Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

Void · 2023-03-06 20:15:37

I am doing this so that I can promote the upside of things, without obstructing that path that others have taken which tends to seek solutions of a kind that work for a more pessimistic future. I am not doing this to annoy anyone, I admire the efforts being made to define a reality, and to offer basic solutions that have a high probity of producing the best results for a bad case for the future of energy.

But at any time, breakthroughs in various method can appear. If there was no room for invention and adaptations, then there would be no point in hoping for solutions. So, we can try optimism and pessimism, and later on see what we have for results.

If the moderators don't like this, then go ahead and delete this topic. I don't care to be where my offerings are not desired.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-06 20:18:55)

Void · 2023-03-06 20:20:38

There are some materials here: http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 70#p207070

This video is from there: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=%2 … ORM%3DRCVR

There is another article about a new compressor out of the UK, that is supposedly significantly more efficient, but I can't get it back yet.
That is a "Just have a think" article as well.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-06 20:35:16)

Void · 2023-03-06 20:37:05

This could be overhyped. I find that utube is getting more and more baloney articles lately. Still, it is encouraging.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/technol … 2b693&ei=9
Quote:

Scientists make breakthrough with ‘miracle material’ that may revolutionize solar panels: ‘This could be an absolute game changer’
Story by Ben Stern • Thursday

I believe that some of our good members have been contemplating train methods with liquid air here: http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 72#p207072
You can go to earlier posts for more dialog.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-06 20:49:54)

Void · 2023-03-06 20:51:22

Having set that stuff up, I have to wonder if it is considered to run trucks with liquid air and other vehicles, and if trains may be considered, how about houses?

In the case of a house you have a stationary item which might be a bit more safe than a moving device. Since mass does not matter so much extra protective measures may be included to make the installation less child or at risk a problem for families. After all natural gas and electricity can both cause injuries and deaths. So, perhaps liquid air can be made home safe.

I see this is being potentially very good where home cooling is desired. You could perhaps run a turbine similar to that in post #1, to run a generator for power in the house.

Generating the liquid air would be a business activity, but it could be coupled to distilling water perhaps. Forced distillation with a vacuum, could also take the heat generated by the air-cooling process.

Setting things up this way would reduce the amount of electricity that has to be sent to a house, so then less switch gear and power transmission required.

I might also suggest that solar panels could be cooled this way, where a heat exchanger, pulls heat from air circulated through the solar panels, in order to heat the liquid air and run the generator. I think air flow though solar panels may not be that hard to incorporate.

And we might wonder about the heat from a shower, or heat from a dryer. For the shower a risk exists of freezing the pipes, but modern methods might make it OK.

As for the floors of buildings, can those become heat or cold storage devices. Again, freezing could heave the floor, so that risk has to be handled with skill. Basement walls also, and there you really have to be careful about freezing or you wreck your foundations.

And yes, if you have an off-peak heat storage device, you might also use it for electrical generation. Again, don't freeze it if it has water in it.

Of course, in the north, you have less available heat in the winter, but also it should be easier for the companies to liquify air, so you should get it cheaper.

Just some thoughts about it.

Done for now.

Let me add, that apparently if you cool the solar panels, you increase the efficiency, and also may prolong the life of the solar panels, as I have read that they do not respond well to excessive heat.

I will also add that such a system may reduce the amount of battery storage needed for a solar power system, or for peak energy storage from a grid.

Done

Here, water cooling is considered: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … 0by%203%25.

Something they say:

1.1. Overheating effect on PV efficiency
One of the main obstacles that face the operation of photovoltaic panels (PV) is overheating due to excessive solar radiation and high ambient temperatures. Overheating reduces the efficiency of the panels dramatically [1]. The ideal P–V characteristics of a solar cell for a temperature variation between 0 °C and 75 °C are shown in Fig. 1, which is adopted from Rodrigues et al. [2]. The P–V characteristic is the relation between the electrical power output P of the solar cell and the output voltage, V, while the solar irradiance, E, and module temperature, Tm, are kept constant. If any of those two factors, namely Tm and E, are changed the whole characteristics change. The maximum power output from the solar cells decreases as the cell temperature increases, as can be seen in Fig. 1. The temperature coefficient of the PV panels used in this research [3] is −0.5%/°C, which indicates that every 1 °C of temperature rise corresponds to a drop in the efficiency by 0.5%. This indicates that heating of the PV panels can affect the output of the panels significantly.

I halfway understand this graph quote: 1-s2.0-S2090447913000403-gr1.jpg

Members have also discussed the large-scale storage of liquid air, so maybe some places there is room for something of the type I am suggesting.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-06 21:20:14)

Void · 2023-03-06 21:33:12

We might want to wonder about doing similar on other worlds or in space.

How to cool solar cells on the Moon though? CO2? More difficult as usually things are away from Earth.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-06 21:34:28)

Calliban · 2023-03-07 06:21:01

Void wrote:

We might want to wonder about doing similar on other worlds or in space.
How to cool solar cells on the Moon though? CO2? More difficult as usually things are away from Earth.
Done.

I don't see how you could cool them with active cooling. They will be spread over too wide an area. Trying to plumb in an engineered cooling system just isn't going to be practical. But you could build panels on plinths made from rock or rammed regolith. These would function as heat sinks for the panels, which would soak up heat during the day and radiate it away during the long lunar night. The average temperature of the lunar surface is -20°C. If we take the density of rock to be 3t/m3 and specific heat to be 1KJ/KgK, then a cubic metre of rock will absorb 3MJ of heat for every degree centigrade that it's temperature rises. On the moon at the equator, under full sun, it will absorb 1KJ per second and an average flux of 333J/m2.s across the day. Using a combination of its own heat capacity, radiated heat and conduction into the soil, we should be able to keep the panels far beneath the radiation temperature of the sun.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-03-07 06:29:56)

Terraformer · 2023-03-07 06:57:03

I don't really see much point using solar PV on Luna. We have access to direct sunlight that only slowly moves, and a 3K heatsink during the night. Why use imported systems that get 20-40% efficiency, when we can manufacture one from lunar materials that can easily surpass that with inbuilt storage?

A solar powered midfuture in space is plausible. Nuclear thermal outperforms solar thermal rocketry for sure, but the latter will be far easier for space based industry to build, so I don't expect to see NTRs outside of the orbital guard, who need that kind of performance. Without atmospheric interference, Luna will be able to get very cheap and reliable power with only a small volume of imported components. Perhaps they could manufacture solar (thermal) power satellites and send them to Mars under their own power to beam power down to bases?

Void · 2023-03-07 10:36:50

Terraformer, Blue Origin has said that they have a simulated method to manufacture solar panels from Lunar materials.

https://www.pcmag.com/news/blue-origins … h%2C%20too.
Quote:

Jeff Bezos' space company Blue Origin has figured out how to manufacture solar panels on the Moon that only require materials already available on the lunar surface.
The technology to achieve this is called Blue Alchemist(Opens in a new window), and it has the potential to directly benefit Earth, too.

Here again, this is not a binary sports game where you choose a winner and a looser. There is really not reason to not use solar thermal on the Moon, except that for heat engines working fluids may be scarce.

Still, it may be possible to heat up a block of Regolith with solar thermal, and then have a blanket that you put over that thermal mass in the nighttime. Isaac Arthur has suggested such. (Not the blanket though).

I am going to guess that most labor on the Moon will be robots, and those can work a lot of the time inside of temperate lava tubes or constructed buildings.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-07 10:42:44)

Void · 2023-03-07 10:45:29

Calliban, your rock method appears to make sense. Also, if it could be afforded, radiator fins on the back of the panels might be another way, as out of the sunlight, shadows on the Moon are cold.

So, the case for the Moon is a lesser optimism, but I feel the case for Earth can be extremely optimistic.

You did a post in another topic, and I will bring a copy of it here, and talk about it.

This from Calliban: http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 04#p207104
Quote:

Calliban
Member
From: Northern England, UK
Registered: 2019-08-18
Posts: 2,392
Email
This is quite inspiring.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_L … _Community
In the Southern UK, insolution is only about 1000kWh per m2 per year. Only about half of that is direct sunlight. And sunlight gets weaker as you head north. In cloudy parts of Scotland, flux is only 700kWh/m2 per year. This makes the UK a weak contender for solar power. However, if we forget about the potential for solar to generate electricity and focus instead on heating, things get better. UK space and water heating needs are about 500TWh per year. If heat can be stored in boreholes under or around towns and cities, then we could meet UK heating needs using a few thousand square kilometes of solar collectors clustered around our towns and cities.
If temperatures greater than 30°C can be achieved in distribution pipework, then heat pumps will not be required. What is required for all of these underground thermal storage ideas, is a district heat distribution network. Most towns and cities in the UK are dense enough for this to work for most people. If you live out in sparsely populated suburbs or out in the sticks, then it is less viable. Individual boreholes could be used to heat individual houses. But the thermal soak time of the ground around the borehole could run into many years.
Last edited by Calliban (Today 07:06:57)

So your materials introduces this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasona … gy_storage
Quote:

Seasonal thermal energy storage

Now consider expanding that. What about greenhouses with heat pumps? At times you can cool the greenhouses by pulling the heat out with a heat pump and pushing the heat into the seasonal storage. And of course being a greenhouse, you can grow things.

Now, add a local utility that provides topping off of a liquid air reservoir. Then use the houses and greenhouses and seasonal storage to evaporate the liquid air, and possibly cool the houses and greenhouses. Generating electricity while cooling the buildings, so then the buildings sort of become solar collectors / boilers.

This scheme may possibly make sense even in parts of the UK and Ireland, as you have pondered?

So, for North America: https://www.thesolarnerd.com/blog/solar … dy-summer/
Quote:

December average March average July average
122 kWh 430 kWh 717 kWh

What’s the best time of year for solar energy production?
It turns out that you might get your best solar energy output in the spring, and not the summer as you might think. This is because that solar panels produce less electricity when it’s hot.
This is a well-known phenomenon, and you will see it listed in the specifications on your solar panel datasheet. It is called the power temperature coefficient, and it will be listed as a percentage of power output loss per degree Celsius (%/°C).

Of course, if you have liquid air and heat pumps cooling your solar panels then you can probably boost output in the summer as well.

The continental climate in the interior of North America, provides warm summers that can extend even north of the Parries in Canida.

I would venture to say this might work to a fair degree even up to the Great Slave Lake, which is a high latitude, so, seasonal storage is a good method. Also, greenhouses could be very useful there, if they both provide food, parks and solar thermal.

This interior band extends from Texas up to the Arctic Circle I believe, and also includes a lot of wind power.

In Texas, I join with the Southwest solar areas, and the Southeast warm and moist areas. Obviously, summer cooling with liquid air could be a benefit in those places. Keeping in mind that while you cooled your house you would also be generating electricity.

This then would reduce the electrical load which must pass though the power lines. So, then adopting this would reduce the amount of expansion of electrical grid needed.

The waste heat from liquifying air at a factory/plant could be put to some use, I believe that heat pumps can now generate a useful level of heat for some industrial processes. Also, the distillation of water could be a feature.

Obviously, this could be very good for many locations on the planet.

The more alternative energy, then the more burn fuels that will be available to those locations not suited to the processes mentioned in this post.

Done.

Some solar maps for North America: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Solar+Map … d5197e86fc

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

I think that the model of solar panels that says they don't pay in many places can be modified if you add seasonal thermal storage and liquid air. Also, colder places might have some advantage per making liquid air. Not as huge as we might think but still a factor.

Optimistically I would wonder if any orange-colored area might work.

Curiously even South Greenland and Iceland might qualify. Maybe, Maybe.

Done

Last edited by Void (2023-03-11 17:40:19)

Void · 2023-03-07 12:48:53

So then this is a possible way to construct a liquid air reservoir:

If you had the land for it you could add rings as needed to increase the storage capacity. As Calliban has suggested somewhere that I read, the frozen soil may be pretty good insulation as the scale of the reservoir would go up. This does not stop the possible use of some insulation on the bottom though.

As for the roof, insulation as well, but even possibly considering allowing some cold to leak though to condense water out of the atmosphere. I should then condense in rings between roofs.

This could be beneficial in locations near a body of water like a sea or ocean, and also in the humid areas of North America, and other places on the planet.

While at high latitudes of North America, cold is a bit of an advantage in the winter, also in the summer, long summer days is also an advantage to make liquid air or to make underground heat storage.

The heat from making liquid air could be reused in industrial processes, or could heat a greenhouse as well, maybe heat buildings.

Condensate water of course could have a variable value as per season and local climate, and population densities.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-07 12:56:03)

Void · 2023-03-07 14:01:41

So, as I recall, if you drop air temperature by ~20 degrees F, you double the Relative Humidity.

I think that that is 11.1111111 degrees C.

So, if you have 50% RH @ 90 degrees F, and you drop to 70 degrees F you might get a RH% of 100% and so perhaps condensation.

To annoy you;
90 - 32 = 58
58/9 = 6.444444444444444
6.444444444444444 * 5 = 32.22222222222222
32.22222222222222 - 11.1111111 = 21.11111112222222

I guess that checks out. It has been a number of years.

So, you drop from 32.22222222222222 C to 21.11111112222222 C to double the RH%.

I think that is correct.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-07 14:15:18)

kbd512 · 2023-03-07 14:14:51

Why would you use an electronic device that can shatter or short circuit or overheat, which might convert energy at 25% efficiency for good models, when you can use plain old steel with Aluminum coating, that can cover 64 times more area than photovoltaics for equal cost, that can thermalize 90% or more of the photons striking it, into heat energy?

A solar thermal trough system is a solar panel with no Silver, no Copper, no semi-conductor, no glass, less Aluminum per unit area, less weight per unit area, and a lot less cost per unit area. Since you easily get 3 times more power per unit area, you can put solar panels (solar thermal trough), in places where photovoltaics won't work well enough.

You don't even need an electric grid for it to produce usable output, either cryogenic liquids and hot water or hydrocarbon fuels.

You don't need frequency stabilizing batteries.

You don't need electronic control systems.

You don't need to keep it quite as clean, although it always helps.

When the Sun don't shine, you start converting your excess stored power into electricity if it is a grid-connected electrical power system.

There is no severe limit on how much power you can store, because your working fluids are replaceable, transportable, and convertible. Maybe you want some of the working fluid to clean off the panels. Maybe you want some to power a train to bring in a load of factory fresh panels. You start with steel, air, and water. You end up with steel, air, and water. We take some out of the environment, and then we put it back. Take some, put it back. Take some, put it back. That actually works if you "dream big enough".

When it comes time to recycle it, you melt off the Aluminum mirror surface, melt down the steel, and then you roll out a brand new steel sheet. Done.

If it cracks, it doesn't leach toxic heavy metals into the ground water supply. Unless a joint cracks, you weld it up and keep using it. There are no joints on the panels, only the support structures.

My solar panel truck had a wreck and lost its load. Oh noes! Whatever shall we do? Take the busted up steel back to the factory, melt off the Aluminum, melt down the steel, roll out a new sheet. Done. If you're really lazy and the sheet isn't totally messed up, then you bend it back a little and install it anyway. If it still bolts up... FIDO.

The value of the material is very low, so nobody is going to steal it. It's 64 times less costly than a photovoltaic panel, per unit area. If they do steal it anyway, cause they're bored, then it's cheaper to replace. They probably can't move it without a crane, so the chances of that happening are rather slim to begin with. There's always one "special person" out there who is especially destructive. Maybe the hot oil from the collector tube will leak on that person. Unlikely, but Darwin works in mysterious ways.

We need to move the entire generating station. We messed up the siting arrangement, our site flooded, aliens landed (space aliens, not illegals). Oh, bother. Well... We unbolt the panels, we load them onto the trucks, and then we move them. A few dents or dings are not going to change output appreciably. We don't have any cables or electrical boxes to move. We drain out the working fluid, unbolt the hot tube, and then we disassemble and pack up. We can even load them onto flat cars and leave them unattended. Again, nobody is stealing sheet metal. Since we let millions of illegals into America, they can provide the labor to do this. They're beneficiaries like everyone else, after all. They can probably figure it out, too, unlike the kids we send to college. Everyone needs a gainful employment and this fits the bill. Maybe we cut a deal where they work for the solar company, put in 10 years, or 20 years if they brought their entire family, and during that time we make them citizens and educate them to our standards. They either work in the office after that or they go on to do something else.

Void · 2023-03-07 14:18:19

A fair question. Also, to vaporize liquid air you don't need high heat, just lots of it, say from a greenhouse, or to cool a house and that also could be fairly recycled. I will think on it. Your thermal devices might fit in as well. I anticipate that it is not a one-size-fits all. Greenhouses can be nice in the north or in the winter further south as well.

Food for thought!

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-07 14:20:37)

Void · 2023-03-07 14:37:32

A bit of a silly question, but "Might a hot attic become a power source, if you have low-cost liquid air?".

So, could heat pump processes help to create heat and liquid air?

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/08/19/ … ste%20heat.
Quote:

The world’s hottest heat pump
A Norwegian consortium has built an industrial heat pump that can reach a temperature of up to 180 degrees Celsius. The machine can be used with different industrial processes that rely on steam as an energy carrier and can reduce a facility’s energy consumption by between 40% and 70%, as it enables the recovery of low-temperature waste heat.
AUGUST 19, 2021 EMILIANO BELLINI

It may not be a perfect fit, but it may point in a direction.

I have suggested using the heat from creating liquid air to distill water, using vacuum and heat. Maybe, some places.
And you may heat factories and office complexes, while creating liquid air as well, perhaps. I don't have a certainty about it but it sort of looks possible.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-07 14:42:34)

kbd512 · 2023-03-07 16:36:02

Void,

For lighting or computer, it doesn't help you as much. You're still stuck at 25% efficiency for all practical purposes. However, 64 times more surface area per unit cost is still 64 times more energy per dollar spent, even if conversion efficiency was equal overall. Efficiency of conversion and total cost to obtain a given amount of electricity are two different things.

75% of the electrical power consumed by a residential structure is immediately turning electricity back into heat energy, hot or cold. That's a little silly.

Would I install one of these on my roof? No. Flaming hot oil on a roof is bad. That's where photovoltaics really shine, and nothing else will do. Wind turbines launch blades the size of aircraft wings at things when they fail. Smaller models still weigh as much as a tree and crush whatever they hit when they topple over. However, if I lived in Kansas I would probably opt for wind turbines over solar thermal. It makes sense there. Kansas is very windy, because it's on the Great Plains. Houston, Texas where I live? Not much wind to be had, but plenty of sunshine.

Void · 2023-03-07 16:52:09

A gainful conversation perhaps I will do more later.

Done

Void · 2023-03-07 17:04:10

This may annoy you but the claim belongs in this topic as it is optimistic and about Energy methods accumulating.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo … 7a7a&ei=15
Quote:

The coming EV batteries will sweep away fossil fuel transport, with or without net zero
Story by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard • 8h ago

Keep in mind I am not in a position to validate the claims, I only can read.

Done

Last edited by Void (2023-03-07 17:05:23)

kbd512 · 2023-03-08 04:47:04

Void,

The Argonne National Laboratory in the US has essentially cracked the battery technology for electric vehicles, discovering a way to raise the future driving range of standard EVs to a thousand miles or more. It promises to do so cheaply without exhausting the global supply of critical minerals in the process.

Okay, great news.

The joint project with the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) has achieved a radical jump in the energy density of battery cells. The typical lithium-ion battery used in the car industry today stores about 200 watt-hours per kilo (Wh/kg). Their lab experiment has already reached 675 Wh/kg with a lithium-air variant.

Immediate invalidation of the opening paragraph's assertion. Lithium is the mineral in critically short supply. The new battery is based upon Lithium. Absolutely zero details and zero evidence about the significance of the lab experiment are provided. If you're not a snake oil salesman, this is generally not a good sign.

This is a high enough density to power trucks, trains, and arguably mid-haul aircraft, long thought to be beyond the reach of electrification. The team believes it can reach 1,200 Wh/kg. If so, almost all global transport can be decarbonised more easily than we thought, and probably at a negative net cost compared to continuation of the hydrocarbon status quo.

Trucks, yes. Trains, yes. Mid-haul aircraft? Not even close.

We can totally change almost all global transport, "probably at a negative net cost". They clearly don't mean monetary cost, but when one uses any form of transport, that is the limiting factor. That's why you see homeless people riding city buses, but you never see them flying on the Concorde.

The Argonne Laboratory in Chicago is not alone in pushing the boundaries of energy storage and EV technology. The specialist press reports eye-watering breakthroughs almost every month.

Well, their BS smells so bad that it does make my eyes water.

The science paper says the process can “theoretically deliver an energy density that is comparable to that of gasoline”, a remarkable thought that slays some stubborn shibboleths. It is not for today, but it is not for the remote future either. It typically takes five or so breakthroughs of this kind in battery technology to reach manufacturing.

I've read dozens of similar claims. None have ever panned out. The last part of the claim doesn't withstand cursory scrutiny, either.

Needless to say, the horrors of the cobalt supply chain have been seized on by fossil “realists” (i.e. vested interests) and Putin’s cyber-bots to impugn the moral claims of the green energy transition. The Argonne-IIF technology should make it harder to sustain that line of attack.

No, we're saying that if the price of not using hydrocarbon fuels is impovershing or outright enslaving millions of African children, then it's probably not worth it. They think the're sitting upon a "moral high horse" to talk down to us "dirty Carbon people". I have pet rocks with more going on upstairs than most of these people.

Prof Curtiss said the current prototype is based on lithium but does not have to be. “The same type of battery could be developed with sodium. It will take more time, but can be done,” he said. Switching to sodium would halve the driving range but it would still be double today’s generation of batteries.

Keep giving them more money to play with their tinker toys, producing nothing usable. That sounds like a plan.

Sodium is ubiquitous. There are deposits in Dorset, Cheshire, or Ulster. The US and Canada have vast salt lakes. Sodium can be produced cheaply from seawater in hot regions via evaporation. There is no supply constraint.

Someone needs to read about how much Sodium we produce every year.

This knocks out another myth: that the EV revolution is impossible on a planetary scale because there either is not enough lithium, or not enough at viable cost under free market conditions in states aligned with the Western democracies. (The copper shortage is more serious, but there may be solutions for that as well using graphene with aluminium).

Graphene? Sure. I'll buy that. The "myth" is their codeword for "reality" because of that Copper shortage.

The International Energy Agency estimates that demand for lithium will rise 20-fold by 2040 if we rely on existing battery technology. The Australians are the world’s biggest producers today. But the greatest long-term deposits are in the Lithium Triangle of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile, which are in talks to create an OPEC-style lithium cartel. China’s Tianqui owns 22pc of the Chilean group SQM, the world’s second-biggest lithium miner.

We have "Big Oil", now joined by "big Lithium".

A lithium recycling industry will mitigate the problem. In the end, lithium can be extracted from seawater. It is highly diluted at 180 parts per billion but research suggests that it could be isolated for as little as $5 a kilo. If so, the lithium scare is just another of a long list of seemingly insurmountable barriers that fall away with time. The march of clean-tech is littered with such false scares.

More fantasy-based thinking, with no explanation given as to why we don't already extract Lithium from seawater. The "march of clean-tech" is littered with the bodies of dead miners, toxic waste dumps, and even more hydrocabon fuel burning. It's anything but clean.

For readers with a better grip on chemistry than me, the Argonne-IIF uses a solid electrolyte made from a ceramic polymer based on nanoparticles. This does require expensive materials.

Yep, greater energy density always requires more money.

What the Argonne-IIF battery and other global breakthroughs show collectively is that energy science is moving so fast that what seemed impossible five years ago is already a discernible reality, and that we will be looking at a very different technological landscape before the end of this decade.

The same claims were made 10 years ago about battery research back then. This article must have been written for readers who are not older than 20.

Germany and Italy last week succeeded in blocking EU’s plans for ban on petrol and diesel sales by 2035. They might just as well bark at the moon or command the waves to recede. Moore’s Law and the learning curve of new technology has already sealed the fate of the combustion engine – with or without net zero.

And there it is- another reference to Moore's Law that shows the exquisite ignorance of the writer. If battery tech followed Moore's Law, a battery the size of your fingernail would enable a 747 to fly to the moon and back.

The coming battery technology kills the case for hydrogen in cars, vans, buses, or trucks, and perhaps also for trains and aircraft, whether it is “green” from wind and solar via electrolysis or “blue” from natural gas with carbon capture. The energy loss involved makes no sense. It is much cheaper and more efficient to electrify wherever possible.

No ability to count. That's always good.

My advice to corporate bosses and ministers: keep up with the world’s scientific literature, or you will be massacred.

The person who wrote that can't count, is ignorant of history despite being older than I am, and can't write an article commensurate with someone his age. Propaganda is fine, so long as your audience is completely ignorant.

kbd512 · 2023-03-08 04:55:50

Void,

People who write this stuff are hoping beyond all hope that one day repeatable science will catch up with their ideology. I hope that day either comes before we all go broke funding their hopes and dreams, or they start being honest with themselves about demonstrated progress. I've read the same claims for years- over a decade now. I've seen nothing that makes me think any of these science projects are anywhere near being ready for commercialization. At least one would make it to production through sheer dumb luck, given the number of attempts.

kbd512 · 2023-03-08 09:04:44

Void,

One final note about this is that people who are in denial are typically looking for anything at all that supports their delusion. It doesn't matter how far-fetched (Graphene to replace Copper), whether or not they directly contradict themselves (a new Lithium battery tech solves problems with Lithium shortages), or hand-waving (this new technology means magic will happen). It's all nonsense. Anyone who can do basic math can see how their rosy assertions don't add up. They can't see it because they're too preoccupied with protecting their delusional mental state. It's ludicrous, but that's the plan.

Void · 2023-03-08 09:15:15

Well, thank you for your efforts. It does not hurt to have a challenge to information, at times is can better define reality. You did some work, so again thank you.

Accumulation of skills is real. The only way it fails is if a civilization falls, or there is also the possibility of a slow death of it from a non-technological elite. We cannot know about the first, so far, so good. Of the second, it is my opinion that what we had that worked is coming to an end. And that is a good thing. They have become senile, and an obstruction. It is becoming apparent to people who can arrive at sensible behaviors, that it is so. I believe that generalists will rise against the specialist system. We no longer have enough surviving generalists from the WWII generation to guide the specialist methods. No one understands the big picture sufficiently.

The thing about a generalist approach is that such can cross reference many skills, and so inventions are more likely. Granted, specialists are wonderful for creating bulk wealth, but as in nature, in a changing environment, there advantages can be nullified by lack of adaptability.

We may be able to have the best of both worlds this time, as both the Tesla Cars and the Tesla Bots could help with that. These currently are robots in waiting, that may be created most economically to perform specialized tasks. At least at this time.

It has to be proven, but if say in 10 years, Tesla cars can self-drive, then such cars can be in use ~95% of the time that they are not charging. I have seen that opinion expressed. So, then you get much more used out of the device that it took a lot of effort and materials to make. At this time I am contemplating a new car. It will not be electric because up here salty slop is winters, and there is not that much infrastructure established here yet. It will probably be my last car. My age, and also the probability that I will in the future live in some type of place suitable to the elderly, then if robot-taxi's exist I may not even need a car to have a lifestyle roughly equivalent to what I have now.

As for Tesla Bot, it should be true that the device will accumulate abilities over time. That it could be reconfigured with software and hardware options to do an increasing amount of labor.

I have considered your comments about solar panels vs. thermal solar. First of all, it is said that in 2010, it was true that solar panels could not make up for the Carbon burned to create them. Now, I believe though that accumulation of skills has made that number much better. So, that is an example of accumulating abilities. It is not out of the question that it may improve still more.

In 2010, though the Carbon issue was not that much a consideration. The major consideration in part would be economics for the homeowner, in the case of home level deployments. China had cheap labor and also could use coal. So, solar panels might pay off in that way.

I struggle to find proper words for an aspect of home solar panels. I will call it fail-Safe resilience. You and a family member experienced the little winter problem that Texas had a while back.

I have suggested that solar roofs could be cooled to increase efficiency. If a heat pump were used, then this could also help to heat a house, which is not really that important in Texas much of the time. But Texas is not the only place that could have a grid failure/social falter. So, in the case of a higher latitude, having solar panels that could run a heat pump, could help a lot if the grid went down. I will suppose that such a home will be sensible to have at least a bit of electric battery storage, and also an off-peak thermal storage that could be heated by the solar panels and heat pump. So, a case of "Fail-Safe Resilience" could exist, and would help stabilize the social structure so that the recovery teams could put priority to other things than the home dwellers. In such a situation it might be possible to heat at least one room in a house this way, and also to have some lighting and communications.

We have talked about the use of liquid air. In that case, even if the liquid air was not delivered to cool the solar cells and the house, still the solar panels would give some power intermittently and you should likely have a small amount of battery storage, and also perhaps method to cool at least one room.

So, "Fail-Safe Resilience should be a factor considered in building up the future energy systems.

As i have said previously the good generalists have mostly passed on having aged out. Now we have idiots in their places, who more than anything wants to turn the population into zombie moron serfs. These sorts of rulers simply want a free ride, and to support their ego's. So, rather than building society up, they seek to impose cultural and physical poisons into the "Lower Ranks".

People are catching on through and will do so even more over time.

You are perhaps the "Glass Half Empty" type, from my point of view, I like the "Glass Half Full". So, I don't get upset thinking that "It can't be done". Rather I prefer to focus on "What can be done".

I am rambling though so I will end this post.

Perhaps you have some of your own notions on ""Fail-Safe Resilience".

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-08 09:53:34)

Void · 2023-03-08 11:42:40

This is an accumulation of skill that is interesting: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo … a4f5a&ei=4
Quote:

Scientists discover how to make electricity ‘out of thin air’
Story by Anthony Cuthbertson • 1h ago

Of course, the Hydrogen has to come from somewhere. For tiny applications though perhaps from the Atmosphere.

Quote:

“Huc is extraordinarily efficient,” said Dr Rhys Grinter from Monash University.
“Unlike all other known enzymes and chemical catalysts, it even consumes hydrogen below atmospheric levels – as little as 0.00005 per cent of the air we breathe.”
Experiments revealed that it is possible to store purified Huc for long periods at freezing temperatures or up to 80 degrees celsius without it losing its power to generate electricity.

Of course, this could easily have some "News spew" in it. Sensationalism if what might sell news, so we cannot have too much certainty of value.

Don't know if it would work on Mars. Mars might have a lot of Hydrogen relative to Earth as per radiations. It does have small quantities of Oxygen. Now if they can find the enzyme that works with CO and O2, that might be something for Mars alright.

https://www.sciencealert.com/antarctica … alien-life
Quote:

Strange Antarctic Bacteria That Live Off Air Alone Could Be Key to Finding Alien Life
NATURE
07 December 2017
ByDAVID NIELD

Quote:

The microbes have been found in Antarctica and can exist off a diet of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, staying alive in the most extreme conditions where other food and energy sources are scarce.

Composition of Martian Atmosphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
Quote:

Composition[3][4]
Carbon dioxide 95%
Nitrogen 2.8%
Argon 2%
Oxygen 0.174%
Carbon monoxide 0.0747%
Water vapor 0.03% (variable)

So, plenty of Oxygen for the CO.

Perhaps to pressurize a containment with raw Martian atmosphere (Just a bit), and if needed add water vapor and maybe some Hydrogen.

Possibly a power supply that works 24/7 and though dust storms. The Martian atmosphere might have enough Hydrogen as well. The solar wind may push Hydrogen into the atmosphere, and also radiation may produce it from water. And there can be a bit of Methane at times as well.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-08 11:56:46)

kbd512 · 2023-03-08 12:54:20

Void,

Whatever you choose to call it, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be to hold the amount of liquid you filled it with. I would rather have 2 glasses for 2 people, than 1 under-utilized glass and no glass for someone else. That is my thought process on glass half-full / glass half-empty. Maybe you view what I'm saying differently, but that is what I see going on with the glass.

I don't have any appreciation for marketing hype that doesn't live up to claims, because I'm not searching high and low for propaganda to support my ideological beliefs. It's a case of what works versus what doesn't.

1st sentence - This new battery technology solves our Lithium shortage.

2nd sentence - This new battery uses Lithium-ion technology.

Does it reduce Lithium consumption by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude?

No?

Well, then, it hasn't solved our Lithium shortage.

You're relying on your audience to be mathematically illiterate or fellow Kool-aid drinkers at that point.

I find these sorts of propaganda pieces irritating because they perpetuate wildly delusional claims to people who cannot readily distinguish between marketing hype and reality.

Every day I watch a video on YouTube that goes like this:

"This new widget or technology is going to fundamentally change everything. The XYZ industry will never be the same, and it will change overnight. This new widget will do ABC for pennies on the dollar. All you need to do is send $19.95 and we'll tell you all about it."

So, has someone recently invented a real working Star Trek teleporter? A Star Trek warp drive? A Star Trek replicator?

No? Well, then, nothing has fundamentally changed. Another specious but hyperbolic marketing claim has been made by another unscrupulous person looking to separate a fool from their money. Those claims are both cheap and endless. Real fundamental change is both difficult and expensive.

Most people are highly susceptible to outlandish claims if they appeal to their beliefs, emotional appeals, and/or pretty pictures mixed with glittering generalities. I am not. I am not "most people". To convince me of anything, you'd better have an unassailable line of evidence a mile long, your claims had best be independently verifiable, and any appeals you make should be to reason instead of emotion.

If we could make a battery that was made with and powered by all the BS that humans generate, then we would never run out of energy, even if only one person was left alive on the entire planet.

Void · 2023-03-08 20:08:17

Anton Petrov, Blue Origin, Solar Panels from the Moon: (Applogies to Bing)

OK, I think I have it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AGNmKR_SpA

His material in this video is about the Moon and perhaps a "Moon Colony". Blue Origin is featured. Made from Lunar Materials we hope and a process that is not said to be toxic. It has been proven with Lunar simulants on Earth. Of course, I do not know how efficient they are, but on the Moon, it is perhaps not that important.

So, a Melt/Electrolysis method is apparently used. The byproduct is Oxygen.

Extremely purified Silicon without toxic and explosive chemicals. A type of cover glass is also made as a byproduct that can protect the solar cells to a large extent. And I am guessing that it can be recycled, by simply melting the panels, and electrolysis again.

I do not know what photo saturation is for these of course. The glass should block the UVC and maybe some of the UVB.

I might wonder if mirrors could be acceptable to add more photons. On the Moon, no wind, unless from a rocket action or a comet crash nearby. So, can mirrors be of a rather thin nature?

I like the direction this is going.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-03-08 20:26:36)

Void · 2023-03-09 09:36:52

Looking again at the Video by Anton Petrov again, they mention that the Silicon produced is of a high quality, suitable for high efficiency solar panels. It does not confirm that these panels will be high efficiency though. I am supposing that they would be.

So then can solar panels on the Moon produce enough energy to make more solar panels? And what is the rate of deterioration of the solar panels.

https://solvoltaics.com/energy-make-sol … each%20day.
Quote:

We can tell you if you wonder how much energy it takes to manufacture a single solar panel. Though the answer is highly variable, in general terms, it takes about 200kWh to create a 100-watt solar panel.
In this article, we discuss:
The energy needed to make solar panels
The reason why it is a variable answer as to how much energy it takes to make solar panels
The carbon footprint of solar panels
How solar energy benefits the environment
But, as mentioned, the number is not as straightforward as it seems. Keep reading, though, and we go into just what that means.

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.
How much energy does it take to make a solar panel? How you answer that question depends on the solar panel. Since there are different types of solar panels, there will be different answers.
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.
We are talking about the energy needed to make the panel physically. However, that may seem like a lot of energy, and one solar panel will produce a lot of energy in its life. Here’s a look at that:
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.
Because most solar panels have a warranty of 25 years, you are looking at 9,125kWh of energy over its lifespan. To paint this picture a little brighter, let’s assume it costs $0.10 for a kWh of energy. So:
$.10 x 200kWh = $20 = About $20 in costs to make the panel.
$.10×365 = $36.50 worth of energy per year
$36.50 × 25 years = 912.50 in energy production per lifecycle (25-years.)
X 20 panels = $18,250 in energy production for a 20 panel array over 25 years.
See also Dual Battery for Solar (Goal Zero Power Systems)
You can change the cost of energy to fit your location as energy costs change. For example, if you thought the cost of producing a single collar panel was high, you might have a different opinion now.
About a $20 investment in energy results in creating a single 100-watt solar panel, bringing in a return of $912.50 – $20 = $892.50 per year.
Solar Energy Power Farm. Aerial View Of Solar Panels. - Solar Panel Installation, Mounting, Settings, And Repair.
Solar Energy Power Farm. Aerial View Of Solar Panels.
How Much Energy Does It Take To Produce A Solar Panel?
There are a lot of varying factors involved in answering this question. We have a “loose” answer: it would cost about 200kWh of energy to produce a 100-watt panel.
However, the reality is a little different as energy costs are at different prices in different areas. You also have to define what “the solar panel” is before you can answer that question.
A better way to look at this might be to ask how much energy a solar panel produces in its lifetime and how that green energy helps the environment.
For example, making 1 kWh of electricity using traditional methods produces about .92 pounds of CO2 (Carbon dioxide.)
That fact is one of the reasons that solar energy is so valuable to the environment. Aside from the energy needed to produce the panels, which now can be solar, solar energy does not produce CO2.
To determine how much energy a solar panel can produce in its lifetime, you need the following information:
The wattage of the panel
The average number of hours of direct sunlight per day
Average hours of sunny days per year
To determine how much energy a solar panel produces in a day, multiply the watts times the number of average direct sunlight the panel receives.
For example, a 300-watt solar panel receiving five hours of direct sunlight will produce 300 watts of energy per hour or 1,500 watts per day.
Convert that to kWh, and divide the total amount of watts produced by 1000. In the example, you come up with 1.5kWh per day.
Solar Energy Plant. - Solar Panel Installation, Mounting, Settings, And Repair.
Solar Energy Plant.
Annual Production Of A Solar Panel
To figure out the annual energy production, take the daily production and multiply it by 365 days. So in the example, we had 1.5kWh per day, making an annual energy production of 547.50kWh per year.
See also Ecoflow Solar Panels (Compatability + Efficiency)
So if 1kWh of energy is produced using traditional electricity and one pound of CO2, then a solar panel producing 547.5kWh keeps 547.50 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere annually.
Suppose you consider that the average home has a solar array of 20 panels. In that case, you are looking at a hugely positive impact on reducing greenhouse gasses before they are even created.
What Is The Carbon Footprint Of Making A Solar Panel?
Sources listed below suggest that the carbon footprint of a solar array is roughly 20 times smaller than that of a power plant producing the same amount of energy.
The solar array has a first-year carbon emission rating of about 50g. That is due to the way solar panel manufacturing occurs.
As the solar panel ages, it earns back the carbon emissions produced during its manufacturing. In 3-4 years of operation, the solar array enters net zero, producing enough clean energy to erase the energy and greenhouse gasses used to create the array.
It is possible now that a solar panel manufacturing plant could use solar energy rather than traditional energy created by burning fossil fuels. If that were to occur, the carbon footprint of the panels from that plant would leave the plant at a net-zero status.
Do Solar Photovoltaic Panels Produce More Energy Than It Takes To Make Them?
Theoretically, solar photovoltaic panels can produce more energy than it takes to create them. However, in reality, how you answer that question depends on:
The number of direct sunlight hours the panel receives each day. A solar panel that receives shade in the afternoon will produce far less energy than the same solar panel in a desert that receives full sun for 8-10 hours daily.

The size of the panel is essential.
Subscribe to Sol Voltaics!
Get updates on the latest posts and more from Sol Voltaics straight to your inbox.

How much carbon dioxide is produced per kilowatt-hour of U.S. …
Solar Energy in the United States
Benefits of Residential Solar Electricity | Department of Energy
Solar explained Solar energy and the environment – EIA
Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Solar Photovoltaics

General Solar Panel FAQ
What Problems Do Solar Panels Solve?
In environmental terms, solar panels can potentially solve a handful of problems, including;
1. Air pollution
2. Water pollution
3. Greenhouse gases
4. Reduction in fossil fuel use
For individuals, solar energy allows you to become completely self-sufficient when it comes to your electricity needs and can save you a lot of money in the long run.
What Are 3 Important Uses Of Solar Panels?
The three most important uses of solar panels are;
1. Solar electricity. This can be used to power almost any appliance in your home, including TVs, computers, and fridges.
2. Lighting. In addition to the use of low-power, LED lightbulbs, solar panels can provide an efficient, low-cost, and environmentally friendly way to provide lighting to homes.
3. Portable solar. In our modern, always-connected lives, our phones, tablets, and computers are almost always with us, and all run on batteries. Portable PV chargers can help keep our batteries topped up no matter where we are, as long as there is some sun to charge them.
Do Solar Panels Give You Free Electricity?
Once the cost of the array is paid in full, the energy it produces is free. There are ongoing maintenance costs, too, such as annual panel cleaning, etc.
How Much Will My Electric Bill Be With Solar Panels?
Suppose your solar array includes a solar battery backup system, and it is large enough to fully cover your energy usage per day. In that case, your monthly electric bill will be next to zero dollars, even with a grid-tied system.
If your solar array does not include a solar battery backup system, then at night, your house or business will use grid electricity. That cost will vary but expect to pay from 1/3-2/3 of your average electric bill, and that cost will fluctuate seasonally.
Do You Save Money With Solar Panels?
The simple answer is, Yes, you save money with solar panels. There is an initial upfront cost, but since solar panels are warrantied for 25 years, you will save money over time. You will also begin to see monthly savings in energy bills, but there are other ways that solar panels pay you back. Those include:
1. Adding value to your home or commercial building
2. Monthly decreases in energy costs
3. The ability to add more energy appliances without increased monthly costs
4. The potential for tax credits for going solar
Can Solar Panels Power A House 24-7?
Most definitely! Solar panels can certainly power a house 24-7, with the addition of a high-quality inverter and a suitable battery bank, of course. To power, a house under normal usage will require a massive solar array, though, and there will be a very expensive initial financial outlay.
Do I Need To Tell My Energy Supplier I Have Solar Panels?
This depends on where you live, but in most cases, it’s not necessary to inform your energy supplier that you have solar panels. That said, you may be producing excess power with your solar system, in which case you may be able to sell that excess power back to energy companies.
In this case, you’ll naturally need to be in contact with them.
What Are Solar Cells Known As And Why?
Solar cells are also called photovoltaic (PV) cells. They are called so because the term ‘photovoltaic’ literally means light i.e. photo and electricity i.e. voltaic.
These cells generate electricity through the photovoltaic effect. This effect basically causes the generation of free electrons from the semiconducting silicon material of the solar panel when sunlight hits its surface.
What Type Of Solar Panels Are Most Efficient And Why?
There are currently three types of solar panels available in the market that are:
1. Monocrystalline
2. Polycrystalline
3. Thin-filmed
Among these, monocrystalline solar panels are known to be the most efficient among all others.
Does Heat Enter Your Home Through The Roof?
Absolutely. Heat enters your home through your roof, and on a hot day your attic can get up to 150 degrees Fahrenheit or more. Through conduction, heat from the sun warms your roof which then warms your attic and the rest of your home.
Sol Voltaics is an affiliate and an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases - at no extra cost to you.

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 the above is true, then the first year may pay back 1.825 times the creation energy, captured in the first year. And maybe 20-30 years of life, but on the Moon that is not at all certain. They may decay at a faster rate on the Moon.

I am going to suppose that on the Moon a similar proportion of the day will be available. But no clouds, and also maybe a little more sunlight as no atmosphere.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/23/americas … index.html
Claim:

The panel is designed to make best use of the light in space, which doesn’t pass through the atmosphere, and so retains the energy of blue waves, making it more powerful than the sunlight that reaches Earth. Blue light diffuses on entry into the atmosphere, which is why the sky appears blue.
“We’re getting a ton of extra sunlight in space just because of that,” said Paul Jaffe, a co-developer of the project.

Of course, we don't have the details of what the Blue Origin "Moon Panels" can do. We also don't know if thin mirrors can help. And we don't know the deterioration rate of the panels. They will have some added protections, I believe.

But this looks Rather Good.

Done

Last edited by Void (2023-03-11 17:40:39)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2023-03-06 20:15:37

Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#2 2023-03-06 20:20:38

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#3 2023-03-06 20:37:05

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#4 2023-03-06 20:51:22

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#5 2023-03-06 21:33:12

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#6 2023-03-07 06:21:01

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#7 2023-03-07 06:57:03

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#8 2023-03-07 10:36:50

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#9 2023-03-07 10:45:29

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#10 2023-03-07 12:48:53

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#11 2023-03-07 14:01:41

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#12 2023-03-07 14:14:51

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#13 2023-03-07 14:18:19

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#14 2023-03-07 14:37:32

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#15 2023-03-07 16:36:02

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#16 2023-03-07 16:52:09

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#17 2023-03-07 17:04:10

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#18 2023-03-08 04:47:04

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#19 2023-03-08 04:55:50

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#20 2023-03-08 09:04:44

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#21 2023-03-08 09:15:15

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#22 2023-03-08 11:42:40

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#23 2023-03-08 12:54:20

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#24 2023-03-08 20:08:17

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

#25 2023-03-09 09:36:52

Re: Optimism for Energy, accumulation of skills.

Board footer