Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

Void · 2023-03-10 14:29:11

I have been thinking again about solar panels in association with air heat pumps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_sourc … 0direction.
Quote:

An air source heat pump (ASHP) is a type of heat pump that can absorb heat from outside a structure and release it inside using the same vapor-compression refrigeration process and much the same equipment as air conditioners but used in the opposite direction. Unlike an air conditioning unit, most ASHPs are reversible and are able to either warm or cool buildings and in some cases also provide domestic hot water.

So, really quite useful.

I have been of the opinion that it might make sense to pull air across heated solar panels in order to boost the panels efficiency level, and also to accumulate heat. This Probably makes the most sense if you are not at too low a latitude or too high a latitude. In this case it is to be expected that the highest electric output should be similar to the timing of the highest heating of the panels.

But then, how about at night? If you can pull heat out of the house, you may export it to a hot water tank or you may reject it to the sky though the solar panels at night.

Of course, in the night electric power has to come from storage or from a grid.

And I suppose you might also involve a yard heat or cold reservoir, in some cases.

------

I do not want to obscure the above, but I am starting to think that it might be possible to use Oxygen on the Moon in a similar way. Liquid Oxygen containments do not necessarily induce fire, and a pure Oxygen atmosphere also does not have to lead to fires. Say if the pure Oxygen is at a lesser pressure >333 mb. Maybe towards 100 mb.

Raptor engines can apparently deal with hot Oxygen rich fluids. I believe that the Soviets pioneered that, and the Americans pioneered working with fuel rich mixtures. Anyway, I believe Raptor uses both.

Using a heat pump to compress warm oxygen coolant gas, to a Liquid or at least compressing it, if the compressor were not to combust, you could push the hot Oxygen fluid though a bed of very Oxidized gravel, to absorb and store the heat. Then if you decompress the Oxygen to say 100 mb, it could be circulated though the Lunar solar panels.

The solar panels that Blue Origins has created would have a protective glass cover, so that might facilitate this notion. Glass is said to be much stronger, if it is dry. So, it might be possible. Oxygen is the one fluid that should be available in abundance.

As Raptor apparently has a turbine that can work with a Highly Oxidized fluid, can we suppose that from the hot gravel a heat engine might be run at night with Oxygen, and maybe the solar panels can be the radiators at night.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-10 14:44:53)

kbd512 · 2023-03-10 16:53:18

Void,

Mother of Sun god! Here we go again...

How Much Energy Does It Take To Make A Solar Panel?
It takes about 200kWh of energy to make a single 100-watt solar panel.

200kWh is the energy that went into making the damn thing. That is NOT how much energy was consumed to produce the energy that made it. Photovoltaics are not made using other photovoltaics. They use coal, diesel, and electricity which was made using coal or diesel. Which of those heat engines are 100% efficient?

This is how people L-I-E using numbers

These people know just enough to make an observation, but not enough to make an accurate observation.

One hundred watts x 10 hours of direct sunlight per day = 1000 watts of energy per day. 1000 × 365 days per year = 365kWh of energy per year.

This is so wildly inaccurate that it's staggering.

Will these solar panels all be located at the equator when they're installed?

If so, then you can be assured of getting at least 10 hours of direct sunlight.

Anywhere else, you don't get that amount of direct sunlight, every single day of the year.

VC-Alasdair-Rae-World-Population-by-Latitude-Chart-Small.png

Void · 2023-03-10 18:34:27

Let me begin with a small complaint. Your objections appear to be mostly aimed at my post #25. Perhaps you needed time, but you have obstructed the content of my post #26. I will repair that in time, but it would have been best if you had been more prompt to respond to #25.

Let's attempt to get a common language, Apples to Apples as much as is possible.

And energy to create a solar panel has been spoken of. My assumption is that it is the electricity produced either by a heat engine or by solar panels. It is a quantity. It does not matter what the waste heat was. You may correct that if you feel we are not on the same page.

Also, I am going to assert that a solar panel installation is equivalent to a heat engine. Energy goes in, much of the energy is wasted, and some energy comes out. The energy that goes in is a "Raw Material". The energy that comes out is a resource. I believe that that complies with a definition from Dr. Zubrin.

A correction can be that the optimal places for solar power as for output per time unit, is the midlatitude deserts in general, but perhaps not always.

I think we need an agreement that creation of solar panels with electric resources from solar panels would most likely occur in an optimal location. Not New York or London.

I will point out that likely those optimal locations being in the midlatitude deserts, the quality of sunlight will be seasonally variable. In the summers, day lengths are longer, and the sun is higher in the sky. And of course, the inverse in the winter.

This is just a temporary segway, don't obsess about it, but if solar panels were made on a ship, then that ship could follow the sun, to seek excess solar power. Mexico to Chile, for instance or the American SW and Australia, and for Africa, of course north and south.

So solar panel creation in a solar dominated world would be somewhat distinct from home use.

You have complained about 10 optimal hours cited, OK, what equivalent will you allow for? 5 would still be worthwhile, if the numbers in #25 are correct.

Quote from #25:

Subparts from the above quote:
How Much Energy Does It Take To Make A Solar Panel?
It takes about 200kWh of energy to make a single 100-watt solar panel.
In addition, those answers will change as technology continues to improve the process we manufacture solar panels. If you are concerned that solar panels use more energy than they create, you can simmer down, as that myth is 100 percent false.
One hundred watts x 10 hours of direct sunlight per day = 1000 watts of energy per day. 1000 × 365 days per year = 365kWh of energy per year.

So, if we allow that productivity is 5 hours a day, then 182.5kwh produced per year. The first year you end in an energy deficit per electric energy produced as a resource. The life of solar panels on Earth is said to be 20 to 25 years. I suppose with a bit of efficiency of electrical resource produced decline. Supposing 20 years then optimally the total resource produced would be 3,650kwh. But we can correct it down a bit, I will assume over the life of the panel 10% decline in product over the life of the panel. So, 3,285kwh.

So, that is an expenditure of 200kwh to get 3,285kwh, so then you net 3,085kwh, I believe. Correct my math if you see a problem.

Now from my point of view, if we are looking at rooftop installations which I know you have some, if you can pull waste heat off of the solar panels and cool them with a heat pump, then you can improve the efficiency for the solar panels to produce an electrical resource from sunlight as the raw material.

Solar panels are now said to be as good as 23% efficient at that without cooling, but I will use 20%. As they heat up though, then loose efficiency. As a factor for continental climate in midlatitudes, if I can cool the panels when there is less sunlight, I may get the best benefits. Of course, this would be variable to location, latitude and other climate and weather situations. But if I can heat my house and my hot water heater while increasing the produced resource of electricity, I might claim a better efficiency than 23%.

And you would be correct to say, well now you had to pay for a heat pump, and that is true. But the combination of solar panels and heat pump may justify it in some places.

Efficiency is a funny number to some extent. I read that a coal fired plant in the USA tends to be 33% efficient, but does that include the energy to mine the coal and to transport it? I would guess you are the one to ask, or Calliban.

Specs can be strange.

My thinking is that for a collection of roof top installations in summer, an excess of electrical energy resource product could be put to making solar panels. It might have to be seasonal or to follow the sun in a ship, but it might be true.

A final note, in post #26 I spoke of using solar panels as radiators from a heat pump output in the night for cooling. For Earth applications this may not make sense. It needs a lot of further consideration.

Now I have something to do. I would like to hear from you and am eager to learn if you see flaws in what I have stated.

Be nice.

Done

Last edited by Void (2023-03-10 19:12:29)

Void · 2023-03-11 14:34:52

Moving along then, Query: "utube, The Real Reason Tesla Developed The Heat Pump, "The Tesla Space""

I think this is very big.

General Response: https://www.bing.com/search?q=utube%2C+ … A1&PC=U531

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJHfPshBZUI

I think that the presentation makes sense, I hope that they will build such a heat pump.

So, I will leave it at that, as I do not know if they will suck heat out of solar panels or not. At times it might make sense to do that. I would not expect the use of a liquid but rather a gas flow for that, if it is to be done.

Done.

I would also like to look further into this: http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 64#p207364

But I do not know yet if it is attainable or desirable.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-11 14:53:35)

kbd512 · 2023-03-11 16:01:08

Void,

I was going to respond sooner, but became too busy with work to do so.

My post was intended to convey my displeasure with the fact that the people printing these "news articles" either don't have the wherewithal to evaluate false equivalency, or they're actively perpetuating it by disseminating false claims and assertions to people who don't know any better. I'm not trying to obstruct anything. I'm trying to paint an accurate picture of how flowery claims stack up against ugly reality.

Let's use coal and nuclear plants as an example, so that there's no electronics ideology involved. These are two of our oldest heat engines, so they don't have a lot of futurism fantasies surrounding them anymore, or at least I hope not. In fact, I think nuclear reactors are the universe's oldest form of heat engine.

To keep the power on for 1 day using a 1GWe coal plant, rail cars stretching for miles have to carry in the coal from a coal mine. It's very rare to have a coal power plant right next to the coal mine, unless it's powering the coal mine. When the coal is burned to boil water to produce steam to generate heat or electricity, it spews fly ash and other gases into the atmosphere at a spectacular rate. We stopped a lot of that due to acid rain (very dilute Sulfuric acid from the Sulfur in coal and oil), rather than global warming.

To keep the power on for 18 months using a 1GWe nuclear plant, 1 rail car carrying a single 18,000kg / 18t nuclear fuel load comes in, and nothing but hot water and electricity comes out. The plant itself contains a "cracked rod" (there's nothing "spent" about it) fuel pond that the old fuel rods are put into, for 1 to 2 years while decay heat from radioactive byproducts from fission decay to more manageable levels, and then they can come out of the pond to be recycled (the best option) or dumped (the worst option) in a storage cask (a big steel / Lead / glass container).

The nuclear plant undoubtedly cost more up-front to construct than the coal plant with equal electrical output, but to assert that they're equal because they both produce 1GWe is the very pinnacle of absurdity. Anyone can see it. It's so obvious. You have to be deliberately obtuse to not see it.

We take the fuel out of the reactor after burning 1% to 3% of the Uranium's energy content and then we call what comes out "nuclear waste". Almost all "nuclear waste" is Uranium fuel rods that still contain 97% to 99% of its original energy content. The fuel rods crack in operation because gases like Radon build up until they crack the ceramic Uranium metal pellets within the fuel rod cladding. If you build a facility to reprocess the fuel, then you can keep extracting heat energy from it. If we reprocessed nuclear fuel, we would not need to mine a single kilogram of virgin Uranium ore to supply all of the United States' electricity demands for the next 100 to 300 years. That's a simple math calc on the quantity of fuel rods sitting in casks in Paducah, Kentucky. The entire idea that we should bury this stuff in a salt mine in Utah is idiotic beyond belief. All of it should be reprocessed and then it should go right back into a reactor. The Thorium we've mined thus far while searching for rare earth minerals, without actually trying to, adds a few centuries onto that.

Even if we don't do that, because "muh anti-nuclear ideology", the quantity of "nuclear waste" is 600t after 50 years of operating that 1GWe reactor. If we assume that the fuel rods and cladding are 15,000kg/m^3, then we have 40m^3 of radioactive waste to store or remanufacture into fresh fuel rods (same Uranium ceramic metal, fission products removed, remelted / sintered, and re-clad). It basically fits onto far fewer train cars than those which brought the very first load of coal to our coal-fired power plant. Moreover 1 train with 1 car is sent every 18 months to "refuel" or nuclear power plant. 1 train at least 2 miles long, arriving every single day, is required to fuel our coal power plant. There is no equivalency between the two. None.

The waste fly ash from the coal plant will stretch for a mile in every direction after 50 years of burning the coal, if we allow it to pile up at the coal plant, which is why we cart it off and mix it into concrete. Humanity consumes crazy amounts of concrete, but burning coal to make power is a choice. If the goal is to make power while minimizing the endless waste stream tied to doing it, then coal doesn't hold a candle to nuclear. Only the nameplate electrical output rating on the two plants and them both being giant steam kettles is equal. Everything else about them is very different.

If we can't deal with the 40 cubic meters of waste from that nuclear plant, then how in the Sam Hill are we going to deal with the quantity of waste stream coming from the coal or photovoltaics or wind turbine plants?

The saleable product that gets shipped out the door of both power plants is clearly equal. No premium grade photons or electrons exist. Nothing else whatsoever about how they operate and what the implications are of operating them are even remotely equal. This is the exact same falsehood perpetuated by the people perpetuating the idea that the electricity produced by photovoltaics and wind turbines can replace coal or nuclear power. The coal and nuclear plants produce the same power output as long as they have fuel. The photovoltaics and wind turbines produce nothing at least 50% of the time, even if they're ideally sited. That means photovoltaics and wind turbines are half of an actual energy solution. The other half has to be storage, which is basically non-existent. Therefore, they only appear superficially cheap on paper.

The moment you add in electrical energy storage using batteries, which creates a complete power solution, they are also energy non-viable in most places. It takes 100 barrels of oil to create a battery that can store the same amount of energy as 1 barrel of oil. Let's say you want 70% of your power to come from photovoltaics and wind turbines. You need to store power in the battery to continue to supply electricity, for at least 50% of every day, ignoring all seasonality and local weather effects, both of which have major effects on actual power output.

America uses 11TWh of electricity per day (not total energy to actually replace hydrocarbon fuels, just electricity). You want 70% of that to come from wind turbines and photovoltaics. That's the nonsense being sold being sold to the general public, so 7.7TWh per day. The sun doesn't shine for at least 50% of the time, and onshore wind has a capacity factor of about 33%, so let's say 50% power storage, meaning 3.85TWh of storage- just enough to make it through a single day under ideal conditions.

3,850,000,000,000Wh / 1,700,000Wh per barrel of oil = 2,264,706 barrels of oil (if energy storage comes from oil products)
226,470,600 barrels of oil (if energy storage comes from Lithium-ion batteries)
385,000,020,000,000Wh (Barrel-of-Oil Equivalent) - (energy tied up in making the Lithium-ion batteries to make it to the next morning)

Energy pay-back time is only 100 days, but the batteries consumed 1/3 of a year of oil production for the entire US to make. The US keeps 30 days of energy on-hand to meet changing demand patterns. Now we're talking about 3,000 days, which means 8.2 years. The experts are telling us we need to store a incredible amounts of electricity for at least 3 months to meet seasonal demand in the winter. Insolation can vary by a factor of 6 to 7 between summer and winter. Now we're up to 24.6 years of energy-equivalent in terms of oil consumption. The batteries don't last 24 years, but the solar panels can last that long if nothing fails.

Let's say we do get 10 hours of full Sun and 1,000Wh of energy from the photovoltaics per day, because we were smart about where we put them.

kbd512 · 2023-03-11 16:14:04

Void,

I'm having serious problems posting numbers (no idea why), but I'll keep trying...

Edit:
So, I reformatted all of my numbers to remove all the zeroes. I found that writing out the numbers in plain numbers of Watt-hours was what the server did not like, so I abbreviated the units after making the calculations, instead of writing out all the zeroes behind them.

Last edited by kbd512 (2023-03-11 16:23:31)

kbd512 · 2023-03-11 16:17:31

Continued from Post #30:

7.7TWh (per day) / 1kWh per panel = 7.7B photovoltaic panels
7.7B panels * 200kWh per panel = 1,540TWh (entire US consumes 4,000TWh of electricity per year)
385TWh for the Lithium-ion batteries to allow the grid to survive to the next morning
1,155TWh for the batteries to batteries to provide the energy reserve presently in place
34,650TWh for the batteries to handle seasonality changes
2,810.5TWh - maximum amount of electricity our 7.7B photovoltaic panels can supply per year
70,262.5TWh - maximum amount of electricity our 7.7B photovoltaic panels can supply over 25 years, with zero degradation over that time
34,650TWh - Energy required to replace the batteries after 15 years so they don't fail, except that recycling is more energy intensive than using virgin materials

Half of all energy generated is used to make enough Lithium-ion batteries to survive the winter. If you put the photovoltaic panels some place inappropriate, then you run out of power and have mass starvation and death. This is a death spiral. This is equal to going back to the way we lived before industrialization, because even though we're generating gobs of power, all the power is spoken for before it touches the feeder wire. No economic growth is even possible, which means we'll return to feudalism (I think we already have) because the only way you can become wealthier is by taking from others.

The photovoltaic panels on our roof and pair of Tesla Power Walls, on paper, provide 100% of our home's electricity usage. Again, ONLY on paper. In actual factual ugly real life, they cannot turn on any of the AC units in our home, which all consume electricity, because they don't possess sufficient power to do it, not even at high noon. To actually power our home at any point in time during the day, we would need to cover a land area larger than the property with photovoltaics.

We will have an orders of magnitude multiple of the toxic waste generated by burning coal, if we make all these photovoltaics and wind turbines required to actually replace hydrocarbon fuel. Eventually, our children will have to deal with it. First, they will have no more solar power without any working photovoltaics. Second, the ground water will become contaminated if these panels are allowed to crack and leach heavy metals into the drinking water supply. Third, landfills will be filled with an inseparable mix of heavy metals, poisons, glass, Aluminum, Silver, and Copper.

Photovoltaics are made from a special grade of Silicon known as "metallurgical grade Silicon", which is not "just any old beach sand". If you try to put lower grades of Silicon ore into your smelter, it will actually destroy your smelter. This metallurgical grade Silicon ore is heated to 2,200C- hot enough to melt any Iron-based metal product, including all of the super alloys used in jet engines. Can that be done with electricity? Probably, but it will require brand new equipment, which doesn't presently exist, and very expensive ancillary equipment that probably doesn't last as long as a traditional smelter, so it will have to be replaced several times over the service life of a traditional smelter. In practice none of that matters, because over 90% of the world's photovoltaics come from one place. That place is China. They are made using coking coal. Period.

You are not going to force them to do anything over your environmental concerns, nor human rights concerns. If you try, they will kill you or stop selling photovoltaics to you. They're already limiting the quantity of photovoltaics they will export. That is how communism works. The government does what their people want to do, not what anyone else wants to do. That is why doing business with brutal dictatorships is bad. All communist systems of governance are brutal dictatorships. There are no exceptions to that rule. None. The reason we did business with communists, is our Democrats falsely believed they were going to "westernize" them, and because otherwise photovoltaics were far too expensive to make without slave labor plus no environmental laws controlling what toxic wastes can be dumped into the environment. As the Chinese coal supply dwindles, making photovoltaics will become untenable.

We are not allowing any mining and refining of this stuff in mass quantity anywhere else, because all western countries basically prohibit mining as a function of not allowing companies to use slaves or to wreck the environment around the mining and production facilities. Forget about profit, all companies would operate at a loss unless they were subsidized by the people benefiting from the products they make. We give oil companies loads of crap over what little damage they've done, instead of incentivizing them by helping them do their jobs of providing energy.

From our little example, we can see how simple and easy it is to discern that nuclear is not equal to coal, and coal is not equal to photovoltaics, even if all generating plants in question each produce 1GWe.

For starters, coal or gas or nuclear can keep my air conditioner running at all times. Photovoltaics cannot run any of the 3 AC units in our house for 1 lousy second. Over time, the photovoltaics produce the same amount of electricity that we consume, but never at the same time we actually need it to run the appliances in our home. Most of the energy we consume is heat energy for heating or cooling or hot water, plus lots of electricity to run the pumps for the pool. Overall, the AC units consume the most power. The false assertion that the photovoltaics are actually "running anything" is the sophomoric assertion that people make about photovoltaics. It is false. When there is no grid power for several days, the photovoltaics are sufficient to run our refrigerator, which contains life-saving medications for my wife, the other kitchen appliances, and recharging our cell phones or laptops for working from home. Even with a pair of Tesla PowerWall devices for electricity storage, we come nowhere close to making enough electricity to power the entire home. The solar installers themselves stated that all 76 photovoltaic panels on our roof are still insufficient to power an AC unit, and to refrain from trying to rewire the system to do that. This is quite unlike a centralized grid that is running on natural gas or coal or nuclear. There is no comparison between the two.

Photovoltaics and wind turbines are opportunistic power. If we can cheaply acquire them for use to supply power above whatever the baseload demand is for electricity, then we can use them on our grid if we can buffer their output so they don't crash the grid with their wild power surges. Unfortunately, photovoltaics and wind turbines are not cheap, they are basically monuments to coal and diesel, they cost a lot of energy to build, and as I demonstrated using my solar thermal example, I can cover 64 TIMES more surface area for the same cost, using the most abundant metal we make, namely steel.

In very simple terms, I am reducing the embedded energy cost and the cost for storage, which must be present to buffer the wild power fluctuations, I have created a system that has more than an order of magnitude lower cost, even if it ran at the same overall efficiency as photovoltaics. As a result, I have dropped the monetary cost by over an order of magnitude. Better still, I have devised a system that is truly recyclable, it will cost less money to build than 1,300 to 1,500 nuclear reactors by quite a lot- it's not even half the cost of the nuclear option, even after all of the required storage is included.

We cannot have an industrial base powered by photovoltaics and wind turbines and batteries. The amount of power they deliver in all but the sunniest or windiest areas is much too low for any economic growth, and we cannot sources the metals required to build the first generation of power generating and storage units, which means we cannot recycle what doesn't exist to be recycled, and our rates of recycling these devices is near-zero as a percentage of the aggregate electronics waste stream.

Hydrocarbon fuels are in-out machines. The system I'm talking about using to replace them is the same sort of in-out machine. The volumes of materials are much higher because hydrocarbon is very energy-dense, but I'm also using the most abundant materials we can readily acquire, namely air and water.

Despite the big numbers involved, it's a simple math problem with very ugly implications, with respect to what we're now doing. Why do you think I was so happy when I discovered that solar thermal does orders of magnitude better on invested energy? There's a way to do this that actually works. If we do it the right way, then that will please me, because it will be an actual accomplishment. We will have moved beyond burning things for energy. The planet will not have to become a giant strip mine or toxic waste dump, either. I have no use for activity which does not lead to accomplishment.

I will be fair, as best I understand what that means, and honest. Being nice is not useful to myself or anyone else. We should all be civil, to the best of our abilities, if that's what you meant.

DONE with Post #30.

kbd512 · 2023-03-11 16:52:17

Void,

There are some things I left out.

1. Your batteries won't last as long at 100% Depth-of-Discharge. This is hardly a problem because of the crazy amount of capacity required to store 1 month, never mind 3 months of energy. You also lose some to self-discharge each day.

2. You don't have to worry about making that many Lithium-ion batteries because you'll grossly exceed annual production capacity and all known reserves.

3. Sodium batteries don't have a technical metal shortage, but you'll radically increase the energy required to make those, because just like Silicon, you have to break that bond between the Sodium atom and Chlorine atom attached to it.

4. In case you hadn't noticed, the electricity required to make all those photovoltaics and batteries grossly exceeds global annual supply. That means we need to build brand new coal-fired power plants or nuclear power plants to supply the juice. This is important because the US only consumes 1/5th of the world's energy. We're a major part, but all the rest of the world also matters if the goal is to quit burning things for energy. Furthermore, it matters how fast we can complete the transition.

5. No matter how monetarily cheap photovoltaics and wind turbines become, the energy cost of making them never goes away. The energy cost of recycling photovoltaics and wind turbines is even higher than the initial energy cost, which is why nobody does it at any scale. What little recycling that does occur is a "feel-good" measure. It pales in comparison to the totality of the task of recycling all of it.

If this is starting to look like a very bad deal when scaled up to the degree required, that's because it was always an absurdity with no actual math behind it. The moment the all-in cost is tabulated and reduced to engineering calculations, it's just a way to spend money while giving the appearance of action being taken. Most people confuse activity with accomplishment.

I may not be good for much else, but I'm a bean counter of at least average capability. When I approach bean counting tasks for big businesses (the only kind that seem to want to hire me), I ask how much of each material was actually used, where and when, and don't concern myself with theoretical demands that only apply to a theoretical world which doesn't actually exist. I assure you that none of this is rocket science. It's all perfectly knowable information that doesn't require advanced math or advanced degrees to figure out. It is real work to stitch together all the information, do the necessary unit conversions, figure out how much we consumed or spent, etc, but it's not difficult work. It's the sort of basic analysis you'd do if you wanted to know whether or not the underpinnings of your ideas about "future state" were realistically achievable, or achievable at all.

Void · 2023-03-11 17:39:01

Well thank you for your replies.

I would like to know if you live in the red West Texas area or the dark orange area.

Peter Zeihan Maps: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Pe … C2&first=1
This one shows the continental climate sunshine in the center or North America: 14.2-global-solar-potential-updated.jpg

You know what your experience is, how could I tell you that it is not true?

The best I can do at this moment is to wonder if Elon Musk and The Electric Viking have errors in their information.

I am an energy omnivore though, so you will not find me rejecting most things, including Nuclear or Fracked Hydrocarbons, but I am suspecting coal is not so good anymore. Coal is the one that could be considered for retirement.

The Electric Viking says that South Australia is doing just fine with Solar and Wind, but they may be an exceptional case. I would appreciate that you do not insult him as his wife is very sick from what I hear in the video's.

As for panel recycling and pollution, supposedly the new manufacturing method from Blue Origin should not have that. They have not given a quality of efficiency for them, but the Silicon they manufacture is supposed to be of the most excellent. I do not know for sure about recycling, but it seems to me that they could likely be just melted and recreated. Energy Required for that? How would I know. Presumably less than their lifetime output.

Well, if things turn out for everybody as you predict, then I guess it is Nuclear and solar thermal. We have those possibilities.

I will end it there because I have no real-life experience with this stuff, and so for me it is someone said, someone else said. I guess the proof will show up eventually.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-11 17:51:59)

kbd512 · 2023-03-11 18:41:57

Void,

You know what your experience is, how could I tell you that it is not true?

If you wish to convince me otherwise, then...

A. Tell me where all the Copper is coming from to build all these electrical machines.

We've mined 700 million metric tons over 6,000 years. We know about an additional 880 million tons, even if we could never economically run a Copper mine there. Professor Michaux calculated that we need about 8,000 million tons (8 billion metric tons).

B. Tell me where all the Lithium is coming from to build all these Lithium-ion batteries.

We need 2,750,000,000kg / 2,750,000t of Lithium to make it to the next morning.

We extracted 540,000t of Lithium Carbonate in 2021. This is not the Lithium metal used in the batteries, so there's even less metal than Lithium Carbonate extraction would suggest, and the metal is what we actually use in batteries, but even discounting that fact it's already an absurdity. That means 5 years of total global 2021 Lithium production are needed to supply electricity to the US for the period of time between dusk and dawn. No EVs at all, just the batteries for the US electric grid. 30 days would be 150 years of 2021 production. The 90 day supply that accounts for factors of 6 to 7 seasonal variability is 450 years of 2021 production. For the entire world to deal with seasonal variability using their 90 day buffer, it's 2,250 years of Lithium supply at 2021 production rates.

C. Tell me where all the energy is coming from to build these machines that isn't sourced from coal, gas, and diesel.

Let me guess, it's going to come from the "green energy" that can't keep the lights on in Europe right now, correct?

Anyone who thinks we're going to extract 2,250 years of Lithium production or 68,571 years of Copper production, during the next 20 years, needs to start being more honest with themselves. That is not going to happen in 20 years and it's probably not going to happen in 200 years if we look back over time and reconcile what we were actually able to achieve. At no point in time in all of human history have we increased metals production quantity by an order of magnitude, year-over-year, much less multiple orders of magnitude.

You want to convince me of something based upon the aesthetics of an idea. I'm not an aesthetics person. Tell me where all that metal is coming from, and then you have my attention. I'm perfectly willing to admit to a mistake, but show me the metal first. Where is it, Void? Where is all that metal coming from? That's what would be required to replace hydrocarbon fuels using metals-intensive electronic machines.

Calliban · 2023-03-11 18:48:27

Charles Hall, the original developer of the EROI (Energy Return on Investment) estimated the EROI of solar power in Spain to be 2.45:1.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016 … weighs-in/

Hall included not just the panels, but support frames, access roads and transmission infrastructure. I cannot remember what assumptions he made about backup power or storage. But low values of EROI present a severe problem for the idea of making PV using PV. If Hall is correct, then PV just doesn't produce enough surplus energy to make it sustainable when all energy inputs are included. At present, most of the world's PV is produced in western China, using otherwise stranded coal. That coal is really cheap. Labour is very cheap and often forced. The capital used to finance the industry is cheap in China. This allows the Chinese to produce cheap PV. This has lulled gullible people into thinking that a green tech revolution is just around corner. The reality is that PV allows the Chinese to exploit coal and labour that they have no other way of accessing. It works for them. But it is really just stored coal energy.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-03-11 18:51:19)

kbd512 · 2023-03-11 19:09:19

Calliban,

We have a more fundamental problem that precludes us from getting to the point where people can do creative accounting to support their ideological beliefs about energy.

Where is all that metal coming from?

We seem to be short by a lot.

Void · 2023-03-11 21:56:09

OK, thankfully I think I can sort this out just a bit. You did not tell me if you are in the western or eastern Texas, that matters

As for the resources kdb512, it is not my responsibility to solve the world. I try to work on a little piece of the problem and you come in and blame me for not fixing everything. It's not my problem.

I am optimistic for energy, and the continuing accumulation of skills. I am not superman. Who knows perhaps I was optimistic about your thinking. Just if I don't mention it all the time does not mean that I do not pay attention.

I have had partial training to be an electrician and then jumped to electronics, and did work that a whole lot. But I have had many other experiences. I have been struggling in these topics to find ways to make the most use of the electrical services that we do have. That can involve off peak storage methods, Heat pump with solar panel methods, even possibly excess power to the grid from homes.

Don't tell me that that never happens, (Excess power from a home to the grid), if it did not then power companies would not have to accommodate it.

Now I will do a two step with your materials Calliban. No hostile intent on my part, but I noticed a two or three important factors. I will speak of them.

#1: Spain is not an optimal location for solar panels.
Quote:

Peter Zeihan Maps: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Pe … C2&first=1
This one shows the continental climate sunshine in the center or North America:

Neither is eastern Texas.

#2: The article you cite is from 2016, and uses data from 2008. My understanding is that indeed around 2010, solar panels were not all that good. Supposedly they are much better now in 2023, and maybe getting better going forward.
https://www.solarpowerauthority.com/his … ars%20past.

So, although I struggle to be competent in this conversation, I can note a few additional things.

The only places where it would be sensible to try to make solar panels with solar panel energy would be the deep red zones. And honestly although I do not really know the quality of the Panels that Blue Origin made out of Lunar Simulant, I do know it involves melting rock and electrolysis. Obvious other costs of money and energy will apply also. In those areas if kdb512 wants to use his solar concentrators to help proved the heat and electric energy to create the panels, then that may be an option.

Season variation may also be a factor. It may only make sense to use the excess electric power of the summer. And don't tell me that rooftop collectors cannot provide that. We can have large scale factory level solar energy of the flavor you like in the deserts. Also if is conceivable that wind could be used to make them as well in the spring and falls, as heating and cooling are less needed in those seasons.

I don't want to hear that windmills do not generate enough power, because that would indicate that all of the world is stupid as to make windmills.

I know the story about how you cannot recycle windmills or solar panels, However I did mention that the Blue Origin solar panels should be possible to make in a non-toxic way, and it should be quite possible to melt them again and remake the solar panels.

I am going to bet that over time the ability to recycle windmills will also emerge. Remember this topic is Optimistic. And about the accumulation of new skills over time.

I have also mentioned that if such solar panels were manufactured on a ship, the mobile factories could follow the sun. From the North Hemisphere to the South Hemisphere.

So, I offer the chances that in optimal conditions its "MAY" be possible to have an energy gain and be able to make solar panels with solar energy. Note! I said solar energy. That could include kdb512 pet project.

Peter Zeihan has strait out said that solar panels only make financial sense at this time as currently existing in the best places. I am not going to fight that directly. He also said that in consideration of Carbon and economics, it may make sense to use them in less optimal areas, but certainly not Germany or New York, or London I would expect.

Now I have been trying to develop the idea of using heat pumps in conjunction with solar panels and a home and perhaps also other auxiliary devices such as thermal storage and yes, some batteries.

But every time everywhere on this site when I try to do this I get interfered with. I am trying to find one variable to solve. It drives me nuts that when I get going people come here and tell me that solar panels are no good. Solar panels are good in that if you have them then you have some auxiliary power at least at times, Maybe a lot of the time if you have thermal and battery storage methods. Now as for the existing copper. I have been aware that to utilize what exists better between a grid and a house the electricity might go both ways.

This is also true for offshore windmills. I have suggested possible options to send power back out to sea at times, presuming a process of value could be established there.

Now if things continue as they always seem to, I will get a rebuke anyway, and there will be not discussion of things like heat pumps with solar panels. You will not even be so polite as to mention it.

You will just insist that solar panels cannot produce enough energy to make more solar panels.

And so, if I completely agree with you then I have to suppose that most of the world is stupid and/or liars.

And you put me in a place where I cannot do my attempts to solve problems, as you will take it as an insult, or you guys will divert my topics to something like "A mission to Earth" . I came here to dream, and to dream of space and a good life.

Don't be continuous downers.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-11 22:29:37)

kbd512 · 2023-03-12 01:16:09

Void,

Apologies for interrupting your flow. I'll end it there.

Void · 2023-03-12 09:51:05

That is kind.

Just some conflicting traffic.

I think we should all consider what is the utility of me being here. I don't think clashes are useful, and they certainly don't make me happy.
Perhaps I should just reconfigure myself out of here. I seem to produce little of value after all.

Separate pathways may be for the best.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-12 09:55:46)

Void · 2023-03-12 11:00:11

OK, a restart. It seems that they are playing with wood in another topic that I might use.

http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 64#p207364
Quote:

Alright here is another orphan, Geothermal and Geostorage banking. I have not completely come to understand what this might be. It reminds me a bit of banking and a bit of electronics. Often it is good to visualize a thing, but sometimes as well it might help to verbalize it, and not just in speaking, but in written/keyboarded words. After all text is both verbal and visual. I need to see if I can retrieve a visual item. Here is the orphan: http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 94#p206394
Quote:
It is good to temper the exuberance with caution and truth.
Maybe I could speculate on something.
First of all, some chances that solar cells will continue to improve: https://newatlas.com/energy/perovskite- … cy-boosted
Also, I am late to the party about Heat Pumps, but here is an interesting article: https://english.worldmagazine.it/301304/
Here is an attempt to describe something that might pay at high latitudes with sunny summers:
At higher latitudes you have more solar hours in the warmer half of the year than the cooler half.
Perhaps in the warm season, the Red Reservoir could be pushed to a high heat. This would be about equivalent to making fuel to burn in the winter.
In warm summer air you could preheat with air and then draw hard on the pink reservoir causing heat conduction from rock to increase.
Then you might push a high heat into the Red Reservoir, perhaps a high enough heat to generate electricity from it.
Size would then determine if it would be year around power.
I notice that the Heat Pumps can draw on some very cold temperatures. That is impressive, but they are doing it with much less sunlight and much less heat in the air.
And if you did use solar cells, you could use the heat pump to draw hot air off of the solar panels perhaps increasing the efficiency of them.
I will grant that I don't know if a heat pump can output a high enough temperature to the Red Reservoir.
Obviously, this could be used to heat, but I am hoping that somehow it can reach into electric production from the Red Reservoir as if it were a thermal battery.
I would not mind some feedback.
Done.
The purpose of this conversation is not to sooth my ego. I am not sure the value of it or if my head is working right on this item. The purpose is to develop a better understanding.
The pink reservoir is one from which you might borrow get thermal energy, with the expectation that the loan will be paid back by the geothermal reservoir heat of the Earth over time. My expectation is that a heat pump will be used to "Take the Loan", forcibly at a time when an excess of electrical energy is available. As far as banking goes maybe this is a bank robbery, but it is a Magic bank as it refills its vaults over time.
So, with Eavor geothermal wells we wait for the energy to charge the well, during times when other sources of energy are available. So, it is like a savings account, and we may make a withdrawal. The more we withdraw, the less valuable the remnant energy is. But if you size it right, that can work.
Now with a loan or robbery well, you have also altered the differential vibration of the rock, but you can really pull on it, as you have a heat pump and some excess electrical energy. The differential vibration then is like voltage. This should accelerate the flow of vibration from high to low levels of vibration and that is like current. The rocks will have a naturel resistance to the flow of vibration. So, E*I = P.
So, that is the similarity I see for this, to electrical. behaviors.
P = The rate at which the well recharges, and the harder you pull on it the faster the average rate of recharge.
The red reservoir is a savings account. It can store heat from the heat pump. At the present time, I think a temp of 180 degrees C is the hottest output from a heat pump available. Granted, that is not as good as might be wanted, and I do not know if better can be accomplished. I feel it should be possible but does not yet exist.
There is this: https://techxplore.com/news/2021-04-wor … %20degrees.
And this: https://ammonia21.com/norwegian-researc … %C2%B0F%29.
Quote:
Researchers from Sintef Energy Research in Norway, the Norwegian University of Science & Technology (NTNU), and industrial partner ToCircle, have developed a new high-temperature water-based heat pump suitable for many industrial processes, and capable of producing temperatures of up to 180°C (356°F).
So, actually the red reservoir could store useful levels of heat, and so neither the Pink nor Red reservoir have to be drilled as deep as might be otherwise needed for geothermal.
But I really think that if you had a steam of some kind of vapor from the pink reservoir, and it was already of a warmth, then compression might allow you to get above 180 degrees C.
The heat leakage rate out of the Red reservoir will be elevated if the heat level is increased but if it is a reasonable distance down, then the leakage rate to the surface will not be that much P.
So, I made a text out of it which is both verbal and visual, and so over time, perhaps truth will emerge.
Done.

OK, using geothermal drill technology to provide a sort of thermal battery. Optimistically this might be so hot that it would be steam, even more maybe even supercritical steam?

Avoiding the term solar or wind. Electricity from a source which may be variable, and also a load(s) which may be variable.

So, off-peak electrical power might be used to work with the output of a low grade geothermal well, and then store the product into another formation in rock. So, the question is how high of a heat can be created by this?

Working with an Eavor well as source? https://www.eavor.com/
This video may work, even if the above site is not working: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Ea … &FORM=VIRE

They have a proprietary fluid to use. Using off peak energy, I anticipate that you could bump the temperature up, and store this hotter value in a second drilled formation. Maybe even up to supercritical? Don't know if you can do that with hydrocarbon fluids. You could do it would water though I would expect.

So, then this very hot reservoir might generate electricity on demand. Greater temperatures are supposed to store more energy per unit of mass.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-12 11:25:24)

Void · 2023-03-12 11:42:23

Now, as per the last post, the use of the device would be to provide a seasonal power surge for when a deep draw on energy may exist.

For colder winters to give electricity and heat, and for the warmer places to give electricity and cooling.

This would be a factory level endeavor, not a home scale installation.

Done.

Void · 2023-03-14 19:15:53

I request courteous patience from the other members.
This is an article. It is very optimistic. I am not validating its contents, or refuting its contents.
Electric Viking:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Th … M%3DHDRSC3
I will speak of logic as I understand logic. My logic is that since China will burn coal and make solar panels despite our wishes, that we should consider that to be a "Constant" in our equations of calculating out game.

-------------

I find this very interesting. I have thought about the claims, and I think it could be true, if the solar panels are in Germany and on the north side of a barn for instance. It has caused me to have what I consider an important insight about it. To have vertical solar panels or not.

Electric Viking:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Th … %26ghpl%3D
His comment at the end about generating solar electricity even when it is cloudy does make sense. So, this may be a factor to consider. If you mount solar panels as traditional, at 25-30 degrees?, then you may not get that much scattered light from clouds.

I have also considered the grass/crops/etc. on the ground. You may get scattered light from that.

And if there are trees in the background, you may get scattered light that way.

I am also considering cooling of the panels. It seems to me that more cooling from the flow of air may occur, both as the winds may push into the solar panels, and as heated air will rise and carry away more heat. This should improve efficiency to some degree.

I could not be sure, but I am guessing that more appliances will be running in the morning and before sundown, at least when the days are in the equinox.

The German method is like this: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/10/12/ … n-germany/
Image Quote: Next2Sun_Agro_Photovoltaik-Anlage_2020_Deutschland_Donaueschingen-scaled-e1602081655894.jpg

Supposing that the camera was in the south-east of the array, then we can see several objects from which light might scatter-reflect from to the panels. 1) Clouds 2) Grass 3) Trees.

This might not be as true in a hot desert. However perhaps a mountain might be to the north to reflect some light.

For those in the Southern Hemisphere, think bas ackwards.

I have been thinking about this for other planets.

For the Moon, if they don't overheat, you might put aluminum foil on the ground. You might situate the solar farm so as to get a reflection from a background object such as a crater rim, or mountain. You may also put aluminum heatsinks at strategic locations to help cool the panels.

For dusty worlds, it may be that dust would accumulate less, and it may be possible to more easily remove it.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-14 19:56:56)

Void · 2023-03-14 20:09:38

Test.

OK, I am able to continue post #43 by starting a new post. Weird. Continuing...........

Actually no got it again when I pasted my stuff.

I will past one line at a time:

This might give us insight about the insight lander.

And for that lander it might have been possible to place reflective film on the ground in places around it.
Not where the sensors were located, but elsewhere.

They might have survived longer that way. But I will admit that possibly the panels vertical might not warm up the lander as much per conductive heat. But it you have more solar electricity that might be worth it.

Well, I guess that is quite a lot of it. I may move on to other materials, but if I get the error again while doing that I probably will wait for tomorrow.

Actually, I think I will let it rest for now.

Done.

Well, maybe something about Venus. Cloud scattering. Might be something to consider for that.

And for Mars, in the polar areas, vertical might allow the panels to survive winter frost. And you might use the panels to change the albedo of the poles that way, so then a terraforming technique.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-14 20:21:18)

Void · 2023-03-15 10:35:45

Floating Solar Panels: https://techxplore.com/news/2023-03-sol … grids.html
Quote:

How floating solar panels are being used to power electric grids
by Carly Wanna

My understanding is that the cooling from the water may increase the efficiency by up to 15%.

I wonder if anyone has tried vertical solar panels floating in water.

This would also conserve water by shading it. But it also leaves the water surface open for humans and other life to use. But I know that you can get a bad sunburn on water as water reflections can intensify the UV. So, might water reflections help boost the power of vertical panels?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01089-6
Quote:

nalysis
Published: 13 March 2023
Energy production and water savings from floating solar photovoltaics on global reservoirs
Yubin Jin, Shijie Hu, Alan D. Ziegler, Luke Gibson, J. Elliott Campbell, Rongrong Xu, Deliang Chen, Kai Zhu, Yan Zheng, Bin Ye, Fan Ye & Zhenzhong Zeng
Nature Sustainability (2023)Cite this article
46 Accesses
158 Altmetric
Metrics

Abstract
Growing global energy use and the adoption of sustainability goals to limit carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning are increasing the demand for clean energy, including solar. Floating photovoltaic (FPV) systems on reservoirs are advantageous over traditional ground-mounted solar systems in terms of land conservation, efficiency improvement and water loss reduction. Here, based on multiple reservoir databases and a realistic climate-driven photovoltaic system simulation, we estimate the practical potential electricity generation for FPV systems with a 30% coverage on 114,555 global reservoirs is 9,434 ± 29 TWh yr−1. Considering the proximity of most reservoirs to population centres and the potential to develop dedicated local power systems, we find that 6,256 communities and/or cities in 124 countries, including 154 metropolises, could be self-sufficient with local FPV plants. Also beneficial to FPV worldwide is that the reduced annual evaporation could conserve 106 ± 1 km3 of water. Our analysis points to the huge potential of FPV systems on reservoirs, but additional studies are needed to assess the potential long-term consequences of large systems.

Obviously wind could be a problem, but the rewards might be large.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-15 10:45:17)

Void · 2023-03-15 15:32:38

I have been thinking about the reflection from snow as well, that could be of some value in the winters.

Done.

Void · 2023-03-15 21:21:40

I could not get the recent video about this but I expect it will show up in time on Bing:

The Electric Viking, The battery with no limit on energy capacity - Vanadium redox flow, 4hr ago

This is a general response that does not contain the recent video: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Th … ORM=HDRSC4

We will see if the process is good or not.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-15 21:22:52)

Void · 2023-03-16 11:43:37

OK, this seems to be it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLUb_J9BVec
Quote:

The battery with no limit on energy capacity - Vanadium redox flow
The Electric Viking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium
Quote:

Universe
The cosmic abundance of vanadium in the universe is 0.0001%, making the element nearly as common as copper or zinc.[35] Vanadium is detected spectroscopically in light from the Sun and sometimes in the light from other stars.[36]
Earth's crust
See also: Category:Vanadate minerals
Vanadium is the 20th most abundant element in the earth's crust;[37] metallic vanadium is rare in nature (known as native vanadium),[38][39] but vanadium compounds occur naturally in about 65 different minerals.
At the beginning of the 20th century a large deposit of vanadium ore was discovered, the Minas Ragra vanadium mine near Junín, Cerro de Pasco, Peru.[40][41][42] For several years this patrónite (VS4)[43] deposit was an economically significant source for vanadium ore. In 1920 roughly two thirds of the worldwide production was supplied by the mine in Peru.[44] With the production of uranium in the 1910s and 1920s from carnotite (K2(UO2)2(VO4)2·3H2O) vanadium became available as a side product of uranium production. Vanadinite (Pb5(VO4)3Cl) and other vanadium bearing minerals are only mined in exceptional cases. With the rising demand, much of the world's vanadium production is now sourced from vanadium-bearing magnetite found in ultramafic gabbro bodies. If this titanomagnetite is used to produce iron, most of the vanadium goes to the slag, and is extracted from it.[45][42]
Vanadium is mined mostly in China, South Africa and eastern Russia. In 2022 these three countries mined more than 96% of the 100,000 tonnes of produced vanadium, with China providing 70%.[46]
Vanadium is also present in bauxite and in deposits of crude oil, coal, oil shale, and tar sands. In crude oil, concentrations up to 1200 ppm have been reported. When such oil products are burned, traces of vanadium may cause corrosion in engines and boilers.[47] An estimated 110,000 tonnes of vanadium per year are released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.[48] Black shales are also a potential source of vanadium. During WW II some vanadium was extracted from alum shales in the south of Sweden.[49]
Water
The vanadyl ion is abundant in seawater, having an average concentration of 30 nM (1.5 mg/m3).[35] Some mineral water springs also contain the ion in high concentrations. For example, springs near Mount Fuji contain as much as 54 μg per liter.[35]
Production
Vanadium production trend
Vacuum sublimed vanadium dendritic crystals (99.9%)
An etched piece of vanadium
Vanadium metal is obtained by a multistep process that begins with roasting crushed ore with NaCl or Na2CO3 at about 850 °C to give sodium metavanadate (NaVO3). An aqueous extract of this solid is acidified to produce "red cake", a polyvanadate salt, which is reduced with calcium metal. As an alternative for small-scale production, vanadium pentoxide is reduced with hydrogen or magnesium. Many other methods are also used, in all of which vanadium is produced as a byproduct of other processes.[50] Purification of vanadium is possible by the crystal bar process developed by Anton Eduard van Arkel and Jan Hendrik de Boer in 1925. It involves the formation of the metal iodide, in this example vanadium(III) iodide, and the subsequent decomposition to yield pure metal:[51]
2 V + 3 I2 ⇌ 2 VI3
Ferrovanadium chunks
Most vanadium is used as a steel alloy called ferrovanadium. Ferrovanadium is produced directly by reducing a mixture of vanadium oxide, iron oxides and iron in an electric furnace. The vanadium ends up in pig iron produced from vanadium-bearing magnetite. Depending on the ore used, the slag contains up to 25% of vanadium.[50]

So, maybe a path that will expand.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-16 11:48:09)

Void · 2023-03-16 16:12:41

Something from Louis, has re-emerged in a slightly different form in my mind.

Solar on the Seas. Please have patience I do not vouch for this being practical, rather that it could be interesting and who knows even workable.

As I recall there are 5 gyres on the planet, where I think in some places the winds and storms are relatively calm.

Also there is a narrow zone between the southern and northern hemispheres which does avoid big storms, mostly in the Pacific, I think.

Actually, I won't worry about the weather.

The idea I have in my mind is that it might be possible to have vertical solar panels, that are augmented by reflections of sunlight from the water..

Granted salt air does not sound wonderful for normal solar panels, nor storms.

So, anyway not surprise there are penalties from it, and it could be an excessive problem: https://www.solar-panel-cleaners.com/ho … efficiency.

But I am thinking that if you could have a train of these towed by a ship, maybe it could do some good.

The primary objective might be to make fuels with the electricity.

But, there could be yet another function, and that is to mix low and cold fertile water with warmer and less fertile water. The mix might end up enough in the sunlight that plankton would grow. So, then that is Carbon capture. If you could scoop up the organic matter then you could use electricity to make fuels from it.

I do agree that it might be desired to avoid big storms. I don't know how practical that is, and where it could be.

I have though of tying it to OTEC, but that is yet more speculation.

Anyway, it was originally an idea of Louis, but I have modified it a bit.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-16 16:30:52)

Void · 2023-03-18 10:48:42

Here is a new emerging skill, level of benefit, not yet defined.

MARCH 17, 2023
Carbon dioxide electrolysis as an alternative to coal
by Forschungszentrum Juelich

https://techxplore.com/news/2023-03-car … -coal.html

n the current experimental set-up using modular components which are not optimized for efficiency, the stack achieves an efficiency of 30%. "For this type of process, which already operates below 100°C, it is already a quite promising result," explains Institute Director Prof. Rüdiger-A. Eichel.
"Compared to high-temperature co-electrolysis, for example, plant design is relatively simple and produced pure CO instead of synthesis gas which further simplifies processing for many applications. Thus, a decentral supply of the platform chemical CO can be provided to the industrial companies in the Rhenish region, saving transport cost," says Rüdiger-A. Eichel. The next steps are further developments and improvements in efficiency to bring the cell stack to the final stage of readiness for mass production.

I will consider it odd if the members do not like it. I have not specified the energy source, solar, wind, nuclear, other?

My feeling is that we might want to look into it for Mars as well.

I would hesitate to include this material as it is not the historical assessment of probability for the moons of Mars, but it comes from NASA.

Mars Moons: (Carbon in the Martian moons)
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/mars … 20diameter.

The moons appear to be made of carbon-rich rock mixed with ice and may be captured asteroids.

I am going to copy this into a terraforming topic and expand on the Mars aspect more.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-18 10:59:03)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2023-03-10 14:29:11

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#27 2023-03-10 16:53:18

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#28 2023-03-10 18:34:27

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#29 2023-03-11 14:34:52

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#30 2023-03-11 16:01:08

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#31 2023-03-11 16:14:04

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#32 2023-03-11 16:17:31

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#33 2023-03-11 16:52:17

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#34 2023-03-11 17:39:01

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#35 2023-03-11 18:41:57

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#36 2023-03-11 18:48:27

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#37 2023-03-11 19:09:19

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#38 2023-03-11 21:56:09

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#39 2023-03-12 01:16:09

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#40 2023-03-12 09:51:05

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#41 2023-03-12 11:00:11

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#42 2023-03-12 11:42:23

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#43 2023-03-14 19:15:53

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#44 2023-03-14 20:09:38

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#45 2023-03-15 10:35:45

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#46 2023-03-15 15:32:38

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#47 2023-03-15 21:21:40

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#48 2023-03-16 11:43:37

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#49 2023-03-16 16:12:41

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#50 2023-03-18 10:48:42

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

Board footer