World Solar Challenge

[Happy Monkey]

Batteries, too. Solar power might not be enough to run a full-size car on the fly, but it can charge an electric car's batteries, and decrease the power it takes from the grid. In some cases, perhaps completely.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

snip--

There will never be practical solar cars because there just isn't enough energy falling on a car, even if collected at 100% efficiency, to run a car that meets our normal requirements.

A solar powered house, or city, however, is much more plausible.

orly?

give me a number, please, that meets our normal requirements. Two numbers if you can, one for the car and one for the house.

[HungLikeJesus]

Here are some calculations to get started:

Typical peak insolation is about 1000 W per square meter. Current solar module efficiency is about 12% (but this could go much higher with some of the multi-junction cells under development). Typical capacity factor for solar is about 15-18% (unless you're in PDX, apparently) - you can calculate your expected annual output by multiplying the nameplate rating by 8760 hours per year and multiplying that by the capacity factor.

Now you just need to know annual load to determine the required surface area of the panels (of course, you also need to de-rate for the average angle of incidence, since the panels won't be perpendicular to the sun most of the time). This assumes that you have sufficient battery capacity to store the electricity produced.

[BigV]

Thank you, sir.

I will use these figures for a starting point. My initial reaction was to ZenGum's assertion that there isn't enough energy falling on a car to make it feasible. I wonder. just thinking out loud here...

Solar to electricity is one way to transmute that energy into something useable to move the vehicle. What about solar to steam? I remember posting a video about a fellow that made a parabolic mirror of about 2 m sq (well under the area a car covers) that took those 2000 watts and focused it on a single point. At that point the temperature was eleventy-kabillion degrees or close to it. Actually I think it was about 3700 deg C, PLENTY hot enough to melt steel, rocks, etc. What about using that to fire a boiler and then you can do what you like from there, run a turbine, drive the wheels, whatever.

I know Zen said normal requirements. This doesn't meet normal requirements. But there is a LOT of energy to be had. Ultimately, ALL energy sources available to us are manifestations of solar energy.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by BigV

Thank you, sir.

Thanks from me, too

I will use these figures for a starting point. My initial reaction was to ZenGum's assertion that there isn't enough energy falling on a car to make it feasible. I wonder. just thinking out loud here...

Based on a conversation with my mate's brother who (a) had a business converting Daewoos to battery/electric and (b) has a business installing solar panels on houses.

A car has, what, 10, 20 square metres of surface. At most half of that is in the sun, say, 10 Sq. M. At 1,000 watts per square metre, that's 10 kilowatts. At 20% collection efficiency, that gives 2 kilowatts to power the car. Modern cars have 50 to 100 times that much power.

Solar to electricity is one way to transmute that energy into something useable to move the vehicle. What about solar to steam? I remember posting a video about a fellow that made a parabolic mirror of about 2 m sq (well under the area a car covers) that took those 2000 watts and focused it on a single point. At that point the temperature was eleventy-kabillion degrees or close to it. Actually I think it was about 3700 deg C, PLENTY hot enough to melt steel, rocks, etc. What about using that to fire a boiler and then you can do what you like from there, run a turbine, drive the wheels, whatever.

The physics works, but we're talking a huge contraption here. You couldn't take that on the road. This is, however, a viable design for powering cities.
A combination of photovoltaic and solar thermal (stays hot enough to work overnight) should work.

I know Zen said normal requirements. This doesn't meet normal requirements. But there is a LOT of energy to be had.

Absolutely! Any human talking about an energy shortage just isn't paying attention. The amount of solar energy falling on earth is several orders of magnitude greater than our current requirements.

Ultimately, ALL energy sources available to us are manifestations of solar energy.

True for solar, wind, wave, biomass, hydroelectric, fossil fuels and maybe even tidal power. Geothermal and nuclear are due to elements created when a supernova blew about 6 or 7 billion years ago; whether this counts as "solar" is debatable, but not very important.

I've had a plan for a "farmer's fuel barn". Farmer builds a big shed with solar panels on the roof. These charge a storage battery. Farmer drives his ute/truck on mobile batteries, and each evening plugs it in to charge via the storage battery. It'd probably work better using hydrogen instead of batteries to store the energy.

[BigV]

I didn't conceive of this expression, but I can't attribute it properly as I've forgotten where I read it (somewhere in the whole biomass--xyz--hydrogen fuel cell cycle blah blah blah) but ... But the author said that hydrogen isn't a fuel source, it's a transmission method.

His point was that (it's coming back to me now...) hydrogen as a fuel does indeed make only water as the "exhaust", so NO carbon is emitted. At the point of combustion. But creating that tankful of hydrogen, transporting it to the consumer, these activities and more are decidedly NOT carbon neutral, let alone carbon FREE processes. Come to think about it, "carbon neutral" is about as precise as "lower taxes". I should probably not get started. Anyhow. Anyhow.

The most efficient method of storing that surplus solar-->electricity might be batteries. Might be hydrogen. Might be gravity. Might be heat. I don't know. Yet.

The other thought your comments sparked is that transmission methods for the energy to be had is another critical, though less sexay than energy sources discussions. Oil and gasoline are easily transportable, easily storable. Huh, seems this is just an extension of the earlier thought. Transmission, transmission. Places where solar energy's advantages are most abundant, like deserts, the very nature of those advantages means that the consumers of that energy are not there. We have fewer people living in the desert than in the cities. Even mature energy technologies have a crucial transmission element in them. Witness the current debate in this country over the proposal to build a very (very very) long pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Why? Oil is in Alberta, refineries are in Texas.

[Lamplighter]

You guys have left out wind power.

Just give the car a push to start it moving and generate a breeze,
the breeze turns the windmill to generate power to push the car again,
more breeze, more power, more push, more mileage.

To stop just turn the windmill to face backwards.
Nothing easier

Patents anyone ?

[Lamplighter]

By the way, PDX is on the same latitude as Vermont, where lots of solar panels are manufactured.

Portland and Seattle winter sun levels, even with the rain, are about equal with Vermont.
In both, solar is enough to take even a large house off-the-grid.
New construction is completely feasible, but retrofit $ are still prohibitive.

Oregon Dept of Transportation is using solar to light freeways (I-5) and intersections.
They claim savings with solar panels life expectancy of (20 yrs)

Eastern Oregon probably has as much sun as Australia,
so maybe such a challenge could work here too.

[ZenGum]

Bigv ... absolutely.

If we could drill for (pure) hydrogen it would be an energy source. Well, i suppose we could drill for it, we just wouldn't find any.

And yes, if you make hydrogen using fossil fuels, you're just shifting where the CO2 comes out.

If you make hydrogen using solar electricity, then you're on a winner.

Transmission is the main stumbling block. There is enough sunlight falling on a small portion of the Sahara to power all of Europe. The trick is getting the energy to where we want it, when we want it, without losing so much as to make it too expensive.

[ZenGum]

GOT IT!

We put the electricity in solar cars and drive it to Europe!!!

[HungLikeJesus]

At the National Wind Technology Center, in Boulder, Colorado, they have wind turbines and solar PV producing hydrogen, which is used to create electricity and as fuel in a hydrogen-powered car. Here are some details.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

GOT IT!

We put the electricity in solar cars and drive it to Europe!!!

Z, that's not an outlandish idea.

For example, eastern Oregon has a huge potential for solar farms.
For hydrogen powered cars, there needs to be a way to re-fuel along the way,
yet everyone is afraid of H2 gas (the Hindenberg effect)

Exchanging safe "gas" tanks could be a way around this.
Start up companies here are working towards storage of H2 on porous frameworks.

Here is a abstract to this idea.

Title: Li-decorated metal–organic framework
5: A route to achieving a suitable hydrogen storage medium
.

[tw]

Your discussion targets the wrong problem. We don't have an energy problem. We have an energy using problem. Ten gallons of gasoline are burned so that one gallon only moves the car. We have plenty of gasoline. So much that companies such as GM will not innovate.

Hydrogen is not a fuel. It has possibilities as a battery - temporary storage medium. Other technologies are more promising.

Solar cells have a theoretical maximum efficiency of maybe 25%. I have since forgotten the exact number. At 1000 watts per square meter and 25% efficiency, where are the many kilowatts needed for today's low technology vehicles?

Why do the Martian Rovers only have maybe 60 or 100 watts for a few hours of movement? Because they have the best solar cells possible. That is very little energy defined by above numbers.

First, there is no alternative to the fossil fuel. To have the required energy concentration means nothing even theoretically possible exists. Solar to create hydrogen in massive tanks to then power a home that night is possible. And only if vampire consumers (cell phone charges, instant on TV, digital clocks, etc) are powered off most of the day. And powered only when major power consumers (ie refrigerator) need power.

Once hydrogen must be compressed for storage, then basic thermodynamics says all advantages are lost. A gas tank is so tiny. A hydrogen tank that also consumes the entire back seat and trunk would be necessary and may be insufficient to power a car.

Second, I keep noting where our future probably exists. Quantum physics. On 30 September, America shutdown Tevatron. America's only major basic research tool for our future. Another victim of Congressional cost cutting because we are now paying for Mission Accomplished. (Never forget the warnings last decade about what would be sacrificed due to that war.) Another example of a surrendering technology to others. A trend accelerated when wacko extremists had White House lawyers even rewrite science papers. Another trophy of this new American hate for science is the Constellation, Orion, Ares, and Man to Mars. "Science based in glory" that is only understood by too many who love war and other foolish concepts.

Third, solar cells cannot achieve efficiencies that are necessary to become a disruptive innovation. One promising alternative is the quantum dot. But again, that means doing basic and application research. Even the Bell Laboratories were sold the French due to a new America that makes decisions based in business school concepts. Basic research is only an expense on spread sheets. So who will innovate - develop the quantum dot?

American males are now attending college is decreasing numbers. So who will develop the quantum dot? Who will address the real problem - doing more with less energy?

Another potential solution that requires innovations found in quantum physics: superconductivity. Another part of a solution - doing more with less energy. Americans are now so brainwashed to, instead, spend money on glorious wars, obsolete technologies (ie V-8 engines), and money games (welfare for the rich). Those with the least education understand glory in war; not is quantum dots.

The Economist defined this fundamental problem on 1 Oct 2011.

It already looks likely that the successor to the LHC, a device called the International Linear Collider (ILC), will be built in Japan (if it is built at all). Most physicists agree it would be America’s for the asking if Americans wanted it, but the current Congress seems not to, because it would entail doling out half of the $20 billion the ILC is expected to cost.

Again, energy is not a problem to be solved. Massive energy consumption to accomplish so little is the problem. So little money and labor directed at what creates those solutions. Instead, the least educated even advocated a Man to Mars. Even solutions to global warming are about doing more with less energy. No wonder wacko extremists so hate science. Solutions are innovations that do same with less energy. Not in new energy sources. Solar cells will never achieve the efficiencies necessary. We should be investing/investigating what may even make the LED light bulb obsolete.

Learn lessons from history. CFL bulb could have been marketed by GE after 1975. GE would have owned the electric light business. Instead, Wal-Mart had to kick ass to get innovation implemented. All be it too late. China has most of the CFL jobs because GE sat on and refused to market that technology for over 30 years. That reality that says why so many Americans will even lose jobs is traceable to business school graduates whose solution is “More Energy!” – and the wars necessary to take that energy.

Clinton gave the American auto industry $100 million to develop hybrids in 1994. Another example of how to do more with less energy. Since wackos hate innovation and science, then George Jr said they need not market their existing hybrid technologies. GM did not develop a hybrid for another ten years after their original hybrid – the Precept. GM’s first hybrid was a decade after patriotic companies (ie Honda and Toyota) advanced what should have been an American innovation and product.

Doing more with less energy. Part of an incremental process of solving the real energy crisis - a shortage of innovation inspired by business school spread sheets, too many Americans who know rather than get educated, and attitudes advocated on Wall Street.

Please understand why this discussion misses a problem and strategic objective. Tactical accomplishments (ie more efficient solar cells) are wasted labor if the strategic objective is not defined. We do not have an energy shortage. A solution is not so much about alternative energy. A solution is found in massive energy consumption wasted for no purpose. But justified in spread sheet analysis.

According to spread sheets, profits are higher when quantum research is stifled. And when more energy is consumed (ie SUVs). When money is best spent in things only the least educated appreciate: "Drill Baby Drill", "Our Oil", war to eliminate mythical enemies, V-8 engines, massive defense budgets, frack as fast as possible, stifled battery technologies, wackos advocating hydrogen as a fuel, and outright contempt for science.

Why does your car consume a hundred horsepower when only 8 is needed to maintain 50 MPH? In a nation with increasing contempt for science, love of spread sheets, when the youngest males are now some of the least educated, and by not addressing the real problem, then making “more energy” remains a fool’s solution.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I've had a plan for a "farmer's fuel barn". Farmer builds a big shed with solar panels on the roof. These charge a storage battery. Farmer drives his ute/truck on mobile batteries, and each evening plugs it in to charge via the storage battery. It'd probably work better using hydrogen instead of batteries to store the energy.

like this much