Hi, I want to realize (for hobby) a battery charger using solar cell. I've found this sensor
- a typical solar cell (with millivolt output voltage) and a step-up transformer
- this sensor For you, what is the best (performance) solution?
Hi, I want to realize (for hobby) a battery charger using solar cell. I've found this sensor
-- Many thanks, Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
There is NO best solution.
All of photovoltaics is an outright scam to steal state and federal funds.
Not one net watthour of pv energy has EVER been produced!
See for a detailed analysis.
-- Many thanks, Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Don, That last link barfs...
"The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable." ...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
This I would like to see !!
404 !!
On a sunny day (Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:57:14 -0700) it happened Don Lancaster wrote in :
Bad day?
Don, you're out of date: a pal of mine at IBM is doing a 30 kW peak system for the Saudis, using very low cost tracking technology and a new type of Fresnel lens concentrators that run at above 2000 suns. (The trick is cooling them, but he's also the guy that invented the liquid metal thermal interface that Apple has used on their higher end machines.)
The silicon cost is trivial due to the high concentration, and the other costs appear quite manageable. He's getting 250W peak from a 4x7 foot collector on the first try, and expects to get 325W once the new Fresnel lenses come in. The cost is mostly in the fabrication, not the energy required to make the apparatus.
Flat plate silicon collectors are a crock, I agree.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal
Ok, the link now works.
Dons argument is what the non-green types have been saying for years.
It costs too much to develop and manufacture green technologies then to stick to the 'tried-n-true' fossil fuels.
He does have a point, the cost to early adapters will never be paid back.
But, I think we need to start somewhere, and PV solar needs to have money to continue to develop and innovate.
As time passes and science has the money to continue, they will get there. ( maybe not in my lifetime, but they will get there )
hamilton
Current energy payback times:
-- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
[snip]
Man! That's so-o-o-o efficient :-D ...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
It's around 16%, which isn't at all bad as an end-to-end design. There's _lots_ of desert available, if you can make trackers cheap and reliable enough. The key is (as Don notes) is to get the cost and especially the energy inputs down.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal
Those absurd figures make the ludicrous assumption that subsidies are an asset, rather than a 3:1 or higher liability.
They also make the even more ludicrous assumption that each and every pv investment will be fully utilized for its entire lifetime.
They also often fail to include the synchronous inverter costs, which in many situations will consume 150 percent of the value of ALL the electricity sent through iit. And not using a synchronous inverter, of course, is ridiculously more costly.
Even when not absurd, a four year "payback" means that the project is a gasoline destroying net energy sink for the first four years. At year four, it upgrades to a completely pointless and totally worthless endeavor. Beyond four years, any intelligent or sane investment still completely blows it away.
Because of the "eight track tape" technology level of today's systems, any interest whatsoever in them four years from now is highly likely to be zero.
Their figures are an outright lie.
Amortization dollars should be charged at ten cents per gasoline destroying kilowatt hour. Subsidy dollars should be charged at their true "iceberg" cost, which is at least thirty cents per gasoline destroying kilowatt hour, and often obscenely more.
Taken overall, not one net watthour of pv energy has ever been produced.
Net energy breakeven can be anticipated eight to ten years AFTER the average panel cost drops below twenty five cents per peak watt.
-- Many thanks, Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Huh? 250W/28-sq-ft / 833W/sq-yd = 10% if yee be lucky.
I talked to one of the engineers at...
They don't divulge much info, but it's not silicon, it's some kind of "refrigerant" cycle. This is a commercial endeavor that looks like it will be successful. Note the "280-megawatt"... 't'ain't no toy :-)
Personally I think direct conversion is a crock of leftist weenie shit... too many residual issues... like cooling. ...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
An interesting and seldom noted side effect: A pv energy farm requires very little water. Thus making government and indian lands in the southwest ideal locations.
An economic case can be made that ANY location with adequate water would thus have higher and better uses than siting solar panels.
-- Many thanks, Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
I'm going from the 325W figure. And I invite you to consider whether you'd rather be given the task of running 10,000 passively cooled collectors or 10,000 Stirling engines.
Hint: "No moving parts."
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal
On a sunny day (Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:25:32 -0600) it happened hamilton wrote in :
Yes, there are for example investors in Europe planning a solar plant in the Sahara desert IIRC. Billions have been raised, DC very high voltage lines to carry it all over Europe. With all that unrest I think the biggest obstacle is a political one. US has Mojave desert, would be a nice place for solar .. but the same greens that want solar also want to protect the bugs and snakes that live there ;-) Just wait until get get cold feet, they will change their mind. OTOH nuclear seems to be the only real option right now. And if 'electric cars' were to really happen, then all bets are off, new grid, new power plants... Dunno.
Finally got that page to load. The molten salt/steam generator cycle is interesting, but it isn't an obvious slam dunk. First off, you have to have very well insulated pipes for the salt; second, molten salt is highly corrosive; third, you need big enough drive motors on each concentrator to lift the load of salt and bend the large insulated pipes; third, you have the usual Carnot inefficiency of steam generators, plus the huge entropy increase involved in the heat flow.
Apart from radioactivity, that one is more like a nuclear plant than anything else I can think of.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal
Well, I'd guess it is commercially viable, or APS... a purely commercial venture (as opposed to SRP... a quasi-government entity), wouldn't be actively pursuing it. Part of it is already functional. Of course it's not fairy land... it's hard ball engineering. ...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
funds.
Of course, Shoreham and Indian Point looked economic when they were built, too. ;) At least there won't be any big decommissioning costs with solar.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal
It occurs to me that that plant will be a real handful to restart if something goes wrong--miles of pipe full of solidified salt.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.