Pickens Plan -alternative energy

Topher925

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.

mheslep

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.

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-Home...alculator.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.

Topher925

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?

mheslep

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.

mheslep

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.

BWV

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/...story?id=45233

LowlyPion

Thanks. Interesting link about the multijunction devices.

mheslep

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.

vanesch

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).

taylaron

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?

stewartcs

Because he doesn't own any!

CS

Topher925

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?

mheslep

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

Attached Thumbnails

 

taylaron

so full spectrum PV films are unlikely to be cost-competitive within the next 5-10 years?

taylaron

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?

stewartcs

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

dlgoff

There seems to be a lot of gas fields in the US. Check out these maps from the Energy Information Administration.