Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: CIC on 9 Aug 2010 23:43 On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:02:33 +0000 (UTC), don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >In <ojc1669gal5p6l83l45p54m8e1pi6c6lva(a)4ax.com>, CIC wrote in small part: > >>50% conversion efficiency on solar panels is achievable. > > Can you give a cite for this? > > Especially should it be more practical than a layer of indium gallium >nitride or relative-thereof cells, over layer of a gallium arsenide or >gallium phosphide or relative-thereof cells, over a layer of silicon ones. > > The LED manufacturing industry is doing little with die sizes much >larger than a 1 mm square, despite efficiency of InGaN varying generally >inversely with current density for die sizes and amounts of current >generally mostly used. I am aware of only one manufacturer making dice >of that chemistry in a size so monstrous as roughly a 3 mm square, and >one other ramping up production of something likely smaller but much >bigger than a 1 mm square. And InGaN LEDs have been around since about >1996, and ones with roughly 1 mm square dice have been around since around >2001. Check this: http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/PV/pv_tech/Evolution%20of%20Multijunction%20Technology.pdf
From: Nobody on 9 Aug 2010 23:49 On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 01:59:50 +0200, Koning Betweter wrote: > I don't like the governements of countries who are selling uranium. One of the plus points for nuclear power is that much of the world's uranium deposits are in stable, developed countries, primarily Australia and Canada. Those two currently supply ~35% of all uranium ore, and could easily supply 100% for the foreseeable future (uranium is far from scarce; supply is dictated by demand rather than availability).
From: Winston on 10 Aug 2010 00:00 On 8/7/2010 9:16 PM, Jim Yanik wrote: > and one hailstorm will put your solar plant out of operation. Then you need to hire a rad shielded hazmat crew to transport the shards for storage in an underground storage facility for many many tens of thousands of years... No, wait..... :) --Winston
From: miso on 10 Aug 2010 01:11 On Aug 9, 7:04 pm, d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: > In <d4a8f600-f532-4b35-84b1-5be2cb148...(a)l6g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > > m...(a)sushi.com wrote: > >The waste issue hasn't been solved. > > The barriers are political. > > For example, there are plenty of salt domes that have contained > petroleum for a couple hundred million years. Vitrified waste would stay > there quite well. Then there are depleted uranium mines, which held > uranium ore for a couple hundred million years or so. Vitrified waste > with a few feet of concrete around it would do fine there. A doable > amount of concrete will absorb enough radiation to make "high level" > radioactive waste safe to store there. > > However, there is NIMBY. States don't want other states' trash, even if > they can be paid well to take it. > > And there was the artificial barrier enacted in the early 1980's, > requiring muclear waste to be monitored and retrievable. That rules out > dumping it in salt domes or exterrestrially. > > > Reprocessing is very very messy, well unless you like vats of acid. > > Why am I not hearing complaints about manufacture of vehicle batteries? > > >I used to be pro nuclear until I read Helen Caldecot's "Nuclear Power > >Is Not The Answer." No rants in the book, just facts laid out in a > >linear fashion. > > - Don Klipstein (d...(a)misty.com) Have you read the book? If not, I wouldn't comment on it's contents.
From: Bill Sloman on 10 Aug 2010 01:27
On Aug 10, 1:55 am, Jim Yanik <jya...(a)abuse.gov> wrote: > "tm" <the_obamun...(a)whitehouse.gov> wrote innews:i3nnde$bpi$1(a)adenine.netfront.net: > > > "Mark" <makol...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > >news:f6abed25-a7aa-4940-9367-4c39a9fe913c(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com.... > > On Aug 8, 9:21 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> On Aug 8, 8:30 am, John Larkin > > >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> > On 07 Aug 2010 21:35:07 GMT, John Doe <j...(a)usenetlove.invalid> wrote: > > >> > >John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >> > >> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > >>> "Summary Solar photovoltaic system costs have fallen steadily > >> > >>> for decades. They are projected to fall even farther over the > >> > >>> next 10 years. Meanwhile, projected costs for construction of > >> > >>> new nuclear plants have risen steadily over the last decade, > >> > >>> and they continue to rise. In the past year, the lines have > >> > >>> crossed in North Carolina. Electricity from new solar > >> > >>> installations is now cheaper than electricity from proposed new > >> > >>> nuclear plants." > > >> > >> The difference is that the US government subsidizes solar and > >> > >> punishes nuclear. Nukes work fine in Japan and France. They > >> > >> especially work fine at night. > > >> > >The French have more courage than we do. Ack! > > >> > How humiliating. > > >> > >And then there is the amount of surface area required to produce > >> > >the same amount of power, it is unrealistic. The idea of windmills > >> > >and solar panels as a primary source of power is sold to naïve > >> > >people. > > >> > Unfortunately, solar isn't very concentrated. A square meter of > >> > full-blast sunlight delivers a couple of hundred watts peak and > >> > averages maybe 50. The walls of a natural gas boiler, or nuclear fuel > >> > rods, run megawatts per square meter, 24/7. > > >> True but largely irrelevant. The US has lots of desert, and - with the > >> advance of global warming - will probably soon have even more. This > >> land is useless for anything except solar power generation and super- > >> conducting cable means that the power generated there can be used > >> pretty much anywhere. > > can't use the desert;a solar farm would upset the ecology,and the long > distance power lines would harm the view. Nobody seems to worry about the ecology when they can irrigate a desert. Jim is just trying to sound like his idea of an environmental activiist. > Plus,you need WATER to clean the panels,lots of it. It is one way of doing it. Brushes would do pretty well without water, but Jim is a conservative right wing nit-wit, whose wife gets to shift dust with a brush, so Jim isn't aware of that particular alternative technology. > Nuclear is the way to go for electric power generation. > Safe,clean,reliable,works 24/7/365. Can be located nearer to population > centers. If the inhabitants are as dim and trusting as Jim. Few are, these days, and spoil sports trot around mentioning Three Mile Island, which didn't kill anybody and Chernobyl, which killed quite few and caused quite a few more to move away. > Save the solar panels for where it makes sense; > Rural and other areas not easily served by conventional utlities. By which he means making sense to him. The Germans are thinking about using the Sahara as their local solar farm - this does require high voltage DC links, which Jim probably hasn't heard about, but it does seem to make sense to the Germans.. > >> Photovoltaic cells are useless at night, but thermal solar can heat up > >> loads of molten salt during the day and use it to keep generating > >> power overnight. > > with huge conversion losses. Numbers, Jim. Numbers. Use the sun's heat - concentrated by mirrors - to melt your molten salt, and use the molten salt as the heat source to drive your steam turbines. Keeping some of the molten salt hot overnight in a well-insulated tank doesn't produce any "conversion losses" at all, and thermal solar power is competitive with photo- voltaic for big enough installations. A number have been proposed, and one could mine these proposals for numbers if one had a rational opponentent to convince. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |