This is where NASA offers technology to market.
NASA Technology Transfer Program
Good find, with some unexpected gems, like this one - Solar Powered Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Conversion
LENR vs Solar/Wind, and emerging Green Technologies.
-
-
Good find, with some unexpected gems, like this one - Solar Powered Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Conversion
Solar powered Carbon Dioxide conversions is best done by plants at no cost free repair and sometime nice to eat...
For high energy solar::
All chemical energy storage suffers from asymmetry. Gibbs energy dG = dH -TdS. Or viral theorem Ek =Ep for potentials.
This means all energy you want to store has a local component = increase of potential energy but also an non local component = increase of kinetic energy. In chemistry the entropy term. But in chemistry there is most of the time not a 1:1 symmetry. You can also have a reduction of both terms in the same time but only for one side of the reaction!
Key is to find reactions with the lowest overall loss where the least controllable is heat. But already today we could harvest up to an additional 10% of the heat with the best Peltier material.
-
Display More
Solar powered Carbon Dioxide conversions is best done by plants at no cost free repair and sometime nice to eat...
For high energy solar::
All chemical energy storage suffers from asymmetry. Gibbs energy dG = dH -TdS. Or viral theorem Ek =Ep for potentials.
This means all energy you want to store has a local component = increase of potential energy but also an non local component = increase of kinetic energy. In chemistry the entropy term. But in chemistry there is most of the time not a 1:1 symmetry. You can also have a reduction of both terms in the same time but only for one side of the reaction!
Key is to find reactions with the lowest overall loss where the least controllable is heat. But already today we could harvest up to an additional 10% of the heat with the best Peltier material.
The Gibbs equation is symmetric but only by adding a cheat factor. We can not measure the lost energy, that is the asymmetry you see. The cheat is the entropy term. One does not measure entropy one solves for it. Math cheats are common. Most of the terms in the standard model are this kind of cheat. Wouldn't it be nice if we could make measurements to complete balances and provide theories without math cheats?
-
IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS 1
Land Requirements for Utility-Scale PV: An Empirical Update on Power and Energy Density
Abstract—The rapid deployment of large numbers of utility scale photovoltaic (PV) plants in the United States, combined with heightened expectations of future deployment, has raised concerns about land requirements and associated land-use impacts. Yet our understanding of the land requirements of utility-scale PV plants is outdated and depends in large part on a study published nearly a decade ago, while the utility-scale sector was still young. We provide updated estimates of utility-scale PVs power and energy densities based on empirical analysis of more than 90% of all utility-scale PV plants built in the United States through 2019. We use ArcGIS to draw polygons around satellite imagery of each plant within our sample and to calculate the area occupied by each polygon. When combined with plant metadata, these polygon areas allow us to calculate power (MW/acre) and energy (MWh/acre) density for each plant in the sample, and to analyze density trends over time, by fixed-tilt versus tracking plants, and by plant latitude and site irradiance. We find that the median power density increased by 52% for fixed-tilt plants and 43% for tracking plants from 2011 to 2019, while the median energy density increased by 33% for fixed-tilt and 25% for tracking plants over the same period. Those relying on the earlier benchmarks published nearly a decade ago are, thus, significantly overstating the land requirements of utility-scale PV.
Index Terms—Energy density, land requirements, land-use impacts, photovoltaics (PVs), power density. -
Those relying on the earlier benchmarks published nearly a decade ago are, thus, significantly overstating the land requirements of utility-scale PV.
There is enough desert land in USA with tons of shun shine the whole year. May be area 51 would be a nice place....
-
There is enough desert land in USA with tons of shun shine the whole year.
Yes, there is more than enough desert. The problem is, desert land is far from most population centers, and you cannot transmit electricity long distances. There is no large power line infrastructure large enough, and even if there were, the power lines lose too much. Arid and desert land could power some large cities such as Los Angeles, but not Chicago, New York or Atlanta.
If a better method of transmitting power could be developed, that might change things. For example, high temperature superconducting power cables, or converting the electricity to hydrogen and shipping the gas in pipelines. Hydrogen could be used in fuel cells to generate electricity. That would be good because it would allow 24-hour generation, both at night and in inclement weather.
-
There is no large power line infrastructure large enough, and even if there were, the power lines lose too much.
Since about 10 years we have long distance DC current transmission lines.. that already today are used to connect off shore wind parks...
But only 2 (in effect still 1) companies can master it. ABB Switzerland - now owned by Hitachi and Siemens - a little bit.
So its against make America great again....
-
Since about 10 years we have long distance DC current transmission lines.. that already today are used to connect off shore wind parks...
But only 2 (in effect still 1) companies can master it. ABB Switzerland - now owned by Hitachi and Siemens - a little bit.
So its against make America great again....
Been involved a little bit of that tech, Here is a good read
3300km is viable I guess that's the ballpark where it is usable. losses 1,5% per 1000km at the highest voltages thats more then the midle point of us to any city
-
Yes, there is more than enough desert. The problem is, desert land is far from most population centers, and you cannot transmit electricity long distances. There is no large power line infrastructure large enough, and even if there were, the power lines lose too much. Arid and desert land could power some large cities such as Los Angeles, but not Chicago, New York or Atlanta.
If a better method of transmitting power could be developed, that might change things. For example, high temperature superconducting power cables, or converting the electricity to hydrogen and shipping the gas in pipelines. Hydrogen could be used in fuel cells to generate electricity. That would be good because it would allow 24-hour generation, both at night and in inclement weather.
These folk seem to think 5000km underwater is feasible.
-
-
3300km is viable I guess that's the ballpark where it is usable. losses 1,5% per 1000km at the highest voltages
Ah. There is been more progress than I realized. Years ago, losses would have be prohibitive at these distances.
-
A report from Carl Page's UK Venture, Terra Praxis. Thanks to Gregory Byron Goble for soptting the company.
-
メニュー
HYDROGEN(H2)This does not add up. How can a 'natural ore' be proprietary?
-
How solving solar's aluminium problem is key to keeping its climate credentials
An analysis published by researchers at the University of New South Wales, in the journal Nature Sustainability has raised concerns about potential impacts of surging demand for materials used in construction of solar panels—particularly aluminium—which could cause their own climate pressures. It could lead to addition of almost 4 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions by 2050, under a "worst-case" scenario.
The researchers say that solar panel production could require the equivalent of 40 per cent of current global aluminium production, leading to a substantial emissions footprint. The researchers cited the very high emissions footprint of aluminium produced in China, the world’s largest manufacturer of both solar panels and aluminium, where production can occur with embodied emissions as high as 14.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide for each tonne of aluminium produced. From aluminium production alone, such emissions would deplete around 1 per cent of the global carbon budget, consistent with keeping warming to within 1.5 degrees. Replacing aluminium with steel in PV module frames can reduce PV module resistance to corrosion, and make modules heavier and more costly to transport.
The question is, why such an analysis emerge after thirty years of pushing "renewables" at market just after first energetic crisis? Progressivist global corporations in general rely on covering collateral expenses and damages with governmental subsidizes (i.e. tax payers), because their main motivation isn't to save planet but to occupy niche released by fossil fuels. But sooner or later the unsustainable economy of "renewables" will surface.
The so-called "renewables" look well only at small scale for those who are lazy to calculate all collateral damages and expenses. In reality "renewables" just convert the fossil-fuel crisis into raw source crisis, i.e. they will replace one non-renewable resource (fossil fuel) with another (metals and minerals). Right now wind and solar energy meet only about 1 percent of global demand; hydroelectricity about 7 percent. To match the power generated by fossil fuels, the construction of solar energy farms and wind turbines will gobble up 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum and 50 times more iron, copper and glass 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
To put the things into simple perspective, just the production of cement for concrete production consumes about 2% of total energy consumption. 15-times more concrete would thus consume about 30% of fossil fuel energy, which we are consuming today - just for building pillars of wind plants. Another 2 percents of energy is consumed into production of aluminum. Well, for 100% replacement of fossils by "renewables" we would need 2 x 90 = 180% of energy consumption today - and we are already in the red numbers: the implementation of "renewables" would increase our fossil energy consumption two-fold once when we consider only the concrete and aluminium needed for it! And the energetic and material demands of grid backup during winter aren't even included in this calculation.
-
Why Renewable Energy Is a Technical Reality But An Economic Disaster: Economics Needs a Climate Revolution
The mainstream economics is heavily corrupted with global corporations which ignore collateral expense and damages when pushing progressivist solutions. How some expensive technology can ever get "environmentally clean"? The price is just a measure of carbon footprint. A French economist Gaël Giraud (who dissents from most liberal "renewables" pushing economists from good reason) explains that GdP growth is mostly energy(google translated) and most of GdP growth is linked to the capacity to use energy.
Here are English slides about his position (more info).
According to his paradigm it doesn't matter how smart you are and how clever your energy technology is: until it's more expensive than fossil fuel energy, then it also consumes more energy on background and it must be subsidized by economy based on cheaper technology (guess which one it is) - which also means, it increases the consumption of fossil fuels on background.
In similar way, it doesn't matter how advanced your electric car is: once its ownership and operation including recycling consumes more money that this one of gasoline car - then it's the electric car which wastes the natural resources and fossil fuels - not classical one. And so on..
-
The researchers say that solar panel production could require the equivalent of 40 per cent of current global aluminium production, leading to a substantial emissions footprint.
Alumina production needs current. Usually cheap current sources as e.g. in Norway or island, Canada etc. are used. Almost no carbon in the game except in mining and transportation.
-
The Kealing curve vividly illustrates, how successful the decarbonization of society with "renewables" already is. Due to inherently low efficiency of technology every carbon saved with wind/solar plants brings increased consumption of carbon for production of aluminium, concrete, copper, glass, neodymium etc. somewhere else. And wind/solar plants must be recycled at least as frequently as these coal ones, being exposed to environment. The consequence is undeniable.
-
Alumina production needs current. Usually cheap current sources as e.g. in Norway or island, Canada etc. are used. Almost no carbon in the game except in mining and transportation.
Refresh your chemistry knowledge. The carbon footprint of primary aluminium varies between less than 4 tons CO2-equivalents per ton aluminium in hydropower-based regions to more than 20 tons CO2-equivalents per ton aluminium in coal power-based regions.
-
Due to inherently low efficiency of technology
Energy pay back of solar is about months... For a nuclear plant it was 4.6 years now may be 6 years....
Production an transportation of gasoline for cars needs more than 30% of the energy finally sold... So If we use the proper models than such statistics as you show are simply fake.
We here can buy blue berries from Chile..... So with 1 kg blueberry I buy 4 liter kerosine....already up in the air...
-
Carl Page's UK Venture, Terra Praxis.
The following from the report shows Advanced Heat Source
calculated from existing nuclear power plant thermal output.
Quote
Calculation Sources:
PV calculated from the list of the largest photovoltaic power stations,
Wikipedia; Andrew ZP Smith, ORCID: 0000-0003-3289-2237;
“UK offshore wind capacity
factors” (note that the power weighted average capacity factor for UK offshore wind is 40%
but newer projects are expected to have higher capacity factors, therefore, we used 50%);
Advanced Heat Source is the average of Hinkley Units A, B, C (2,427 MWe/km2) and Hanbit
Nuclear Power Station in South Korea (1,733 MWe/km2).
Note that offshore production platforms and the onshore Gigafactory would both have higher power density.
-end quotes
Will this Advanced Heat Source be recalculated?
Using the thermal output of the GEC GeNie Hybrid fission/fussion LENR Transmutation energy modular unit that "fissions out" the 90+% energy left in radioactive isotopes of spent fuel rods, providing continous heat.
Or
The thermal output of the Brillouin Boiler?
Or
The Hot Cat?
All of the above and more?
