Will we lose another solar technology breakthrough?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

I was listening to NPR this week and they had a piece about a program that the Department of Energy has been funding for the last fifteen years which President Bush has proposed that it no longer be funded. It is a program, and forgive me but I can't remember what they called it, but it basically uses mirrors to intensify the sun's rays and projects them onto some kind of tube which contains water which is heated to 700 degrees with this process and converts to steam power. They called it something like condensed solar or intensified solar.

The NPR was mentioning that they hope that private industry will pick up the funding so that this will continue to be developed to the point that it could be financially feasible. They said that if they had a system that covered the area that we currently use in Nevada for nuclear testing (which was so many hundred square miles) that it could meet all of the energy needs of either California or the U.S. (I don't remember which one they said).

I know I am not doing very well on telling you what this was but I was so concerned about the opportunity that we as a country were getting ready to throw away. Hopefully, others of you have heard the same program and will add more details.

But the bottom line is I wonder if this is one of those things where if only people like us would jump in before something this important is lost and try to help maybe we could help secure the technology for future generations. (This was the subject of a thread awhile ago so I thought I would mention that his might be one of those opportunities.)

I am going to search the web to see if I can find out more about this and will report back.

-- Colleen (pyramidgreatdanes@erols.com), April 13, 2001

Answers

I went to the NPR website and it is entitled "Solar Power Research". Check it out.

-- Colleen (pyramidgreatdanes@erols.com), April 13, 2001.

The only thing that makes me more ill than the energy policies of our new administration is looking back at the money this country has wasted "studying" solar energy. The fact is, we've had the technology to solve most of our energy problems sitting on the shelf for decades, we just lack the will to use it. Solar energy represents a decentralization of power, therefore, it can't be controlled, metered and sold by a few to the many. The people who control the resources to effect the necessary technology transfer to renewable energy are the very ones that have everything to lose by that transfer, therefore nothing happens. As a former research engineer I've witness firsthand the outrageous waste that goes on studying and re-studying the same things over and over with little or no action plan to bring about real change. We have the technology, what we need is real leadership to boldly go where we should already be. And sadly, I don't think we'll be getting that leadership anytime soon. I would advocate a grassroots movement to demand that viable technologies like galium arsenic PV modules and vacuum tube thermal systems be developed, not studied, and made cost effective for consumers. Just like the 100 mpg carburator that urban legend tells us was squelch by the oil companies, the true potential of solar energy is being stiffled by the inactions of government and industry. We've got "study" solar a lot less and use it a lot more. That's my two cents, I'll get off my soap box now.

-- Carter Quillen (chucky@usit.net), April 13, 2001.

There has been a system like this in Southern CA for the past 15-20 years. It worked at first, but then developed serious ongoing problems do to the extreme complexity of the mirror mechanism to track the sun. There was an effort to revive it six or seven years ago with new computer technology but the equipment had been idle for too long and it never went beyond the study phase. I believe it used molten salt to transfer the heat from the sun's reflection to water. 600-700 degrees F is a little low for real efficient steam turbines (1000 degree is more common).

It is hard to beat good ol' solar cells with a complex mechanical technology. Sound to me the gov't finally stopped throwing money down a rat hole.

-- Lynn Goltz (lynngoltz@aol.com), April 13, 2001.


I know how you feel Colleen but maybe Lynn is right. On the other hand I remember hearing and reading about a joint venture between Cummins Diesel and Stirling engines Inc? They'd developed a concentrating collector (reflective parabolic dish) that activated a free piston stirling engine that generated electricity at 3x greater efficiency than pv panels.

-- john (natlivent@pcpros.net), April 13, 2001.

Lynn, While driving through Southern California about 21/2 yrs ago along either 40 or 15- i think 40, I witnessed the mirror system in action. Alot of people, even locals, were pulling over to watch- it looked like the hand of god was touching a water tower looking thing- it had a halo/star around it of light. A truck driver on CB told us what it was. My father worked as an engineered for years, he said it was most likely a sodium steam power plant. It would be a shame to loose these efforts... but this is what i dont get: About a month ago, the energy commissioner was stating his stuff about the immenince of more and more widespread blackout, possibly nation wide, the rising fuel costs and his promise to help find alternative power. Some folks said he was just using scare tatics to persuade americans to let oil co into national park in alaska (i think they should let them, oils running out anyways, use it up so we dont have to hear about it). Why would these dolts cut funding after stating that they were actively seeking to break away from imported oil and such!?!

-- -Kevin in NC (vantravlrs@aol.com), April 14, 2001.


Hi Kevin,

I was involved in the discussions to upgrade the computer controls and field actuators in probably 1993/4. The plant was in the Mojave of southern CA, however, I don't remember the exact location. Sodium is a little too volatile to use as a heat exchange medium; salt, sodium chloride, is considerably more stable and a lot cheaper. While I did not see the plant in operation, the operating engineers did mention the halo effect from heat radiation you described. It also sounds like they did figure out how to finance the very expensive restart of the plant, if it is the same one.

The problem with this technology is the complicated and absolutely necessary mechanical tracking mechanism used to focus the mirrors. It is extremely expensive to install maintain. It does not matter how efficient the conversion of the sun's energy may be if the process is not reliable. The very nature of these devices make them prone to wear from usage and very expensive to replace and maintain. Also, it should be noted that his was a very low yield power plant; I don't recall the exact rating, but something less than a couple hundred megawatts. Now this rating is high compared to solar cell arrays and that is what makes this technology look attractive. In the long run a simple technology that just lies than and works and works will win out (solar cells). The two main problems with solar cells are being overcome with research, but time and luck are needed. (The problems are: 1) cost of manufacture, and 2) power yield.)

-- Lynn Goltz (lynngoltz@aol.com), April 14, 2001.


Colleen, I was listening to that show too. I believe it's called a solar concentrator. And they said one hundred square miles would be enought ot produce all the power for the entire U.S!

Carter, I'd agree with you, except I think this solar concentrator represents more of an industrial use than a home owners set up. I could be wrong, but since it involves the super heated oil in the concentrators boiling water, which makes high pressure steam, which turns a turbine, which turns a generator, it sounds pretty expensive for home use.

On the other hand, I suppose a neighborhood or municipality or something could pool its resources and build their own.

Also, one reason which makes these solar concentrators economically viable NOW, is because they are running them in the Mojave desert, where there is near constant, high intensity sunshine, which we sure don't have in my block!

Lynn, there is nothing complex about solar tracking. Even small time residential solar systems can, and should, use them. And the NPR story says that this system is currently IN USE, and is capable of generating electricity at, I believe, 15 cents per kwh. They also fell certain that this price would drop to 5 cents per kwh if built to the scale they want.

I actually think that photoelectric cells are a lot more high tech than the concentrators. I like the concept of photoelectric better, but they need to drop in price A LOT to be price competitive with virtually any other power source.

Kevin, you hit the nail on the head: DOLTS.

Lynn, I agree that the best type of solar technology is one that would just lie there doing its thing, with no maintenance. That's why I have been researching and building solar water heaters for twenty five years. My solar water heaters just "lie there, doing their thing". No maintenance. No cost, after the original investment (which is quite modest, by the way--less than $100 plus a tank) I have gotten my tanks free from folks who have let the gas company replace their electric water heaters with gas.

Solar water heaters can EASILY fulfill 100% of your hot water needs during warm sunny weather. I drain my system in the winter, since there is no sunshine in the winter here anyway, and I kept my desing very simple by not having to deal with freezing problems. Result: I only get solar hot water for six or seven months per year. If this were a sunnier climate, I'd consider desinging one for winter months, but it's not. (I live in Oregon, where people don't tan, they rust)

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), April 14, 2001.


JOJ, you are correct about solar water heaters. If everyone used them the energy requirement in this country would decline drastically. They are perhaphs the most effective use of your energy investment dollar. Tracking a simple solar panel is orders of magnitude different from tracking a focusing critical mechanism. The focus was required to stay with one degree year around so you need tracking capability in all planes (x, y, z). Being this is operating at a fairly low temp (600 degrees) the focus is critical. Again the one I worked on was technology from the seventies and maybe materials and techniques have changed.

-- Lynn Goltz (lynngoltz@aol.com), April 14, 2001.

I would like to add that I'm not against solar research into centralized power systems but lets look at bang for your buck. I read that California had to pay out about 4 billion dollars to price gouging electric wholesalers for a couple of weeks of electricity. With a mass purchase, thats enough to buy 4 million solar water heaters for sunny California residents that would easily displace 3 kilowatts hours of electric consumption per day per resident.(That's a pretty conservative estimate too, it might be more like 5 kWhr/day.) This would be the equivalent of a 12 gigawatt power station that produced "NO" pollution, not to mention all the plumbers it would put to work.

I'm not opposed to research into new ways of doing things but our focus should be on decentralization of energy production. Solar water heating,small photovoltaics arrays, community based methane production, and improving appliance efficiency. Save the high dollar concentrator technology for heat intensive industrial processes like metal refining. Imagine a steel mill that didn't burn coal or natural gas, how much carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and other pollution production would that displace?

I'd also like to mention for the guy in Oregon with the seasonal solar water heater. The Japanese, Chinese, Germans, and British, have all developed vacuum tube technologies that will give you nearly year round heat production. Even on rainy days. Why isn't this technology being developed in the US? I honestly believe it's because it works too good. Kinda back to my 100 mpg carborator conspiracy theory again.

-- Carter (chucky@usit.net), April 14, 2001.


Carter! If we used what's already been developed and workable-the big money'd oil companies would lose out on all that cash. Greed has taken over it seems and the public is the ones that's gouged.

The 100 mpg carb you mentioned is more than just a legend. A Canadian built it and his name was Charles Nelson Pogue---way back in 1935.

I've got patent prints and info on bunches of these "super carbs" and the biggest buyer of those patents is the U.S. Gov't. Of the U.S. Gov't the biggest buyer is NASA. Go figure! ole hoot. Matt.24:44

-- hoot (hoot@pcinetwork.com), April 14, 2001.



I got a book several years ago that told how to make a vapor carb. Several different versions including the one Hoot mentioned. There was also a list of previous patents and who they were assigned to. And by assigned I mean who bought them out. Auto manufacturers, truck companies and of course-----oil companies.

-- john (natlivent@pcpros.net), April 14, 2001.

Colleen, although I heard the NPR show, I'd like to read it, for reinforcement. I couldn't find it. Do you have a URL?

I did do a google search, and came up with a good site:

http://www.eren.doe.gov/csp/csp_tech.html

It seems there's some confusion about this technology, as there are three different types. The one the NPR show was talking about is called a "trough system", and the sun super heats oil. A series of troughs are set next to each other, and oriented north/south. Therefore, they only have to track east/west.

HOW ABOUT COST? "Concentrating solar power technologies currently offer the lowest-cost solar electricity for large-scale power generation (10 megawatt-electric and above). Current technologies cost $2–$3 per watt. This results in a cost of solar power of 9¢–12¢ per kilowatt-hour. New innovative hybrid systems that combine large concentrating solar power plants with conventional natural gas combined cycle or coal plants can reduce costs to $1.5 per watt and drive the cost of solar power to below 8¢ per kilowatt hour.

Advancements in the technology and the use of low-cost thermal storage will allow future concentrating solar power plants to operate for more hours during the day and shift solar power generation to evening hours. Future advances are expected to allow solar power to be generated for 4¢–5¢ per kilowatt-hour in the next few decades. "

Carter, you made some good points. I've done some calculations on the cost of hot water. Where I live, in Southern Oregon, with well water at 54 degrees, it takes 19,000 watts (19 kw) to heat the water to 105 degrees, the "standard" shower temperature. This assumes a low flow (2.5 gpm) shower head. So if you take a six minute shower, you'll use 1.9 kwh. If you're using a "regular shower head of almost five gpm, double that to 3.8 kwh. If you're like my wife, and like long showers, at temperatures that make her skin look lobster like, it's just that much more. Multiply these KWH numbers times your power rate to get the cost per shower. Then multiply that times 365 for your yearly cost (assuming you're not the "saturday night only" type :)

As far as why I don't get one of the Japanese vacuum tube technological type water heaters, which will even heat my water in the winter, I do have a solar water heater which works in the winter, at one of my rentals. But it cost $2600, back when I could get a $2300 rebate from the state of Oregon and Pacific Power and Light's "super good cents home" program. Now discontinued. Also, my system which I built myself, outperforms the $2600 variety, and mine has less than half as big a collector area. Not to mention that mine cost less than $100. And the $2600 model just doesn't produce enough hot water in the winter to make it worthwhile. There really is very little sunshine here in the winter. VERY. I doubt that even the Japanese system would give me enough power here to do more than slightly preheat the water, unless they are using a very large collector area, and a concentrator. Where do I find out about this?

Not to be too skeptical here, but if you guys have plans for a miricle carb, why don't you market them? The patent rights would have expired about fifty years ago; they are free to use by now.

JOJ

One way to cut your energy costs is to make/ purchase a solar water heater. Another is to install a little device which captures a large percentage of the heat which would normally go down the drain when you shower (or have other significant hot water uses--the only constraint is that the hot water be running down the drain at the same time the hot water is running into the appliance. So a bath doesn't apply.)

I had this great idea for an invention, but found out I was a day late (like almost thirty years) and a dollar short.

Check out this site:

http://www.caddet-ee.org/newsdesk/nw497_05.htm

It'll knock your socks off! Why didn't I know about this (simple) technology when I first started desinging and building houses, way back when?

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), April 14, 2001.


Heat exchangers were common when I first started installing control systems in steam power plants back in the early sixties.

-- Lynn Goltz (lynngoltz@aol.com), April 14, 2001.

Its too bad that the folks in the 'outside' world can't seem to see past their own noses on this. I don't think it is a viable answer, though... Low outputs, etc. I DO think that the public at large needs one heck of a boost in the education on uses and abuses of power. It is a crime how much in the way of money and resources are wasted in this country by most citizens, let alone as a collective whole.

Grassroots organization is a hard thing to pull off, but I will second the motion that we need that kind of movement on the power issue. We need more involvement on many many issues. But, we can't get the population of one single city (with a population of only 300) in this country to stop buying gasoline for two lousy days. How would we get them behind this?

People will only conserve when it hurts too much not to. We are not there yet. They will only back projects like this when it is too painful not to. We are not there yet, either. Tell me where to send my money order (no 'check's in the mail' here).

-- Sue Diederich (willow666@rocketmail.com), April 16, 2001.


For what its worth...

One of the first thing you do when you try to find 'more' of something should be to conserve. If we did nothing more than just conserve what we have now, by whatever means necesssary, the excess would be significant. There is a book, I believe the name is 'Home Made Money', and the entire premise is to conserve and improve home efficiency by adding insulation and such.

I guess most folks don't want to play because it costs them something. Either in $$ or maybe in comfort. But I suspect the image of such a program would improve if it was viewed as a 'debt management plan - for energy'. Restrict yourself a little now and see the progress accumulate. If there was some way to 'instantly' upgrade a home AND see the results, I suspect folks would flock to participate (ie, the FAST FOOD mentality) but unfortunately this process is of the SLOW COOKER type; you do the install and then compare things your savings this month against the same time a year ago.

American don't deal with such ideas of space & time very well...

j

-- j (jw_hsv@yahoo.com), April 16, 2001.



Well Now heres a thread I can get into.

The pogue carb was real. Ask any old time Naval man to describe the heat exchanger on old ships. Yep pogue carbs was the design used on a large scale.

I saw a car that a autobody shop in Tampa, FL built and converted to use a pogue carb. Looked danged weird but got 87 mpg. The car was a Cheverolet Impalla. The FL government made them stop driving on the highway even though they had "experimental" on the doors. "Said it might constiute a threat". YEAH to the Oil Barons.

OK Solar is great but expensive. I got a question. Why can't US citizens buy micro-generators from Russia?

Micro-generators are the ones like Russia use in its space program. There small, produce 9000w. I read in Popular Science that they are dual-powered (solar, wetfuel) Russia once offered them to USA for $129 each. (It seems the Russians aren't that concerned over R&D costs)

My uncle has tried to buy one now for 3 years. Everytime he thinks hes got free of the red tape more BS shows up.

Have any of you considered the fact that as a group WE have purchasing power? Should someone like say KEN (TN) figure out how to get our homesteader hands on these little jewels we could as a group commend a healthy discount.

Something to think about.

-- Kenneth in N.C. (wizardsplace13@hotmail.com), April 19, 2001.


The "Pogue" Carburetor story is an urban legend. Even if the gas were burnt with 100% efficiency, I doubt if an old clunker like a Chevy Impala could get this kind of mileage. For one thing, look at the physics of a heat engine. But here's an interesting story about it from a web site on Urban Legends (http://www.snopes2.com/autos/business/magiccar.htm):

[Collected on the Internet, 1998]

A retiring General Motors employee, after many years of service, receives a car as a retirement gift. (as well as a nice pension, etc.). So he is given permission to select a car from the lot there at the factory. He selects a Chevrolet Caprice, a big, luxury car. After receiving it, he is satisfied with his choice. After all, who wouldn't enjoy driving around in a roomy, comfortable car. After driving it for a while, he noticed something quite odd . . . a car like this usually consumes a substantial amount of fuel, but the gas gauge hardly moves at all.

After a few weeks, he gets suspicious. Things like this don't happen. Being the company man he is, he returns it to the factory. Explaining this to the service tech must've caused some strange looks, but they took it in anyway. After he got his car back, he noticed it got the typical gas mileage of a comparable car. Could've this car had some secret "modifications" that allowed him to drive for weeks, on the same tank of gas? Detroit's automakers have purportedly seized, er.. bought out patents of items that improve gasoline mileage like the 100 mpg carburetor, etc. Maybe the R&D department at GM put this theory to practice, and this was an example.

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

[Collected on the Internet, 1997]

A couple journeys from Western Canada to Detroit to buy a new car and presumably save shipping costs while having a vacation in the States at the same time. Driving back to the prairies, they find to their astonishment that the gas gauge is not moving down to "empty" even though they've been driving for hours. Arriving home some thousands of miles away from Detroit, they have only refilled the tank once or twice.

A few days after returning, the husband looks out at his driveway in the morning to find two mysterious men tinkering with his car (the hood is up). Running out, they race off; he checks under the hood, finds nothing amiss, and concludes it's just vandals or would-be thieves whom he was fortunate to apprehend before any damage was done. BUT, when they drive the car, they find their gas mileage is now normal.

Variations:   The miraculous car legend ends one of four ways:

* Mysterious men appear and tinker with the engine, rendering the car no different than any other. * The car is reclaimed by the factory. If the owner afterwards gets the same car back (sometimes it's replaced outright with another vehicle), it now gets ordinary gas mileage. * No-nonsense business types show up to make a fabulous offer for the car, which is accepted. * The owner wakes up one morning to find the car vanished without a trace.

Origins:   This story has been around longer than most of our readers. A version setting it in Philadelphia appeared in a 1948 newspaper. (Even at that time, the story proved unverifiable, with the article's writer identifying it as such and passing it along only as an example of a current rumor sweeping through the community.) Since that early sighting of more than half a century ago, the legend has gone on to enthrall audience after audience as each couple of years sees it pop up anew.

Its origins are as strange as the story itself. Between 1928 and 1935, Charles Nelson Pogue, an inventor from Canada, applied for numerous patents for what he claimed was a new type of carburetor that supposedly completely vaporized gasoline before introducing it to the cylinders, thereby extracting a great deal more energy from the fuel. According to the Pogue patent description, fuel was introduced into the engine in this vaporous "dry" state rather than in the normal droplet-laden "wet" state, thus combining more readily with air, making it burn with far greater efficiency. Better combustion combined with the raising of the engine's operating temperature from 160°F to 180°F were said to be responsible for vastly improved fuel economy.

So much for the techno-talk. The Pogue carburetor was touted as getting 200+ miles to the gallon. Glowing reports about this miracle of ingenuity's making a 1,879 mile trip on 14.5 gallons appeared in the May 1936 issue of Canadian Automotive Trade magazine, reports which Pogue later denied. A manager of a Winnipeg auto dealership claimed he had driven a Pogue-equipped car 217 miles on a gallon of gasoline. A different dealer principal claimed to have driven 26 miles on a pint of fuel.

The story snowballed onward from those breathless testimonials as one rumor quickly followed on the heels of another. Thieves were reputed to have broken into Pogue's shop and made off with three of his carburetors. There was talk of armed guards and wolfhounds guarding the shop and the now-famous inventor. Wealthy backers (from Winnipeg or Toronto, depending on whom you heard the story from) were rumored to be bankrolling Pogue, but the arrangements mysteriously fell through. Ford of Canada was said to have bought the invention outright. All in all it was a very exciting time.

Alas, one can get by on mere smoke and mirrors for only so long. Those with sense enough to not be deafened by the hyperbole were not long kept at bay with tales of wolfhounds, thieves, and mysterious briefcase-toting moneymen. They wanted to see the carburetor.

That, of course, was never permitted.

No one reputable was allowed to see the mechanical miracle in action, let alone have a chance to measure its results. After the initial excitement over Pogue's 1936 announcement had faded, more serious types began to openly doubt that the carburetor would work as described. In the December 1936 issue of Automotive Industries magazine, its engineering editor, P.M. Heldt, said of a sketch of the Pogue carburetor: "The sketch fails to show any features hitherto unknown in carburetor practice, and absolutely gives no warrant for crediting the remarkable results claimed." Other journalists were beginning to voice similar opinions.

In response to calls to put up or shut up, Pogue's miracle carburetor was heard of no more. Faced with the choice of believing someone had made claims his invention couldn't later live up to or that a monied bad guy had bought up a technology to forever keep it off the market, at least some chose to believe the suppression theory. That the carburetor never made it to the public, they said, was proof enough of its existence.

Those 1930s news stories breathlessly trumpeting Pogue's miracle of technology form the basis of the economical carburetor legend now before us. As gas prices fluctuate, our dependence on fossil fuels is driven home time and again. Who wouldn't long for a miracle of engineering that would free us from the tyranny of the gas pump? And thus the groundwork for belief is laid.

As sometimes happens in the world of urban legends, desire for something to be true transforms a rumor into certainty that this very thing is fact. Over the years, our legend about a 200 mpg car has bobbed to the surface in community after community, been debunked in numerous respected publications, and bobbed right back up in the wake of those debunkings. The need to believe in this wondrous technology and the evil car manufacturers who are deliberately withholding it from the market appears too strong to combat.

A bit of rational thought should be all that's needed to lay this legend to rest. Why would the car manufacturers at all care about keeping such a technological advance away from consumers? Unlike the petroleum companies, they've no vested interest in how much fuel a car uses. An automaker's self interest is best served by getting the newest irresistable technology to the consumer before his competitors do. If any one of them possessed the secret of the 200 mpg car, he'd have rushed it into production, hoping to beat his competitors to the punch.

Those who are tempted to believe the Evil Government is responsible for keeping this miracle out of our hands should reflect for a moment on the current state of world politics. The government of the United States would like nothing better than to throw off the yoke of dependence upon foreign oil. A miraculous carburetor would grant that freedom, allowing Americans to continue to enjoy current levels of use without the need to go hat in hand to OPEC or even those dastardly Canadians. The domestic supply would be more than enough.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), April 28, 2001.


I have to give credit to the state of Oregon. At least they are doing something to promote energy conservation. Unlike the administration in Washington who thinks that by cutting funding, alternative energy will be enhanced. Anyway the Oregon site listing the tax rebates to be used towards the purchased of energy saving appliances is www.energy.state.or.us/res/tax/appheat.htm The cheapest new energy is CONSERVATION. Are you listening George ?

-- jz (oz49us@yahoo.com), April 30, 2001.

jz- You're absolutely correct, the cheapest energy is that which we don't use. The tough part is in getting people to conserve. How much did consumption actually go down in California during the rolling blackouts? Very little, because prices haven't risen enough to make a difference to most people because of government controlled prices. Want a true conservation initiative among the masses, then let prices really skyrocket. Suddenly all those solar units ,compact flourescents, dual fuel cars, solar hot water heaters and such become economically viable and support themselves without the govt. getting involved. It always amazes me when I see so many people on a forum like this advocating government involvment in things like this, when any other time they run screaming when Washington rears it's ugly, inefficient head. Try to imagine what computers would look like today if we had relied on washington instead of Jobs, Gates, et al.

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), April 30, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ