Slashdot Mirror


SHPEGS — DIY Solar/Geothermal Electricity

rohar writes "SHPEGS is an open design not-for-profit project to design and prototype a base-load renewable electrical generation system suitable for moderate climates and built from common materials. The design centers around creating a local geothermal source with an efficient solar thermal water heater system and can be scaled from single residence to mega-scale. The heliostat system used in Europe's first solar thermal plant could be used in a scaled-down SHPEGS system with Practical Solar's small scale heliostats."

51 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. Dupe by baptiste · · Score: 1, Informative

    Isn't this just the Energytower renamed?

    1. Re:Dupe by thedarknite · · Score: 1

      Yep, it actually mentions that fact in the interview bit near the end of the article

      --
      A game has objectives and is competitive, anything else is just play
    2. Re:Dupe by weighn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Isn't this just the Energytower renamed?

      renamed, but the original article was based around the premise of a discussion into whether or not it would work.

      The SHPEGS (Shit-Hot Power or Electricity Generation System) project "just works".

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  2. Efficiency? by mdsolar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I read though the site and found many calculations but I'm trying to figure out the actual efficiency of converting solar energy to electricity. I don't mind if the hot water out gets counted at 100% but I'm guessing that per unit area this does not do as well as silicon PV at 15%. If there is a table that gives this kind of comparison, can someone please point it out? Thanks.
    --
    Rent solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

    1. Re:Efficiency? by rohar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Solar PV is a different system. The SHPEGS design focus is base load electricity, cheap collectors and enhancing the solar thermal output with additional ambient heat from the air which will mean the collectors scale in a non-linear fashion. There is also a prevailing wind enhancement potential with the convection tower. I would think that both for simplicity and summer daytime operation in arid locations that Solar PV or a classic Solar Thermal system would be a better solution for output/m2 of collector. At night or for most of the winter in Canada, Solar PV has little or no output and there isn't a comparison between systems.

    2. Re:Efficiency? by NixieBunny · · Score: 1
      Efficency can take a second seat to low cost and ease of producing the equipment. Where I live, in Tucson AZ, there's enough solar power hitting my roof to power the whole block's houses. I just couldn't afford that many PV cells.

      I am interested in a system that can provide some relief from the cost of heating and cooling my home without a big outlay in high-tech stuff. This ammonia cycle is something that I was thinking of just a few weeks ago.. Perhaps if I was a thermodynamic engineer instead of electrical engineer, it would be second nature to me.

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    3. Re:Efficiency? by mdsolar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thanks. I'm looking for a number though. For a solar tower you might expect 0.5% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower but this project is tweaked. If the heat is being stored, it is still solar power, but delta T may not be so favorable. For corn ethanol, the efficiency is about 0.06%. At this level of efficiency for energy production/storage competes with food production so it is not all that feasable. But, algae get close to PV efficiency http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html. So, in terms of land use, I'm trying to figure out where this falls.

      I wonder how this would be for growing winter crops as well: is the ground warmed eough? And, if it is, what kind of losses might be expected owing to water evaporation from soil?

    4. Re:Efficiency? by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I replied to the wrong one. Can you skip down one? Thanks.

    5. Re:Efficiency? by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      I replied incorrectly: You've got a pretty big roof if you can power the rest of the block. Many roofs have enough area to cover the power use in the home they cover, but not all. Probably most in Tucson. If you have Tucson Electric Power you can follow the links at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html to get solar without the big upfront cost.

    6. Re:Efficiency? by rohar · · Score: 4, Informative

      For a solar tower you..
      Convection tower performance is very poor and the convection tower portion of the SHPEGS system accounts for less than 10% of the system output. It is still clean renewable power, but the convection tower wind turbine output is trivial. The chimney is there to allow a large volume of air to move across the heat exchangers efficiently and the wind turbine takes a slight advantage of the effect, but it isn't significant.

      I wonder how this would be for growing winter crops as well

      The thermal storage would be deep enough to not interact with the surface or shallow groundwater. The Drake Landing project has some information. This is another research document on thermal storage.

      There is a lot of potential for integrating bio-methane which requires a very constant temperature as well as this Solar Hydrogen from methane production system. Algae farming also has a potential integration with the solar thermal storage.

      Thanks. I'm looking for a number though.

      I don't mean to avoid the efficiency question. Again, in an arid location with the majority of electrical usage for AC, Solar PV or Solar Thermal is simpler and probably more suitable. The cost/m2 of collectors is substantially cheaper in a thermal system, so I'm not sure what you are comparing. Marginal and poor land that isn't suitable for crop production or the roof of a Walmart isn't the cost factor, the solar collector is. The MIT group was able to get 1kW from 14m2 of trough collectors on a straight thermal system and the SHPEGS additions should improve on that.

      There are also 2 heat sources in the SHPEGS system, solar and hot summer air along with two power generation systems, thermal and the wind turbine. In theory, the absorption system should improve not degrade the straight solar thermal system, so I would expect something better than 10% efficiency on the solar portion if you include the additional heat from the air. The conversion efficiency of the heat being extracted from the air is difficult to calculate. The energy cost is the energy going into the solution pump to pressurize the aqueous ammonia and there isn't the same direct cost in the volume of air being moved, in fact the more air that is moved the better the output of the wind turbine portion.

      I used 5% thermal to electrical efficiency for the calculations to be conservative, and generally 10% is used for binary geothermal plants.

      If you are comparing Solar PV, you need to account for battery cost and cut all the numbers by at least 50% to account for the daytime only output. Regardless of what is used for electrical storage, there are 3 months of the winter in Canada and the northern US where Solar PV isn't going to put out anything substantial and seasonal electrical storage isn't feasible.

      The Toronto Exhibition Palace Live Solar PV Stats page has some historical data on Solar PV in winter in Canada.
    7. Re:Efficiency? by bussdriver · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've been into this stuff for 15 years (hobby) and I've not made anything large scale (yet) as far as solar. The problem is that its of minimal benefit to me because I'm so far north and its cloudy.

      What is best in any problem usually depends upon its end use (like playing computer games and getting yourself hacked are uses best suited for Windows.)

      HEAT
      If your goal is heat, which is the #1 energy load for MANY people, then its clear solar heat is more direct.
      The KEY issue with ALL power systems is the conversion losses (which includes capturing.) Storage is the next big issue after conversion.

      For heating, solar heat wins hands down by a large margin except perhaps if your on mars or something (where your air can turn liquid when its cold outside.)

      COOL
      Cooling is big if heating is not. A clever cooling system leverages the earth's 50F temp-- just running some garden hose underground and running water thru it and a car radiator and you are already in business.

      Naturally the biggest deal with hot or cold is insulation and thermal mass, those are your first priority before anything else. You can work on that today and it will save you money. Your ceiling loses the most, followed by the walls and a close third is the windows and doors.

      For cooling, I'm seeing solar heat based products that claim better than PV for the whole system. I've not seen a PV cooling system-- they just use the power on a normal unit. I don't know the numbers, not much interest-- a thermal syphon is plenty for me.

      Electric Power

      You can store heat better and cheaper than you can electricity, generally speaking.
      PV is simple, direct but costly to setup and maintain (long term-- hopefully PV prices drop in the 30-40 years before panels need replacing.) The Heat to Electricity conversion process is complex and while it is good at large scales, I've not seen anybody with a small scale setup that is seriously being used. Also something people don't think about-- is the scattered indirect light which is more common in clouds and smog. PV will handle that better than the concentrating heat based systems (and they must concentrate to get high temp.)

      Exposed concentrators (as opposed to infrared blocking coverings) will use the full-spectrum while PV doesn't use much of the spectrum-- which gives them a huge edge as well. The physics of the problem dictate that dumping spectrum means less power is possible (you could do 100% but if you skip half the light energy your only getting 100% of 50% = 50% tops.)

      PV panels claim to last 30-40 years, which means payback in about 20. At that time their cost or performance will be higher. The problem with "payback" is that you are still paying for it so it is STILL costing you that much money which could be saved by getting something with a better cost performance ratio. It should always come down to lifetime performance cost-- a poor PV panel which costs nothing and lasts a long time can beat out "better" PV panel. Same for solar heat, Wind, etc. (or nuclear, which I've heard has never been profitable--its heavily subsidized.)

      I've focused on insulation and heating. Those will not change much and are quite good TODAY and have low cost and quick 'payback'. Electricity is a secondary concern because its not my primary cost or environmental impact. Electric generation is still quite up in the air and costs will come down. Better thinking about a wind generator if you have some wind available; it could provide a better ratio for you.

      So your question is not that important for people, and as far as the answer-- you will see PV power plants that are honestly profitable popping up as soon as they can beat the other methods. (I know canada is building the biggest PV plant, but I doubt its because PV won out... if it did, its solely from the cold temps and often indirect light which PV is unaffected by.)

      Getting a Grid Tie is not cheap, but it beats wasting money on batteries. Never forget that cost-- if you are

    8. Re:Efficiency? by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Do you live in the southern hemisphere? In the north you want PV on the south side.

      I agree with you that insulation is one of the best money investments most people can make it they have not already. Canadian building standards have really concentrated on this to great benefit.
      --
      In 41 US states you can rent grid-tied PV for what you already pay your utility: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html. Interstingly, the inverters are one per few panels and on the roof. This is done to help with modularity but now I wonder if many small inverters are cheaper than one big inverter. What drives the cost of the panels down is the scale of maunfacturing.

    9. Re:Efficiency? by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      ...seasonal electrical storage isn't feasible.
      Thanks again for the reply. Things got tangled above. This kind of the point of the whole system. But, it is still putting out less power in the winter than in the summer whereas this may not match the power consumption profile. If PV is also used (because roof space is available) then the mismatch becomes larger. I wonder if shunting some ohmic heating of the thermal resevior might give a boost, especially to winter time delta T? With your pattern of heating this might fit well since you can protect a high temperature core by reducing conduction away from it. If this seems like it might be feasable, you might want to consider shaping the resevior even more so that it is somewhat spherical so that the volume-to-surface area ratio is maximized.

      On algae, your suggestions seems like the third peice of the following puzzle: To get high production from algae, you want to have a concentrated source of CO2, protection against competition from less productive strains together with contol of water evaportation, and temperature control. For now, both the CO2 and the temperature control are envisioned to come from fossil fuel plants while greenhouses or clear tubes manage the other aspects http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html. Klaus Lackner's CO2 separation from the air method http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/CO2hoover/ might replace the fossil fuel as a CO2 source, but it won't do the temperature control. Here, you might be able use only marginally warmed ground heat for this purpose from around the edges of the resevoir I think.
    10. Re:Efficiency? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1
      I agree with you that insulation is one of the best money investments most people can make it they have not already. Canadian building standards have really concentrated on this to great benefit.


      As long as you didn't live on the west coast where the application of building standards designed for the rest of Canada resulted in a billion dollars or more of damage to homes from water penetration, condensation etc. Most shocking was the later discovery that the government knew that such damage might occur and apparently hid the information.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    11. Re:Efficiency? by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      No I'm in the north (brain fart?) and will be moving to Canada in the next few years. At that time I will build a garage & workshop which will act as a prototype to try out all these ideas I've been toying with. Then I'll probably build a green house before finally building a house. Yes, I do plan to live in the workshop.

      Its fun to read about this stuff, but when you start seriously thinking of investing your own time and money into something you start to look deeper (that is, if you are wise with your money.)

      Didn't think my post would be seen- almost didn't post. I'm not an expert in this area; (although, I'm surprised at what can pass as expert opinion in the USA.)

      I'm weak in electronics; just starting to learn more of that. My current understanding is that its better to have one really good inverter than use many smaller, possibly lower grade ones. (If they are great, its likely they cost more and therefore you'd pay more to have one per panel.) Again, cost is a big influence in evaluating "was it worth it?" I'm not a movie star, so I can not afford to spend too much being 'green' just to feel smug. If I can find a good solution for myself it can work for other people as well.

      It is easy to lose sight of the main goal. For CO2 people, and your big causes should be 1st. Your heating, car etc. You can boost millage just by driving "like a slow old person" and that doesn't cost you anything but maybe 1 minute of your time and less accidents (unless you drive as poorly as an old person. hey, accident rates are almost a bell curve and guess where the young and old drivers place..)

      If interested in wind, hugh piggott has THE book on the topic and its rather hard to snag a copy of it; only ideas I have there are to try injection molding of blades with something that has a bit of flex and make a better generator (not pancake, but the typical cylindrical style with a slightly conical shape.)

    12. Re:Efficiency? by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      You are probably right about the cost of inverters. The reason it is done with many in this case is that it simplifies installation, helps with shading and makes adjusting the system size easy. These are all plusses for making a rental business go where that systems may need to move from place to place more often than systems that are sold and part of the contract is to keep the systems tuned to the way people are using electricity. I think you'll see panel costs quite a bit lower by the time you are ready to build.

  3. looks OK. one question bothers me... by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    how can it separate the ammonia from the water without drastically reducing its ER/EI?

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:looks OK. one question bothers me... by rohar · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's fractional distillation and the heat is recovered from both the water and the ammonia. This is a good document on GAX Absorption Heat Pumps and the wikipedia Gas Absorption Refrigerator entry.

      The step-by-step detail PDF outlines what is happening in the SHPEGS cycle along with the Flow Animation.

      Ammonia/water is also not the only possible working pair, but it is commonly used in heat pumps and Industrial Heat Transformers and was used in the system to simplify explaining the concepts. A commercial absorption heat pump powered by a geothermal source with images and diagrams.

  4. Arj by adrianmonk · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who instantly thought of Arj Barker when reading that headline?

    Too long to be shorts
    Too short to be pants
    Shpants!
    ah-ah-ah
    uh-ah-ah
    oh-oh-oh

    Yeah, I thought so...

    1. Re:Arj by eck011219 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I thought of SCMODS from the Blues Brothers (State County Municipal Offender Data System, I believe).

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  5. Re:hold on by Kandenshi · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure I already read about the effect that a planet's core cooling would have on/in Abarrach, the world of stone.

    That book kind of creeped me out back when it first came out. I was a bit younger then though, and the rather violent necromancy used in the story was scaryish to a fragile young lad like myself.
    I'll give you a hint, this book ends badly for many involved.

    Damned entertaining though, and I avidly waited for the next book in the series.

  6. I predict big problems already... by agwis · · Score: 1, Insightful
    "The project is being managed with a similar methodology to Open Source Software Development and the ideas and contributions are being published openly on the Internet without an attempt to secure patents."

    • little to none documentation
    • support will most likely come through forums, mailing lists, and irc
    • paid support contracts likely originate from knowledgeable engineers who live in exact opposite time zones
    • frustration arising from having to download needed software through mirrors, but unable to find one that isn't down or broken
    • disputes with lead engineers causing forks of the project. you will have to decide which path to follow
    • nobody has put together a package for your distro, you have to resort to make, make install...never works
    • eventually microsoft will announce that you are infringing upon 235 of their patents but they won't tell you which ones


    All kidding aside, I will be watching this project. I keep hearing that if you can generate your own electricity and give back surplus to the grid then the power company has to pay you. I can't wait for the day I can call my utilities company and tell them they have 10 days to pay up or I will be forced to hand deliver a final notice!
  7. Re:Wind turbine by Miseph · · Score: 1

    I still don't get the "why"?

    Congratulations, you can insert Heroes (right? I don't watch the show myself, so I'm not sure) spoilers into an otherwise good post... so what?

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  8. Re:Wind turbine by weighn · · Score: 1

    Congratulations, you can insert Heroes (right? I don't watch the show myself, so I'm not sure) spoilers into an otherwise good post... so what? I don't watch it either but knowing that anyone is "killed permanently" is more of an assurance of a firmly based plot-line rather than a spoiler....unless her best-friend wakes up in ep.1 of the next series to discover that it was all a "terrible dream!".
    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  9. Re:Likely not worth it... by rohar · · Score: 1

    A lot of the SHPEGS system inspiration came from the Drake Landing Solar Community project which is a district heating system using solar thermal collectors on the garage roofs and borehole thermal storage for structure heating.

    For colder locations, there is a lot of value in the structure heating component of the SHPEGS system.
  10. Let's see a prototype by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That thing has an incredibly complex cycle, with losses all along the chain. There's ammonia, water, steam, air, and hot oil involved, with heat exchangers all over the place. The paper attached to it doesn't describe the basic thermodynamics in any real detail. It's sort of like a solar-powered Rankin cycle system. But much more complex, and without solid justification for the extra complexity.

    This might be credible if they had a working prototype, even a little one. A prototype in the 1 KW range would be about right. That's a backyard project. A 1KW plant would need about 10 square meters of collector mirror, which isn't too hard. Then they'd have something. All they have now is hype.

    1. Re:Let's see a prototype by rohar · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are plans to prototype it, actually as soon as I finish coaching my kids softball. :)

      Questions I am hoping the prototype will answer:
      • The theory is that by using a Absorption Heat Transformer/heat pump to "upgrade" additional heat from the air, it will lower the amount of solar collector required for a given output and scale in a non-linear fashion. This adds a lot of complexity to a solar thermal system and although the absorption heat pump has been around for 100 years, it isn't that common of a technology and it's difficult to find experts in the area.
      • By using the heat transformer concept, the temperature can be raised to use a water steam turbine as opposed to a lower temperature and a organic rankine system. Water is more dense than lower boiling point fluids and in theory the turbine power output is higher. The question is whether the power going into the solution pump to pressurize the aqueous ammonia to raise it's temperature that high justifies the increased power out.
      • The negative buoyancy caused in the convection tower and it's fluid dynamics are difficult to model for someone that isn't a fluid dynamics engineer. In theory, the air intake of the tower can be orientated to prevailing winds, the heat exchangers can angle the air and a vortex can be created in the tower which will increase the angle of attack against the wind turbine. It's difficult to picture how this will work without a working prototype.
      • A dozen other things.
      As far as complex, the cycle isn't much more complex than an absorption refrigerator found in most RV's. I have one in my camper that is 30 years old, never been serviced and works fine.
  11. Developing World Application by FromTheHorizon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I currently live in Indonesia, where people commonly burn rubbish - including farmers who burn the husks from rice production. Although this certainly isn't the most environmental form of waste management, I feel that if they are already burning rubbish, at least they could collect the energy from the burning?

    Would it be possible to build a simple generator to convert the energy into electricity?

    1. Re:Developing World Application by rohar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is a very interesting project by a group of MIT grads that implemented a very cheap solar thermal system out of salvage automotive components (power steering pump, alternator, etc) for low cost deployment in developing countries.

      The SHPEGS additions to this type of system (thermal storage, convection tower) could also be implemented cheaply from common materials and salvage parts.
    2. Re:Developing World Application by khallow · · Score: 1

      Another angle is thermoelectric generators. For example, here's some talk about a old Soviet design (from the Second World War) that could generate 2-4 W from a cooking fire or as in this case a kerosene lamp. I can't find it now, but there was a barrel shaped generator that could produce substantially more power. Gas or some other substance was burned in the lower portion of the barrel (which was slotted or holed so that air could come in from the bottom). The middle to upper portion was lined with thermocouples plates, and the top was either open or covered with a lid with huge air gaps (to keep water from entering via the top). I don't know how much it generated, but efficiency is typically 10% optimally (and this wasn't optimal) for these sorts of devices.

    3. Re:Developing World Application by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      Thermopiles are woefully inefficient. Much better to use that heat to drive a stirling engine connected to an alternator.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
  12. Got it now by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    The Canadian system looks like it would be about 2% efficient. So, you'd want a collecting area perhaps 6 times larger that roof area of the homes served. So, if it served a town it would need about that much land again. The big plus is power storage so I wonder if it could be tweaked more to serve in the Winter and handle Summer/daytime with PV directly?

  13. Re:Moderate Climates? by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    If we are to believe even half of what Al Gore is spouting

          How could you NOT believe Al Gore? After all, he DID invent the internet!

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  14. Re:hold on by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

    Using geothermal power will speed up the cooling of the earths core.

    ????????

          Seriously do you have any kind of idea of the amount of energy required to cause any sort of noticeable impact on the earth's core? It's like a colony of ants saying they will destroy all the buildings in Manhattan.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  15. Can anyone help with the math? by Bodhammer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I recently read an article about solar power in Wired magazine: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/solar.htm l

    The article mentions a new design for a concentrator that only uses two motors. To quote the article -

    "Then, in a weekend flash of inspiration, a young Caltech physics grad named Kevin Hickerson figured out how to reduce the number of motors needed to move 25 mirrors independently, a major cost factor. Instead of two motors for each mirror - the traditional approach - Hickerson's solution requires only two motors for any number of mirrors. The key is a mathematical curve known as the conchoid of Nicomedes (named for the ancient Greek mathematician, who discovered it). A grid of ball bearings arrayed to match the conchoid is attached to a frame inside the Sunflower. As the motors move the frame, the bearings control each mirror's position individually."

    I have found this but it is not helping me much:

    http://nvizx.typepad.com/nvizx_weblog/2005/08/conc hoid_of_nic.html

    I have been unable to locate a more detailed explanation of the system and I'm not sure if this basic math is patentable. My advanced math skills are very rusty and I'm not quite sure where to start to understand this. I have an idea that this technique might be useful and I want to understand how to design such a frame. I did look at the concentrator page here: http://www.sandia.gov/pv/docs/PVFarraysConcentrato r_Collectors.htm but it was not much help.

    These articles as well also have some implications for the benefits of a simple energy source:

    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/1 2/1621204&tid=126&tid=14

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816, 1101299,00.html

    Also, this today triggered my interest again:

    http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/stor y?id=46765

    I want to understand how to make a spreadsheet or something that would allow me to input number mirrors, focal length, size and it tell me shape, size a location of pivots. Can you explain it to someone who hasn't touched calculus in 18 years? I want to build a cheap one on my roof!

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    1. Re:Can anyone help with the math? by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      Did you try Googling for any patents? http://www.google.com/patents?id=jI1-AAAAEBAJ&dq=7 156088

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  16. I bet these greenies got SCMODS ... by ribman · · Score: 1

    Jake: SCMODS?

  17. Re:Likely not worth it... by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Photovoltaics are additive - double the area and you only get twice the power. Thermal solutions scale up. If you only look at the small scale it is not going to look very good.

  18. People just can't get enough of this Gore joke. by skids · · Score: 1

    ...even though it's been prettythoroughly debunked. I wonder if it will ever wear off.

  19. Re:hold on by dave420 · · Score: 1

    I'm not being rude, but is the answer anything like the answer to "do you have any kind of idea just how much oil there is"? I mean, ants COULD destroy all the buildings in Manhattan if the buildings weren't repaired and the ants had long enough.

  20. Are simple designs overlooked? by Klaatu01 · · Score: 1
    Before I even visited the website associated with this article I imagined a more simple system for allowing the sun to heat water and create hydroelectric "spill" to spin small turbines. In a way similar to existing hot water heaters for mobile homes and powerless locations, a "closed loop" system with large, nearly flat bladders heated by the sun could increase a volume of water enough to spill it into drains. Each drain has an integrated impeller turning a small shaft connected to a generator and producing electricity.

    Yes, the fabrication of these stand-alone systems would cost quite a bit of money at first, but there must be enough "engineering intelligence" available at this time to allow workable, extremely low maintenance designs to be created.

    All to often it seem simple designs are overlooked in favor of large scale "plants" for generating electricity because we only have to build one (whoopie) and they employ local citizens providing economic support to the planet's community. We have been creating a system of dependencies instead of independent (distributed) solutions. It is old school thinking at its worst that is past due for retirement!

    Also, I offer that the widely distributed power generating model is "insulated" against natural disasters and terrorism because if 20 to 70 percent of a "grid" is knocked offline, only that 20 to 70 percent is effected. In our current configuration one power plant taken out of service may leave millions in the dark and without support for their electronic gadgetry.

    Has all this been mentioned before? Probably. But I feel the technical community-at-large has to continually raise its collective voice in favor of systems of updated design. American stockholders may take a hit by the loss of assest invested in decades old technology, but think of this in comparison to so called third-world countries leaping over "land line" phones and going directly to wireless! All of the money they save by NOT investing in wired communications infrastructure is being (or should be being) directed into lower cost, lower maintenance innovative new technologies delivering the same services.

    Current power and communications systems should be kept as backups only and we as a nation should be encouraging people to get off the grid rather than plug into it.

    1. Re:Are simple designs overlooked? by FuzzyFox · · Score: 1

      Water expands when heated?? News to me...

      --
      splunge (n) -- A good idea.. but it could be lousy... and I'm not being indecisive!
  21. MODERATORS ON CRACK!!!!! by mangu · · Score: 1
    They gave (Score:4, Informative) to a comment that says:

    The SHPEGS (Shit-Hot Power or Electricity Generation System) project "just works".

    Informative? WTF??? How can you call informative a comment that says basically nothing and doesn't even inform the acronym right?


    OTOH, another moderator gave to the first answer to that trollish comment a (Score:-1, Flamebait) because it gave information on some shortcomings of the SHPEGS concept.


    Well, let's just hope I get some of those dumbasses in meta-moderation...

  22. Re:Likely not worth it... by mdsolar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is true that heat retention improves with scale linearly and delta T can be increased with scale, but the cost goes up with volume (linear scale^3). One nice aspect of this system is that you might build it to last a few centuries in the below ground hardware so that the cost per unit time is low. It is difficult though to arrange multi-generational financing of this duration so the first users have to carry the install costs.

    PV scales as you say, but the cost comes down a lot with large scale manufaturing, and the cradle-to-cradle-to-cradle aspects of recycling the PV look pretty positive so it carries reduced costs forward but in a way that spreads them without having to work out new finacial instruments.
    --
    Low risk finance: Rent solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

  23. Re:Moderate Climates? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    mods have no fucking sense of humor, as usual. Bleh, I'm a karma millionaire

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  24. Re:hold on by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    I mean, ants COULD destroy all the buildings in Manhattan if the buildings weren't repaired and the ants had long enough.

          Unless of course people keep building. Do you have any idea why the earth's core is hot? Do you just think the earth is cooling, still, after a few billion years, and will continue to do so for another few billion? Do you think there are no GRAVITATIONAL FORCES from the Sun that actually knead the inside of the earth like dough, and THIS is what heats the core? The core will cool when the earth stops rotating. Period. Now, how will tapping geothermal energy stop the rotation of the Earth or reduce the sun's gravity, pray tell?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  25. Single motor by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Here is a set of concentrators that run on a single motor. This might reduce PV cost by half though I'd worry about using this where there is snow and ice: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18718/. This is coming to market this year. They are also working on a 2-D array.
    --
    Get afforadable solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

  26. Re:hold on by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    Umm... no... the Earth's core will cool when the residual heat from it's formation bleeds away, and the various radioactive elements that are responsible for heating it finish breaking down into lighter elements. Period.

  27. Oil... by Stormmind · · Score: 1

    I bet that's what they said about oil too...

  28. Re:Wind turbine by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    Perhaps it's a sophisticated submission to the slashdot "turing test?"

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  29. It's Energy Innovations' Sunflower 250 by spage · · Score: 1

    http://www.energyinnovations.com/sunflower250.html is the two-axis concentrator. It's a bit worrying that the website appears unchanged since 2006 and commercial trials were supposed to start in 2007. But supposedly Google's going with their subsidiary for a 1.6MW system.

    Under Technology their web site describes all the approaches they considered and reluctantly abandoned. Very interesting read.

    --
    =S