Slashdot Mirror
Where are the 70% Efficient Solar Cells?
VernonNemitz asks: "Back in 1984 a patent was granted for silicon chip micro rectennas, which would convert visible photons into electricity in the same way that ordinary rectennas convert microwaves into electricity, at perhaps 70% or greater efficiency. Nobody could make such solar cells back in 1984, but we certainly can today, with sizes of antennas that would capture everything from infrared to the edges of UV -- and the patent has expired. So, where are they?" Currently the most popular type of solar technology is photovoltaics, however PV technology only has an efficiency of about 7-17%. With the potential gains claimed by the technology in the cited patent, has anyone even tried to build one of these units to see if it can live up to the given promise, or at least prove to be a technology than we should be exploring?
What the US needs is a Manhattan Project for alternative energy to oil. Solar, wind, geo, fusion, whatever. Something but burning simple chain hydrocarbons and because the waste product is mostly invisible, pretending it doesn't exist.
Who elected George Bush anyway?
Why haven't you built one of these things? Chances are that's the same reason that they haven't yet been built.
The world power conglomerates keep these inventions from becoming reality. They have too much to lose by people not using nuclear|hydroelectric electricity or burning dead dinosaurs.
Trolling is a art,
I know this is a dumb question. I remember hearing the answer back in high school but I have since forgotten it. I want to know the total energy in sunlight. I know it varies widely depending on location and weather but an average or a range per square foot, square yard, acre or whatever would be interesting. I ask because I think some people overestimate the value. If you can produce a 1 inch square solar cell that's 100% effecient but it costs $1000, then it's never going to pay for itself except in space applications. The big payoff for solar cells will come when you can produce them for almost nothing and plaster them over everything. When that cool, one way billboard plastic wrap stuff that covers busses also acts as an 80% effecient solar cell, then we'll see more of this stuff.
Okay here's my problem with your argument:
If GWB is so concerned about keeping the Texas oil economy going and appeasing the Texas oil companies, wouldn't he want to avoid increasing the supplies of oil, especially foreign oil? If GWB annexed Iraq and started sucking out all the oil for US use, that would just tank the prices of oil and lower the demand for Texas oil.
Plus he's POTUS now, not Governer of Texas, he has more people to appease then just the Texans. (And if it was so easy to invent alternative energy he'd score far more points across the board then he would lose in Texas)
Bush & Cheney both sold off their stocks (at a loss at the time), to limit their conflict of interest with the oil companies.
It isn't GWB holding up electric cars in some oil conspiracy, it's the population as a whole - who collectively don't seem all that interested in alternative fuel vehicles or higher fuel usage vehicles. Then there's the money for whatever new infrastructure is required by alternative energy...
Boy, I've never agreed so much with a person on the edge of paranoid hysteria before. It is all economics. Oil is too cheap right now to make investment in alternative technologies attractive. But look at who owns the major PV production facilities: Oil companies. Look at how much effort is going into alternative fuel vehicles even now. The money knows the party will be over in the next generation. My worry isn't a new "oil fascism," because abundant alternatives are more attractive than repressive rationing of ever more expensive oil. When oil gets too expensive, the alternatives become attractive.
My worry is the health of the planet in the mean time. I live in central Minnesota, USA. Our average high temperature this time of year is about 9 degrees F. Yesterday it was 55 degrees F. I know full well one warm winter does not global warming make, but we've had several bizzarely warm years lately. We're s--tting where we eat and it worries me.
Right... There's a soccer mom picking up her kids in a big giant suv that GWB made her buy. This is about our collective dependance on oil. Don't like what Ford is pawning off as an electric car? Blame Ford, the current standards for what constitues a "Car" are probably not much more than that golf cart either but you don't see them wasting any time on turning out ex(plorers\scursions) like they were going out of style. The first company that makes a serious mass market attempt will probably succeed provided infrastructure supports it.
If GWB annexed Iraq and started sucking out all the oil for US use, that would just tank the prices of oil and lower the demand for Texas oil.
... so that you can think you're filling for $1.79/gallon. (based on the cost of drilling, wars, local goverment concessions to bring industry to the area, etc.)
t0qer's argument is correct, though, just not formulated quite accurately. It's not support for Texan oil. There really isn't any more Texan oil. What oil the US produces is mostly offshore or Alaskan, but even so it's small fraction of what we use.
Bush isn't trying to support pumping of oil; imported crude goes straight into the US petrochemical industry. Many of the refineries are in Texas, but even where they aren't, GWB is a friend of the industry. It's where he made his millions, and it's all he knows.
It's not simple selfishness and wanting to pad his wallet. It's just that that industry is where he grew up. He's conditioned to think of it as central to US wealth and prosperity, the driver of the economy. In his mind, whatever is good for the oil companies is good for every American. He really honestly believes he's doing the right thing for all of us by suppressing alternative technologies and making war with Iraq.
Bush is not smart and worldly enough to see the bigger picture, or to take the long view.
Getting the Iraqi oil fields under a friendly regime means the US has more *control* over oil prices and fewer "bad guys" to worry about messing up the economics for his favorite companies.
It isn't GWB holding up electric cars in some oil conspiracy, it's the population as a whole - who collectively don't seem all that interested in alternative fuel vehicles or higher fuel usage vehicles.
Yes and no. US consumers don't want a wimpy EV1, for the most part. They want the bulk, power, and capacity of an SUV. Thus, the consumer is to blame.
But... The government spends many billions on petroleum research, exploration, and foreign policy to support the petroleum economy. The cost of just the first war with Iraq and the subsequent decade-long airspace occupation is estimated in the back hall of congress to be in the range of $100 to $200 billion. Billions more are spent every year to subsidize activities (research and exlporation) that benefit the oil companies. I've seen figures (can't find them right now) that estimate you pay $5 to $8 per gallon of gas in income taxes to support petroleum
Now... if over the last fifteen years the government had spent that same half a trillion dollars on electric, fuel cell, and hybrid vehicle research, don't you think we'd already have big powerful SUVs that don't depend on oil? We'd have a cleaner country, consumers just as happy, and fewer foreign policy messes. What if we'd been doing that since 1920? Shouldn't we start now so we're not asking the same question again in 2040?
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
because texas oil companies make money from overseas oil. Look how Enron made money, it sure wasn't from pumping texas oil.
DOn't forget, it's not texans, but Powerfull texans that have nothing to gain from shanging the status quo.
However, I do not believe in a conspiracy. I gaurntee you if there was a an alternate source of power i.e. NOT oil. the people in these energy companies would find a way to Globally capitalize on it. That would be far more money, with less over head. If there was a conspiracy, I would look a OPEC.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Umm.... that would be a filter. A polarized filter rejects light that is not aligned along the axis of polarization.
These guys seem to claim that they polarize the incoming light (change the axis of polarization) rather than just reject the polarizations that they don't want.
I'd be a nice trick, if they can do it.
Rick
While in the end it is consumers who purchase SUVs, the situation is a bit more complicated than that.
Auto companies have to produce cars such that the average fuel economy of what they sell meets a certain federal standard. The car companies are notriously bad at doing this, but even though they ignore the law, promissing to make it up in the future (right...) they are always looking for ways around it.
Now light trucks are exempt from these regulations. But consumers outside of Wyoming (I love Wyoming btw) don't want to drive around in a truck, they like their cars. Enter the SUV. Very few people NEED an SUV, but the auto industry loves them because they are more appealing to consumers than trucks but are classified as light trucks for the purposes of federal fuel economy standards.
So the car company can put a big 'ole engine in there and not worry about the expense and bother of fuel efficiency. Now if only consumers wanted to drive a jacked up station wagon (which is what your typical SUV is, admit it.) Since station wagons are soooo cool...
But wait! That is what marketing is for, to tell consumers what to buy and what to want! So car companies market the crap out of SUVs since they are more profitable than cars and don't hurt their fuel economy averages. Bingo! SUVs are popular because consumers "want" them.
So yes you can blame consumers, but I choose to blame poor legislation that gave car companies incentive to make SUVs as well. While I'm at it I blame the car companies too. Especially Toyota for making a 4Runner with a removable hardtop up until 1989. Wish I still had that car, I mean truck...
Lasers Controlled Games!
Honestly, bioethanol has much more short term potential than biodiesel. Lignocellulosic feedstock is available in bulk, and the baseline economics are pretty good - a modest scale facility using existing technology could be built today that would make ethanol at a total cost of probably 1.30-1.60 per gallon if feedstock availability is good and cost is cheap (this works out to probably 1.70-1.90 per gallon equivalent of standard gasoline). In other words, with another 15-20% efficiency improvement followed by scale increases to reduce the amortized fixed cost of plant+facilities per gallon, it could be price competitive with gasoline. And there are already well over 1 million FFVs (Flexible Fuel Vehicles) on the road today that could burn E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline mix) without modification - most people who own these cars don't even realize it.
Ethanol has real potential and some of us are working on making it into a business reality.
I see alot of people here want cheap solar cells that can cover their entire roof for a "few hundred dollars". Are you nuts? Standard roofing materials (made from asphalt) aren't that cheap and all they do is keep water out!
Maybe the price needs to come down to a few THOUSAND dollars...with some government tax credits and utility savings, it might be worth it.
-ted
We already went through this during the last big El Nino, then we (well, us in Manitoba anyway) had several really shitty/cold/wet years.
Hell, there was no Spring 2002 here - the trees didn't bud until well into June - THAT'S how cold it was.
Then again, in 1997 we had the 'blizzard of the century' followed by the 'flood of the century', but suddenly no one can remember any years with snow since they were a kid? Give me a break.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Take electric cars and ultra-ultra long life lightbulbs.
What is the problem with these? You can go out and buy either of these today.
Of course you will find that for long life incandescent bulbs the cost of electricity to generate the same amount of life is much higher - see to make the blb last longer you need to make the filament thicker, and that cuts down on the buld efficiency. The typical incandescent light bulb is actually optimized to give the most light per kwh.
If you are really interested in long life bulbs and low cost light, you need to go to a different technology altogether - like compact fluorescent.
As far as electric cars, there are of course tradeoffs - simple things like running a heater on a cold winter day reduce your miles between charges a lot. But we already have a much better solution, already on the roads in large numbers - hybrid gas-electric.
Same thing probably goes for efficient solar energy.
Yes, it exists. The problem is capital cost to collect it, and what do you do to get power when the Sun is down or it is cloudy. Right now solar power is 2x to 5x more expensive than fossil electricity because of the capital costs. However the installed solar power wattage is growing rapidly, primarily in areas that are a mile way from conventional power grids where the cost to run the lines outweghs the cost of the solar power system.
Now... if over the last fifteen years the government had spent that same half a trillion dollars on electric, fuel cell, and hybrid vehicle research, don't you think we'd already have big powerful SUVs that don't depend on oil? We'd have a cleaner country, consumers just as happy, and fewer foreign policy messes. What if we'd been doing that since 1920? Shouldn't we start now so we're not asking the same question again in 2040?
No, actually I don't think we would have that. This is a classical mistake - equating rate of spending money with the rate of resulting technological progress. One could argue, with exactly the same logic that you are using, that if we had invested all that money in medical research, we would all live forever. Or, we could argue that if we invested it all in telekinesis, we could all transport ourselves with no energy at all!
In other words, your argument makes a very dangerous assumption: more money can solve physical problems in a given period of time, regardless of whether they are ever solvable, or if they are solvable without the appearance of another Einstein.
Actually, governments and lots of private industry interests have spent huge amounts of money on alternative transportation energy systems. The reason is the potential enormous profits.
For exmaple, if a company could come up with a viable battery technology for electric cars, the other advantages of electric cars (very low cost and very low maintenance, outside of the battery; very good performance; mechanical simplicity) would cause them to fly out of the show-rooms! Everyone would wnat one, and everyone would buy one, and the car makers would immediatebly build a zillion of them.
With those sorts of profits at stake, the issue isn't the lack of investment, it's the difficulty of the technology!
The only good weather is bad weather.
Sounds like a pretty standard canned enviro-wacko rant... but what the heck, I'll respond with a few little points you might not have thought of an probably won't bother to read.
The "Warning to Humanity" top scientists had very few climatologists in its ranks, so it is utterly and completely meaningless.
Your problem is that you assume that we *can* change, and that we can do so in a beneficial way.
So let me throw just a couple of problems at you...
1) You say the environment is too complex for us to understand the effects we are having on it. That is true. And that means that any action we take is just as likely to be beneficial or not, considering we don't understand the consequences. So why should we choose the one that will cause massive economic dislocation, ultimately killing the millions of people who have such a marginal life right now that they can't *afford* any diminuation in the economic situation.
2) If you look at what the real scientists say (say, for example the IPCC report - and not the politician written summary, but the real thing), you will realize that the Kyoto recommendations, which are supposed to help with global warming, will, IF THE MODELS ARE RIGHT, make such a tiny change that it will be unmeasurable 100 years into the future.
3) If you look at how much change is reputedly needed to make a difference (again, assuming the models are correct), you would realize that Kyoto is just a Trojan horse... a way to get us used to economic sacrifice so that the REAL changes can be done - cutbacks of 30% or more on CO2 emissions which translate, with TODAYS technology, to massive economic disaster.
4)Those who want to follow some plan of change are arrogant enough to believe that they can determine how mankind will behave for the next 100 years (the normal timeline for most scientists studying the issue). They were also that arrogant in the first decade of the 20th century. They thought they had the problems of government solved. Of course, since then there were a few unanticipated events like like World War I, World War II, the rise of communism (which resulted in the worst environmental damage of any system, along with 100,000,000 murders), the invention of the computer, powered airplanes, nuclear power and bombs, quantum theory, the relativity theories, electronics, Social Security, antibiotics, modern genetics, information theory,.... But I'm sure that you believe that things like this won't happen this century, right? Or that minor things like how people really think and act won't get in the way of our punitive solutions? Pardon me if I don't take seriously those people who think they know enough to effect a solution to some vague issue (gasp, we are hurting poor mother earth), and if I am not willing to make economic sacrifices on behalf of their poorly considered ideas.
5) It is interesting that people who put out radical environmental rants tend to be anti-western. Usually this is because they haven't taken a look at how *other* societies treat the environment - which is on average with considerably less respect than we in the west do. Oh, and every one of the inventions I mentioned above... took place in the evil west.
6) The "vicious cycle of consumerism" is an unintended codeword for people exercising their economic freedoms. It is usually uttered by people who are sure they are smarter than these "consumers" - people who justify their beliefs by thinking that consumers are somehow deluded into making their choices by evil capitalist advertisers.
Finally, let me comment that your rant is a perfect example of what I find so objectionable about modern environmentalism: it encourages illogical people with little grasp of the facts and no grasp of history to act and speak as if they knew something.
Why don't you really learn something and read
THIS.
The only good weather is bad weather.
If we can just figure out a way to go from plants to oil more quickly, we can plant fields and basically they would be giant solar pannels.
Can you tell me what we eat after all the agricultural landfield has been been turned into "giant solar pannels" to satisfy our energy needs ?
I remember on Winter in MN when the snow never completely covered the ground. Other years there were -90 degree windchills. We have a picture from another year with a snowman holding a sign with the date: April 26th. I believe that was the year we moved to Arizona.
The weather not consistant any where. Globably, the client changes every year. There's no reason to panic or think something screwy is going on. When did people start getting the idea that every year should be predictably the same? I would guess probably around the same time global warming and global cooling wackos starting showing up.
Shock of all shocks we have hot and cool summers in AZ. There's nothing to see here, move along.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
or pulp/wood chip byproducts from the milling/cardboard industries, If you have any furniture that was "put it together yourself", It's probably a pulpwood product. Does it have a laminated surface? Then it's definately a pulpwood product. The fiberboard (cardboard) industry? The first thing they do is turn their source material into cellulose. Then they make paper out of it. Then they make cardboard. Or did you really think cardboard was made from playing cards?
and "waste" crops such as bagasse in Louisiana that grow in swamp land (i.e. land not arable for production of more valuable crops and that grow with very little external water and energy input and thus are very low in terms of actual feedstock cost including any energy input).
Do you know what you're talking about here? Swamps are the most biodiverse regions in the world. Does that make them not valuable? Or are you just an MBA? Almost all domesticated crops require a huge amount of water to grow properly. That is why so many farmers irrigate their fields. They don't have enough water for their crops to grow! In the first three feet of soil, at least. And that is where soil moisture is important for commercial crops!
My aunt's farm has a "swamp" on it. It supports deer, bear, raccons, squirrels, crawfish, several species of edible fish, snails and a shitload of migratory birds. As well as mice, rabbits, hawks and eagles. The stream feeding into her "swampland" supports turkeys.
And you're saying that just because a two thousand pound tractor (and attachments) gets stuck, her "swampland" is not valuable?
You must be an MBA.