Gallery, Projects and General > Neat Stuff
Solar power
philf:
--- Quote from: RobWilson on December 22, 2012, 01:06:25 PM ---Hi Phil
Is this your hydro project ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17552817
Rob
--- End quote ---
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 :med:
Should be fitted to more rivers ,all that water running down hill , waisted energy :(
Rob
AdeV:
--- Quote from: Lew_Merrick_PE on December 22, 2012, 01:56:25 PM ---If we assume that we can ultimately develop a system that is 50% efficient (the best you can do under the Laws of Thermodynamics)
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: Lew_Merrick_PE on December 22, 2012, 01:56:25 PM --- 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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: philf on December 22, 2012, 02:12:57 PM ---
I think Chris (Craynerd) saw them as they were being lifted in on his way to see me back in March.
Phil.
--- End quote ---
Phil, I hadn`t seen that video that Rob showed and yes, that is exactly what I saw. Monsters they were!
Lew_Merrick_PE:
--- Quote from: AdeV on December 22, 2012, 03:40:38 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version