/sci/ - Science & Math

No opinions on green energy?

Its estimated that solar cost will be below $1 in Q2 2012.

Even if one would get solar panels for free, the maintenance and the installation costs make solar panels economically nonviable, if it weren't subsidized.

>>3921231
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/solar-wind/4306443

Thank you China!

>>3921232
>installation costs

Lol thanks unions. Maybe this isn't the case in CA and the southwest where you can have undocumented workers do better quality work for a lot less.

>>3921232
The panels are designed to last a couple decades outside, the only maintenance would be to keep debris off them. The installation isn't much of an issue, you can attach them yourself and then hire a certified electrician to wire them up.

>>3921239
I think that article is a fluff job, solar was still $4 a watt back in 2009, I think their process was a proof of concept. As far as I can tell, they're panels are still over $2 per watt while others are much cheaper.

>>3921232

>Even if one would get solar panels for free, the maintenance and the installation costs make solar panels economically nonviable

lol maintenance costs? In big CSP maybe that would be an issue, but all you have to do for PV is wipe it down when it gets dirty.

In all seriousness, solar is probably a more competitive energy source than thorium but /sci/ never talks about it

>>3921268
Which is too bad because it really does give power to the people. I know it would have been pretty useful a couple months ago when the South West lost power and people in the desert were frying in 110+ degree weather. Solar panels just to run air conditioning and heating would be marvelous, you never have a spike in your electric bill during the summer or winter.

How can one reduce the deterioration of panels installed outside? Would an added layer of plain plate glass help? Would boxing them with wood help? Added amounts of caulk on the back?

>>3921281
All that matters is the actual panels remain unscathed and unimpeded. Where do you live that panels sitting on a roof get beaten up? Does it hail a lot where you live?

For a less than $4000, it looks like you can get a 1610w system which should get you around 12.88 KW hours a day which should power a normal house.

>>3921317
Sounds like it pays for itself in about 3 years.

>>3921194
Could it be that raw material shortage could hinder further price drops? Plus the demand from China is gonna explode and they're gonna start keeping those to themselves at some point.

>>3921362
Possibly, China being real stingy exporting materials, but theres always plain silicon.

>>3921362
It probably better for the environment that China starts switching to solar and close up all their coal power plants.

>>3921362
It will also result, and is currently resulting in research to find new materials that do not need precious metals to convert the energy into a usable form.

I remember, for example the solar "cells" that came in a can of spray paint. You could just spray them on a surface, flat or curved and get about 30 percent efficiency out of it. They used 4-8 carbon chains that acted as circuits. I do not believe they used nearly the same amount of precious metals in their formulation.

Solar and nuclear are the way forward.

I'm not sure whether solar thermal power or photovoltaics will end up "winning" for large-scale solar power plants. Photovoltaics will probably will for small-scale solar power for electronics, while solar solar thermal is good for water heating and temperature regulation.

>>3921411
It definitely would. What is it, something like 2 coal plants being built each year?

I travel there every year and you wouldn't believe the level of disregard for the environment. They build roads on top of trash. They have vast rice fields next to mountains of electronic waste...etc. Every morning you wake up in the city, your windows are covered in soot. Sorry to rant...I'm an environmental engineer and this kind of thing pisses me off.

>>3921438
I don't know about nuclear. I think fusion is the future, when we can figure out how to build a reactor that works

>>3921428
Scientists have been working on alternate materials and using films just a few microns thick so as to not waste material. A couple months ago there was a news story with a rare earth mineral deposit on the ocean floor in the pacific thats up for grabs.

>>3921268

>In all seriousness, solar is probably a more competitive energy source than thorium but /sci/ never talks about it

No, it isn't. It's got a variable capacity and without robust battery tech you can't store excess power efficiently.

>>3921447
Speaking of thin materials, is there any solar application of graphene? Research money is being thrown at it like nothing I have ever seen.

>>3921448

The (economics) advantage still goes to solar, because thorium isn't commercial technology yet. You can buy a solar PV panel for your home, or if you live in Spain or Arizona you might be using CSP-generated electricity. The Spaniards have come up with molten salt storage system that seems to work out fine.

>>3921443
Distributed solar power is likely to produce much of the power in the US within the next 15-20 years. I can see 50% of houses having solar panels that power commercial and industrial during the day when they're at work and traditional power powering the houses at night.
>>3921438
ITER won't even come online till 2019-2020, and that's just a proof of concept experiment that will last almost 2 decades. If that all works out we might see a fusion plant built by maybe 2045.

>>3921443

>Implying LFTRs don't work amazingly well

>>3921455
There was something in the past week about it, but graphene is just the new plastic, with many amazing things predicted, but few coming to fruition.

>>3921461
As an environmental engineer, I'd like to see solar panels on houses and green roofs in cities (not just for energy savings, but also for pollution control, improving air quality, and reducing the water load on water treament plants after rainfall. It'll save large cities 10's of millions every year.)

>>3921467
>implying plastic isn't incredibly useful

>>3921441

Correction: that's 2 new coal plants opened every WEEK

Can't really blame them for it though. Britain went through the same phase to get to where they are now. If they decided not to go with coal, electricity would be too expensive for the average Chinese. At this point, electricity is a necessity for Chinese people and not providing it would likely cause the CCP to be overthrown. Paradoxically China is also the number one manufacturer of solar panels.

probably there will be electricity generating solar paint and we'll slap it all over every surface, then energy crisis solved forever

The cost of copper is rising while the cost of solar panels is dropping. In many cases it is less expensive to use solar panels than to run a few kilometers of wire. I see solar panels gaining popularity as relatively small installations on individual buildings rather than centralized power plants in the style of coal/gas/nuclear.

>>3921482
They're very useful, but just look at some old black and white movies when plastics can do everything. It may have just been the pie in the sky dreams of the era that the future would be a utopia where anything was possible.

>>3921483
oh wow, that's right. I knew it was two per "something".

It's a messy political situation right now. China says they have the right to pollute, while everyone else is arguing about the impact of pollution on the rest of the world. I know most in /sci/ don't keep up with politics and foreign policy, but the big thing now is "global commons", meaning the shared water, air, and groundwater. It'll be interesting to see how things turn out, but I don't see China folding any time soon. There's no concern about the environment at home or abroad where they have their industries located in 3rd world countries.

>>3921488
It would be nice to see it on cars. I have no doubt it would be efficient enough to charge while driving, but it would let you use less battery power as you went along. Given the efficiency it may charge your parked car a 10-20% boost in power while you're at work.

>>3921517
>>3921483
Given that the vast majority of Chinese people live on the mainland and are poor, they are, personally, probably barely using any power at all. They probably have a light and maybe a radio. All that new power is going to industry.

>>3921488
See my post above about solar paint. Developed at the University of Texas-Austin, I believe

>>3921428

>>3921532
>I have no doubt it wouldn't be
darn typos

Ford should just build their nuclear powered car. Drive it to work then when you come home just plug it into the house to power everything.

>>3921532
Those already exist. A rental company in my city started offering them a year ago. Solar panels are now less expensive than alternators (giant chunks of copper and steel), and they weight less too.

>>3921580
But if you have a spray paint solar cell you can cover a much greater area and it conforms to the shape.

Do you think solar power is viable to run desalination plants which we'll eventually rely on for drinking water?

>>3921585 cover a much greater area
Well not when a can of solar paint costs hundreds of times more than traditional solar panels that can produce the same amount of power.

>>3921607
Are you just assuming it would cost hundreds of times more for a reason? You're saying that the paint job would cost $30,000?

>>3921607
>>3921585
How does it work? As far as I recall photovoltaics needs pn juncion, particularly the depletion region with field across it.

How can that be made sprayable?

>>3921448

>No, it isn't. It's got a variable capacity and without robust battery tech you can't store excess power efficiently.

It appears you're unfamiliar with solar power towers. The mirrors heat not the water boiler, but rather a salt boiler around a water boiler. The molten salt boiler acts as a heat storage battery of sorts, the most efficient known. It keeps the water boiler running overnight for a tiny fraction of what batteries would cost.

>>3921625
Apparently the breakthrough was in 2005. What I find funny is their claims that it could eventually be 5 times more efficient "than current solar cell technology" which at the time had a record efficiency of 34%, so I guess they could get 170% somehow...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html

in gundam the entire world was powered by solar panels in space

>>3921655
Different definition of "times more efficient", surely.

>>3921665
I find your Confusion of Gundam00 with Gundam offensive.

>>3921384

http://energyfromthorium.com/2010/04/19/uranium-oxide-solar-panels/

So we build LFTRs for base load, and use Uranium Oxide to build solar panels for any extra energy demands

>>3921625
>>3921655
http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/science_nation/sprayonsolar.jsp

>>3921666
I'm guessing research failure.

>>3921668
Are there any large scale LFTRs in operation or are they all just proof of concepts?

>>3921679
It's possible to utilize a wider spectrum of energy than solar panels do. I don't know if solar panels truly can use 34% of all light energy striking them; I doubt they do.

>>3921718

Two proof of concept reactors were built, the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment and the Aircraft Reactor Experiment before that, and a third, larger reactor was planned called the "fireball" but that was never built. The modern MSR that keeps getting talked about, the "LFTR" was never built, due mostly to lack of funding, and the lack of ability to breed plutonium.

>>3921733
According to the article it was only using infrared.

>>3921746
In my opinion, I'd rather not see any plant built that couldn't be easily buried during an emergency. Maybe start building them in abandoned salt mines 2000 feet under ground.

>>3921764
If you knew more about LFTRs, I think you'd feel better about their safety. They're not under pressure, no power is required to keep them contained, and if you turned out the power and walked away the freeze plug would fall out and the fuel drops into containment until you come back. No problem.

>>3921784
What about any form of toxic waste byproducts?

>>3921793
A hell of a lot less than current nuclear. What "conventional" plants call "waste", LFTRs call "fuel".

Here's one LFTR vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

Early on, the choice had to be made between reactors like LFTR and reactors like current conventional tech.

We chose the tech that helped us make nuclear bombs.

>>3921793

An MSR design was being pursued in Russia just for waste disposal. Honestly, I don't know of any toxic waste byproducts because none have ever been built commercially to be decommissioned. Being non-pressurized is a huge benefit though, in order for any potential toxic or radioactive waste to spread, it would have to be stolen and moved off site.

>>3921844
> We chose the tech that helped us make nuclear bombs.

Correct. The current nuclear power system is merely a byproduct of the military program for the creation and advancement of nuclear weapons. It had almost nothing to do with creating and advancing nuclear power technologies. That's the core problem behind the reluctance to accept the Thorium option; people believe that we use Uranium because it was made for power.

Does anyone else feel that many from /sci/ are making a noticeable influence on the popularity of the LFTR?

>>3921543

>They probably have a light and maybe a radio. All that new power is going to industry.

Not so. There is now a robust middle class and a self-sustaining consumer society in China. Electricity demand is essentially pegged to GDP per capita growth.

>>3921517

I wouldn't be so uncharitable towards the Chinese. They do quite a lot, investing in and subsidizing renewable tech, building prototype "green" cities, and so on. In terms of obstruction of global negotiations on pollution and climate change, they can hardly said to be worse than the Americans or the Canadians or even the Australians until recently.

>>3921915

kinda felt the other way around, LFTR has been the talk of much of the internet before it became big on /sci/

I'm just sayain.

>>3921966
good luck transporting that

>>3921986
Piece by piece?

>>3921945
>LFTR has been the talk of much of the internet before it became big on /sci/
I haven't seen it as much until /sci/ couldn't stop creaming their pants about it. Then it seemed to crop up more and more everywhere.

>>3921966
rooftops and roads should be just fine

>>3921993
I was talking about the electricity, power is lost over line, I dont think that chart took it into account. By the time power gets from Arizona to NY there will be no power.
Also you still need power at night, loads can very etc.

>>3921644
>2011
>Not arranging solar panels into a high efficient tree shape

> solar panel discussion
> hijacked by thoriumfags
fuck, I am pro-nuclear power and you guys irritate the shit out of me

>>3922022
those are not solar panels
and I support taking designs from nature but I dont think trees absorb energy energy that efficiently

>>3922036
>2011
>Being proved wrong by 13 year olds
>http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/08/13-year-old-looks-trees-makes-solar-power-brea
kthrough/41486/

>>3922055
buying into young scientist sensationalism

that tree little tree model takes up more space and makes less electricity.

>people talking about installation costs
>not installing it yourselves in your backyards and roofs

/sci/entists I am disappoint.

>>3922055
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/08/blog-debunks-13-year-old-scientists-solar-power-br
eakthrough/41520/

>>3922036
Installation costs are low.

>>3922087
And I hate that stupid journalists don't think of covering the science competitions judged by actual scientists at a national level. Oh, no, they just sensationalize some kid's home project that his mother reacted to with "OH MY GOD CALL THE MEDIA, THIS IS TOTALLY SCIENTIFICALLY RIGOROUS."

Hopefully he WILL grow up to be a scientist, and do something good. This is good practice, but not newsworthy.

>>3922020
power loss over those distances is less than 5%.

>>3922020
CSP with molten salt will produce power through the night. See >>3921644

I like the idea of a house being able to produce a surplus of power to sell back to the power company, but some states don't allow it. The best you can do is have a $0 energy bill for the month which is stupid. Allowing you to make money off your investment would help quicken the adoption rate of solar power.

>>3922028

> solar panel discussion
> hijacked by thoriumfags
>fuck, I am pro-nuclear power and you guys irritate the >shit out of me


Scroll back - it was renewablefag (solarfag) who first mentioned thorium in this thread, not thoriumfag.

>>3924350

I really like this idea of molten salt heat storage for CSPs. Will it last all night? If yes, there might finally be something to solar power. Of course in terms of shear power produced, nuclear is still irreplaceable.

Gen IV nuclear for the rest and heavy duty + Solar CSP towers with molten salt storage (if climate favors it) - thats the way to go IMHO.

>>3924474
The problem with nuclear power is that there won't be any reactors built for the next 20 years since Fukushima went down. We really need to get on solar right away. If the country wasn't so in debt I would suggest the government subsidize half the cost of a home solar installation over 1kw.

If we hadn't gone to war in Iraq and implented the Bush tax cuts and had an extra trillion sitting around to buy solar panels for every home in America we could have 746.5 GWs worth of panels meaning given an 8 hour day ~6TWhours or 2,190 TWhs a year.

>>3924496

Nope. Many new reactors are planned to be built in the next 20 years, despite fukushima. Nuclear + solar is the way to go. Both must contribute a fair share if we ever want to get rid of fossil energy.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf104.html

>>3924547
Cars and batteries are the real problem though when it comes to eliminating fossil fuel use. People don't want a pure electric car that's limited to only 50 miles. The Volt seems to be the future of the car for the next 20 years until we can get a long range/quick charging pure electric car. I'm sad that the Detroit people Aptera brought in to run the company fucked up so badly that the car is unlikely yo ever be released, because it looked so cool and futuristic that it was in the Star Trek movie.

>>3924589
Aptera really dropped the ball on that and would have been released on schedule in 2008 if it weren't for the Detroit people wanting roll down windows (which would have ruined the aerodynamics). Yes it would make a great electric car, but that would have taken much more capital to get it into production. The shape is what sells it. They should have added a low power diesel engine instead of electric, and It would have gotten 100 miles to the gallon and sold like hotcakes. Once they were profitable, they could have then invested in making it a plug in hybrid.

How wise would it be to buy solar panels in order to save money on electricity?

Hey guise

guise listen

hey gu-

HEY

>>3924680
Whats your monthly power bill and how much do you pay per kwh?

>>3924683
When running, they more efficiently produce power than solar, but the wind is less consistent than sun light.

>>3924687
My monthly power bill is $26 and I use 14kwh a month.

Is solar right for me?

>>3924680
you should expect to save a third to a half of your bill in electricity. For me, that was $80/month for a system that would cost $30k before rebates and tax incentives.

>>3924694
Do you live in a one room shack with one LED lightbulb and a netbook?
One 230 watt panel for $308 and an inverter and wiring would probably cost $500-$600 and you'd make back your investment in 19-20 months.

>>3924692
Yeah, but excess energy at off peak hours could be used to harvest and refine magnesium, which with the help of lazers can be used to store energy.

Also, solar panels are generally shit at night. Onshore winds are more or less constant.

>>3924694
You pay $1.86 per kw hour? That's ridiculously high.

>>3924707
Actually I have a CFL floodlight and a phone charger.

I use wood for everything else. Thinking about converting entirely to wood power.

2011, most solar units sold were from Kyocera. The best model was a Sharp.

>>3924719
that sounds like a bit of pollution when a solar panel could provide all you need and more.

>>3924719
You could probably make it work. I don't know much about battery reliability though. usually city ready systems feed power back to the grid, or store energy for blackouts. I imagine you'd be duty cycling it every day, so you might have higher maintenance costs.

>>3924717
I pay $0.28/kwh. Useage rates aren't the entirety of one's utility costs. Taxes, city fees, maintenance costs, and service provider fees make up the bulk of my bill.

>2011
>Not lamenting the lost future of Space Solar Power and Space Colonization

I'll remember you, Gerard O'Neill.

>>3924734
Does your city/county allow for you to make money by having a surplus of energy?

>>3924726
But I only have to go to my front yard to get wood. It doesn't require open pit mining, international freight, or factory overhead to produce. It just grows on my trees and falls off. Hasn't quit a day in the last 80 years.

>>3924728
Wood stores energy indefinitely if you store it correctly. Its much cheaper than replacing a battery bank every 8 years, and involves no heavy metals or strong acids.

>>3924746
No. Amerin IP only allows for a service credit. If I produced $60 of energy a month, and only used $40 a month, then at the end of the year i'd lose $240 in credits.

>>3924751
burning plants is basically carbon neutral, but if it weren't burnt, it would at least offset other pollution going on.

Solar + Geothermal

The solution to heating and air conditioning expenditure worldwide. More efficient than using solar to power traditional heaters and AC units.

>>3924779
geothermal isn't available everywhere.

>>3924768
That's only assuming it doesn't decompose.

Decomposition leads to pollution without useful work being done. If the energy release is accelerated in a controlled environment, then carbon recapture is possible, offering the option of carbon sequestration. Even if the breakdown of the cellulose isn't combustion, alcohols can be obtained from the wood.

>>3924784
It is if you dig deep enough. There are different forms of geothermal as well. Even the shallow shaft method of geothermal indoor climate control leads to energy savings.

>>3924785
I've used wood heat for years. All you need to do to stop wood decomposition is keep it off the ground and keep rain off of it. It's very efficient.

>>3924784
I think he means ground source heat pumps.

>>3924799
>>3924779 here

Yes, ground source heat pumps is exactly what I meant. They work anywhere.

>>3924796
I believe that only has to due with cooling, not heating. It's not feasible to drill down far enough to get to a heat source.

>>3924797
But why would you invest the space and energy in storing wood for decades if for nothing but keeping it from breaking down until after you're dead and someone throws your creepy wood pile into a landfill?

>>3924815
Its 60*F no matter what. If the ambient temperature is below 60*F, then it is a heat source.

>>3924815
>I believe that only has to due with cooling, not heating.

It works with both. The temperature about six feet below the surface remains at 50-60 F year round.

>>3924824
>storing wood for decades
You burn the wood daily, you retard. You don't store it for decades.


>>3924815
>I believe that only has to due with cooling, not heating.
lrn2heatpump

>>3924824
So it's really used more to offset energy cost than producing energy?

>>3924838
That's what I do, dumbfuck. >>3924768 was implying that wood storage produced less carbon pollution than combustion, then >>3924797 posted without reading >>3924767

>>3924839
Yes. Its like passive solar, but it works for heating and cooling, day and night.

Should I ever win the lottery and buy a house, I'll have a large solar array with enough power and battery backup to power my house and an electric car.

Get an electric bicycle with a solar panel on the back. Transportation solved.