Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: Don Klipstein on 10 Aug 2010 04:01 In article <74i166l7nrg692b8g57j5jgmsnigaa8ono(a)4ax.com>, CIC wrote: >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%20 >Multijunction%20Technology.pdf Starts with a "cherleader-style" photo, and the next graphic afterwards is a "global warming hockey stick". I am already in a bad mood to be sold on whatever whoever is trying here to sell. A few graphics afterwards, a useful one shows up. That has one curve getting to about 44% for "best research cell efficiency" as of approaching 2010. That one also broke past 30% around 1991. I have yet to see on the market any PV items much more than roughly 11% efficient. (If you can tell me where and how to buy so much as 15% efficient means of converting sunlight to electricity - pleaase put up or shut up!) LED technology appears to me to having its cabability doubling every 3.5-4 years, slow in comparison to computer technology mostly at least doubling every 2 years on average from sometime in the 1960's to 1 or 2 years ago. LEDs were on the slower pace from 1960's to now... "Laboratory prototype" solar according to above had a little over half a doubling (on log scale) in about 18 years! When do I get to buy 20% or 15% efficient solar cells (preferably practical) from Digi-Key or Edmund Scientific or any likes of either of these? -- - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: CIC on 10 Aug 2010 04:29 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. Also check: http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/PV/pv_tech/msce.pdf
From: Bill Sloman on 10 Aug 2010 04:31 On Aug 9, 7:56 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 09/08/2010 03:40, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > > > On Aug 9, 12:27 am, Paul Keinanen<keina...(a)sci.fi> wrote: > >> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 06:31:09 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry > > >> <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Aug 8, 1:18 am, Paul Keinanen<keina...(a)sci.fi> wrote: > >>>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 19:11:20 -0700, John Larkin > > >>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>>>> If solar can compete on its own, it should. But even if it becomes > >>>>> economical on a cost per KWH basis, without a good storage method it > >>>>> will be a niche source. > > >>>> A storage method is only required, if the installed solar capacity is > >>>> larger than the day/night load variation. In all countries, the day > >>>> load is larger than the night load, especially if there is a lot of > >>>> air conditioning loads. Solar energy could supply the daytime peak, > >>>> while other forms of energy should be used to supply the base load > >>>> during night. > > >>>> If fixed arrays are used, they should be oriented so that the peak > >>>> production match the peak load hours, instead of simply orienting the > >>>> arrays to the south. > > >>>> Of course, other means of production is required for cloudy days, but > >>>> it makes more sense to use hydroelectric plants or burn stuff, instead > >>>> of trying to store solar energy. The solar energy storage time would > >>>> have to be up to weeks due to clouds and months at higher latitudes to > >>>> ride through the winter. > > >>> California ISO typically reports 2 types of electric power usage day - > >>> those with a peak about 9 PM when it is cool, and those with a peak > >>> about 2 PM when it is hot. > > >>>http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html > > >> Thank you for the graph. > > >> It would appear that the daily variation is about 9 GW, so that is the > >> maximum nominal solar power that it makes sense to build. > > >> Apparently some kind of daylight saving time is used, since the > >> consumption is high after sunset, apparently due to air conditioning > >> load. > > >> A similar curve for Finland (at Alaska latitudes) is available athttp://www.fingrid.fi/portal/in_english/electricity_market/load_and_g... > >> with about 2 GW day/night variation during weekdays and 1 GW during > >> weekends with early morning base loads of 7 GW. > > >> The base electric consumption is more than 12 GW during the winter > >> night and about 14 GW during the winter day. > > >> Someone might think that putting up 2 GW of solar power would solve > >> the problem. Unfortunately, at such high latitudes, the sun does not > >> shine much in the winter. A solar panel would only produce a few > >> watts. So in reality, the solar power array would be usable only > >> during a few summer months. > > > Germany is talking about building massive solar generation in the > > Sahara, and shipping the power north on ultra-high-volage DC links. > > Super-conducting cable has yet to be mentioned, but it would seem to > > offer even lower losses per kilometre. > > > -- > > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen > > As if we ought to put all our power generating capacity in poor Muslim > nations (again). Asking for trouble or what? As Muslim nations go, those on the northern borders of the Sahara are relatively well-off. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: CIC on 10 Aug 2010 04:48 On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:43:09 +0300, Paul Keinanen <keinanen(a)sci.fi> wrote: >On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:06:11 -0700, CIC <cicel(a)iinet.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:39:04 +0300, Paul Keinanen <keinanen(a)sci.fi> >>wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:21:19 -0700, CIC <cicel(a)iinet.com> wrote: >>> >>>>I don't believe there >>>>will be any distance transmission of energy, the way we do it today. >>> >>>If you intend to use unpredictable sources, such as wind energy, you >>>definitely are going to need a much larger and stronger transmission >>>network to even out the local production variations. >>> >>>For wind energy, be prepared to transfer energy at distances that are >>>similar to the size of a large high or low pressure area. The wind is >>>blowing around the center of the high or low pressure area, but there >>>is no wind in the center. >> >>That is why they are placed in areas where there is a predictable wind >>pattern, which it happens to be near a large city, most of the time. > >Perhaps on the trade wind coasts you might a capacity factor CF up to >50 %, in other areas 20-40 %. > >A 3 MW nominal power turbine with CF=33 % would produce only 24 MWh >each day on average. Wind farms in California: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/powerplants/Statewide_PP_8.5X11_wind.pdf
From: CIC on 10 Aug 2010 05:05
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:01:14 +0000 (UTC), don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >In article <74i166l7nrg692b8g57j5jgmsnigaa8ono(a)4ax.com>, CIC wrote: >>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%20 >>Multijunction%20Technology.pdf > > Starts with a "cherleader-style" photo, and the next graphic afterwards >is a "global warming hockey stick". > > I am already in a bad mood to be sold on whatever whoever is trying here >to sell. > > A few graphics afterwards, a useful one shows up. That has one curve >getting to about 44% for "best research cell efficiency" as of approaching >2010. That one also broke past 30% around 1991. > > I have yet to see on the market any PV items much more than roughly 11% >efficient. > > (If you can tell me where and how to buy so much as 15% efficient means >of converting sunlight to electricity - pleaase put up or shut up!) > > LED technology appears to me to having its cabability doubling every >3.5-4 years, slow in comparison to computer technology mostly at least >doubling every 2 years on average from sometime in the 1960's to 1 or 2 >years ago. > > LEDs were on the slower pace from 1960's to now... > > "Laboratory prototype" solar according to above had a little over half a >doubling (on log scale) in about 18 years! > > When do I get to buy 20% or 15% efficient solar cells (preferably >practical) from Digi-Key or Edmund Scientific or any likes of either of >these? What is your problem? Did I say that you can buy 50% efficient at Digi-Key? You shut up! I stated and showed you something and you don't like it... it is your problem, not mine. And what do I care if you like cheerleaders pictures or not... or if you are in a bad mood... has nothing to do with this issue! Wake up or go back to sleep! |