1. Home
  2. Electronics Design
  3. Solar cheaper than nuclear
  4. Page 5

Solar cheaper than nuclear

In , CIC wrote in small part:

Can you give a cite for this?

Especially should it be more practical than a layer of indium gallium nitride or relative-thereof cells, over layer of a gallium arsenide or gallium phosphide or relative-thereof cells, over a layer of silicon ones.

The LED manufacturing industry is doing little with die sizes much larger than a 1 mm square, despite efficiency of InGaN varying generally inversely with current density for die sizes and amounts of current generally mostly used. I am aware of only one manufacturer making dice of that chemistry in a size so monstrous as roughly a 3 mm square, and one other ramping up production of something likely smaller but much bigger than a 1 mm square. And InGaN LEDs have been around since about

1996, and ones with roughly 1 mm square dice have been around since around 2001. 
--
 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Reply to
Don Klipstein
Loading thread data ...

You forgot that bull shit is what makes for green ;-)

Take your Slowman feeding elsewhere. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

                 What part of Europe are you from?
                    The part whose ass we saved,
                  Or the part whose ass we kicked?
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Point-of-use PV isn't going to be practical for industry, which has high energy consumption relative to its area. Industry has relatively high usage of infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, sewage), which encourages density.

OTOH, if you live in a sunny climate, have a roof, and aren't doing anything else with it, it may be worth using it to generate energy. The power produced will be quite strongly correlated with the power required for air conditioning, which is a major component of power demand variability at low latitudes.

Reply to
Nobody

Check this:

formatting link

Reply to
CIC

One of the plus points for nuclear power is that much of the world's uranium deposits are in stable, developed countries, primarily Australia and Canada.

Those two currently supply ~35% of all uranium ore, and could easily supply 100% for the foreseeable future (uranium is far from scarce; supply is dictated by demand rather than availability).

Reply to
Nobody

generating

Jim, can you be more specific about BS part? Or just BS because you do not agree with it. What is wrong with you older guys? ;-)

I don't know it, therefore for me it doesn't exist mentality. You guys need to do more research and see beyond your noses!

Reply to
CIC

illiterate

generating

The "future", if unimpeded by politics, will have a reactor in every house.

Solar take multi-acreage, and works only on a (APS) Salano scale. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

                   Spice is like a sports car... 
     Performance only as good as the person behind the wheel.
Reply to
Jim Thompson

illiterate

generating

Sorry to bust you bubble Jim, but there are already projects they are working on right now. And some are from your friendly local electrical company.

Do I have to give you guys everything on a silver platter? :-)

Reply to
CIC

ay

en if

t

s?

Have you read the book? If not, I wouldn't comment on it's contents.

Reply to
miso

front.net:

.

e:

l

Nobody seems to worry about the ecology when they can irrigate a desert. Jim is just trying to sound like his idea of an environmental activiist.

It is one way of doing it. Brushes would do pretty well without water, but Jim is a conservative right wing nit-wit, whose wife gets to shift dust with a brush, so Jim isn't aware of that particular alternative technology.

If the inhabitants are as dim and trusting as Jim. Few are, these days, and spoil sports trot around mentioning Three Mile Island, which didn't kill anybody and Chernobyl, which killed quite few and caused quite a few more to move away.

By which he means making sense to him. The Germans are thinking about using the Sahara as their local solar farm - this does require high voltage DC links, which Jim probably hasn't heard about, but it does seem to make sense to the Germans..

Numbers, Jim. Numbers. Use the sun's heat - concentrated by mirrors - to melt your molten salt, and use the molten salt as the heat source to drive your steam turbines. Keeping some of the molten salt hot overnight in a well-insulated tank doesn't produce any "conversion losses" at all, and thermal solar power is competitive with photo- voltaic for big enough installations. A number have been proposed, and one could mine these proposals for numbers if one had a rational opponentent to convince.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

I did not comment on content of a book that I did not read. At least, unless the book is no news to me, in which case I don't need to bother for reading it.

I commented only on common "anti-nuke" arguments that I have heard plenty of, without reading the above book that you suggested I not comment on in the case that I did not read it.

And, how could I comment on a specific book's contents unless I read them or had someone read them to me? Or am I experiencing someone summarizing such or part thereof into "common anti-nuke arguments", and "asking me if I am still beating my wife" by advising me as done above to not comment on contents of a book that I have not read?

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

Starts with a "cherleader-style" photo, and the next graphic afterwards is a "global warming hockey stick".

I am already in a bad mood to be sold on whatever whoever is trying here to sell.

A few graphics afterwards, a useful one shows up. That has one curve getting to about 44% for "best research cell efficiency" as of approaching

2010. That one also broke past 30% around 1991.

I have yet to see on the market any PV items much more than roughly 11% efficient.

(If you can tell me where and how to buy so much as 15% efficient means of converting sunlight to electricity - pleaase put up or shut up!)

LED technology appears to me to having its cabability doubling every

3.5-4 years, slow in comparison to computer technology mostly at least doubling every 2 years on average from sometime in the 1960's to 1 or 2 years ago.

LEDs were on the slower pace from 1960's to now...

"Laboratory prototype" solar according to above had a little over half a doubling (on log scale) in about 18 years!

When do I get to buy 20% or 15% efficient solar cells (preferably practical) from Digi-Key or Edmund Scientific or any likes of either of these?

--
 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Reply to
Don Klipstein

...

y

All the "carbon crazies" are saying is that if we keep burning carbon at the current rate, the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere will keep on rising at the current rate.

There's a lot of reliable scientific evidence to show that a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere raises the average temperature at the base of the atmosphere.

formatting link

Exactly how much higher is difficult to predict - various models predict betweeen 2 and 5 Celcius warmer than now by 2100

formatting link

John Larkin wants to believe that we can ignore this and he is prepared to write off the whole scientific establishment because he finds their expert opinion unattractive. This is genuinely crazy.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

Also check:

formatting link

Reply to
CIC

What is your problem? Did I say that you can buy 50% efficient at Digi-Key? You shut up!

I stated and showed you something and you don't like it... it is your problem, not mine. And what do I care if you like cheerleaders pictures or not... or if you are in a bad mood... has nothing to do with this issue!

Wake up or go back to sleep!

Reply to
CIC

And really... do you think Digi-Key or Edmund Scientific would be the best place to shop for solar cells and solar panels?

Ha Ha... I see now what an "expert" level user you are in this area!

Reply to
CIC

The only thing that really matters is $/W unless you live on a postage stamp

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Reply to
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

formatting link 

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Reply to
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

Just dump it in the ocean - it won't raise background over a few percent. Just ignore those pinko weenies who say it might be dangerous.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Reply to
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

I note that the article provides no infomation at all about what efficiency was actually achieved. I consider that a very serious failing by the article's author and it makes me wonder about its relationship and provenances.

The lead reseacher at the group does claim a proof of concept, but apparently releases ONLY information about what they calculated (but later in the article admit they failed to achieve without further explanation) as a goal. The article admits, "The efficiency they achieved in their testing was __well below__ what they have calculated PETE's potential efficiency to be, which they had anticipated." And then followed with an apologetic of some kind about that.

The article hints that "with the right material - most likely" they might be able to get "the actual efficiency ... the researchers have calculated."

Oh, well.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Kirwan

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.