Pickens Plan -alternative energy

In summary: I doubt he will lose a penny on the venture. Wind and solar may seem expensive, but the long term payoff is almost a sure thing. But you never know, someone might invent something like cold fusion in a couple of years. :rolleyes: Then all the naysayers can say "See! Told you it was a stupid idea!" But I doubt it.Im praying Chetto

Should the US government provide Pickens with the money and recources they need?

  • Total voters
    19
  • #106
mheslep said:
Notable NREL conclusion:
"...Although the efforts to monitor wind power plants are ongoing, we can already conclude from the available data that despite the stochastic nature of wind power fluctuations, the magnitudes and rates of wind power changes caused by wind speed variations are seldom extreme, nor are they totally random. Their values are bounded in narrow ranges. Power output data also show significant spatial diversities within a large wind power plant..."

In the article on Spanish wind power I note that they place a strong emphasis in predicting power contributions. This should mitigate somewhat the fluctuations in nature. If and as windfarms become more widespread over larger areas then wind fronts passing through the windfarm grid can be more predictive of upcoming gains and losses in contributions and holes in the grid may even be targeted for deployment to help smooth transitions in wind passing through.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #107
  • #108
Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution

?

ScienceDaily (Aug. 1, 2008) — In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.

i just never know if it's another power from water thing or not.
 
  • #109
Alfi said:
Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution

?

ScienceDaily (Aug. 1, 2008) — In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.
This is very big deal if it holds up. Appears Nyocera et al have done this using common materials.
In Situ Formation of an Oxygen-Evolving Catalyst in Neutral Water Containing Phosphate and Co2+
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1162018

DANIEL NOCERA PROFILE:
Hydrogen Economy? Let Sunlight Do the Work
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5813/789
(subscription reqd)
 
Last edited:
  • #110
Being its MIT, I wouldn't hold my breath. MIT hasn't exactly been delivering lately on their discoveries and/or research. I think the answers to our energy problems are going to come slowly from the industrial sector.
 
  • #111
Topher925 said:
Being its MIT, I wouldn't hold my breath. MIT hasn't exactly been delivering lately on their discoveries and/or research. I think the answers to our energy problems are going to come slowly from the industrial sector.
Cobalt solution with an Indium Tin electrode, electrode is not consumed. It works What's to wait for, unless you doubt what is presented in the paper?
 
  • #112
More engineering work needs to be done to integrate the new scientific discovery into existing photovoltaic systems, but Nocera said he is confident that such systems will become a reality.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

I don't really understand why they are directly relating this to solar power? Also, I have not seen any published numbers that states its efficiency. I couldn't read the paper that was linked because I don't have an account at that website. I've read industrial electrolysis can operate at up to 70% efficiency, although expensively. Can this "synthetic photosynthesis" that doesn't use sunlight, compete with that? What about solar thermolysis or thermal solar power? Its made no advancement to increasing efficiency of photovoltaic cells, so how will this cause a "solar revolution"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #113
Topher925 said:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

I don't really understand why they are directly relating this to solar power? Also, I have not seen any published numbers that states its efficiency. I couldn't read the paper that was linked because I don't have an account at that website. I've read industrial electrolysis can operate at up to 70% efficiency, although expensively.
Yes, that is my understanding, and somewhere I saw this would be close to 100% efficient. I believe the solar angle is two fold: 1) It provides a more efficient way to store excess solar produced energy in the form of hydrogen which could later be dispatched as electric power via fuel cells or turbines, the pieces are there to do this now; 2) this work is a step closer to direct hydrogen production from solar radiation, i.e., they hope that direct solar radiation on the solution will cause it the H20 to disassociate.

For 1) your point about why just solar is valid, it could apply to any variable energy source. The solar hype might be explained by Nocera's statements in the press, unrelated to this work, that only solar has any hope of providing and lasting solution to the world's energy problems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #114
Yes here it is:

Dr. Nocera said human activities, in energy terms, right now are essentially a “12.8 trillion watt light bulb.” Our energy thirst will probably be 30 trillion watts, or 30 terrawatts, by 2050 with the human population heading toward 9 billion.

If that energy is supplied with coal and oil, an overheated planet is almost assured, he said.

Finding other options is a huge challenge, he added. To illustrate, he provided one hypothetical (and impossible) menu for getting those 18 additional terawatts without emissions from coal and oil:

- Cut down every plant on Earth and make it into a fuel. You get 7 terawatts, but you need 30. And you don’t eat.
- Build nuclear plants. Around 8 terawatts could be gotten from nuclear power if you built a new billion-watt plant every 1.6 days until 2050.
- Take all the wind energy available close to Earth’s surface and you get 2 terawatts.
- You get 1 more terawatt if you dam every other river on the planet and reach 30.

As he summed up, “So no more eating, nuclear power plants all over, dead birds everywhere, and I dam every other river and I just eke out what you’ll need in 40 years.”

Then he turned to the sun, his research focus, which bathes the planet in 800 terawatts of energy continually. “We only need 18 of those terawatts,” he said. But the current level of investment in pursuing that energy, he said, isn’t even close to sufficient.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/all-energy-roads-lead-to-the-sun/
 
  • #115
Topher925 said:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

I don't really understand why they are directly relating this to solar power? Also, I have not seen any published numbers that states its efficiency. I couldn't read the paper that was linked because I don't have an account at that website. I've read industrial electrolysis can operate at up to 70% efficiency, although expensively. Can this "synthetic photosynthesis" that doesn't use sunlight, compete with that? What about solar thermolysis or thermal solar power? Its made no advancement to increasing efficiency of photovoltaic cells, so how will this cause a "solar revolution"?

Absolute solar cell efficiency matters less than cost per watt, the goal being to get this number down to around $2 (before installation costs) that comes out to less than 10 cents per kwh amortized cost (including financing costs)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #116
BWV said:
Absolute solar cell efficiency matters less than cost per watt, the goal being to get this number down to around $2 (before installation costs) that comes out to less than 10 cents per kwh amortized cost (including financing costs)
How do you separate PV efficiency from the output power?
 
  • #117
Topher925 said:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

I don't really understand why they are directly relating this to solar power? Also, I have not seen any published numbers that states its efficiency. I couldn't read the paper that was linked because I don't have an account at that website. I've read industrial electrolysis can operate at up to 70% efficiency, although expensively. Can this "synthetic photosynthesis" that doesn't use sunlight, compete with that? What about solar thermolysis or thermal solar power? Its made no advancement to increasing efficiency of photovoltaic cells, so how will this cause a "solar revolution"?

"Nocera's new catalyst uses phosphate, cobalt, and an electrode that creates oxygen from water. The method uses 90 percent less energy that current processes."
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1505328/mit_professor_develops_more_efficient_way_to_use_solar_energy/index.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #118
mheslep said:
How do you separate PV efficiency from the output power?

Efficiency is how much of the sun's energy gets converted into usable electricity - current silicon PV cells are around 15%. But ultimately it is cost per watt, so at some price, a technology that gets, say 7% efficiency could possibly be a better technology
 
  • #119
Unexplained still is the efficiency that you might expect from such a process.

If you can do it for 10% of the current power can you create enough power from a fuel cell with the resulting separation to generate more electricity and perpetuate the process of separation exceeding the use of the original input of electricity? Are efficiencies then over 100%? Now that would be exciting, but of course there is a bit of a problem with thermodynamics.

Why do these articles make it all seem like late night infomercials?
 
  • #120
The method uses 90 percent less energy that current processes."

Thats more of what I was looking for. Although the article refers to the process of making O2 not H2. It states that it uses platinum just like current methods. However it did also state that the process is immune to most impurities and can be done in a glass container at standard environmental conditions which is saying a lot. Even if it is just as efficient as current methods it could possibly be a little bit cheaper.

And current solar cells that are available to the public are typically no better than 8%. The ones that operate at 15% are gallium arsenide based and are used in satellites. And of course extremely expensive.
 
  • #121
Topher925 said:
Thats more of what I was looking for. Although the article refers to the process of making O2 not H2.
Gathering the protons together has been a long time solved problem for chemists; the issue has been the other half: finding a catalyst that reorganized the O ions, hence the title of the paper.

And current solar cells that are available to the public are typically no better than 8%. The ones that operate at 15% are gallium arsenide based and are used in satellites. And of course extremely expensive.
That information is a bit dated, according to what I can find its more like 18% now for PV silicon crystals.
Misubishi 2007: 18%
http://www.solarbuzz.com./news/NewsASPT40.htm
Kyocera 2006: 18.5%
Sunpower 2008: 23.4%
http://www.solarbuzz.com./news/NewsNATE51.htm
Sunpower does residential installation through 3rd parties and will give you an estimate online:
http://www.sunpowercorp.com/For-Homes/How-To-Buy/Solar-Calculator.aspx

Worldwide nameplate prices:
Lowest Mono- Crystalline Module Price $4.35/Wp
Lowest Multi- Crystalline Module Price $4.17/Wp
Lowest Thin Film Module price $3.72/Wp
http://www.solarbuzz.com/

The exotic ($$$) multi-spectral PVs used on the Mars Rover and such are 30-40% efficient.
 
  • #122
That information is a bit dated

I guess it is...I stand corrected. I knew the inverters for solar have come a long way but I didn't know panels were so efficient now. 30-40% on the rover, that is freaken crazy! That isn't the AM0 efficiency is it?
 
  • #123
Topher925 said:
I guess it is...I stand corrected. I knew the inverters for solar have come a long way but I didn't know panels were so efficient now. 30-40% on the rover, that is freaken crazy! That isn't the AM0 efficiency is it?
No doubt it is the standard AM1.5, as I saw the Rover PV numbers compared to PV history, here:
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/42276.pdf
Slide 14,15
I also saw somewhere the Rover PVs cost millions, no telling how much of that was space qual.
 
  • #124
BWV said:
Efficiency is how much of the sun's energy gets converted into usable electricity - current silicon PV cells are around 15%. But ultimately it is cost per watt, ...
Yes and the peak wattage rating of a standard PV panel is going to be determined mostly by its efficiency. That is, a standard 3x5' PV panel used to be rated ~125W w/ maybe 8% efficiency. Now, the same size panel is rated at 315 peak Watts because it is ~20% eff.
 
  • #125
mheslep said:
Yes and the peak wattage rating of a standard PV panel is going to be determined mostly by its efficiency. That is, a standard 3x5' PV panel used to be rated ~125W w/ maybe 8% efficiency. Now, the same size panel is rated at 315 peak Watts because it is ~20% eff.


Some of the thin-film technologies are in the 7-9% efficiency range, but can be printed on a roll and do not need a semiconductor fab to manufacture them leading to dramatically lower costs. Nanosolar claims to be gearing up for $1 /watt production.


http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=45233
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #126
mheslep said:
No doubt it is the standard AM1.5, as I saw the Rover PV numbers compared to PV history, here:
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/42276.pdf
Slide 14,15
I also saw somewhere the Rover PVs cost millions, no telling how much of that was space qual.

Thanks. Interesting link about the multijunction devices.
 
  • #127
mheslep said:
Yes here it is:
Dr. Nocera said human activities, in energy terms, right now are essentially a “12.8 trillion watt light bulb.” Our energy thirst will probably be 30 trillion watts, or 30 terrawatts, by 2050 with the human population heading toward 9 billion...
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/all-energy-roads-lead-to-the-sun/
I went over to EIA to check Nocera's prediction of 30TW in 2050. EIA has 2030 prediction numbers here (in Quad BTUs):
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/excel/figure_1data.xls
They have world wide energy at growing by 50% in 2030 with percentage growth slowing down slightly into the future. Extending that out to 2050 gives me a 77% increase, or a jump to 22.6 TW from the current 12.8. Nocera is high by ~8TW using EIA figures.
 
  • #128
mheslep said:
I went over to EIA to check Nocera's prediction of 30TW in 2050. EIA has 2030 prediction numbers here (in Quad BTUs):
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/excel/figure_1data.xls
They have world wide energy at growing by 50% in 2030 with percentage growth slowing down slightly into the future. Extending that out to 2050 gives me a 77% increase, or a jump to 22.6 TW from the current 12.8. Nocera is high by ~8TW using EIA figures.

Yes, and he commits another error. This is *primary energy* use, while electricity is a substitute for end energy use. In almost all applications (and certainly in electricity generation, but also in locomotion, and even heat when you use heat pumps) you find a factor of about 3 between both.

That means that the *electrical* capacity you need to replace, say 18 TW primary energy, usually turns more around 6 TWe.

So it is not right to say that we'd need 30 TW of *electricity* in 2050 (even taking on his numbers) - we'd need around 10 TW, if we would do everything with electricity (and if we don't, well, then we don't need that electric capacity).
 
  • #129
What potential do TED (thermo-electric devices) devices hold?
(correct me if I'm wrong) -I realize that the efficiency is wretched; but what is so horrible about TEDs? What is holding back the efficiency of these devices?

We've got plenty of hot/cold environments that can be used to power these devices. magma, water, etc... we've got endless heat underground. why not?

---------------------------

I'm still prayin' for affordable 100% efficiency PV cells... those new film types look very promising. Come on mass production!why do you suppose Pickens wouldn't think TEDs weren't good enough to fund?
 
  • #130
taylaron said:
why do you suppose Pickens wouldn't think TEDs weren't good enough to fund?

Because he doesn't own any!

CS
 
  • #131
What potential do TED (thermo-electric devices) devices hold?

Not much. TEDs, except for the radioactive ones, have like you said very poor efficiency. Not like 1 or 2% but like 0.01% if that. They are just not capable of producing large amounts of power given the resources required to make them work not to mention the cost of those resources. Would you rather pay $0.10/kwh for power from wind and solar or $8.00/kwh from a TED plant in a volcano?
 
  • #132
mheslep said:
...That information is a bit dated, according to what I can find its more like 18% now for PV silicon crystals.
Misubishi 2007: 18%
http://www.solarbuzz.com./news/NewsASPT40.htm
Kyocera 2006: 18.5%
Sunpower 2008: 23.4%
http://www.solarbuzz.com./news/NewsNATE51.htm
Sunpower does residential installation through 3rd parties and will give you an estimate online:
http://www.sunpowercorp.com/For-Homes/How-To-Buy/Solar-Calculator.aspx

Worldwide nameplate prices:
Lowest Mono- Crystalline Module Price $4.35/Wp
Lowest Multi- Crystalline Module Price $4.17/Wp
Lowest Thin Film Module price $3.72/Wp
http://www.solarbuzz.com/
...
I should add that per the blogosphere the 20% panels are running $8/W, I don't have any other direct price information from those vendors. The panels driving the worldwide prices above are apparently ~10-12% efficient. Of course one would save on installation costs w/ the more efficient panels (less area required for a given power requirement).

Here's an informative cost breakdown graph. Installation etc = Total cost - module cost
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/59282-es.pdf
 

Attachments

  • SolarPanelCosts.png
    SolarPanelCosts.png
    7.2 KB · Views: 496
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #133
so full spectrum PV films are unlikely to be cost-competitive within the next 5-10 years?
 
  • #134
I keep hearing about Pickens' move towards Natural Gas Vehicles; but I also hear that there is not enough natural gas to supply the United States with the fuel they need (without monopolizing the market with foreign NG).
Is there truth in this gossip? Can the USA provide enough NG to power the majority of vehicles?
 
  • #135
taylaron said:
I keep hearing about Pickens' move towards Natural Gas Vehicles; but I also hear that there is not enough natural gas to supply the United States with the fuel they need (without monopolizing the market with foreign NG).
Is there truth in this gossip? Can the USA provide enough NG to power the majority of vehicles?

Well I know there is a huge amount of Natural Gas off of the coast of the Carolinas and Virginia. If the current prohibitions on drilling there were lifted, it would make a significant impact I think. Don't know if it would be enough to supply the entire US though.

CS
 
  • #137
taylaron said:
I keep hearing about Pickens' move towards Natural Gas Vehicles; but I also hear that there is not enough natural gas to supply the United States with the fuel they need (without monopolizing the market with foreign NG).
Is there truth in this gossip? Can the USA provide enough NG to power the majority of vehicles?
Pickens would not power all vehicles w/ NG nor does he claim to zero out foreign oil imports. Pickens proposes the following:
Currently 22% of US electric power comes from NG. He would take all of that NG producing electricity, replace it with wind generation, and use it instead as transportation fuel. If successful that would reduce foreign imports of oil by 38% and thereby allow ~$300B/yr of the total $700B/yr going to foreign oil suppliers to stay in the US.
http://www.pickensplan.com/index.php
Given the recent opening of shale NG fields, the US could keep this up for at least a of couple decades given its domestic NG reserves, which are now twice the size of US oil reserves (per unit of energy).
 
  • #138
Sterling Energy Systems made the news by setting a new solar-to-grid efficiency record of 31.25 percent for commercially available solar thermal systems. Its notable that the sterling engine approach is closed, so it doesn't require large amounts of water as some other solar thermal systems.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/stirling_energy.php
http://pesn.com/2008/07/14/9501487_SHEC_labs_solar_thermal_record/

From the sources I have that compares to other solar technology as follows:
Code: 
Research:
Multijunction (multi band gap) concentrator PV: 40.7%

Commercial:
SES Sterling engine concentrator: 31.3%
Multijunction (multi band gap) concentrator PV(expensive): ~30%
Traditional Monocystalline Si PV: 11-16%
Thin Film a-Si, CdTe, CIS, CIGS PV (lowest cost): 5-8%

http://www.solarbuzz.com/technologies.htm
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/42276.pdf
 
  • #139
tommygreen said:
Woah! this is really shocking... how can this be stopped?? Well it is high time something has been done for this...
Why are maps of gas fields shocking?
 
  • #140
And what should be done about it?
 

Similar threads

News Palin is probably the nation's leading energy expert - McCain
4
Replies
118
Views
14K
Assistance on building energy unit with alternators
Replies
24
Views
6K
How bright is the future of Maglev Cars?
Replies
19
Views
11K
Model Pulley: Understanding System Physics
Replies
27
Views
9K
Solving energy and food problems as a career
Replies
16
Views
7K
Is light pollution causing wasted energy and costing billions of dollars?
Replies
4
Views
4K
Solutions to the energy crisis / global warming problem
Replies
10
Views
80K
I Is there a fine structure constant running anomaly?
Replies
2
Views
3K
News I think energy independence is going too far - Shell Oil
Replies
2
Views
3K
Oxygen Enriched Internal Steam Compression Ignition Engine (OEISCIE)
Replies
14
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top