Huge Solar Breakthrough!
- Thread starter lukep
- Start date
If they can produce energy on a lower cost pr KW, it would be a break thought. Its the price that matters, beacause if the higher efficiency comes on a higher price pr KW, its no point using it...
Why not rather use perpetuum mobile and generate infinite energy?
PS: This looks like bull and I'm sure it was created simply to scam investors out of their moolah
PS: This looks like bull and I'm sure it was created simply to scam investors out of their moolah
Yes, THIS product is surely bull...
Still..
Notes
I. Regenerative energy is still the way to go
II.Study this video. See HOW they bullshit you.
Exhibits
a) "Air flows over the solar panels, cooling them like a fresh breeze over your skin."
b) "Like a turning disco ball, we make the electrons dance."
... etc ...
::emp::
Still..
Notes
I. Regenerative energy is still the way to go
II.Study this video. See HOW they bullshit you.
Exhibits
a) "Air flows over the solar panels, cooling them like a fresh breeze over your skin."
b) "Like a turning disco ball, we make the electrons dance."
... etc ...
::emp::
This is a marketing gimmick. Solar & Wind rely on the stupidity of consumers to make them believe that they have developed a breakthrough wonder product.
The 20x figure comes from extremely inefficient solar cells. The FIRST number they should tell you is the Watt/m2 number, which they don't. Their calculations are based on old , inefficient panels utilized in the worst possible way.
A solar tracker costs about $15 (Yes, $15) to build, and will increase those old, inefficient panels in a way that will get quite close to the efficiency of these without any further modifications. On top of this, these specific panels utilize a lens/collector system that amplifies light to bring to the PV. The thing is, any solar cell out there can do the exact same thing, the problem with using it is the fact that it makes the cost of the cell significantly higher and decreases the lifespan of the cell even further due to UV damage.
The glaring , obvious thing the video is missing is cost. Whether they want to believe it or not, the cost of solar isn't in land, it's in the panel, and infrastructure cost. All of their internal calculations estimate that people are using URBAN environments to generate electricity, only for that purpose. I hate to break it to you, but if you covered every square inch of a city with these things you still wouldn't be producing enough electricity, it is far easier to use rural, cheap land for your panels then transport it over a distance.
Furthermore , do you know who developed this technology? It was Solyndra. This technology isn't new, it is NOT revolutionary and does NOTHING better than a efficient, tracked system.
EMP Stated that Germany "Generates" 50% of their power from solar. This is highly incorrect. Germany generates about 10% of their power from solar and 40% from natural gas generation systems. This is because solar generation is extremely chaotic in nature and it is literally impossible to tell when a panel will have output , so they have to build natural gas generation systems to produce power. You need to realize, the #1 sponsor of Solar & Wind power are companies like BP, Exxon and other companies dealing in oil/gas. Not because they believe that solar/wind are the future, but because for every watt that solar/wind produces, it requires 1 to 2 watts of natural gas generation ability, and they take that generation directly from nuclear & coal companies.
Do you want energy independence? If you do, don't ever, ever , ever consider photovoltaic or wind. Build a tracking parabolic trough collector. If you buy into the BS spewed by V3 , then using their magic numbers, a tracking parabolic solar trough is going to be a thousand times more efficient than their PV system. Solar troughs are 100% efficient at converting solar energy to heat. If you want to then generate electricity, you can utilize a steam loop. However the best bet would be using one to replace a current heating system with it.
The 20x figure comes from extremely inefficient solar cells. The FIRST number they should tell you is the Watt/m2 number, which they don't. Their calculations are based on old , inefficient panels utilized in the worst possible way.
A solar tracker costs about $15 (Yes, $15) to build, and will increase those old, inefficient panels in a way that will get quite close to the efficiency of these without any further modifications. On top of this, these specific panels utilize a lens/collector system that amplifies light to bring to the PV. The thing is, any solar cell out there can do the exact same thing, the problem with using it is the fact that it makes the cost of the cell significantly higher and decreases the lifespan of the cell even further due to UV damage.
The glaring , obvious thing the video is missing is cost. Whether they want to believe it or not, the cost of solar isn't in land, it's in the panel, and infrastructure cost. All of their internal calculations estimate that people are using URBAN environments to generate electricity, only for that purpose. I hate to break it to you, but if you covered every square inch of a city with these things you still wouldn't be producing enough electricity, it is far easier to use rural, cheap land for your panels then transport it over a distance.
Furthermore , do you know who developed this technology? It was Solyndra. This technology isn't new, it is NOT revolutionary and does NOTHING better than a efficient, tracked system.
EMP Stated that Germany "Generates" 50% of their power from solar. This is highly incorrect. Germany generates about 10% of their power from solar and 40% from natural gas generation systems. This is because solar generation is extremely chaotic in nature and it is literally impossible to tell when a panel will have output , so they have to build natural gas generation systems to produce power. You need to realize, the #1 sponsor of Solar & Wind power are companies like BP, Exxon and other companies dealing in oil/gas. Not because they believe that solar/wind are the future, but because for every watt that solar/wind produces, it requires 1 to 2 watts of natural gas generation ability, and they take that generation directly from nuclear & coal companies.
Do you want energy independence? If you do, don't ever, ever , ever consider photovoltaic or wind. Build a tracking parabolic trough collector. If you buy into the BS spewed by V3 , then using their magic numbers, a tracking parabolic solar trough is going to be a thousand times more efficient than their PV system. Solar troughs are 100% efficient at converting solar energy to heat. If you want to then generate electricity, you can utilize a steam loop. However the best bet would be using one to replace a current heating system with it.
Sorry OP, but this is the real deal:
Semprius opens solar panel factory in Henderson - Technology - NewsObserver.com
Semprius - Lowering the cost of renewable energy
Semprius opens solar panel factory in Henderson - Technology - NewsObserver.com
Semprius - Lowering the cost of renewable energy
Ahhh...reading comprehension. How does life feel without it?
I did not say such a thing.
I quoted a Reuter's article stating that, this summer, for a very short period (1-2 hours, I think) Germany's solar power generated as much power as 50% that is used on average.
::emp::
This. People need to stop hating on nuclear. Modern reactors are leaps and bounds above what we were capable of in the 70's.
In a best-case scenario, we're probably still 30 years from a miniature working reactor that can power a town, and 50 from a full-scale reactor.
Though supposedly China is throwing a shit-ton of money toward nuclear fusion research, so who knows?. They have a massive energy problem on their hands and they know it. They are begrudgingly building coal plants now out of necessity, but are expected to be building 70-100 nuclear fission plants by the end of the decade. Fusion for them is a necessity.
In terms of fusion, intertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) has always made the most sense to me. When you just heat the plasma up crudely, like they do at the TOKAMAK or the laser assisted device you describe, a tiny fraction of the nuclei are actually undergoing fusion (because it's just the particles in the longtail of the blackbody radiation curve that actually have enough kinetic energy to fuse). In an IEC, the potential difference accelerating the particles GUARANTEES that when they reach the center of the reactor, they all have enough energy.
IEC's also have the ridiculously awesome property that the gain scales with the 5th power of the reactor's radius. In other words, if you make radius of the reactor 10 times bigger, the gain increases by a factor of 100,000. Disclaimer: not totally sure on the scaling of the gain... it's more than the 3rd power and less than the 6th, so 4th or 5th, obviously.
For more on IEC's check out:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6z1vP4Eo8"]Dr. Robert Bussard Google Tech Talk[/ame] (the man is now sadly deceased, but research continues, apparently)
University of Wisconsin, Madison's IEC Research Page
IEC devices are based on the Fusor. Busard and others refined the Fusor into a device called the Polywell (links to detailed Wikipedia articles on the basic design of the reactors).
IEC's also have the ridiculously awesome property that the gain scales with the 5th power of the reactor's radius. In other words, if you make radius of the reactor 10 times bigger, the gain increases by a factor of 100,000. Disclaimer: not totally sure on the scaling of the gain... it's more than the 3rd power and less than the 6th, so 4th or 5th, obviously.
For more on IEC's check out:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6z1vP4Eo8"]Dr. Robert Bussard Google Tech Talk[/ame] (the man is now sadly deceased, but research continues, apparently)
University of Wisconsin, Madison's IEC Research Page
IEC devices are based on the Fusor. Busard and others refined the Fusor into a device called the Polywell (links to detailed Wikipedia articles on the basic design of the reactors).
I too am a fan of parabolic solar. Though seeing PV vs. Parabolic arguments reminds me of Mac vs PC debates. But that is a side point.
Parabolic solar is awesome because it is easily built and therefore can be distributed worldwide making it a game changer for the parts of the world without existing infrastructure.
Ever since I saw a small dish burn through steel and yet a few inches away from that temperature you could have your hand, it seems to me this type of concentrated power can easily make a generator spin whether through steam or some other method. Even this unlimited heat applied to a stirling type engine.
Maybe one of you techy folks can tell me why we cannot use thermocoupler type systems heated with concentrated solar?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKKtnSVeY9o]Anchorman i'm kind of a big deal - YouTube[/ame]
They do , however they're extremely expensive and mostly inefficient.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTvAL7ty53M"]STEAM ENGINE 12KW GENERATOR Solar Mirror Array Death Ray - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AsnE9kwyDw"]STIRLING ENGINE SOLAR POWER PARABOLIC MIRROR ELECTRIC GENERATOR - YouTube[/ame]
The 12kw solar system in the video could be built for as little as $5k to maybe $7k. The main holdback on it is the fact it uses steam. Steam is not "Green" and it is cheap to do, as I've said before, solar & wind are more about putting people & nations in bondage to oil companies than it is about energy independence.
Once again LukeP is quiet as a mouse in his own thread because he's been proven to be an idiot by other WF members here who know far more about clean energy than he does.
Are right sorry.
I thought there was radio active waste and the potential for nuclear disasters with the current system... To the point where there is so much political pressure and -ve public perception that Germany is being forced out of nuclear.
But WTF am I talking about.