project, which sits in a sensitive nature reserve off the West Australian coast, plan to bury 125 million tons of carbon dioxide -- two-thirds of what the plant would emit over its 20-year lifespan.
Carbon dioxide is routinely removed from natural gas during processing and is usually vented into the air, but in this case would instead be injected 2.5 kilometers (1.6 miles) underground.

[Tufelhunden]

I've talked to some physics professors at my school about this very topic. They seemed to agree that the problem lies more in one of maintenance. We have large solar "fields" set up in the desert (probably the most feasible location), but the cost of maintenance in the face of sand storms and other weathering makes it less efficient. I remember in one of my environmental studies classes, our teacher said she bought panels for her house, and that the entire system would pay for itself within single digit years. I, myself love the idea of having a Bay Area home with solar panels and not have to pay for electricity in the winter. Btw, the physics professors told me that nuclear is still the best way to go.

[Wise Young]

I've talked to some physics professors at my school about this very topic. They seemed to agree that the problem lies more in one of maintenance. We have large solar "fields" set up in the desert (probably the most feasible location), but the cost of maintenance in the face of sand storms and other weathering makes it less efficient. I remember in one of my environmental studies classes, our teacher said she bought panels for her house, and that the entire system would pay for itself within single digit years. I, myself love the idea of having a Bay Area home with solar panels and not have to pay for electricity in the winter. Btw, the physics professors told me that nuclear is still the best way to go.

Although I am not a physics professor, the reading that I have done on the subject convinces me that your professors are correct. The problem with solar energy is that it is a low intensity energy source and not a particularly good direct source for intensive energy that is needed for industrial application. Efficient energy storage devices are needed for such purposes and themselves are polluting, perhaps more so than nuclear waste. This year, after consideration of the the energy and pollution costs of a hybrid car, that I chose not to go that route. The batteries of a hybrid car takes a great deal of energy to build and needs to be replaced after five years. Both the economic and pollution costs of building and replacing the batteries are considerable and may end up costing more than just getting a smaller and energy efficient car. Of course, I am willing to reconsider when more efficient and less polluting energy storage devices become available.

In the meantime, there is so much that we can do to reduce the cost of energy generation and utilization. For example,

• Reducing gasoline usage by cars. In another topic (http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=72897), I calculated the power requirements of moving a motorcycle at high speeds against wind resistance. The power requirements are enormous even at speeds of 60 mph (100 kph). Making cars with lower wind resistance and lowering the maximum speeds form 65 mph to 55 mph can easily reduce gasoline consumption by 40%. These are not minor savings. Compared to household usage of energy, our cars use an enormous amount of energy.

• Using cooling to optimize power generation. My son did a fellowship in Australia several years ago and he was studying how simply cooling the power generators to an optimal temperature can significantly boost the output of the generators. They use ice that are made during winter and stored in caves to provide the cooling. I thought that this is such a great idea.

• Using natural cooling sources for air-conditioning. Cornell University had a wonderful student-run project where they placed pipes in a deep lake by the university to provide the air-conditioning cooling. The project took several years to complete but the university now gets almost all its air conditioning during the summer time from the cold water in the depths of the lake.

• Solar energy panels for electrical devices that run on batteries. For example, it would be really great if somebody were to invent a material that converts light into electricity and then use this material for all electrical devices that run on battery, to top up the battery with a slow flow of current. All laptops should have such panels. It would save a lot of power required for recharging batteries.

• Houses should be better insulated for both summer and winter. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that we are wasting a huge amount of energy heating and cooling dwellings for humans. If there are natural sources of energy available, such as hot springs, people should use them. We can easily build houses so that 60% of the houses are underground and therefore insulated by the ground. Trees help shade houses and take up CO2.

There are also many inexpensive approaches to tackling the problem of energy storage and global warming from CO2 accumulation at the same time. For example, I just heard a PBS show that said that algae are pound-for-pound the most efficient converters of CO2 of any living organism. Algae, for example, have doubling times on the order of 3-4 hours and are a very efficient way of storing solar energy. An area the size of New Jersey dedicated to cultivation of algae, for example, would produce sufficient organic materials for oil production to supply the whole United States with biodiesel. It would use up a huge amount of CO2 at the same time, recycling the CO2 produced by the biodiesel. It uses solar energy for the conversion. I can imagine floating rafts of algae on the ocean that would use solar energy to drive small motors that would move the rafts out to sea and back again to a power generation plant that would convert the algae to oil. This could be done automatically and without fuss or muss.

Wise.

[Tufelhunden]

Although I am not a physics professor, the reading that I have done on the subject convinces me that your professors are correct. The problem with solar energy is that it is a low intensity energy source and not a particularly good direct source for intensive energy that is needed for industrial application. Efficient energy storage devices are needed for such purposes and themselves are polluting, perhaps more so than nuclear waste. This year, after consideration of the the energy and pollution costs of a hybrid car, that I chose not to go that route. The batteries of a hybrid car takes a great deal of energy to build and needs to be replaced after five years. Both the economic and pollution costs of building and replacing the batteries are considerable and may end up costing more than just getting a smaller and energy efficient car. Of course, I am willing to reconsider when more efficient and less polluting energy storage devices become available.



Wise.

Dr Young:

I forgot to mention that those same professors mentioned to me that the "panacea" as far as the future of our potential alternative energy consumption definitely rotated around the technological development of the battery.

[Adrian]

This is an interesting article:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/energy/story/0,,1957908,00.html

In the desert, just across the Mediterranean sea, is a vast source of energy that holds the promise of a carbon-free, nuclear-free electrical future for the whole of Europe, if not the world.
We are not talking about the vast oil and gas deposits underneath Algeria and Libya, or uranium for nuclear plants, but something far simpler - the sun. And in vast quantities: every year it pours down the equivalent of 1.5m barrels of oil of energy for every square kilometre.

Two German scientists, Dr Gerhard Knies and Dr Franz Trieb, calculate that covering just 0.5% of the world's hot deserts with a technology called concentrated solar power (CSP) would provide the world's entire electricity needs, with the technology also providing desalinated water to desert regions as a valuable byproduct, as well as air conditioning for nearby cities.

CSP technology is not new. There has been a plant in the Mojave desert in California for the past 15 years. Others are being built in Nevada, southern Spain and Australia. There are different forms of CSP but all share in common the use of mirrors to concentrate the sun's rays on a pipe or vessel containing some sort of gas or liquid that heats up to around 400C (752F) and is used to power conventional steam turbines.


The claim is not just that this vast source of clean energy is accesible but that it is economical as well:


The German reports put an approximate cost on power derived from CSP. This is now around $50 per barrel of oil equivalent for the cost of building a plant. That cost is likely to fall sharply, to about $20, as the production of the mirrors reaches industrial levels. It is about half the equivalent cost of using the photovoltaic cells that people have on their roofs. So CSP is competitive with oil, currently priced around $60 a barrel.


This technology is close to being ready to put into large scale operation whilst huge amounts of money have just been allocated to nuclear fusion research that might possibly provide electricity for us in fifty years time:



The outlook is not promising. More than 30 countries last week agreed to spend £7bn on an experimental fusion reactor in France which critics say will not produce any electricity for 50 years, if at all. That amount of money would provide a lot of CSP power, a proven, working and simple technology that would work now, not in 2056.


The article is very optomistic about the potential of CSP technology to provide clean energy on a massive scale and to be in a postion to provide it soon. If this is correct this is very good news and the challenge is to get the necessary money spent on making sure it happens in a well thought out way.

[Lindox]

This is an interesting article:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/energy/story/0,,1957908,00.html





This technology is close to being ready to put into large scale operation whilst huge amounts of money have just been allocated to nuclear fusion research that might possibly provide electricity for us in fifty years time:



The article is very optomistic about the potential of CSP technology to provide clean energy on a massive scale and to be in a postion to provide it soon. If this is correct this is very good news and the challenge is to get the necessary money spent on making sure it happens in a well thought out way.

Everything is awkward and weird when it's first used..like planes to computers. After an object or idea is put into use then it just gets better and better. Solar energy is really an infant but will grow up to be great if it's nurtured properly.

As all alternative energy sources.

[Wesley]

I'm pretty sure those panels in Wise's original post are solar hot water heaters, not solar electric panels. I say that because solar hot water heaters in subtropical or warmer climates pay for themselves in a few years and that explains the tanks that are next to them. A basic thermosiphon hot water system like the kind that are on those roofs probably cost less than $1000. Solar electric panels still have pretty long payback periods.

I've never been able to figure out why the US hasn't adopted solar hot water heaters more widely in areas without freezing and abundant sunshine. Talk about low-lying fruit! The average household could get a majority of its hot water with an investment of less than $3000.

[rfbdorf]

I'm pretty sure those panels in Wise's original post are solar hot water heaters, not solar electric panels. .. Solar electric panels still have pretty long payback periods.
I'm certain that you are correct there.
- Richard

[Wise Young]

Interesting projects out there
http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/
TREC and TREC-UK

STOP PRESS: Report about CSP in the Guardian newspaper. There is also an interview about CSP with Dr Gerhard Knies on BBC Radio 4, The World Tonight (see the first entry for the 27th of November on the News page).

The Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC) is a group of scientists, engineers and politicians developing a collaboration amongst countries in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa (EUMENA) to take advantage of the truly enormous quantities of solar energy falling as sunlight on the world's hot deserts.

TREC-UK is a group of volunteers who are interested in the concepts developed by TREC and aim to raise awareness of those concepts in the UK, and in Ireland until such time as there is a local group there.
TREC concepts

Every year, each square kilometre of hot desert receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil. Multiplying by the area of deserts world-wide, this is nearly a thousand times the entire current energy consumption of the world.

The key technology for tapping in to this energy is 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), which normally means using mirrors to concentrate sunlight to create heat. The heat may be used to drive a Stirling engine and dynamo to generate electricity or it may be used to raise steam to drive a steam turbine and electric generator in the conventional way. CSP is very different from the better-known photovoltaics (PV, sometimes called 'solar panels') and should not be confused with it. However, slightly confusingly, some CSP plants use mirrors to concentrate sunlight and then use PV panels to convert the concentrated sunlight to electricity (see "Australia plans major solar plant").

In those CSP plants that concentrate sunlight to create heat, the heat can be stored in melted salt or other substance so that electricity generation may continue at night or on cloudy days (see the web page about generating electricity without the sun). Also, gas may be used as a backup source of heat when there is no sun.

<more>

[alhavel]

I wanted to put panels on my roof, got a great exposure, and in doing that I would get a check instead of writing a check every month for electricity. Hope they can hold out another year with the rebates on Long Island. Still Looking Into It.

[Lizbv]

This link may be of interest:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/

To fulfill solar energy’s promise, the President’s 2007 Budget proposes a new $148 million Solar America Initiative – an increase of $65 million over FY06. The Solar America Initiative will accelerate the development of advanced photovoltaic materials that convert sunlight directly to electricity, with the goal of making solar PV cost-competitive with other forms of renewable electricity by 2015. As the per-unit cost for these advanced PV technologies falls, sales volume will go up, driving new innovation and further cost reductions. Globally, attempts to bring electricity to the developing world will frequently employ solar PV as the lowest-cost alternative.