IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

cicerone imposter wrote:

When we were kids, we used to burn wood with a magnifying glass. In many parts of the world, it gets hot enough to fry an egg on the sidewalk.

You're right, you can use giant (and i mean GIANT) parabolic mirrors to focus light into a steam engine and it will produce power, but these devices take up huge amounts of space (they're about 27' in diameter).

my bad.

I think that virtually every futurist says that solar power will soon be ubiquitous, and that those in individual homes (with access to the sun) will benefit greatly.

Advocate wrote:

I think that virtually every futurist says that solar power will soon be ubiquitous, and that those in individual homes (with access to the sun) will benefit greatly.

Too bad we have clouds, and seasons. Solar power cannot sustain energy needs. The most efficient solar cells only run at slight less than 50% and are mae of very rare, very expensive materials. The easier-to-find solar cells drop down to the teens and single digits for efficiency.

The most promising of solar tech is the culminating type where a huge reflector focus light onto a small type of regenerative steam engine. The problem with this is that they take up huge amounts of space. To produce a meaningful amount of power, fields of these devices must be used together. And of course, there are still clouds and seasons. Not to mention, they don't handle wind very well - considering their shape...

Solar cells have existed for a long time... there is a limit to their efficiency. I think nuclear power is a far more effective means of power generation. The trick will be to manage fusion on our planet.

$1 per watt is the production cost for the power generation plant, as far as I can tell. Once the unit is created, the price per watt for solar is close to zero! And that's counting upkeep. Coal on the other hand...

Maybe we would see more of these plans become reality if we invested in them a little heavier then we currently do.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

$1 per watt is the production cost for the power generation plant, as far as I can tell. Once the unit is created, the price per watt for solar is close to zero! And that's counting upkeep. Coal on the other hand...

Construction of a coal or gas fired powerplant costs MUCH less than $1/watt.

You are forgetting the operating costs for (1) land use; (2) maintenance & inspection; (3) metering and transmission. So far on this subject it is clear that you are talking well past what you know and understand.
Zilch for credibility.

\textrm{Fuel} + \textrm{Oxygen} \rightarrow \; \textrm{Heat} + \textrm{Carbon\ dioxide} + \textrm{Water}

All fossil fuels generate carbon dioxide when burned. Other products of incomplete combustion are sulfur dioxide (predominantly in coal) and oxides of nitrogen; since no fossil fuel power plant is able to burn the fuel perfectly as seen in complete combustion, such products are always produced in some quantity. Each fossil fuel power plant is a highly complex, custom-designed system. Present construction costs, as of 2004, run to US$1,300 per kilowatt, or $650 million for a 500 MW unit. Multiple generating units may be built at a single site for more efficient use of land, natural resources and labor.

Maybe we would see more of these plans become reality if we invested in them a little heavier then we currently do.

Quote:

Who is "we" for investment purposes? I can assure you the major power producers (Exelon, Dominion, Duke Energy, Entergy, Constellation, etc) are all short of generating capacity and are strongly motivated to invest in the cheapest source available. The fact is they invest in solar and wind power ONLY when the law requires it precisely because it is MUCH more expensive.

Land use - solar panels fit quite nicely on top of other buildings. Land usage is cheaper then any other type of instillation.

Maintenance - It's hard to imagine that maintenance would be more expensive for solar panels, in which there are no moving parts, then for coal plants. It certainly takes less people to maintain and run them.

Metering and Transmission - I had assumed that, as energy is energy, the costs of metering and transmission of solar panels would be similar to a coal plant. Do you have some information as to why they wouldn't be? Also, you can place small solar plants in more localized areas, right down to the roof of buildings. Less transmission and metering costs by FAR then with conventional power plants there, as there simply is far less distance to pump the electrons.

The fact is that generous state subsidies even in California have not been sufficient to motivate people to spend the large extra sums required to build and operate solar plants or even local applications. if it is so cheap, how do you account for that.

Large solar concentrator power plants would be built....

A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.

But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.

I'm getting tired of these pie-in-the-sky solar power collectors. Here are the actual numbers:

Quote:

Large solar concentrator power plants would be built....

A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.

But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

If we're going to shell out $420 billion the money will be better spent on fusion reactor research. Btw: on same link is obituary of "clean coal" plant - seem that project would require even more than $420 billion to implement.

You're right - it's not a replacement technology for Nukes or lesser traditional power generation sources! It's an augmentation technology which is scalable. Over time more and more of our power will be provided by solar. Research into further efficiency gains - like the ones you pooh-pahd out of hand - will only increase this.

Cycloptichorn

High Seas wrote:

...............

If we're going to shell out $420 billion the money will be better spent on fusion reactor research. Btw: on same link is obituary of "clean coal" plant - seem that project would require even more than $420 billion to implement.

That's quite a bit cheaper then the Iraq war. We should have invested our money more wisely.

I also forgot to add something in my response to George: The figures for operating coal plants most specifically do not include the monies that it takes to clean up the environmental waste produced by constantly pumping tons of harmful chemicals into the air. But they ought to be taken into account.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You're right - it's not a replacement technology for Nukes or lesser traditional power generation sources! It's an augmentation technology which is scalable. Over time more and more of our power will be provided by solar. Research into further efficiency gains - like the ones you pooh-pahd out of hand - will only increase this.

Cycloptichorn

Perhaps so, but it will take several decades - even assuming the technology advances in the coming years much faster than it has in the last five or so. The current estimate is that solar power production might increase as much as fourfold in the next dacade, though a mere doubling is more likely. That means it might grow to as much as about 5% of our total consumption. Not a very big deal.

I'm getting tired of these pie-in-the-sky solar power collectors. Here are the actual numbers:

Quote:

Large solar concentrator power plants would be built....

A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.

But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

If we're going to shell out $420 billion the money will be better spent on fusion reactor research. Btw: on same link is obituary of "clean coal" plant - seem that project would require even more than $420 billion to implement.