The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 6 Oct 2007 03:13 John Larkin wrote: > > On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:25:03 GMT, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > >In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:45:03 +0000, jimp wrote: > >> > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barrett(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to > >> >> > In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: > >> ... > >> >> >> Careful with that "common vernacular" stuff - Engineers probably > >> >> >> don't like it very much. > >> >> > > >> >> > Well, I'm an engineer and I like it, especially with a > >> >> > non-differentiated audience. > >> >> > > >> >> > If the common vernacular fails, use equations. > >> > > >> >> This is NOT a non-differentiated audience. Not much of an engineer, > >> >> look up the chemicals as i have told you. > >> > > >> > The audience ranges from drooling, raving lunatics to Phd's with > >> > everything in between. > >> > > >> > What would you call it? > > > >> sci.electronics.design? ;-) > > > >> Cheers! > >> Rich > > > >And sci.physics and sci.energy. > > Gosh, I bet you get more wingnuts than we do! Don't forget all the left hand threaded lugnuts. They are even worse. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: Michael A. Terrell on 6 Oct 2007 03:15 John Larkin wrote: > > On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:20:01 GMT, Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: > > >On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:37:59 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:56:39 GMT, Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: > > > >>>Although, you can't put solar panels on top of Everest, if they > >>>get in the way of the LIM mass-driver spacecraft launcher. ;-) > >> > >> Not to mention the winds, which hit 180 mph or something. > >> > >> Speaking of wind, this is really scairy: > >> > >> http://www.solarray.com/TechGuides/Racks_T.php > >> > > > > > >Do you mean "scary"? > > > > I give you refrigerator magnets, and that's the thanks I get. Now all he needs is for someone to give him a refrigerator. :( -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: TheM on 5 Oct 2007 15:45 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message > Cool. Get subsidies, ignore installation costs, don't document > maintanance costs, and keep your full-power utility connection for the > times that the fuel cells are down. > > That makes sense? > > John Too bad mother Earth doesn't care about subsidies, tree-huggers tend to forget that. M
From: Willie.Mookie on 6 Oct 2007 09:59 On Oct 5, 1:28 pm, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:36:40 -0700, Willie.Mookie wrote: > > ...> Approximately half the volume of a crystalline wafer is lost during > > the slicing operation. > > ... > > Whatever happened to "edge-defined film growth"? That's where they > pull a flat ribbon of silicon from the melt, and then just use > it "sideways". > > Obviously, it's unfeasible for one reason or another - anybody > know those reasons? > > Thanks, > Rich http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/silicon.html The DOE and others are doing research on this topic. It all has to do with large scale ordering. A crystal has large scale order. Something like glass or a mixture of tiny crystalline particles, does not. The crystalline structure has huge advantages in the efficiently moving electrical energy around. When folks try to coat a substrate with silicon they can't for one reason or another,get a pure crystalline structure with long period order. They get either glassy material, or what is known as polycrystalline structures. These either don't work, or don't work well enough to be worth the effort. Yet. My approach is to create a low cost super-performing lans array that works with expensive mono-crystalline solar cells operating at high intensity. In this way I reduce costs to less than $0.07 per peak watt. Should this sort of process lower the cost of solar panels, it won't hurt me. Because I can install the new low cost PV into my system, and reduce costs further. That's because my low cost lens system is dramatically lower cost than anything else out there. The cost of monocrystalline silicon wafers are about $1 per square inch. A 200 micron thick sheet of PET can cover over 4 square yards for $1. (I use precision molded PET ultrasoncially bonded in a water bath to create large lens arrays) This is a 5,000 to 1 cost advantage. Lets say edge defined film reduces the cost by a factor of 20 - so we get a square inch for 5 cents. This reduces the cost per watt of conventional panels to perhaps $1 per watt. But it cuts my costs in about half - to $0.04 per peak watt.
From: John Larkin on 6 Oct 2007 10:37
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:59:47 -0000, Willie.Mookie(a)gmail.com wrote: >On Oct 5, 1:28 pm, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:36:40 -0700, Willie.Mookie wrote: >> >> ...> Approximately half the volume of a crystalline wafer is lost during >> > the slicing operation. >> >> ... >> >> Whatever happened to "edge-defined film growth"? That's where they >> pull a flat ribbon of silicon from the melt, and then just use >> it "sideways". >> >> Obviously, it's unfeasible for one reason or another - anybody >> know those reasons? >> >> Thanks, >> Rich > >http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/silicon.html > >The DOE and others are doing research on this topic. > >It all has to do with large scale ordering. A crystal has large scale >order. Something like glass or a mixture of tiny crystalline >particles, does not. The crystalline structure has huge advantages in >the efficiently moving electrical energy around. When folks try to >coat a substrate with silicon they can't for one reason or another,get >a pure crystalline structure with long period order. They get either >glassy material, or what is known as polycrystalline structures. >These either don't work, or don't work well enough to be worth the >effort. > >Yet. > >My approach is to create a low cost super-performing lans array that >works with expensive mono-crystalline solar cells operating at high >intensity. In this way I reduce costs to less than $0.07 per peak >watt. > >Should this sort of process lower the cost of solar panels, it won't >hurt me. Because I can install the new low cost PV into my system, >and reduce costs further. That's because my low cost lens system is >dramatically lower cost than anything else out there. > >The cost of monocrystalline silicon wafers are about $1 per square >inch. A 200 micron thick sheet of PET can cover over 4 square yards >for $1. (I use precision molded PET ultrasoncially bonded in a water >bath to create large lens arrays) This is a 5,000 to 1 cost >advantage. > >Lets say edge defined film reduces the cost by a factor of 20 - so we >get a square inch for 5 cents. This reduces the cost per watt of >conventional panels to perhaps $1 per watt. But it cuts my costs in >about half - to $0.04 per peak watt. Got patents? John |