Slashdot Mirror
Ariz. Team Seeks Fossil-Fuel Cost Parity, Using Solar Energy Concentrators
autospa writes "A University of Arizona engineering team led by Roger Angel has designed a new type of solar concentrator that uses half the area of solar (PV) cells used by other optical devices and delivers a light output/concentration that is over 1000 times more concentrated before it even hits the cells. This comes as a result of a broader goal to make solar energy cost competitive with fossil fuels (target = 1$/W) without the 'need for government subsidization.'"
It's hard to count all the ways our oil economy is supported and subsidized by the government. And we haven't even started cleaning up the mess yet.
without the “need for government subsidization.”
ALL sources of energy receive subsidy. some examples : Oil (how much did all those wars cost?), coal(damage to public health=hidden subsidy), nuclear(research since the forties)
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
If only somebody would invent some sort of device that could store electricity for later use.
Then I could finally ditch the diesel generator I have to drag around to keep my mp3 player running!
And yet despite claims that they wouldn't miss them, they continue to lobby and fight against their removal.
Look into the efficiency of a battery sometime. Unless you buy really expensive ones you lose about half of the energy putting it into and getting it back out. More losses if you are putting in AC and needing AC back out. And the really good (from an efficiency pov) lithium-ion batteries don't suffer many charge discharge cycles before hitting the 50% capacity point generally considered as replacement time. We currently have zero methods to store electricity that are cheap enough and effective enough for use on the grid. All electricity is generated as needed, with vast arrays of 'peaking power' generation capacity that largely sits idle. Believe me, if there were a good way to store electricity the industry would be using it already.
Worse, while electricity can be sent large distances, it is best to generate close to the point of use because of the line losses. So even if we were willing (and shot enough enviromentalists) to cover our deserts with solar arrays we would lose most of the power heating the lines getting it to where the customers are. Same for wind, it mostly occurs in areas where there aren't many people... or more accurately windmills near populated areas attracts more environmentalists.
Democrat delenda est
1) Solar panels produce direct current, not alternating current. Direct current is almost impossible to transmit across any meaningful length of electric cable.
2) Converting DC to AC is possible, however there are efficiency losses and thermal losses - these come out of your "profit"
3) At some point you are going to need to replace your solar panels - they only last 15-25 years. You need to set money aside for this, unless you plan on shutting down your plant at the end of 15 years.
4) Energy companies do not buy electricity at the same price at which they sell it to you. Often there is a HUGE discrepancy. Ahh, monopolies.
5) The obvious one - the sun doesn't shine 8 hours a day so your 1MW system will probably deliver 300kW every hour on average.
6) To provide power at night you will need some means of storing energy. Batteries work, but they need maintenance and they do wear out over time. Less profit.
Oh - suddenly it's not so profitable anymore.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
What the hell are you smoking? Or more aptly, what planet are you living on?
I think it's more a question of what he's NOT smoking. Only hippies and potheads would look at GHG output as a measurement of how "clean" a country is. Not to mention the foolishness of comparing per-capita emissions between two nations of such wildly different industrial capability. It's like claiming that the homeless guy who keeps shitting in the middle of the street is more "clean" than me because he doesn't have a car.