Slashdot Mirror

It seemed rather familiar to me, so a quick google search came up with a similar article from last year.
Additionally, there is an Australian company that is marketing a SolarCube, which looks like it uses conventional lenses to produce the same effect. The initial design was featured on the New Inventors in 2005

It was only as a calculation to see how much land would be required (see the actual amount in the world later on in my comment).

$415AU trillion using the cheapest available that I could find(Well not available just yet http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/products.htm) . Of course at the scale you will get reductions in cost due to economies of scale.

There is another problem you didn't bring up. How do you store the energy for when the sun doesn't shine.

try 35% currently http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/faq.htm

solar is almost there http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/ (cheaper then mains when there in full production )

Is there a solar panel that can produce anything like 5kWh/m2/day?

At the 10% efficiency mark (Standed flat-panels are about 16% now I think. Although their is one product in develpment stage that is >30% and about grid-cost over it's lifespan http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/) they would only be producing 500wh/m2/day. And you would use the 1st set of figuers 1298.63 km2 and 896,054.70 km2.

If it weren't we'd being doing it already?

The problem is the cost and load balancing (mainly during the evening and winter)

I read somewhere that no solar cell has ever produced more energy than was put into making it in the first place (think of mining and processing raw materials, then manufacture and delivery with finite life span). I may be wrong but I've seen that idea a few times, maybe you know more? Maybe the tech needs to improve but it will all take time. It's a question of EROEI

Most solar cells that I see are <3 years on EROEI

From reading a bit I see solar EROEIs run from about 1 to 10 for certain designs. So that is a net energy gain. Or emergy as it seems to be called. However keeping the dust of these things in the outback or desert may require enormous water use that would have to be factored in too.

That is a good point although couldn't you use a fan or alternativly you just leave the dust on reducing the efficency down

Solar could provide much more energy then was actualy needed

Using http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/images/Direct BeamAustraliaandNewZealand.GIF (5kWh/m2/day = 1825 kWh/m2/year

From http://uic.com.au/nip37.htm (In 2003-04 Australia's power stations produced 237 billion kilowatt hours)

237,000,000,000 / 1,825 = 129.86 km2 (1,000,000 m2 in 1 km2)

assuming 10% efficency =1298.63 km2

20-21 km wide circle , .0169 % total area of australia

assuming 100% efficency =129.86 km2

6-7 km wide circle , .00169 % total area of australia

Using projected (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html) worldwide energy (all include electricity and ransport) use in 2015 is 162,068,301,805,239 kilowatt hours (per year)

690 times the energy

10% efficency = 11.660% the area of australia , 896,054.70km2 , 534km - 535km circle
100% efficency = 1.166% the area of australia , 89,605.47km2 , 168km - 169km circle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_land_area .png

Or are are you talking about a diffrent problem then land area?

This little lone inventor is just starting up production of his prototypes with fresnel focused solar.

He seems to attract a lot of skeptics but he battles on and he might just kick a goal.

A web designer he ain't: http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/

Have to wait for a few months to see how it all turns out...

If it does work out OK then a low cost clone from an Asian manufacturer will probably win the day anyway :-(

Interesting - Pyron is obviously going for the 'power plant' market, which IMHO is likely to see a lot of activity in the near future. With rising oil prices, larger scale concentrating solar plants will be competitive in the southwest. These guys http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/ are doing much the same thing at a domestic scale. Using the same Boeing/Spectrolab panels.

Which comes back to my point about cost per watt (to install them).

Anyway using http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/ 15 years pay-back.

Is this him? Don't much care for his website design, I must say. But I'm not much good at that either so I shouldn't really criticize!

I suspect given the NASA data on insolation of my area (rough average 3.5 kWh/m2/day, according to the site) and the amount of unshaded space on my property (roughly 100 m2 if we're being really, really optimistic) it would be pretty hard for me to get ROI from this technology. Cutting down trees would be a big mistake since the buildings would all wash away in the next flood.

Looks pretty cool for people in Oz and the US desert southwest, though.

http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/ is $2.5US/W, perhaps as high as $3US/W including a regulation grid interactive inverter. And neither the sunball, nor the GI-inverter are being mass produced at the moment. I know someone who is getting $1.2US/W including inverter, without subsidies or magic. He just uses a large, cheap, concentrator and water cooling.

(However, I agree that PV is not economical in the current economy)

I presume you are ranting about PV, because otherwise what you say makes no sense. Solar hot water pays itself of in a year or two, so I presume you installed that. You very likely use more energy to heat water than all non heating electrical demand combined.

Incidently, this algal technology would give a lower efficiency than PV cells. The mitigating factor might be the low cost of construction, but to be honest I expect that the maintenance costs will swallow any real advantage.

You are wrong about the overall efficiency of solar panels, even the cheapest ones are 15% these days, and there are plenty of new solutions in the mid 30%s. That's more efficient than most cars (and I'm only talking about the engine efficiency, not well to wheels!). For example, a good solution: http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/

Solar power is capital intensive, and may requires years to recover the investment. However, it makes sense on so many levels.

This guy in Australia may be a genuius, I am pretty convinced he is on to something with highend cells and a frensel lense. I have been following this http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/ for a few weeks, and hope to see the "Sunball" for sale in the US next summer. $1200? I would buy 3 without thinking. Check it out.

From the FAQ "What's different about the solar cells used in the SunBall(TM) Solar Appliance?

The SunBall(TM) Solar Appliance uses 35 - 38% efficiency triple junction solar cells normally only used in space. Close cousins of our solar cells power the two Mars rovers Opportunity and Spirit. Flat panels solar cells normally rate around 15%"

$1200, >30% effeciency, and it equates to cheaper power than what you can get off the grid.

There doesn't seem to be much excuse any more. Cheap AND effecient cells:

http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/