/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8936680
>>8936729
>>8936825
The company they were in bed with canceled the contract or whatever they had going:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/more-bad-news-for-stirling-so-cal-edison-cancels-power-purchase

>>8938164
>There are three kinds of lies:
>1: Damned Lies
>2: Statistics
>3: EROEI

EROEI for Stirling engines would a bit difficult due to the many designs and features people use when building them. That can be something as simple as the type of gas they use inside. A backyard DIY job using tin cans and air may have better EROEI than the most modern ones using a closed system with the best working gas (Hydrogen), but that has all manner of problems. Which is why companies use helium, thus making containment issues a problem. I'd rather use nitrogen or air.

They are not as efficient as steam engines. Design type and maintenance is always a balancing act too. People tend to forget KiSS when designing these things.

I think the best way to design them is as simple as possible with the easiest gas to work with (air) with as large a reflector array and cooling array as possible.

FYI, after exaushtive searching the best I could find for a solar Stirling engine is from this pdf,

Pic from Page 3:
https://cudenverengineering.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ieee_greentech_2013_paper_84.pdf

Where it seems that a system like the SunCatcher would be slightly less than using PVs. Since EROEI is for things like fuels, it is a bit of a stretch to use if the non-fuel stuff like solar, hydro, and wind. It seems no one agrees on the method of calculating EROEI for the latter group.