Re: Solar-thermal explained.
- From: chicmac <mcgregor.c1@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
On Oct 13, 2:19 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
This site deserves a new post I think.
Excellent graphics and overview - easy to read.
It's a 3.5Mb PDF but well worth a look for anyone interested in the future
of energy production.
It will also save me a million words of text trying to educate the
determinedly ignorant.
https://www.htri.net/Public/prodsvcs/HMS_Victoria1.pdf
I designed a parabolic trough system when I was a student.
In pre-cheap-as-silicon-chips, the tracking system was opto-
mechanical using a focussing strip and bimetallic coils.
Couldn't get the physics department interested though.
The problem with most renewables is the inconsistent
production level which requires a very large storage system
if it is to reduce fossil/nuclear capacity. e.g. no wind for
weeks is a possibility which has to be catered for with
fossil/nuclear backup.
The need to retain virtually full fossil/nuclear capacity as
back-up is very costly and leads to staffing issues which
in turn leads to safety issues.
If we move to a hydrogen economy, which is quite likely,
then renewables come into their own, since then they
would shift to producing hydrogen locally for routine
collection or used to make create bio-fuel from waste.
Currently Iceland uses its geothermal to create hydrogen
to run its public transport systems. Note hydrogen does
not generate CO2 when burned, only H2O.
Tidal, while classified as a renewable, differs in two very
important ways. First, it is only dependent on the existence
of the proximity of the Moon and Sun to the Earth, so is
strictly an inexhaustable. Secondly, while tidal output does
vary on a daily and seasonal basis, it does so in a completely
predictable fashion and with lapses in output of short enough
duration so that storage requirements to cover shortfall
periods are feasible. In other words, a combination of
tidal and pump-storage would reduce the fossil/nuclear
back-up required.
Although tides occur all over the World, the tidal flow is mostly
too low to turn a turbine. It takes a fairly rare set of
circumstances to have a tidal stream fast enough to turn a turbine.
You need something like two large, out of phase, tidal basins
where the flow between is further concentrated between islands
or through a narrow straight or is concentrated by a suitably facing
funnel-shaped estuary. Even non turbine turning tidal stream
estuaries can yield tidal energy if a barrier is used, but output is
less continuous.
Scotland is uniquely placed for tidal stream in having enough
potential generating capacity to supply its entire electricity
generating requirements. However, the UK government has
been strangely reluctant to promote this line of development.
Things have changed with the arrival of the new SNP goverment
in Edinburgh.
While Scotland is very lucky in its tidal resource, it is
unlucky in the amount of pump storage it has. There is not
enought to cover tidal turnaround. Even if all potential
pump storage is developed it will still fall short.
As said, this is unlucky when you consider that Wales,
with much less in the way of mountainous area, has one
pump storage facility alone which could supply tidal
turnaround cover for Scotland. Unfortunately, it is already
used in the English grid.
That is why the Scottish government is keen to build a
power link to Norway where they have surplus pumped storage
(although perhaps not for much longer with links going
in from Denmark and Germany). Again, the UK government
has proven to be a barrier here.
Other promising energy developments are an algae which
when in water and exposed to sunlight, generates large
amounts of hydrogen. At present, the hydrogen generation
levels quickly fall off but scientists atre very hopeful that
the algae can be genetically modified so that this does not
happen. If they are successful, it is estimated that only
100 square miles of desert would require to be used in
order to generate enough hydrogen to equivalently fuel
all the cars in the US.
Another bio-chemical process existds which produces
petrol directly, but that is less useful in terms of reducing
CO2.
Fusion is a lot further on than most people realise. Already
the Russian designed tokamak toruses have produced
more energy out than in and have demonstrated sufficient
sustainability of the plasma. At Cadarache in France
an experimental fusion reactor is being produced which is
expected to 'burn' (self-heat the plasma) and thus produce
commercial levels of energy. It is due to come on line in
2016 and will produce about the same amount of energy as
a conventional power station, although this project's main task
is to optimise configuration and running criteria.
Fusion, unlike fission, is inately safe. No toxic by-products
during production and any lossin functionality and the plasma
collapses, no danger of explosion. Fusion reactors will be
located in city centres. The containment chamber does
become radioactive due to bombardment by fast neutrons
but it is the kind of radioactivity which will decay to safety
in a few decades unlike hundreds of thousands of years
for fission by-products.
Also, regarding fusion, if He3 is used then there are less
fast neutrons and containment vessels will decay to
safety within 10 years after use. That is why there is
renewed interest in going back to the Moon where indications
are that commercially mineable amounts of He3 exist in
the Lunar regolith. Note the irony where both China and
Russia have openly admitted that is a key factor in their
intent to set up Moon bases whereas the 'Free' World has
claimed scientific research is the reason.
On Oct 13, 2:19 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
This site deserves a new post I think.
Excellent graphics and overview - easy to read.
It's a 3.5Mb PDF but well worth a look for anyone interested in the future
of energy production.
It will also save me a million words of text trying to educate the
determinedly ignorant.
https://www.htri.net/Public/prodsvcs/HMS_Victoria1.pdf
I designed a parabolic trough system when I was a student.
In pre-cheap-as-silicon-chips, the tracking system was opto-
mechanical using a focussing strip and bimetallic coils.
Couldn't get the physics department interested though.
The problem with most renewables is the inconsistent
production level which requires a very large storage system
if it is to reduce fossil/nuclear capacity. e.g. no wind for
weeks is a possibility which has to be catered for with
fossil/nuclear backup.
The need to retain virtually full fossil/nuclear capacity as
back-up is very costly and leads to staffing issues which
in turn leads to safety issues.
If we move to a hydrogen economy, which is quite likely,
then renewables come into their own, since then they
would shift to producing hydrogen locally for routine
collection or used to make create bio-fuel from waste.
Currently Iceland uses its geothermal to create hydrogen
to run its public transport systems. Note hydrogen does
not generate CO2 when burned, only H2O.
Tidal, while classified as a renewable, differs in two very
important ways. First, it is only dependent on the existence
of the proximity of the Moon and Sun to the Earth, so is
strictly an inexhaustable. Secondly, while tidal output does
vary on a daily and seasonal basis, it does so in a completely
predictable fashion and with lapses in output of short enough
duration so that storage requirements to cover shortfall
periods are feasible. In other words, a combination of
tidal and pump-storage would reduce the fossil/nuclear
back-up required.
Although tides occur all over the World, the tidal flow is mostly
too low to turn a turbine. It takes a fairly rare set of
circumstances to have a tidal stream fast enough to turn a turbine.
You need something like two large, out of phase, tidal basins
where the flow between is further concentrated between islands
or through a narrow straight or is concentrated by a suitably facing
funnel-shaped estuary. Even non turbine turning tidal stream
estuaries can yield tidal energy if a barrier is used, but output is
less continuous.
Scotland is uniquely placed for tidal stream in having enough
potential generating capacity to supply its entire electricity
generating requirements. However, the UK government has
been strangely reluctant to promote this line of development.
Things have changed with the arrival of the new SNP goverment
in Edinburgh.
While Scotland is very lucky in its tidal resource, it is
unlucky in the amount of pump storage it has. There is not
enought to cover tidal turnaround. Even if all potential
pump storage is developed it will still fall short.
As said, this is unlucky when you consider that Wales,
with much less in the way of mountainous area, has one
pump storage facility alone which could supply tidal
turnaround cover for Scotland. Unfortunately, it is already
used in the English grid.
That is why the Scottish government is keen to build a
power link to Norway where they have surplus pumped storage
(although perhaps not for much longer with links going
in from Denmark and Germany). Again, the UK government
has proven to be a barrier here.
Other promising energy developments are an algae which
when in water and exposed to sunlight, generates large
amounts of hydrogen. At present, the hydrogen generation
levels quickly fall off but scientists atre very hopeful that
the algae can be genetically modified so that this does not
happen. If they are successful, it is estimated that only
100 square miles of desert would require to be used in
order to generate enough hydrogen to equivalently fuel
all the cars in the US.
Another bio-chemical process existds which produces
petrol directly, but that is less useful in terms of reducing
CO2.
Fusion is a lot further on than most people realise. Already
the Russian designed tokamak toruses have produced
more energy out than in and have demonstrated sufficient
sustainability of the plasma. At Cadarache in France
an experimental fusion reactor is being produced which is
expected to 'burn' (self-heat the plasma) and thus produce
commercial levels of energy. It is due to come on line in
2016 and will produce about the same amount of energy as
a conventional power station, although this project's main task
is to optimise configuration and running criteria.
Fusion, unlike fission, is inately safe. No toxic by-products
during production and any lossin functionality and the plasma
collapses, no danger of explosion. Fusion reactors will be
located in city centres. The containment chamber does
become radioactive due to bombardment by fast neutrons
but it is the kind of radioactivity which will decay to safety
in a few decades unlike hundreds of thousands of years
for fission by-products.
Also, regarding fusion, if He3 is used then there are less
fast neutrons and containment vessels will decay to
safety within 10 years after use. That is why there is
renewed interest in going back to the Moon where indications
are that commercially mineable amounts of He3 exist in
the Lunar regolith. Note the irony where both China and
Russia have openly admitted that is a key factor in their
intent to set up Moon bases whereas the 'Free' World has
claimed scientific research is the reason.
On Oct 13, 2:19 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
This site deserves a new post I think.
Excellent graphics and overview - easy to read.
It's a 3.5Mb PDF but well worth a look for anyone interested in the future
of energy production.
It will also save me a million words of text trying to educate the
determinedly ignorant.
https://www.htri.net/Public/prodsvcs/HMS_Victoria1.pdf
I designed a parabolic trough system when I was a student.
In pre-cheap-as-silicon-chips, the tracking system was opto-
mechanical using a focussing strip and bimetallic coils.
Couldn't get the physics department interested though.
The problem with most renewables is the inconsistent
production level which requires a very large storage system
if it is to reduce fossil/nuclear capacity. e.g. no wind for
weeks is a possibility which has to be catered for with
fossil/nuclear backup.
The need to retain virtually full fossil/nuclear capacity as
back-up is very costly and leads to staffing issues which
in turn leads to safety issues.
If we move to a hydrogen economy, which is quite likely,
then renewables come into their own, since then they
would shift to producing hydrogen locally for routine
collection or used to make create bio-fuel from waste.
Currently Iceland uses its geothermal to create hydrogen
to run its public transport systems. Note hydrogen does
not generate CO2 when burned, only H2O.
Tidal, while classified as a renewable, differs in two very
important ways. First, it is only dependent on the existence
of the proximity of the Moon and Sun to the Earth, so is
strictly an inexhaustable. Secondly, while tidal output does
vary on a daily and seasonal basis, it does so in a completely
predictable fashion and with lapses in output of short enough
duration so that storage requirements to cover shortfall
periods are feasible. In other words, a combination of
tidal and pump-storage would reduce the fossil/nuclear
back-up required.
Although tides occur all over the World, the tidal flow is mostly
too low to turn a turbine. It takes a fairly rare set of
circumstances to have a tidal stream fast enough to turn a turbine.
You need something like two large, out of phase, tidal basins
where the flow between is further concentrated between islands
or through a narrow straight or is concentrated by a suitably facing
funnel-shaped estuary. Even non turbine turning tidal stream
estuaries can yield tidal energy if a barrier is used, but output is
less continuous.
Scotland is uniquely placed for tidal stream in having enough
potential generating capacity to supply its entire electricity
generating requirements. However, the UK government has
been strangely reluctant to promote this line of development.
Things have changed with the arrival of the new SNP goverment
in Edinburgh.
While Scotland is very lucky in its tidal resource, it is
unlucky in the amount of pump storage it has. There is not
enought to cover tidal turnaround. Even if all potential
pump storage is developed it will still fall short.
As said, this is unlucky when you consider that Wales,
with much less in the way of mountainous area, has one
pump storage facility alone which could supply tidal
turnaround cover for Scotland. Unfortunately, it is already
used in the English grid.
That is why the Scottish government is keen to build a
power link to Norway where they have surplus pumped storage
(although perhaps not for much longer with links going
in from Denmark and Germany). Again, the UK government
has proven to be a barrier here.
Other promising energy developments are an algae which
when in water and exposed to sunlight, generates large
amounts of hydrogen. At present, the hydrogen generation
levels quickly fall off but scientists atre very hopeful that
the algae can be genetically modified so that this does not
happen. If they are successful, it is estimated that only
100 square miles of desert would require to be used in
order to generate enough hydrogen to equivalently fuel
all the cars in the US.
Another bio-chemical process existds which produces
petrol directly, but that is less useful in terms of reducing
CO2.
Fusion is a lot further on than most people realise. Already
the Russian designed tokamak toruses have produced
more energy out than in and have demonstrated sufficient
sustainability of the plasma. At Cadarache in France
an experimental fusion reactor is being produced which is
expected to 'burn' (self-heat the plasma) and thus produce
commercial levels of energy. It is due to come on line in
2016 and will produce about the same amount of energy as
a conventional power station, although this project's main task
is to optimise configuration and running criteria.
Fusion, unlike fission, is inately safe. No toxic by-products
during production and any lossin functionality and the plasma
collapses, no danger of explosion. Fusion reactors will be
located in city centres. The containment chamber does
become radioactive due to bombardment by fast neutrons
but it is the kind of radioactivity which will decay to safety
in a few decades unlike hundreds of thousands of years
for fission by-products.
Also, regarding fusion, if He3 is used then there are less
fast neutrons and containment vessels will decay to
safety within 10 years after use. That is why there is
renewed interest in going back to the Moon where indications
are that commercially mineable amounts of He3 exist in
the Lunar regolith. Note the irony where both China and
Russia have openly admitted that is a key factor in their
intent to set up Moon bases whereas the 'Free' World has
claimed scientific research is the reason.
On Oct 13, 2:19 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
This site deserves a new post I think.
Excellent graphics and overview - easy to read.
It's a 3.5Mb PDF but well worth a look for anyone interested in the future
of energy production.
It will also save me a million words of text trying to educate the
determinedly ignorant.
https://www.htri.net/Public/prodsvcs/HMS_Victoria1.pdf
I designed a parabolic trough system when I was a student.
In pre-cheap-as-silicon-chips, the tracking system was opto-
mechanical using a focussing strip and bimetallic coils.
Couldn't get the physics department interested though.
The problem with most renewables is the inconsistent
production level which requires a very large storage system
if it is to reduce fossil/nuclear capacity. e.g. no wind for
weeks is a possibility which has to be catered for with
fossil/nuclear backup.
The need to retain virtually full fossil/nuclear capacity as
back-up is very costly and leads to staffing issues which
in turn leads to safety issues.
If we move to a hydrogen economy, which is quite likely,
then renewables come into their own, since then they
would shift to producing hydrogen locally for routine
collection or used to make create bio-fuel from waste.
Currently Iceland uses its geothermal to create hydrogen
to run its public transport systems. Note hydrogen does
not generate CO2 when burned, only H2O.
Tidal, while classified as a renewable, differs in two very
important ways. First, it is only dependent on the existence
of the proximity of the Moon and Sun to the Earth, so is
strictly an inexhaustable. Secondly, while tidal output does
vary on a daily and seasonal basis, it does so in a completely
predictable fashion and with lapses in output of short enough
duration so that storage requirements to cover shortfall
periods are feasible. In other words, a combination of
tidal and pump-storage would reduce the fossil/nuclear
back-up required.
Although tides occur all over the World, the tidal flow is mostly
too low to turn a turbine. It takes a fairly rare set of
circumstances to have a tidal stream fast enough to turn a turbine.
You need something like two large, out of phase, tidal basins
where the flow between is further concentrated between islands
or through a narrow straight or is concentrated by a suitably facing
funnel-shaped estuary. Even non turbine turning tidal stream
estuaries can yield tidal energy if a barrier is used, but output is
less continuous.
Scotland is uniquely placed for tidal stream in having enough
potential generating capacity to supply its entire electricity
generating requirements. However, the UK government has
been strangely reluctant to promote this line of development.
Things have changed with the arrival of the new SNP goverment
in Edinburgh.
While Scotland is very lucky in its tidal resource, it is
unlucky in the amount of pump storage it has. There is not
enought to cover tidal turnaround. Even if all potential
pump storage is developed it will still fall short.
As said, this is unlucky when you consider that Wales,
with much less in the way of mountainous area, has one
pump storage facility alone which could supply tidal
turnaround cover for Scotland. Unfortunately, it is already
used in the English grid.
That is why the Scottish government is keen to build a
power link to Norway where they have surplus pumped storage
(although perhaps not for much longer with links going
in from Denmark and Germany). Again, the UK government
has proven to be a barrier here.
Other promising energy developments are an algae which
when in water and exposed to sunlight, generates large
amounts of hydrogen. At present, the hydrogen generation
levels quickly fall off but scientists atre very hopeful that
the algae can be genetically modified so that this does not
happen. If they are successful, it is estimated that only
100 square miles of desert would require to be used in
order to generate enough hydrogen to equivalently fuel
all the cars in the US.
Another bio-chemical process existds which produces
petrol directly, but that is less useful in terms of reducing
CO2.
Fusion is a lot further on than most people realise. Already
the Russian designed tokamak toruses have produced
more energy out than in and have demonstrated sufficient
sustainability of the plasma. At Cadarache in France
an experimental fusion reactor is being produced which is
expected to 'burn' (self-heat the plasma) and thus produce
commercial levels of energy. It is due to come on line in
2016 and will produce about the same amount of energy as
a conventional power station, although this project's main task
is to optimise configuration and running criteria.
Fusion, unlike fission, is inately safe. No toxic by-products
during production and any lossin functionality and the plasma
collapses, no danger of explosion. Fusion reactors will be
located in city centres. The containment chamber does
become radioactive due to bombardment by fast neutrons
but it is the kind of radioactivity which will decay to safety
in a few decades unlike hundreds of thousands of years
for fission by-products.
Also, regarding fusion, if He3 is used then there are less
fast neutrons and containment vessels will decay to
safety within 10 years after use. That is why there is
renewed interest in going back to the Moon where indications
are that commercially mineable amounts of He3 exist in
the Lunar regolith. Note the irony where both China and
Russia have openly admitted that is a key factor in their
intent to set up Moon bases whereas the 'Free' World has
claimed scientific research is the reason.
On Oct 13, 2:19 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
This site deserves a new post I think.
Excellent graphics and overview - easy to read.
It's a 3.5Mb PDF but well worth a look for anyone interested in the future
of energy production.
It will also save me a million words of text trying to educate the
determinedly ignorant.
https://www.htri.net/Public/prodsvcs/HMS_Victoria1.pdf
I designed a parabolic trough system when I was a student.
In pre-cheap-as-silicon-chips, the tracking system was opto-
mechanical using a focussing strip and bimetallic coils.
Couldn't get the physics department interested though.
The problem with most renewables is the inconsistent
production level which requires a very large storage system
if it is to reduce fossil/nuclear capacity. e.g. no wind for
weeks is a possibility which has to be catered for with
fossil/nuclear backup.
The need to retain virtually full fossil/nuclear capacity as
back-up is very costly and leads to staffing issues which
in turn leads to safety issues.
If we move to a hydrogen economy, which is quite likely,
then renewables come into their own, since then they
would shift to producing hydrogen locally for routine
collection or used to make create bio-fuel from waste.
Currently Iceland uses its geothermal to create hydrogen
to run its public transport systems. Note hydrogen does
not generate CO2 when burned, only H2O.
Tidal, while classified as a renewable, differs in two very
important ways. First, it is only dependent on the existence
of the proximity of the Moon and Sun to the Earth, so is
strictly an inexhaustable. Secondly, while tidal output does
vary on a daily and seasonal basis, it does so in a completely
predictable fashion and with lapses in output of short enough
duration so that storage requirements to cover shortfall
periods are feasible. In other words, a combination of
tidal and pump-storage would reduce the fossil/nuclear
back-up required.
Although tides occur all over the World, the tidal flow is mostly
too low to turn a turbine. It takes a fairly rare set of
circumstances to have a tidal stream fast enough to turn a turbine.
You need something like two large, out of phase, tidal basins
where the flow between is further concentrated between islands
or through a narrow straight or is concentrated by a suitably facing
funnel-shaped estuary. Even non turbine turning tidal stream
estuaries can yield tidal energy if a barrier is used, but output is
less continuous.
Scotland is uniquely placed for tidal stream in having enough
potential generating capacity to supply its entire electricity
generating requirements. However, the UK government has
been strangely reluctant to promote this line of development.
Things have changed with the arrival of the new SNP goverment
in Edinburgh.
While Scotland is very lucky in its tidal resource, it is
unlucky in the amount of pump storage it has. There is not
enought to cover tidal turnaround. Even if all potential
pump storage is developed it will still fall short.
As said, this is unlucky when you consider that Wales,
with much less in the way of mountainous area, has one
pump storage facility alone which could supply tidal
turnaround cover for Scotland. Unfortunately, it is already
used in the English grid.
That is why the Scottish government is keen to build a
power link to Norway where they have surplus pumped storage
(although perhaps not for much longer with links going
in from Denmark and Germany). Again, the UK government
has proven to be a barrier here.
Other promising energy developments are an algae which
when in water and exposed to sunlight, generates large
amounts of hydrogen. At present, the hydrogen generation
levels quickly fall off but scientists atre very hopeful that
the algae can be genetically modified so that this does not
happen. If they are successful, it is estimated that only
100 square miles of desert would require to be used in
order to generate enough hydrogen to equivalently fuel
all the cars in the US.
Another bio-chemical process exists which produces
petrol directly, but that is less useful in terms of reducing
CO2.
Fusion is a lot further on than most people realise. Already
the Russian designed tokamak toruses have produced
more energy out than in and have demonstrated sufficient
sustainability of the plasma. At Cadarache in France
an experimental fusion reactor is being produced which is
expected to 'burn' (self-heat the plasma) and thus produce
commercial levels of energy. It is due to come on line in
2016 and will produce about the same amount of energy as
a conventional power station, although this project's main task
is to optimise configuration and running criteria for commercial
reactors.
Fusion, unlike fission, is inately safe. No toxic by-products
during production and any loss in functionality and the plasma
collapses, no danger of explosion. Fusion reactors will be
located in city centres. The containment chamber does
become radioactive due to bombardment by fast neutrons
but it is the kind of radioactivity which will decay to safety
in a few decades unlike hundreds of thousands of years
for fission by-products.
Also, regarding fusion, if He3 is used then there are less
fast neutrons and containment vessels will decay to
safety within 10 years after use. That is why there is
renewed interest in going back to the Moon where indications
are that commercially mineable amounts of He3 exist in
the Lunar regolith. Note the irony where both China and
Russia have openly admitted that is a key factor in their
intent to set up Moon bases whereas the 'Free' World has
claimed scientific research is the reason.
Isn't dumocracy wonderful?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Solar-thermal explained.
- From: chicmac
- Re: Solar-thermal explained.
- References:
- Solar-thermal explained.
- From: Adam Whyte-Settlar
- Solar-thermal explained.
- Prev by Date: Re: Solar-thermal explained.
- Next by Date: Re: Here's a video for PP ... :)
- Previous by thread: Re: Solar-thermal explained.
- Next by thread: Re: Solar-thermal explained.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
