There is some wiggle room on the fringe but I think you are mainly right. People will pay extra soemtimes fro green tags; in Texas this has
turned out to be cheaper than regular power recently. And, there is more to your calculation than just the interest on the loan, you also want
to look at what you might make from investing elsewhere if you were not paying on a loan.
I'm thinking in terms of silicon being at grid parity (as it already is in Hawaii) and some other technology being below grid parity but unable
to do the whole job without using some yard space. Silicon insulates you from price hikes from the grid while the other gives you a choice of
partial insulation or loss of area. In terms of convinience, you might go with the silicon or you might go with a partial reduction of your grid
use. It will be pretty cool to have a choice, but for now only silicon is being offered at a grid competitive rate. This is because it is well
characterized and lasts for a known duration so that lenders are comfortable with the collateral situation.
I suspect also that if coal, oil, gas and nuclear susbidies were ended, you'd see pretty rapid adoption as well.
I agree with you about the maintenance issue and I'd also be concerned about grit blown in the wind, but I'm not so sure you are
correct about the issues with power transmission over long distances. The Pacific Intertie does pretty well bringing cheap hydro to
LA, and I think that if we took a longer view, we might invest in lower resistance lines (by making them thicker). Here is a senario
where you'd do that anyway: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/03/coast-to-coast .html. While you're reading, checkout the grounding
arrangements for the Pacific Intertie. They are pretty amazing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Intertie. --
Spread Solar Smoothly: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
At the 15% efficiency of silicon, quite a lot of roofs have enough area to cover what a building uses. Orientiation comes into this as well as
the height of the building. Taller buildings have less roof per unit floor space which tends to track electicity use. At 7% efficiency, the number
of roofs that can cover 100% of the building's use goes down a lot because we're at the edge of feasability at 15%. So, cheaper, lower efficiency
solar panels, can turn out to work better where surface area is not at a cost premium. This tends to be in rural areas rather than where most
houses are.
Commercial buildings can often benefit from lower cost, low efficiency panels because they are gaining from using space that they otherwise would not and
they are more bottom line driven and can't cover they're full electic use under either senario. --
Go Solar for what you already pay anyway: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
The link to the situation with plants shows how plants work at the quantum level but just a bit of thought shows that we are
more efficient than (rooted) plants at collecting solar power. A small area, say all of the roof tops in the country, can cover
all of our electric use and more using 15% efficient silicon solar panels. On the other hand, all of the arable land in the US is not enough
to cover our transportation needs through biofuels. Plants may be efficient for their own purposes, but in terms of energy harvesting we do better
on our own http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html. And, as the article points out, we are on the way to doing
even better. --
Sprout Silicon Leaves: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
We have an extinction rate which is higher than rates which have been associated with previous mass extinctions but we have not yet put that
large of a dent into the current biodiversity so that we can not be sure that this is a mass extinction event or something more moderate. I think it
is kind of up to us to decide. -- Be kind to the Earth: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
I've been thinking about getting the carbon out and am wondering if ammonia is a better working material that hydrocabons. Here is my blog entry on this: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/04/smelling-salts .html. See what you think....
I think you are misapplying the triple product here. This is basically beam fusion so the temperature part is ill-defined. The low density is compensated by the long path length (multiple passes) and you want the charged plasma temperature kept low to avoid thermal charge leakage. The energetic
beam will heat the plasma through Coulomb losses so this needs to be balanced against the probablity that a fusion reaction occurs before the beam particle losses too much energy to the plasma. The basic issue is whether energy can be harvested from the fusion reaction well enough to provide
power to accelerate the beam and still have something left over.
For tabletop stuff, getting to market may not be all that difficult. But it sounds as though he has to scale up to get energy positive. In that case
you have to weigh the cost of abandoning the current technology against adopting the new technology since it will occur in the same sector. Investors don't like to see their cash cows shut down without seeing a very positive alternative so adoption will be pretty conservative if they can act as gate keepers and want to protect the return on investment in sunk costs.
This seems to me to be the reason why most of the examples of disruptive technology are shifts to smaller scale wider deployment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology #Examples_of_disruptive_innovations. The barrier they are overcoming is the economies of scale
that big investment allows and subsequently tries to protect. So, to get a distuptive technology to actually disrupt an industry, you usually want
a privately held company that is dedicated to the mission of making a fundemental change and most likely working at the consumer level. It will get a lot of flak as entrenched (heavily invested) interests feel threatened but it might not be bought off before establishing the benefits of adoption.
--
Disrupt Peabody! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
So far as I know, nuclear winter is the consequence of a full thermonuclear exchange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter. The more recent work looks at the cooling from a more limited
nuclear exchange.
You are correct that fallout would spread fairly far in and Iran-Israel exchange. But what may be of greater concern is the floatup. The carbon content of cities can be lifted quite high when the Sun heats the soot aeorsols. This means prolonged global cooling with substantial effects on growing seasons http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/06121 1090729.htm. An India-Pakistan-size exchange could lead to famine around the world. Presumably at least one side has that kind of fire power in the Iran-Israel situation.
Seems to me that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty basically requires the sharing of nuclear know-how. This is not the method to do it,
but sharing the way to run a plant should be pretty basic under the treaty. The trouble is that everyone feels so threatened by the prolifereation
and the lack of serious progress on arms reductions that the fabric of the treaty is very frayed. -- Sun Beams for Peace: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
The Navy has about the only justifiable use for reactor based nuclear power. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is the stratagy whereby no party to
a nuclear conflict can be denied a counter strike. We manage this by hardening silos, putting bombers in the air and hiding submarines in the
ocean. The mission of keeping our subs hidden can really only be accomplished with nuclear power. But, the power requirements are miniscule
compared with our total power consumption so the generated waste can be disposed of through transmutation. This is not the case for nuclear power
that makes up about 20% of our electric power consumption and so there is little justification for that. What the russians are proposing sounds
pretty risky and suffers from the problem of generating waste that will consume more power that was originally generated to dispose of.
Bees are sensitive to magnetic fields at least but as you say it is hard to see why cell phones would suddenly cause this. Something recent
seems more likely. GM crops are sort of recent but you'd think we'd have heard about this over the last several years with those. The HAARP
facility in Alaska http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active _Auroral_Research_Program is approaching full power and it might be able to rattle the Earth's magnetic field a little bit. I wonder if an unexpected
field variation would confuse a bee?
I wonder though if tin hats would interfere with this aspect of bee navigation?
Magnetic Fields
The Earth's magnetic field changes on a daily cycle. It is suspected that this cycle is used by bees to maintain their internal clock. Sensitivity to the magnetic cycle would be especially useful to bees who remain inside the hive and are unable to detect sunrise and sunset. It has been experimentally shown that subtle magnetic disturbances can disrupt the bee's time-keeping abilities.
No, I think you have a point. The issues in semiconductors don't always workout to be as simple as P=I*V. These guys are working on the
reflectance and absorbance issues to feed a good internal quantum efficiency but are still having some trouble. The article isn't all that
clear what the precise nature of the difficulty is so I'm not sure myself.
I could be wrong. I sounds like they are creating more electron hole pairs as intended but as soon as they put a load on these recombine because
of traps. So, reducing R related to the defects also allows an increase in voltage, but the recombination loses sound like their real trouble, so the Ohmic issue may be a red herring.
The typical warranties for panels say that they will produce within 80% of their rated power over 25 years. The main cause of the degradation is defects
in the crystal structure of the silicon created by cosmic rays. There is a very strong after market for solar panels because they can be used where
there is plenty of land, say at a dairy or ranch, where ground mounting is not a problem.
I like your comparison of EROI. I recently calculated the relative burden on transportation infrastrcuture for solar and coal:
On the other hand, installed silicon produces about 200 kWh per pound before it needs to be recycled while coal only produces about 1 kWh per pound for a one time use so there are additional substantial savings on the transportation infrastructure side with solar.
here:http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/saving-no t-borrowing.html#comment-4164085150001376667.
I'm assuming 42 lbs for a 250 Wp panel and a 25 year life. If the panels don't move far in the after market, then the solar number probably goes up.
The EROI for hydro is pretty high as can be seen from it's very low price.
Slashdot Mirror
There is some wiggle room on the fringe but I think you are mainly right. People will pay extra soemtimes fro green tags; in Texas this has turned out to be cheaper than regular power recently. And, there is more to your calculation than just the interest on the loan, you also want to look at what you might make from investing elsewhere if you were not paying on a loan.
I'm thinking in terms of silicon being at grid parity (as it already is in Hawaii) and some other technology being below grid parity but unable to do the whole job without using some yard space. Silicon insulates you from price hikes from the grid while the other gives you a choice of partial insulation or loss of area. In terms of convinience, you might go with the silicon or you might go with a partial reduction of your grid use. It will be pretty cool to have a choice, but for now only silicon is being offered at a grid competitive rate. This is because it is well characterized and lasts for a known duration so that lenders are comfortable with the collateral situation.
I suspect also that if coal, oil, gas and nuclear susbidies were ended, you'd see pretty rapid adoption as well.
I agree with you about the maintenance issue and I'd also be concerned about grit blown in the wind, but I'm not so sure you are correct about the issues with power transmission over long distances. The Pacific Intertie does pretty well bringing cheap hydro to LA, and I think that if we took a longer view, we might invest in lower resistance lines (by making them thicker). Here is a senario where you'd do that anyway: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/03/coast-to-coast .html. While you're reading, checkout the grounding
arrangements for the Pacific Intertie. They are pretty amazing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Intertie.- s -selling-solar.html
-
Spread Solar Smoothly: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
It's not just the power lines, transportation infrastructure takes less of a hit with solar as well. The amount of mass that has to be transported is about 200 times less for solar than for coal. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/saving-not-bor rowing.html#comment-4164085150001376667.
At the 15% efficiency of silicon, quite a lot of roofs have enough area to cover what a building uses. Orientiation comes into this as well as the height of the building. Taller buildings have less roof per unit floor space which tends to track electicity use. At 7% efficiency, the number of roofs that can cover 100% of the building's use goes down a lot because we're at the edge of feasability at 15%. So, cheaper, lower efficiency solar panels, can turn out to work better where surface area is not at a cost premium. This tends to be in rural areas rather than where most houses are.
s -selling-solar.html
Commercial buildings can often benefit from lower cost, low efficiency panels because they are gaining from using space that they otherwise would not and they are more bottom line driven and can't cover they're full electic use under either senario.
--
Go Solar for what you already pay anyway: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
The link to the situation with plants shows how plants work at the quantum level but just a bit of thought shows that we are more efficient than (rooted) plants at collecting solar power. A small area, say all of the roof tops in the country, can cover all of our electric use and more using 15% efficient silicon solar panels. On the other hand, all of the arable land in the US is not enough to cover our transportation needs through biofuels. Plants may be efficient for their own purposes, but in terms of energy harvesting we do better on our own http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html. And, as the article points out, we are on the way to doing
even better.s -selling-solar.html
--
Sprout Silicon Leaves: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Enjoy your meal. I understand fermented tobacco can run your hummer too http://home.ktc.com/bdrake/altengy.html.
The chart caption says fish are not affected. You might want to restart the old Soviet program that aclimated people to living in the water from birth.s -selling-solar.html
--
For sea level and above: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
We have an extinction rate which is higher than rates which have been associated with previous mass extinctions but we have not yet put that large of a dent into the current biodiversity so that we can not be sure that this is a mass extinction event or something more moderate. I think it is kind of up to us to decide.s -selling-solar.html
--
Be kind to the Earth: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I've been thinking about getting the carbon out and am wondering if ammonia is a better working material that hydrocabons. Here is my blog entry on this: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/04/smelling-salts .html. See what you think....
Around 2 AM this morning I saw one fairly bright one. But that was it in about 20 minutes of watching. Nice that spring is really here.
I think you are misapplying the triple product here. This is basically beam fusion so the temperature part is ill-defined. The low density is compensated by the long path length (multiple passes) and you want the charged plasma temperature kept low to avoid thermal charge leakage. The energetic beam will heat the plasma through Coulomb losses so this needs to be balanced against the probablity that a fusion reaction occurs before the beam particle losses too much energy to the plasma. The basic issue is whether energy can be harvested from the fusion reaction well enough to provide power to accelerate the beam and still have something left over.
For tabletop stuff, getting to market may not be all that difficult. But it sounds as though he has to scale up to get energy positive. In that case you have to weigh the cost of abandoning the current technology against adopting the new technology since it will occur in the same sector. Investors don't like to see their cash cows shut down without seeing a very positive alternative so adoption will be pretty conservative if they can act as gate keepers and want to protect the return on investment in sunk costs.
y #Examples_of_disruptive_innovations. The barrier they are overcoming is the economies of scale
that big investment allows and subsequently tries to protect. So, to get a distuptive technology to actually disrupt an industry, you usually want
a privately held company that is dedicated to the mission of making a fundemental change and most likely working at the consumer level. It will get a lot of flak as entrenched (heavily invested) interests feel threatened but it might not be bought off before establishing the benefits of adoption.
s -selling-solar.html
This seems to me to be the reason why most of the examples of disruptive technology are shifts to smaller scale wider deployment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technolog
--
Disrupt Peabody! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I should add that I'm not sure how carbon rich the targets would be. It is soot from the firestorm rather than dust which had the prolonged effect.
So far as I know, nuclear winter is the consequence of a full thermonuclear exchange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter. The more recent work looks at the cooling from a more limited nuclear exchange.
You are correct that fallout would spread fairly far in and Iran-Israel exchange. But what may be of greater concern is the floatup. The carbon content of cities can be lifted quite high when the Sun heats the soot aeorsols. This means prolonged global cooling with substantial effects on growing seasons http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/06121 1090729.htm. An India-Pakistan-size exchange could lead to famine around the world. Presumably at least one side has that kind of fire power in the Iran-Israel situation.
Seems to me that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty basically requires the sharing of nuclear know-how. This is not the method to do it, but sharing the way to run a plant should be pretty basic under the treaty. The trouble is that everyone feels so threatened by the prolifereation and the lack of serious progress on arms reductions that the fabric of the treaty is very frayed.s -selling-solar.html
--
Sun Beams for Peace: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Some place I've got a sword of slaying. He might want to use that.s -selling-solar.html
--
Slice through utility rate increases. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
The Navy has about the only justifiable use for reactor based nuclear power. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is the stratagy whereby no party to a nuclear conflict can be denied a counter strike. We manage this by hardening silos, putting bombers in the air and hiding submarines in the ocean. The mission of keeping our subs hidden can really only be accomplished with nuclear power. But, the power requirements are miniscule compared with our total power consumption so the generated waste can be disposed of through transmutation. This is not the case for nuclear power that makes up about 20% of our electric power consumption and so there is little justification for that. What the russians are proposing sounds pretty risky and suffers from the problem of generating waste that will consume more power that was originally generated to dispose of.
Bees are sensitive to magnetic fields at least but as you say it is hard to see why cell phones would suddenly cause this. Something recent seems more likely. GM crops are sort of recent but you'd think we'd have heard about this over the last several years with those. The HAARP facility in Alaska http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active _Auroral_Research_Program is approaching full power and it might be able to rattle the Earth's magnetic field a little bit. I wonder if an unexpected
field variation would confuse a bee?
From http://www.setiai.com/archives/000064.html.
--
Use unpolarized sunlight: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
In terms of carbon exchange, the plants have it easier because they don't have to chew: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html.
s -selling-solar.html
--
Sprout silicon leaves! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
No, I think you have a point. The issues in semiconductors don't always workout to be as simple as P=I*V. These guys are working on the reflectance and absorbance issues to feed a good internal quantum efficiency but are still having some trouble. The article isn't all that clear what the precise nature of the difficulty is so I'm not sure myself.
They actually angle these into the wind to clear dust so they do take some measures.
I could be wrong. I sounds like they are creating more electron hole pairs as intended but as soon as they put a load on these recombine because of traps. So, reducing R related to the defects also allows an increase in voltage, but the recombination loses sound like their real trouble, so the Ohmic issue may be a red herring.
The typical warranties for panels say that they will produce within 80% of their rated power over 25 years. The main cause of the degradation is defects in the crystal structure of the silicon created by cosmic rays. There is a very strong after market for solar panels because they can be used where there is plenty of land, say at a dairy or ranch, where ground mounting is not a problem.
o t-borrowing.html#comment-4164085150001376667.
I like your comparison of EROI. I recently calculated the relative burden on transportation infrastrcuture for solar and coal: On the other hand, installed silicon produces about 200 kWh per pound before it needs to be recycled while coal only produces about 1 kWh per pound for a one time use so there are additional substantial savings on the transportation infrastructure side with solar. here:http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/saving-n
I'm assuming 42 lbs for a 250 Wp panel and a 25 year life. If the panels don't move far in the after market, then the solar number probably goes up.
The EROI for hydro is pretty high as can be seen from it's very low price.