| Next Generation Solar16-03-2018 11:23 |
BarnabyJones☆☆☆☆☆
(6) |
The new high temperature solar cells at around 35 percent efficiency combined with a heat engine or gas turbine would bring efficiency near 60 or 70 percent. The waste heat used to heat hot water and space would bring the efficiency up to 80 or 90 percent. Combined with the new solar fuel synthesis technologies, fossil fuels will soon become near obsolete. By reversing the combustion process with catalysts, about ten square meters of concentrated solar can produce a gallon of methanol a day from the carbon dioxide and hydrogen in the air compared to one gallon per acre per day from corn ethanol.
https://youtu.be/GJ5mpQqmZaM
Attached image:
 |
| 16-03-2018 14:00 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
1, What do you want with waist heat on a sunny day in a hot place?
2, What do you use at night? |
| 16-03-2018 22:50 |
still learning★★☆☆☆
(244) |
BarnabyJones wrote:
The new high temperature solar cells at around 35 percent efficiency combined with a heat engine or gas turbine would bring efficiency near 60 or 70 percent. The waste heat used to heat hot water and space would bring the efficiency up to 80 or 90 percent. Combined with the new solar fuel synthesis technologies, fossil fuels will soon become near obsolete. By reversing the combustion process with catalysts, about ten square meters of concentrated solar can produce a gallon of methanol a day from the carbon dioxide and hydrogen in the air compared to one gallon per acre per day from corn ethanol.
https://youtu.be/GJ5mpQqmZaM
Wow. "from the carbon dioxide and hydrogen in the air"
What hydrogen is that? There is essentially no free hydrogen in air.
"...ten square meters of concentrated solar can produce a gallon of methanol a day..." Where has this been done? In the video you linked to seems like they they were attempting something similar, but hadn't succeeded yet. That video was from 2008. Have they succeeded? Or anyone else? Reversing combustion? Not so easy in principle, takes lots of energy, harder in practice, near as I can tell.
"The new high temperature solar cells at around 35 percent efficiency combined with a heat engine or gas turbine would bring efficiency near 60 or 70 percent." Has this been done? Sounds cumbersome attempting to collect unused thermal energy from high temperature photovoltaic cells and actually making use of it. Sounds like it'd be a costly setup with limited payback.
The illustration: was it supposed to somehow relate to the rest of the post? How? Looks like it's part of a CSP setup. |
| 17-03-2018 18:47 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21597) |
BarnabyJones wrote:
The new high temperature solar cells at around 35 percent efficiency combined with a heat engine or gas turbine would bring efficiency near 60 or 70 percent. The waste heat used to heat hot water and space would bring the efficiency up to 80 or 90 percent. Combined with the new solar fuel synthesis technologies, fossil fuels will soon become near obsolete. By reversing the combustion process with catalysts, about ten square meters of concentrated solar can produce a gallon of methanol a day from the carbon dioxide and hydrogen in the air compared to one gallon per acre per day from corn ethanol.
Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
You suggest an interesting way of ballasting solar power, by synthesizing methane. The trouble is, the methane you produce that way isn't going to be anywhere near what you use in solar power to produce it. Also, while you are using solar power to produce methane, what are you going to use for power during the day? ANOTHER solar panel??
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 17-03-2018 18:56 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
still learning wrote:
BarnabyJones wrote:
The new high temperature solar cells at around 35 percent efficiency combined with a heat engine or gas turbine would bring efficiency near 60 or 70 percent. The waste heat used to heat hot water and space would bring the efficiency up to 80 or 90 percent. Combined with the new solar fuel synthesis technologies, fossil fuels will soon become near obsolete. By reversing the combustion process with catalysts, about ten square meters of concentrated solar can produce a gallon of methanol a day from the carbon dioxide and hydrogen in the air compared to one gallon per acre per day from corn ethanol.
Wow. "from the carbon dioxide and hydrogen in the air"
What hydrogen is that? There is essentially no free hydrogen in air.
Perhaps he is thinking about using solar power to electrolyze it out of water, or perhaps some chemical reaction (which requires raw materials) to produce it.
still learning wrote:
"...ten square meters of concentrated solar can produce a gallon of methanol a day..." Where has this been done? In the video you linked to seems like they they were attempting something similar, but hadn't succeeded yet. That video was from 2008. Have they succeeded? Or anyone else? Reversing combustion? Not so easy in principle, takes lots of energy, harder in practice, near as I can tell.
Quite right. Not only does he need to use power to produce the hydrogen, he also needs to compress the required gases to very high pressure, then heat them to rather high temperatures (beyond what you get by compressing them). After a while, he will get a small amount of methane and sweet crude oil.
He's going to spend a ton of energy to get a small amount of energy back. The losses in this ballasting method are incredible.
It's cheaper and more efficient to simply use the solar power to pump water uphill, then use the gravity fall to produce hydroelectric power at night. Even this is pretty inefficient.
still learning wrote:
"The new high temperature solar cells at around 35 percent efficiency combined with a heat engine or gas turbine would bring efficiency near 60 or 70 percent." Has this been done? Sounds cumbersome attempting to collect unused thermal energy from high temperature photovoltaic cells and actually making use of it. Sounds like it'd be a costly setup with limited payback.
It certainly would! Not only do you have the cost of solar cells, you have the cost of building the reaction chamber and maintaining it (it's not a safe reaction because of the high pressures involved), switching equipment to start the generator using what little fuel you gathered, and of course all the real estate and permits you need.
still learning wrote:
The illustration: was it supposed to somehow relate to the rest of the post? How? Looks like it's part of a CSP setup.
Marketing.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| 18-03-2018 11:41 |
BarnabyJones☆☆☆☆☆
(6) |
A large gas turbine can pass a ton of air per second. The .04 percent of air that is carbon dioxide would add up to many tons in one day.
Fuel synthesized in thisbway is quite expensive compared to fossil fuels pumped out of the ground at this time. But the technology in a smart phone that costs $100 might have cost millions of dollars twenty years ago. I remember when I was in college taking a course in liquid crystals in 1979. I suggested to the professor that liquid crystals might make a good color tv. He immediately dismissed the idea.
The nit picking questions on here are idiotic and an insult and are about what I would expect from the manmade global warming "scientific" community. |
| 18-03-2018 19:12 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
BarnabyJones wrote:
A large gas turbine can pass a ton of air per second. The .04 percent of air that is carbon dioxide would add up to many tons in one day.
And if the turbine wasn't even running (just spinning) the same 'tonnage' of CO2 would come out of it.
The air a jet engine uses is not a ton per second. Nowhere near it.
Now to discuss what you really wanted to try to talk about.
In one second, a 737-600 will use about 220kg of air per second in both engines combined when at cruise. During that second, it will consume about 1.18lbs of fuel. This will result in 0.0069 lbs of CO2 being added to the atmosphere each second. Remember this is BOTH engines combined. This is about 25 lbs of CO2 per HOUR produced by BOTH engines.
This aircraft uses a cruise speed of about 530 mph. It carries about 145 passengers depending on the configuration used by the airline. This means the aircraft puts out 0.172 lbs of CO2 per passenger per hour.
The combined weight of the atmosphere on Earth is approximately 1,350,000,000,000,000,000 lbs., so that aircraft is adding 0.0000000000000000127 % of the atmosphere's weight in CO2 per hour per passenger.
CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. Absorption by infrared light (like CO2 does) does not warm the Earth. It's just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere.
I don't think we need to worry about it.
BarnabyJones wrote:
Fuel synthesized in thisbway is quite expensive compared to fossil fuels pumped out of the ground at this time.
An understatement to say the least.
BarnabyJones wrote:
But the technology in a smart phone that costs $100 might have cost millions of dollars twenty years ago.
There were no smart phones in 1998. There were, however, cell phones. You could get one for about $900.
BarnabyJones wrote:
I remember when I was in college taking a course in liquid crystals in 1979.
Never heard of any college offering a course in liquid crystals. Must have been part of some other course?
BarnabyJones wrote:
I suggested to the professor that liquid crystals might make a good color tv. He immediately dismissed the idea.
Probably because the speed of the liquid crystals at the time were quite slow. They were not capable of producing motion images. In displays today, the liquid crystal is not only a lot smaller (allowing greater speed), but is available in many colors (due to the dyes you can add to them now).
Unfortunately, the EPA and various regulations came along and destroyed the electronics industry in the United States. Mass manufacturing of these displays is done largely in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan now.
BarnabyJones wrote:
The nit picking questions on here are idiotic and an insult and are about what I would expect from the manmade global warming "scientific" community.
There is no 'global warming' scientific community. The phrase 'global warming' is an undefined phrase. It's only meaning is itself. It is a buzzword. Science has no theories based on buzzwords. The nit picking comes from the Church of Global Warming.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 18-03-2018 21:02 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
BarnabyJones wrote:
A large gas turbine can pass a ton of air per second. The .04 percent of air that is carbon dioxide would add up to many tons in one day.
Fuel synthesized in thisbway is quite expensive compared to fossil fuels pumped out of the ground at this time. But the technology in a smart phone that costs $100 might have cost millions of dollars twenty years ago. I remember when I was in college taking a course in liquid crystals in 1979. I suggested to the professor that liquid crystals might make a good color tv. He immediately dismissed the idea.
The nit picking questions on here are idiotic and an insult and are about what I would expect from the manmade global warming "scientific" community.
The amount of CO2 passing through the blades of a turbine has nothing at all to do with the amount of gasoline that the turbine's electricity can be used to produce.
The electrical power is used to crack CO2 into CO which is then further changed into gasoline or other products such as methane or plastic, if you want to.
The reason why this is any sort of viable option is that if we were to have lots of wind power then on a good day when they were all pumping out full power what can we do with it all? This may be the answer. |
| 19-03-2018 21:57 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
BarnabyJones wrote:
A large gas turbine can pass a ton of air per second. The .04 percent of air that is carbon dioxide would add up to many tons in one day.
Fuel synthesized in thisbway is quite expensive compared to fossil fuels pumped out of the ground at this time. But the technology in a smart phone that costs $100 might have cost millions of dollars twenty years ago. I remember when I was in college taking a course in liquid crystals in 1979. I suggested to the professor that liquid crystals might make a good color tv. He immediately dismissed the idea.
The nit picking questions on here are idiotic and an insult and are about what I would expect from the manmade global warming "scientific" community.
The amount of CO2 passing through the blades of a turbine has nothing at all to do with the amount of gasoline that the turbine's electricity can be used to produce.
The electrical power is used to crack CO2 into CO which is then further changed into gasoline or other products such as methane or plastic, if you want to.
The reason why this is any sort of viable option is that if we were to have lots of wind power then on a good day when they were all pumping out full power what can we do with it all? This may be the answer.
This will require a LOT of wind turbines to produce very little methane or crude oil.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 12-04-2018 22:52 |
ddutchone☆☆☆☆☆
(1) |
I have many question about solar energy. Looked into the Portable Yeti. Cannot let a 350lb battery get cold only will work with something on the scale of an RV. Will power a mini frig. Most portable solar items look to be a waste of money.
Looked into spreadable solar that you do not have to sun soak, cannot get wet so I went on to marine fold and roll.
Solar seems like a good deal, but, while looking for organic granola, I found a company in Maine that can run on Solar ovens and all. You must have room for at least 72 panels in order to do this.
What I gather is that conventional panels cannot be brushed or you will invalidate your guarantee and will diminish with time at a cost of 20k and up. You would have to replace every 7yrs at a huge price and they may leak.
My area receives a great deal of snow and we hope for sunny clear days. Would need something that could store the energy without bulk or turn the yard into a solar panel nightmare. These panels would need to grab any type of light, even through cloud cover. They would also have to be animal proof so a stray bunny or rodent does not chew the wires or slide down a panel with claws out. |
| 14-04-2018 02:09 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
ddutchone wrote:
I have many question about solar energy. Looked into the Portable Yeti. Cannot let a 350lb battery get cold only will work with something on the scale of an RV. Will power a mini frig. Most portable solar items look to be a waste of money.
Looked into spreadable solar that you do not have to sun soak, cannot get wet so I went on to marine fold and roll.
Solar seems like a good deal, but, while looking for organic granola, I found a company in Maine that can run on Solar ovens and all. You must have room for at least 72 panels in order to do this.
What I gather is that conventional panels cannot be brushed or you will invalidate your guarantee and will diminish with time at a cost of 20k and up. You would have to replace every 7yrs at a huge price and they may leak.
My area receives a great deal of snow and we hope for sunny clear days. Would need something that could store the energy without bulk or turn the yard into a solar panel nightmare. These panels would need to grab any type of light, even through cloud cover. They would also have to be animal proof so a stray bunny or rodent does not chew the wires or slide down a panel with claws out.
Those little portable ones, like the Yeti aren't much good, unless you're just going camping. The one I looked at had a 100 amp hour lithium battery, at a cost of about $2500. The guy in the video was running a split mini A/C unit, as if you could really do that. You can, for a very short period of time, after the sun goes down. And I don't remember what the solar panel wattage was, but it wasn't much, so you probably couldn't even run the A/C during the day time on a hot day.
And there is some drawbacks to the lithium batteries, beyond their absorbanant cost. They don't work worth a damn when it's ass kicking cold. And if you use the ones that don't switch off at low levels, then you can ruin them. Their upside is that they will put out more current than a regular SLA, and you don't lose efficiency if you drain them rapidly, like an SLA.
The life expectancy of most solar panels are 20 years, though they do begin to get less efficient as they approach their death. But you should expect more than just 7 years out of them. And they aren't the most expensive component. That's your batteries, which will have to be replaced every 5 to 10 years, depending on how much you charge/discharge them. They only have so many cycles, and they are dead. That goes for lithium and SLA. I think lithium batteries are good for more cycles though.
I don't think they are intended to provide a roof, so their leakage isn't really an issue. I don't see how they could, since they are solid glass or polycarbonate, but I suppose they could leak around the frame. Though I am thinking about building a boat with solar panels on the back, and was considering using them as a shelter to sleep under at night, if I wanted to camp out on the river. That thing's gonna be cool as hell, if I ever build it.
I have the parts now for a portable solar generator, like you are asking about. I'll be building it when I get home tomorrow. It's a 5kw capacity, with 1.4kw worth of solar panels, and 1,400 amp hours worth of batteries. I'm going to build it on a 4X7 utility trailer, so I can move it. Or actually, so my girl can move it. We built her a Tiny House, which she lives in now. But she has to move it and won't have electricity there, until I get this thing built for her. I underestimated the cost of building it, initially, and ballparked it at about half of what it actually cost. It gets expensive, especially when you add the mobility to it. $12,000 is what it looks like. The return on it will be so far down the road that it's not worth even considering as a motivation. But being able to pick up and haul ass to the middle of nowhere and be comfortable is priceless.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 15-04-2018 12:14 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
BarnabyJones wrote:
A large gas turbine can pass a ton of air per second. The .04 percent of air that is carbon dioxide would add up to many tons in one day.
Fuel synthesized in thisbway is quite expensive compared to fossil fuels pumped out of the ground at this time. But the technology in a smart phone that costs $100 might have cost millions of dollars twenty years ago. I remember when I was in college taking a course in liquid crystals in 1979. I suggested to the professor that liquid crystals might make a good color tv. He immediately dismissed the idea.
The nit picking questions on here are idiotic and an insult and are about what I would expect from the manmade global warming "scientific" community.
The amount of CO2 passing through the blades of a turbine has nothing at all to do with the amount of gasoline that the turbine's electricity can be used to produce.
The electrical power is used to crack CO2 into CO which is then further changed into gasoline or other products such as methane or plastic, if you want to.
The reason why this is any sort of viable option is that if we were to have lots of wind power then on a good day when they were all pumping out full power what can we do with it all? This may be the answer.
This will require a LOT of wind turbines to produce very little methane or crude oil.
I am currently building a wind turbine which, if it works, will, hopefully, make electricity at about 2kW at a cost of £7,000 to build the commercial model.
The maintenaince costs will be very low as all the working parts are at a low level and the turbine has a vertical axis which means that the cracking of the blades that plagues the existing ones will not be a problem.
The system is even better when it is larger. I dream of having electricity production at around £0.02p/kWh.
Should that happen there will be very often large amounts of spare electricity to use for something. Even if that conversion of air into petrol is at 5% efficency the input wind is free.
If there are any investors out there please get in touch.
Edited on 15-04-2018 12:17 |
| 15-04-2018 18:50 |
Jeffvw★☆☆☆☆
(84) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
I am currently building a wind turbine which, if it works, will, hopefully, make electricity at about 2kW at a cost of £7,000 to build the commercial model.
The maintenaince costs will be very low as all the working parts are at a low level and the turbine has a vertical axis which means that the cracking of the blades that plagues the existing ones will not be a problem.
The system is even better when it is larger. I dream of having electricity production at around £0.02p/kWh.
Should that happen there will be very often large amounts of spare electricity to use for something. Even if that conversion of air into petrol is at 5% efficency the input wind is free.
If there are any investors out there please get in touch.
I'm curious to know your assumptions in coming up with your electricity cost.
1. What capacity factor are you expecting? It's highly dependent on location.
2. Will you connect to the grid? If so, what will the local power company pay for your power? Full retail, or spot market rates? If full retail (as in net metering), is there a guarantee how long this subsidy would last? If spot rates, be aware that on very windy days, expect the power company to pay next to nothing since buying power on a windy day is like buying irrigation water on a rainy day.
3. Are you willing to put up with the noise? Many people really dislike it.
FYI, A 2 kW system will produce a maximum of 2kW*365 days/year*24 hours/day = 17,520 kW-hours/year. A good capacity factor for a small system in a windy area is about 35%. This means that the system would produce about 17,520 kW-hours * 0.35 = 6132 kW-hours/year.
If you are using this number, then you are planning on £7,000/£0.02 =350,000 kW-hours of generation for the system during its lifetime. (350,000 kW-hours)/(6132 kW-hours/year)=57 year payback. Seems like a long payback time to use. |
| 15-04-2018 22:12 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
1, Not sure what capacity factor means.
2, The idea is for the small, like I am building, ones to be used for situations that are off grid and for those who wish to have an eco generation at a reasonable cost to replace their inported power possibly at a reasonable pay back at that. In the UK that's 13.8p/kWh or so. Exporting to the grid would be at 4.85p/kWh.
3, There is no significant noise or infra noise. All working parts are within the structure. No big blades at all.
4, The 0.02p/kWh is the dream or units which will be as large as it is possible for humanity to build. 2km high, 2km wide or so. These are, in my dreams, positioned in windy places such that at any one time, for the UK, either the Inner Hebredies or the Soutern end of Ireland or Norfolk has wind for most (90%?) of the time.
5, If 4 is true then you have as an extra twice the normal demand for electricity 50% of the time. Use it to make petrol at whatever efficency you can get.
Wish me luck. Changing the way the whole world generates its' electricity from my garden shed is hard going.
Edited on 15-04-2018 22:13 |
| 16-04-2018 02:58 |
Jeffvw★☆☆☆☆
(84) |
1, Not sure what capacity factor means.
Capacity factor is the ratio of the rated capacity of the wind turbine to what it actually outputs. In other words, a 2kW unit will put out a maximum of 2kW whenever the wind is blowing at the appropriate speeds. Higher winds will cause it to shut down, lower winds will produce less or no power at all.
This varies by location. The best locations for small units can produce in the mid 30%'s. Poor locations can be less than 10%.
Bottom line is that a 2kW system may only produce about 0.7 kW averaged over time if you are lucky.
The biggest problem for an off-grid system is that you either have no power when the wind isn't blowing or is blowing too hard. You need to invest in storage; which isn't cheap. |
|
| 16-04-2018 22:39 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Jeffvw wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I am currently building a wind turbine which, if it works, will, hopefully, make electricity at about 2kW at a cost of £7,000 to build the commercial model.
The maintenaince costs will be very low as all the working parts are at a low level and the turbine has a vertical axis which means that the cracking of the blades that plagues the existing ones will not be a problem.
The system is even better when it is larger. I dream of having electricity production at around £0.02p/kWh.
Should that happen there will be very often large amounts of spare electricity to use for something. Even if that conversion of air into petrol is at 5% efficency the input wind is free.
If there are any investors out there please get in touch.
I'm curious to know your assumptions in coming up with your electricity cost.
1. What capacity factor are you expecting? It's highly dependent on location.
2. Will you connect to the grid? If so, what will the local power company pay for your power? Full retail, or spot market rates? If full retail (as in net metering), is there a guarantee how long this subsidy would last? If spot rates, be aware that on very windy days, expect the power company to pay next to nothing since buying power on a windy day is like buying irrigation water on a rainy day.
3. Are you willing to put up with the noise? Many people really dislike it.
FYI, A 2 kW system will produce a maximum of 2kW*365 days/year*24 hours/day = 17,520 kW-hours/year. A good capacity factor for a small system in a windy area is about 35%. This means that the system would produce about 17,520 kW-hours * 0.35 = 6132 kW-hours/year.
If you are using this number, then you are planning on £7,000/£0.02 =350,000 kW-hours of generation for the system during its lifetime. (350,000 kW-hours)/(6132 kW-hours/year)=57 year payback. Seems like a long payback time to use.
A single gallon of gasoline contains 31kW of energy. Burning one gallon a day for a year will yield 11.3MW. I guess Tim wants to ignore this.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 16-04-2018 22:41 |
| 19-04-2018 23:14 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Jeffvw wrote:
1, Not sure what capacity factor means.
Capacity factor is the ratio of the rated capacity of the wind turbine to what it actually outputs. In other words, a 2kW unit will put out a maximum of 2kW whenever the wind is blowing at the appropriate speeds. Higher winds will cause it to shut down, lower winds will produce less or no power at all.
This varies by location. The best locations for small units can produce in the mid 30%'s. Poor locations can be less than 10%.
Bottom line is that a 2kW system may only produce about 0.7 kW averaged over time if you are lucky.
The biggest problem for an off-grid system is that you either have no power when the wind isn't blowing or is blowing too hard. You need to invest in storage; which isn't cheap.
Untill the thing is blown off the hill top there is no upper wind speed limit. It can turn away from the wind a bit or close the shutters at the front a bit if needed.
When it is actually snowing it has to close the shutters or it will fill with snow. Otherwise it keeps going as long as there is wind enough.
I may have been very optimistic with my dream efficency costs.... 2p/kWh is more probably. |
| 19-04-2018 23:16 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I am currently building a wind turbine which, if it works, will, hopefully, make electricity at about 2kW at a cost of £7,000 to build the commercial model.
The maintenaince costs will be very low as all the working parts are at a low level and the turbine has a vertical axis which means that the cracking of the blades that plagues the existing ones will not be a problem.
The system is even better when it is larger. I dream of having electricity production at around £0.02p/kWh.
Should that happen there will be very often large amounts of spare electricity to use for something. Even if that conversion of air into petrol is at 5% efficency the input wind is free.
If there are any investors out there please get in touch.
I'm curious to know your assumptions in coming up with your electricity cost.
1. What capacity factor are you expecting? It's highly dependent on location.
2. Will you connect to the grid? If so, what will the local power company pay for your power? Full retail, or spot market rates? If full retail (as in net metering), is there a guarantee how long this subsidy would last? If spot rates, be aware that on very windy days, expect the power company to pay next to nothing since buying power on a windy day is like buying irrigation water on a rainy day.
3. Are you willing to put up with the noise? Many people really dislike it.
FYI, A 2 kW system will produce a maximum of 2kW*365 days/year*24 hours/day = 17,520 kW-hours/year. A good capacity factor for a small system in a windy area is about 35%. This means that the system would produce about 17,520 kW-hours * 0.35 = 6132 kW-hours/year.
If you are using this number, then you are planning on £7,000/£0.02 =350,000 kW-hours of generation for the system during its lifetime. (350,000 kW-hours)/(6132 kW-hours/year)=57 year payback. Seems like a long payback time to use.
A single gallon of gasoline contains 31kW of energy. Burning one gallon a day for a year will yield 11.3MW. I guess Tim wants to ignore this.
Watts are power not energy.
If you burn 1 gallon you get the energy out of it. It does not matter what time you do it over.
I have no clue what you are talking about because you have no clue about physics. |
| 20-04-2018 00:03 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I am currently building a wind turbine which, if it works, will, hopefully, make electricity at about 2kW at a cost of £7,000 to build the commercial model.
The maintenaince costs will be very low as all the working parts are at a low level and the turbine has a vertical axis which means that the cracking of the blades that plagues the existing ones will not be a problem.
The system is even better when it is larger. I dream of having electricity production at around £0.02p/kWh.
Should that happen there will be very often large amounts of spare electricity to use for something. Even if that conversion of air into petrol is at 5% efficency the input wind is free.
If there are any investors out there please get in touch.
I'm curious to know your assumptions in coming up with your electricity cost.
1. What capacity factor are you expecting? It's highly dependent on location.
2. Will you connect to the grid? If so, what will the local power company pay for your power? Full retail, or spot market rates? If full retail (as in net metering), is there a guarantee how long this subsidy would last? If spot rates, be aware that on very windy days, expect the power company to pay next to nothing since buying power on a windy day is like buying irrigation water on a rainy day.
3. Are you willing to put up with the noise? Many people really dislike it.
FYI, A 2 kW system will produce a maximum of 2kW*365 days/year*24 hours/day = 17,520 kW-hours/year. A good capacity factor for a small system in a windy area is about 35%. This means that the system would produce about 17,520 kW-hours * 0.35 = 6132 kW-hours/year.
If you are using this number, then you are planning on £7,000/£0.02 =350,000 kW-hours of generation for the system during its lifetime. (350,000 kW-hours)/(6132 kW-hours/year)=57 year payback. Seems like a long payback time to use.
A single gallon of gasoline contains 31kW of energy. Burning one gallon a day for a year will yield 11.3MW. I guess Tim wants to ignore this.
Watts are power not energy.
If you burn 1 gallon you get the energy out of it. It does not matter what time you do it over.
I have no clue what you are talking about because you have no clue about physics.
You are not talking about power??
What the hell are YOU talking about then???
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 20-04-2018 00:15 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I am currently building a wind turbine which, if it works, will, hopefully, make electricity at about 2kW at a cost of £7,000 to build the commercial model.
The maintenaince costs will be very low as all the working parts are at a low level and the turbine has a vertical axis which means that the cracking of the blades that plagues the existing ones will not be a problem.
The system is even better when it is larger. I dream of having electricity production at around £0.02p/kWh.
Should that happen there will be very often large amounts of spare electricity to use for something. Even if that conversion of air into petrol is at 5% efficency the input wind is free.
If there are any investors out there please get in touch.
I'm curious to know your assumptions in coming up with your electricity cost.
1. What capacity factor are you expecting? It's highly dependent on location.
2. Will you connect to the grid? If so, what will the local power company pay for your power? Full retail, or spot market rates? If full retail (as in net metering), is there a guarantee how long this subsidy would last? If spot rates, be aware that on very windy days, expect the power company to pay next to nothing since buying power on a windy day is like buying irrigation water on a rainy day.
3. Are you willing to put up with the noise? Many people really dislike it.
FYI, A 2 kW system will produce a maximum of 2kW*365 days/year*24 hours/day = 17,520 kW-hours/year. A good capacity factor for a small system in a windy area is about 35%. This means that the system would produce about 17,520 kW-hours * 0.35 = 6132 kW-hours/year.
If you are using this number, then you are planning on £7,000/£0.02 =350,000 kW-hours of generation for the system during its lifetime. (350,000 kW-hours)/(6132 kW-hours/year)=57 year payback. Seems like a long payback time to use.
A single gallon of gasoline contains 31kW of energy. Burning one gallon a day for a year will yield 11.3MW. I guess Tim wants to ignore this.
Watts are power not energy.
If you burn 1 gallon you get the energy out of it. It does not matter what time you do it over.
I have no clue what you are talking about because you have no clue about physics.
You are not talking about power??
What the hell are YOU talking about then???
I am talking about power.
A gallon of petrol will give out a certain amount of energy.
Power is energy per second.
You will not get more energy out of a gallon of petrol if you burn it quickly or slowly. |
| 20-04-2018 01:17 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I am currently building a wind turbine which, if it works, will, hopefully, make electricity at about 2kW at a cost of £7,000 to build the commercial model.
The maintenaince costs will be very low as all the working parts are at a low level and the turbine has a vertical axis which means that the cracking of the blades that plagues the existing ones will not be a problem.
The system is even better when it is larger. I dream of having electricity production at around £0.02p/kWh.
Should that happen there will be very often large amounts of spare electricity to use for something. Even if that conversion of air into petrol is at 5% efficency the input wind is free.
If there are any investors out there please get in touch.
I'm curious to know your assumptions in coming up with your electricity cost.
1. What capacity factor are you expecting? It's highly dependent on location.
2. Will you connect to the grid? If so, what will the local power company pay for your power? Full retail, or spot market rates? If full retail (as in net metering), is there a guarantee how long this subsidy would last? If spot rates, be aware that on very windy days, expect the power company to pay next to nothing since buying power on a windy day is like buying irrigation water on a rainy day.
3. Are you willing to put up with the noise? Many people really dislike it.
FYI, A 2 kW system will produce a maximum of 2kW*365 days/year*24 hours/day = 17,520 kW-hours/year. A good capacity factor for a small system in a windy area is about 35%. This means that the system would produce about 17,520 kW-hours * 0.35 = 6132 kW-hours/year.
If you are using this number, then you are planning on £7,000/£0.02 =350,000 kW-hours of generation for the system during its lifetime. (350,000 kW-hours)/(6132 kW-hours/year)=57 year payback. Seems like a long payback time to use.
A single gallon of gasoline contains 31kW of energy. Burning one gallon a day for a year will yield 11.3MW. I guess Tim wants to ignore this.
Watts are power not energy.
If you burn 1 gallon you get the energy out of it. It does not matter what time you do it over.
I have no clue what you are talking about because you have no clue about physics.
You are not talking about power??
What the hell are YOU talking about then???
I am talking about power.
A gallon of petrol will give out a certain amount of energy.
Power is energy per second.
You will not get more energy out of a gallon of petrol if you burn it quickly or slowly.
Okay. If you want to go THAT route, then you can't use such units for any power plants you describe either for the same reason.
31kW is the same whether you burn that gallon over one second (foom!) or the sum of the power you get by burning it over 24 hours. It still adds up to a 31kW-day, or an 11.3MW-year.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 20-04-2018 01:19 |
| 20-04-2018 10:30 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I am currently building a wind turbine which, if it works, will, hopefully, make electricity at about 2kW at a cost of £7,000 to build the commercial model.
The maintenaince costs will be very low as all the working parts are at a low level and the turbine has a vertical axis which means that the cracking of the blades that plagues the existing ones will not be a problem.
The system is even better when it is larger. I dream of having electricity production at around £0.02p/kWh.
Should that happen there will be very often large amounts of spare electricity to use for something. Even if that conversion of air into petrol is at 5% efficency the input wind is free.
If there are any investors out there please get in touch.
I'm curious to know your assumptions in coming up with your electricity cost.
1. What capacity factor are you expecting? It's highly dependent on location.
2. Will you connect to the grid? If so, what will the local power company pay for your power? Full retail, or spot market rates? If full retail (as in net metering), is there a guarantee how long this subsidy would last? If spot rates, be aware that on very windy days, expect the power company to pay next to nothing since buying power on a windy day is like buying irrigation water on a rainy day.
3. Are you willing to put up with the noise? Many people really dislike it.
FYI, A 2 kW system will produce a maximum of 2kW*365 days/year*24 hours/day = 17,520 kW-hours/year. A good capacity factor for a small system in a windy area is about 35%. This means that the system would produce about 17,520 kW-hours * 0.35 = 6132 kW-hours/year.
If you are using this number, then you are planning on £7,000/£0.02 =350,000 kW-hours of generation for the system during its lifetime. (350,000 kW-hours)/(6132 kW-hours/year)=57 year payback. Seems like a long payback time to use.
A single gallon of gasoline contains 31kW of energy. Burning one gallon a day for a year will yield 11.3MW. I guess Tim wants to ignore this.
Watts are power not energy.
If you burn 1 gallon you get the energy out of it. It does not matter what time you do it over.
I have no clue what you are talking about because you have no clue about physics.
You are not talking about power??
What the hell are YOU talking about then???
I am talking about power.
A gallon of petrol will give out a certain amount of energy.
Power is energy per second.
You will not get more energy out of a gallon of petrol if you burn it quickly or slowly.
Okay. If you want to go THAT route, then you can't use such units for any power plants you describe either for the same reason.
31kW is the same whether you burn that gallon over one second (foom!) or the sum of the power you get by burning it over 24 hours. It still adds up to a 31kW-day, or an 11.3MW-year.
No.
W, Watts is Joules per second.
If you burn a gallon of petrol you get https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=strict&source=hp&ei=Z5XZWtSsJcavkwWCkYeoBQ&q=calorific+value+petrol&oq=calorific+value+petrol&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30k1l9.364.7180.0.7850.24.18.1.5.5.0.116.1398.17j1.18.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.24.1474...46j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.VQ8jQaZ7Wrs 45.5MJ/kg
There are 3.79L in a US gallon. With a density of 0.75. So 2.8425Kg.
x 45.5 = 129.3 MJ.
However you burn it, assuming complete combustion, over whatever period you will get that ammount of energy out of it.
The power you get will be 129.3 MJ/time it takes to do it in seconds. This will give you an answer in MW. To get to kW you will need to multiply by 1000. |
| 20-04-2018 23:25 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I am currently building a wind turbine which, if it works, will, hopefully, make electricity at about 2kW at a cost of £7,000 to build the commercial model.
The maintenaince costs will be very low as all the working parts are at a low level and the turbine has a vertical axis which means that the cracking of the blades that plagues the existing ones will not be a problem.
The system is even better when it is larger. I dream of having electricity production at around £0.02p/kWh.
Should that happen there will be very often large amounts of spare electricity to use for something. Even if that conversion of air into petrol is at 5% efficency the input wind is free.
If there are any investors out there please get in touch.
I'm curious to know your assumptions in coming up with your electricity cost.
1. What capacity factor are you expecting? It's highly dependent on location.
2. Will you connect to the grid? If so, what will the local power company pay for your power? Full retail, or spot market rates? If full retail (as in net metering), is there a guarantee how long this subsidy would last? If spot rates, be aware that on very windy days, expect the power company to pay next to nothing since buying power on a windy day is like buying irrigation water on a rainy day.
3. Are you willing to put up with the noise? Many people really dislike it.
FYI, A 2 kW system will produce a maximum of 2kW*365 days/year*24 hours/day = 17,520 kW-hours/year. A good capacity factor for a small system in a windy area is about 35%. This means that the system would produce about 17,520 kW-hours * 0.35 = 6132 kW-hours/year.
If you are using this number, then you are planning on £7,000/£0.02 =350,000 kW-hours of generation for the system during its lifetime. (350,000 kW-hours)/(6132 kW-hours/year)=57 year payback. Seems like a long payback time to use.
A single gallon of gasoline contains 31kW of energy. Burning one gallon a day for a year will yield 11.3MW. I guess Tim wants to ignore this.
Watts are power not energy.
If you burn 1 gallon you get the energy out of it. It does not matter what time you do it over.
I have no clue what you are talking about because you have no clue about physics.
You are not talking about power??
What the hell are YOU talking about then???
I am talking about power.
A gallon of petrol will give out a certain amount of energy.
Power is energy per second.
You will not get more energy out of a gallon of petrol if you burn it quickly or slowly.
Okay. If you want to go THAT route, then you can't use such units for any power plants you describe either for the same reason.
31kW is the same whether you burn that gallon over one second (foom!) or the sum of the power you get by burning it over 24 hours. It still adds up to a 31kW-day, or an 11.3MW-year.
No.
W, Watts is Joules per second.
If you burn a gallon of petrol you get https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=strict&source=hp&ei=Z5XZWtSsJcavkwWCkYeoBQ&q=calorific+value+petrol&oq=calorific+value+petrol&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30k1l9.364.7180.0.7850.24.18.1.5.5.0.116.1398.17j1.18.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.24.1474...46j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.VQ8jQaZ7Wrs 45.5MJ/kg
There are 3.79L in a US gallon. With a density of 0.75. So 2.8425Kg.
x 45.5 = 129.3 MJ.
However you burn it, assuming complete combustion, over whatever period you will get that ammount of energy out of it.
The power you get will be 129.3 MJ/time it takes to do it in seconds. This will give you an answer in MW. To get to kW you will need to multiply by 1000. You go ahead and convert to joules for everything then.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 21-04-2018 11:25 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I am currently building a wind turbine which, if it works, will, hopefully, make electricity at about 2kW at a cost of £7,000 to build the commercial model.
The maintenaince costs will be very low as all the working parts are at a low level and the turbine has a vertical axis which means that the cracking of the blades that plagues the existing ones will not be a problem.
The system is even better when it is larger. I dream of having electricity production at around £0.02p/kWh.
Should that happen there will be very often large amounts of spare electricity to use for something. Even if that conversion of air into petrol is at 5% efficency the input wind is free.
If there are any investors out there please get in touch.
I'm curious to know your assumptions in coming up with your electricity cost.
1. What capacity factor are you expecting? It's highly dependent on location.
2. Will you connect to the grid? If so, what will the local power company pay for your power? Full retail, or spot market rates? If full retail (as in net metering), is there a guarantee how long this subsidy would last? If spot rates, be aware that on very windy days, expect the power company to pay next to nothing since buying power on a windy day is like buying irrigation water on a rainy day.
3. Are you willing to put up with the noise? Many people really dislike it.
FYI, A 2 kW system will produce a maximum of 2kW*365 days/year*24 hours/day = 17,520 kW-hours/year. A good capacity factor for a small system in a windy area is about 35%. This means that the system would produce about 17,520 kW-hours * 0.35 = 6132 kW-hours/year.
If you are using this number, then you are planning on £7,000/£0.02 =350,000 kW-hours of generation for the system during its lifetime. (350,000 kW-hours)/(6132 kW-hours/year)=57 year payback. Seems like a long payback time to use.
A single gallon of gasoline contains 31kW of energy. Burning one gallon a day for a year will yield 11.3MW. I guess Tim wants to ignore this.
Watts are power not energy.
If you burn 1 gallon you get the energy out of it. It does not matter what time you do it over.
I have no clue what you are talking about because you have no clue about physics.
You are not talking about power??
What the hell are YOU talking about then???
I am talking about power.
A gallon of petrol will give out a certain amount of energy.
Power is energy per second.
You will not get more energy out of a gallon of petrol if you burn it quickly or slowly.
Okay. If you want to go THAT route, then you can't use such units for any power plants you describe either for the same reason.
31kW is the same whether you burn that gallon over one second (foom!) or the sum of the power you get by burning it over 24 hours. It still adds up to a 31kW-day, or an 11.3MW-year.
No.
W, Watts is Joules per second.
If you burn a gallon of petrol you get https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=strict&source=hp&ei=Z5XZWtSsJcavkwWCkYeoBQ&q=calorific+value+petrol&oq=calorific+value+petrol&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30k1l9.364.7180.0.7850.24.18.1.5.5.0.116.1398.17j1.18.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.24.1474...46j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.VQ8jQaZ7Wrs 45.5MJ/kg
There are 3.79L in a US gallon. With a density of 0.75. So 2.8425Kg.
x 45.5 = 129.3 MJ.
However you burn it, assuming complete combustion, over whatever period you will get that ammount of energy out of it.
The power you get will be 129.3 MJ/time it takes to do it in seconds. This will give you an answer in MW. To get to kW you will need to multiply by 1000. You go ahead and convert to joules for everything then.
No.
I will use Joules when talking about energy and Watts when it's power. |
| 04-05-2018 00:50 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
BarnabyJones wrote:
The new high temperature solar cells at around 35 percent efficiency combined with a heat engine or gas turbine would bring efficiency near 60 or 70 percent. The waste heat used to heat hot water and space would bring the efficiency up to 80 or 90 percent. Combined with the new solar fuel synthesis technologies, fossil fuels will soon become near obsolete. By reversing the combustion process with catalysts, about ten square meters of concentrated solar can produce a gallon of methanol a day from the carbon dioxide and hydrogen in the air compared to one gallon per acre per day from corn ethanol.
https://youtu.be/GJ5mpQqmZaM
I would be interested in where you got the idea that you could somehow gain another 25-35% over the output of the solar cells. That isn't even possible using perfect reflectors and perfect solar absorbers. |