Pickens Plan -alternative energy

[mheslep]

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.

 

[Topher925]

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?

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[BWV]

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

 

[LowlyPion]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[vanesch]

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).

 

[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]

why do you suppose Pickens wouldn't think TEDs weren't good enough to fund?

Because he doesn't own any!

CS

 

[Topher925]

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?

 

[mheslep]

...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

 

[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]

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

 

[dlgoff]

There seems to be a lot of gas fields in the US. Check out these maps from http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/maps/maps.htm#pdf"

 

[mheslep]

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).

 

[mheslep]

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:

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

 

[mheslep]

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?

 

[russ_watters]

And what should be done about it?