Check this out, you have to wonder if in another 50 years or so a carbon footprint will be quite a bit less, if not gone altogether: April 28, 2014 Source: University of Illinois College of Engineering A printing approach allows manipulation of ultrathin, small semiconductor elements that can be stacked on top of one another to yield an unusual type of solar cell capable of operating across the entire solar spectrum at exceptionally high efficiency. Dual-stage optics, consisting of a molded 2 X 2 cm2 primary lens and a secondary, 2 mm ball lens (inset) focus incident sunlight by more than one thousand times. Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign use a printing process to assemble tiny cells into multilayer stacks for extraordinary levels of photovoltaic conversion efficiency. As an energy source, the Sun has always been a dependable provider. Although it freely shines on everyone, the ability to capture and convert the Sun's abundant energy is anything but free. However, new technologies aimed at achieving "full spectrum" operation in utility-scale photovoltaics may soon make solar energy a viable option. "A few simple ideas in materials science and device assembly allow us to bypass many of the limitations of traditional photovoltaic technologies," explained John Rogers, whose research group is developing these concepts. As a result of these new efficiencies, external industry experts project solar energy electricity generation costs that can reach, without subsidies, levels that are lower than coal, natural gas, and nuclear. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140428121118.htm And then there's this, new technology to store energy: April 22, 2014 American Institute of Physics (AIP) By combining the powers of two single-atom-thick carbon structures, researchers have created a new ultracapacitor that is both high performance and low cost. The device capitalizes on the synergy brought by mixing graphene flakes with single-walled carbon nanotubes, two carbon nanostructures with complementary properties. By combining the powers of two single-atom-thick carbon structures, researchers at the George Washington University's Micro-propulsion and Nanotechnology Laboratory have created a new ultracapacitor that is both high performance and low cost. The device, described in the Journal of Applied Physics, capitalizes on the synergy brought by mixing graphene flakes with single-walled carbon nanotubes, two carbon nanostructures with complementary properties. Ultracapacitors are souped-up energy storage devices that hold high amounts of energy and can also quickly release that energy in a surge of power. By combining the high energy-density properties of batteries with the high power-density properties of conventional capacitors, ultracapacitors can boost the performance of electric vehicles, handheld electronics, audio systems and more. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140422113235.htm
exactly how many of these super capacitors would be needed to provide NY City with power for a week ?
Don't know, but the future of energy is going to be very good IMHO, clean and cheaper too. May not be next year, but it's coming.
no argument on that but the science still has a ways to go on energy storage. Andasol in Spain is using molten salts the say can keep the plant up 7.5 afters after peak sun. Then once the salts reach a certain temperature they o use natural gas to keep the salts in a molten state or it will "rock" up. As far as I know that is state of the art in solar technology http://www.estelasolar.eu/index.php?id=32 .
I was responding to the question by Jackdog about how many super capacitors would be needed to power NYC, that's what I don't know. What I do know is the trends are there that show progress in efficiency of various alternative energy sources and in their economic viability. Are you aware of what IMHO means? The "O" stands for opinion, okay? You wanna call that pure silliness, fine with me. Hope I'm right and you're wrong though, cuz that's when the problems with pollution will begin to slow down and eventually disappear.
So curious, where do you get your information that it will be cheaper? Please I'm all on board to read about how cheap it will be.
Maybe you should re-read the OP, especially the part that says: " However, new technologies aimed at achieving "full spectrum" operation in utility-scale photovoltaics may soon make solar energy a viable option. " and " As a result of these new efficiencies, external industry experts project solar energy electricity generation costs that can reach, without subsidies, levels that are lower than coal, natural gas, and nuclear. " and " By combining the powers of two single-atom-thick carbon structures, researchers at the George Washington University's Micro-propulsion and Nanotechnology Laboratory have created a new ultracapacitor that is both high performance and low cost. "
Solar and wind will only be cost effective when they prefect a practical large capacity storage, until then it is just pissing money down a rathole. My personal bet is on hydrogen fuel cells but that won't be practical until a cheap and abundant material for the catalyst is discovered/developed. The grid needs a steady and reliable source of power, until that happens any wind/solar needs a carbon back up which makes it non cost effective
I agree about wind power, but I think the solar side is a bit different. As we speak I have a bunch of solar panels on my roof that are going to shave quite a bit of money off my electric bill every month, especially in the hot time of the year. Which in south Texas is now through October. Not sure of the exact number, which varies year to year, but I'd guess that for 330 days of the year I get partial or full sun for a good chunk of the day. I do not have a storage unit, but if my consumption is exceeded by the energy produced by the solar panels then I get credit for any energy that is passed back to my city's power company. All of which means that in about 6 years I will have saved enough money from my electric bills to make up the cost of the solar panels, and the electric utility company will not have to produce as much electricity, especially during the peak hours of consumption. IOW, win-win, it is cost effective for me and for my community if the total demand is reduced and the price isn't as high as it might otherwise be. So, in some areas of the country it is a viable option right now, and research going on suggests that advances are coming that will make solar energy even more attractive. Will it help those poor smucks who froze their butts off this past winter and haven't seen the sun since Thanksgiving? Maybe not, although one of the articles I linked to in the OP suggests that we could soon have solar energy from across the entire solar spectrum of light. Which means you can get some solar energy even on cloudy days.
You live in an arid part of the Sun belt. Solar for you is pretty much as good as it gets in the U.S. That said, I do agree that we are pretty close to solar PV being practical. I hope my next roof (at least ten years away) will have solar shingles, at least on the south side of the house.
Unless you are in it for the brag factor spending $10,000 for 3.5 Kw worth of power shingles are is cost efficient. You can get a good commercial quality solar panel for around $ .75 a watt
Ha, nope on the cheaper part. No one is going to support technology unless they can see that it is cheaper for them, not cheaper for the corporation that supplies it and still cornholes you.
I meant cheaper for the consumer. One hopes that there will be competition for these new technologies so that prices and profits cannot be exorbitant. I know what you're thinking, like the oil companies' profits are now? I think the energy landscape will change so that big energy companies won't be spending large amounts to find and drill for fossil fuels on the ocean floor or in the arctic. The cost structure won't be there. They might be engaged in R&D for more efficient and even cheaper energy sources, which can't be a bad thing.
History has shown us that energy gets cheaper and cheaper. In Babylonian times, it's estimated that a day's labor pretty much got you 10 minutes of evening light (i.e. energy). Now, we get about 20,000 hrs of light for a typical day's labor. http://www.npr.org/2014/05/02/30904...hing-hasnt-changed-it-takes-time-to-buy-light
