Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: CIC on 10 Aug 2010 05:32 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? And really... do you think Digi-Key or Edmund Scientific would be the best place to shop for solar cells and solar panels? Ha Ha... I see now what an "expert" level user you are in this area!
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 10 Aug 2010 06:46 On 10/08/2010 10:32, CIC wrote: > 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? > > > And really... do you think Digi-Key or Edmund Scientific would be the > best place to shop for solar cells and solar panels? > > Ha Ha... I see now what an "expert" level user you are in this area! The only thing that really matters is $/W unless you live on a postage stamp -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 10 Aug 2010 06:50 On 10/08/2010 09:29, 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. > > > Also check: > > http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/PV/pv_tech/msce.pdf http://www.physorg.com/news199962208.html -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 10 Aug 2010 06:53 On 10/08/2010 09:31, Bill Sloman wrote: > 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. And terrorists would never dream of targetting those long vulnerable power cables between N Africa and Europe. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Jon Kirwan on 10 Aug 2010 07:44
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:50:35 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >http://www.physorg.com/news199962208.html I note that the article provides no infomation at all about what efficiency was actually achieved. I consider that a very serious failing by the article's author and it makes me wonder about its relationship and provenances. The lead reseacher at the group does claim a proof of concept, but apparently releases ONLY information about what they calculated (but later in the article admit they failed to achieve without further explanation) as a goal. The article admits, "The efficiency they achieved in their testing was __well below__ what they have calculated PETE's potential efficiency to be, which they had anticipated." And then followed with an apologetic of some kind about that. The article hints that "with the right material - most likely" they might be able to get "the actual efficiency ... the researchers have calculated." Oh, well. Jon |