Solar power

[philf]

Hi Phil


Is this your hydro project  ?  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17552817 


Rob

Yes, that's the one Rob.

I think Chris (Craynerd) saw them as they were being lifted in on his way to see me back in March.

Hopefully we'll soon have an up to date website which tells people what's going on and how much power we're generating.

The site has eight CCTV cameras which the volunteers can monitor from the comfort of home.

Even when it's -5 C outside the powerhouse is nice and warm due to the gearboxes running very warm and the inverter inefficiency.

Cheers.

Phil.

[Rob.Wilson]

Looks a very  well worth wile project Phil 

Should be fitted to more rivers ,all that water running down hill , waisted energy 


Rob

[AdeV]

If we assume that we can ultimately develop a system that is 50% efficient (the best you can do under the Laws of Thermodynamics)

Why would 50% be the most efficient? Surely all the Law of Thermodynamics states is we can't be 100% or more efficient? Or are you treating the solar station as a heat pump; in which case you're right, 50% is the best we would ever get.

and that we are working with an input of 1000 W/mē that is available for an average of 12 hours/day.  That implies that, to meet our total energy needs, we would dedicate 2*2*30,000,000,000,000/1000 = 120,000,000,000 mē (or 120,000 kmē) to that generation.  That is a square (roughly) 350 km on a side -- and then you have to distribute this power.

The size is easy - there's way more than 350km² of Sahara desert, for example, and that is sun-soaked most of the time. As you say, the problem is distribution, not generation.

How about this for an idea - and bear in mind that once the capital costs are accounted for, the running costs would be comparatively minimal:

1) Use the Spanish "power tower" idea, but scaled up to cover ~350 square kms as you propose. In fact, I'm not sure what the efficiency of the Spanish system is, so let's aim for a 500km² system (of course, it doesn't all HAVE to be in the same place; a biggie in the Sahara, one in the Middle East, one in Arizona and one in Central Australia would probably do.

2) Use the energy to extract carbon from the atmosphere, hydrogen from water, to create synthetic oils - all the way from butane through petroleum spirit (gasoline) down to heavy fuel oil, in the proportions which make the most sense from a transportation and electricity generation point of view.

3) Use new and existing rail/road/pipeline infrastructure to transport the product(s) to their destination markets.


Obviously, there are some pretty massive political problems to circumvent there; and a few technological ones; but IMHO it's the easiest way to transport large quantities of energy without requiring expensive cryogenics, pressure vessels, or losing most of it to resistance. It also has the advantage of sucking CO2 out of the air, so the greenists would need to find a new eeevil gas to moan about.

In fact, the biggest immediate problem I can foresee is - what the hell to do with all the oxygen you liberate (2 from each CO2 molecule, and 1 from each water molecule)... sure, some of it could be compressed and bottled, but I'm really not sure about the rest of it...

[raynerd]

I think Chris (Craynerd) saw them as they were being lifted in on his way to see me back in March.

Phil.

Phil, I hadn`t seen that video that Rob showed and yes, that is exactly what I saw. Monsters they were!

[Lew_Merrick_PE]

Why would 50% be the most efficient? Surely all the Law of Thermodynamics states is we can't be 100% or more efficient? Or are you treating the solar station as a heat pump; in which case you're right, 50% is the best we would ever get.

In absolute terms, 50% of the energy gets lost in conversion from one form to another.  You can only get higher than 50% throughput when you are keeping the energy in the same form.  Thus, when you convert magnetic energy to electrical energy, you can reach (slightly) above 50% because electron quanta are magnetic quanta.  However, when you convert electro-magnetic waves into chemical imbalances and back into electron quanta (i.e. PV systems), you run into 3rd Law restrictions.  The same is true when you convert electro-magnetic waves into thermal quanta.

This is why I state that, Three years of a mechanical engineer's education is spent learning to prove mathematically that Murphy (or Parkenson on your side of the pond) was an optimist...

[AdeV]

Hmm, I knew I should have listened to what my Physics teacher was saying, back when I was at school...

[Lew_Merrick_PE]

Ade,

Thermodynamics, for which I always have preferred Robert Heinlein's description as ThermoGodDamnics, should not be called a science.  It is, rather, an art!  The secret to this art is having several feet of bookshelf of the references that list the plethora of fudge factors and describe when and how to use them to modify the (so-called) equations.

I was "taught" ThermoGodDamnics in college by a professor who was generally acclaimed to be one of the top ten thermodynamics people in the world.  I learned absolutely nothing from him as he knew the subject too well to teach it.  I did not get a handle on it at all until I worked with a recently inked Masters of Science in Engineering type who had just mastered the subject himself.  He was able to explain things in a manner that was understandable.

I have, off-and-on over the past three decades, worked with NASA's top thermodynamicist.  Believe me, I know just how poor my skills are in this arena.  The frightening part is that there are nearly a dozen companies (including some really large, major corporations) where I rank as Mr. Thermodynamics -- something that scares the living bejesus out of me!

[RussellT]

In fact, the biggest immediate problem I can foresee is - what the hell to do with all the oxygen you liberate (2 from each CO2 molecule, and 1 from each water molecule)... sure, some of it could be compressed and bottled, but I'm really not sure about the rest of it...

This isn't a problem, you just release it into the atmosphere.  The system you describe is renewable, when your synthetic fuels are consumed they will use that oxygen and produce the CO2 and H20 that you originally used.

I suspect though that it would be easier to use Hydrogen as your renewable fuel.  It should also be possible to build a world wide grid - using aluminium for conductors.  That would also allow you to produce electricity 24 hours a day by using a selection of deserts.

I live further up the River Goyt from Phil and can testify to the amount of water.  In my opinion this is an effect of climate change and I think the first task of any large scale solar power should be to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere.  The models show that the effects of doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere will take a thousand years.  Governments have agreed to try and limit CO2 levels in the atmosphere to twice pre industrial levels and we're currently at about 1.5 times pre industrial levels.  The effects we're seeing are only the beginning - we need to reduce atmospheric CO2 and we're not going to persuade people to stop using fossil fuels until they run out.

I'll get off my hobby horse now.

Russell