View Poll Results: Should the US government provide Pickens with the money and recources they need? Absolutly -100% 9 47.37% Thats a good idea but not now... 4 21.05% Ok, but they're not gettin' my money 3 15.79% Dont even bother.. 6 31.58% Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

Pickens Plan -alternative energy

I still think hydro need to be explored more especially in cities like Boston or San Francisco that sit on top of the water.

Hydro on the coast,Wind in the midwest and solar in the south and southwest is ideal I imagine.

 It has been shown though that there's a calculable upper limit to that (retrievable energy) and the newest wind turbines are already closing in - no more dramatic increases forthcoming.
Its called the Betz limit, and its just a tad over 59%. This is due to the kinetic effects of the air passing through the rotor disk area. Today's most efficient VSVP WT can capture about 85%ish of the total available wind energy. Thats converting about 50% of the kinetic energy from the wind into mechanical energy of the turbine itself.

The main problem with wind is not the cost or Betz limit, its the variable power output placed on the grid. Under many conditions wind farms can actually strengthen the grids and larger wind farms have ride-through capability. However, their power output still fluctuates greatly and will never be able to provide a base load power source like nuclear and coal can. Depending on the wind farm location and the loading on the grid, some parts of the nation could never have more than 10% of their energy provided by wind unless some type of energy buffer is used. If you see a country like Denmark or Germany with 20% of their power provided by wind, then its because their grid is much better than ours.

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsinte...uctuations.pdf

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Topher925 ...The main problem with wind is not the cost or Betz limit, its the variable power output placed on the grid. Under many conditions wind farms can actually strengthen the grids and larger wind farms have ride-through capability. However, their power output still fluctuates greatly and will never be able to provide a base load power source like nuclear and coal can. Depending on the wind farm location and the loading on the grid, some parts of the nation could never have more than 10% of their energy provided by wind unless some type of energy buffer is used. If you see a country like Denmark or Germany with 20% of their power provided by wind, then its because their grid is much better than ours.
So Pickens' plan to use the midwest good wind corridor, request grid upgrades and transmission right of ways is prudent. The transmission plan is there, but I haven't yet seen a detailed base load power plan. I expect existing hydro will play a role in firming US wind, but what else? Compressed air (CAES) is getting more attention.
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/38270.pdf

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....

Recognitions:
Homework Help
 Quote by mheslep 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.
 Recognitions: Gold Member Atlantic Monthly article on GM's PHEV "Volt" Electro-Shock Therapy http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/general-motors Discusses the PHEV players, history, critics, motivations, estimates, and of course the drama.
 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.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Alfi 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)
 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.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Topher925 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?

 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 dont 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"?

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Topher925 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 dont 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.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
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.

 Quote by Topher925 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 dont 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) Recognitions: Gold Member  Quote by BWV 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?

Recognitions:
Homework Help
 Quote by Topher925 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 dont 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...rgy/index.html

 Quote by mheslep 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
 Recognitions: Homework Help 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?