Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/g/ - Technology


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 29 KB, 300x180, mongol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
23103831 No.23103831 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe] [rbt]

so, g, how much do you know about solar cells?

Is there any research being done on:

1) elevated railings and concrete foundations for mounting panels in sandy deserts?
2) concave railings and mountings to focus the suns light more efficiently?
3) software and hydraulic systems that would allow a panel to track the sun so that it is always facing directly towards it?
4) tarps, abrasion resistant panels, or some other means of removing firt and grime from sandstorms and dust kicked up by strong winds?
5) Is there a protective covering stronger than glass, such as plexiglass or another polymer, that does not diffuse the light from the sun?
6) do solar panel remodels include an option for battery storage and/or a hydrogen fuel setup using an electrolysis machine? (the kind that seperates oxygen and hydrogen from water, not the kind that removes unwanted body hair)
7) as is often the case, roofs occasionally have to be replaced. Are the mounting brackets and rails for solar panels removable and reusable? Does a service contract cover such costs?

awesome. you guys are great. keep up the good work!

>> No.23103884
File: 53 KB, 700x454, 1329641903288.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
23103884

boo ridley. here is a picture of a cat.

>> No.23103956

bump

>> No.23104188

i had a nother question. Some people say that it costs more energy to make a solar panel than they produce. Considering that photvalec cells are made from silicon wafers that are similiar to microprocessors and last over 20 years, is there any way to dismiss such concerns to potential buyers? (without, you know, calling them a "moron" or anything like that.

>> No.23104215

>>23103831
1) already done
2) doesn't help, better cells are the real answer
3) already done
4) not sure
5) already done
6) battery yes, electrolysis not sure
7) don't know

>> No.23104543

>>23104215
1, 3, 5) I know the technology already exists, but has it been implemented? For example, astronomers and sattelite receivers have the software and hdyraulic mounts to track the sun, but has the software been adapted to solar panels? Have the hydraulic mounts been scaled for use with solar panels? Have they started using polymer sheets instead of glass?

2) Wouldn't mounting several solar panels on a concave structure cause the light to be reflected back from the panels near the edge and improve effeciancy?

I had always pictured panels mounted on something that looks sort of like a giant blue flower, shaped like a cocave hexagon, maybe 3 meters across at its foundation, with the flower being mounted on a elevated central hydraulic platform that tracks the position of the sun year round as it shifts from north to south during the winter and summer months. The concave shape would keep sand and grit out of the bowl, and the foundation would allow it to be set in sand or even loose soil. it would not be all that different from a sattelite receiver, like those that were used by SETI before their program was cancelled.

>> No.23104594

>>23104543
the amount of energy received from 2 cells using identical capturing material will receive more energy if flat than if making them angled

adding reflectors would provide less benefit than using the same amount of space to add in more collector material

there's better material out there that is actual not flat itself at a smaller scale (not the design of the overall cell but the material itself) and that works better, but a flat design is still superior

>> No.23104627

>photovoltaic solar
>2011

THERMOSOLAR’S WHERE IT’S AT REPRESENT WOOT

>> No.23104641

i believe that solar panels tremendous cost stems from an unfortunate "ethical" dilema. though certain portions of the manufacturing process are automated, i watched a documentary that had serveral steps during the process that could have very easily been automated, (Such as drilling a screw into a socket) done by hand. While i applaud their effort to create more jobs, i don't think we need more line workers, i think we need more engineers capable of mounting and installing solar panels in peoples homes and stationing solar power plants in desert areas.

The chinese have begun manufacturing solar panels and have done so at a considerably lower costs than we have. the picture i chose was actually from mongolia, and right now it is cheaper to import solar panels from china than it is to buy them locally.

I think automation is the only fair alternative. Paying people slave wages like they do in china or a living wage as we do in america for simple tasks that can be done by a machine drives up the price of solar panels.

>> No.23104663

>>23103831
Half your questions answered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power

>> No.23104670

>>23104594
flat designs can not adapt to seasonal changes of the earths rotation around the sun. The sun travels at a different vector across the sky throughout the year, and because the change is gradual, a line or row of panels can not track the changes as a hydraulic mounted grouping of panels would.

>> No.23104687

>>23104670
i more meant the layout of the cell, i wasn't proposing to NOT use hydraulics, merely to not make them parabolic

>> No.23104691

>>23104627
I had heard thermal solar was less effiicient than photvalic cells were, in terms of energy output, if not cost effeciancy

>> No.23104692

>>23104543
Here, read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_trough

>> No.23104704

>>23104691
Mirror + salt is much cheaper than PV cells.

>> No.23104706

DIY knows kinda more.
Solar power is still on diapers, don't waste money or time.
Save power instead. (LED bulbs, fridge, Solar water heaters).
At least, that's what I learned.

>> No.23104740

I can tell one thing, for every dollar allocated towards alternative energy research probably around 1/2 a cent goes toward anything even remotely productive.
It's the democrat version of defense contractors.

>> No.23104826

i really want to see the ivanpah solar facility. I live right nearby in southern california and its on the way to vegas, i just don't want to go by myself. I'd love to take someone along to go show it to them, but its out in the middle of nowhere. I heard it was right next to a golf resort.

I don't understand these nuclear power references in the wikipedia article. Nuclear is NOT that efficient, i did some research of my own and those numbers do not add up. if nuclear power costs $0.0165/kwh as they claim, then why does it say "citation needed". They are probably forgetting to add the cost of government subsidies, cost to staff the plant, cost to clean up the waste, the cost to build the fucking thing (there are like 10 people left in the world who know how) and the cost to refine and transport uranium and other nuclear elements, as well as the value of the uranium itself. (which can no longer be done in the united states legally)

Somehow, i don't think this guy has done his homework.

>> No.23104865

>>23104826
>i did some research of my own and those numbers do not add up
You better go tell that to the French. And hurry! They need to know that they are being wasteful!

>> No.23104868

>>23104706
Getting Solar for your home is actually free in southern claifornia if your energy bill is 120 dollars or more a month. They will lease you the panels for that price and it pays the cost of your energy bill.

>> No.23104899

>>23104865
I never said i hated nuclear power. I hate what it does to the environment, but i think it is the only viable alternative for areas that do not have a steady supply of sunlight to draw from.

I actually believe the US should adopt the french model, using a standardized design for all our power plants. They should all be refitted and the US should lift the ban on building new nuclear power plants in america.

but thats just my opinion, i could be wrong.

>> No.23104931

>>23104899
>i could be wrong

I don't think so.
It's the best power source we have.

>> No.23104939

>>23104899
>I hate what it does to the environment
Keep it clean? As in: Nuclear vs coal vs oil...

Of course, solar/wind/hydro are cleaner, with 0 operating pollution, but nuclear is excellent.

>> No.23104957

>>23104899
>I hate what it does to the environment

Besides temperature pollution, what has nuclear done to the environment?

>> No.23104965

The only bad thing about nuclear power is that a lot of the heat is dumped into the atmosphere instead of used as district heating.

There's of course plenty of factories that can provide district heating. The Luleå steel mill heats the entire city with it's surplus heat.

>> No.23104985

>>23104939
>Of course, solar/wind/hydro are cleaner, with 0 operating pollution, but nuclear is excellent.

>solar

Land pollution, removal of habitat, 100 acres to do what nuclear can do in one acre.

>hydro

Land pollution and habitat destruction, and removal of mating habitat.


>wind

Noise pollution, dead birds, ruins migration patterns of birds and other animals.

>> No.23105006

>solar cells
>not using superior upgraded bitumen from the oil sands
fuck the environment

>> No.23105008

>>23104965
People are afraid of nuclear being close to their homes because dumb russians fucked up and ruined science for a generation.

>> No.23105025
File: 49 KB, 290x264, YallPostinInA08.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
23105025

>>23104985
>removal of habitat
Solar is usually in desert regions or regions with little rainfall. No habitat is destroyed.

>Noise pollution, dead birds, ruins migration patterns of birds and other animals.
Oh, I see.

>> No.23105026

http://www.energyboom.com/solar/mit-improves-efficiency-3d-solar-panel-structures

tree shaped solar panels could vastly improve power output. cant wait to have solar powered forests!

>> No.23105059
File: 21 KB, 500x336, lizard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
23105059

>>23105025
>desert
>hot as fuck
>ruins efficiency of solar panels

>not caring about the cacti
>not caring about bad ass lizards


If people didn't care about birds, ddt would be on the market.

>> No.23105083

>>23105059
>ruins efficiency of solar panels
I never said they had to be PV.

>> No.23105099

>>23105008
That, and the Simpsons.
But yeah, Chernobyl ruined nuclear power for everyone. Which is fair enough, since a large part of Europe is still paying for the shit that kicked up.

>> No.23105129

>>23105026
Didn't some 10 year old kid come up with that design, why the fuck would MIT take credit?

>> No.23105149

>>23105083
touche.

I am building a fresnel based solar powered stirling power plant in my spare time. Shit is hard as fuck to get working because it has no torques.

>> No.23105185

>>23105149
0_0 REAL TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITY BY A /g/ENT?

You... you bought a Stirling engine?

Pics? Prices?

>> No.23105362

I said it before, i'll say it again

>awesome. you guys are great. keep up the >good work!

>> No.23105438

>>23104691

It may well once it's a finished product, but I think if you take production into account it falls off quite steeply.

(it should be noted I have not researched this recently and it's from long distant memory)

>> No.23105459

Most of these things have already been done.

>> No.23105469

>>23104691
Thermal is much cheaper than PV cells at the moment.

>> No.23105525

>>23105185
>bought

No, I am building it at my work's metal shop when I have down time. I can get picture this weekend when I am there. I am ``temporarily'' using one I got on ebay for testing purposes, just to see if I could get the foal point hot enough.

>> No.23105563

>>23105525
>No, I am building it at my work's metal shop
Wow. I do not know if you will succeed or not, but attempting to building a viable Stirling engine takes guts! Good luck, bro!

(Heck, I do not even know how one would go about making a working cylinder!)

>> No.23105606

>>23104188

Photovoltaic cells are very inefficient. If you build a huge solar powerplant it'll take a very very long time to earn the money you spent on it.

Nuclear reactors are a much better alternative, especially LFTR.

>> No.23105651

>>23105008

And the Japanese.

>> No.23105663

>>23104939

No, you're wrong, the production of photovoltaic cells pollute. It also takes a lot of space.

>> No.23105681

>>23105663
>with 0 operating pollution
>No, you're wrong
Go on...

>> No.23105700

>>23105681

Ah, sorry. I didn't notice the "operating".

>> No.23105718

>>23105099

To be fair, most industrial water-cooled reactors have issues with void coefficients, although not to the scale as Chernobyl and with better protection and emergency systems.

Gas cooled is a lot safer, as well as being more efficient, but is a lot more expensive to build.

>> No.23105720

>>23105681
I'm not him, but the Materials used to make PV cells are non-renewable.

>> No.23105791

>>23105720
Silicon is non-renewable, but abundant. ~30% of the earth's crust is silicon.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action