Unlimited energy on the cheap - just a dream?

[seekinghair]

Nope, nope, nope. You guys are getting it wrong. The future of solar energy is not cells. It lies in thermosolar plants which are way more efficient. The future is already here. Humanity is saved. Cheer up. unk:


http://www.abb.es/cawp/seitp202/1cd713e ... d1358.aspx

 

[Bryan]

20 years is the payback time of what are called "1st generation" which are made from relatively expensive silicon wafers and don't yeald much in terms of efficiency and i would also want to add the rule of thumb is replace them every 20 years meaning that you would never get any money back

Why is there a "rule of thumb" to replace them every 20 years??

 

[somone uk]

[quote="somone uk":2l0wzrcz][quote="The Gardener":2l0wzrcz]I wonder how many hydrocarbons are necessary to produce solar cells?

apart from organic solar cells...none[/quote:2l0wzrcz]
I disagree.

Are plastics required to construct solar cells? That requires hydrocarbons.
[/quote:2l0wzrcz]
nope, they usually have rare metals like gallium and indium
even if they are we could synthetically make the right hydrocarbons it's just cheaper to dig it up

Is copper wiring required to construct solar cells? Extraction and refinement of metals requires EXTENSIVE hydrocarbon use... unless you have a copper mine where PURE copper can be extracted, free of any other elements or minerals that need to be removed from the extracted alloy, and you have a virtual army of coppersmiths who can all manually pound the copper into wire form. Metalsmithing requires extensive amounts of heat, and I mean heat WELL in excess of the temperature of the sun's rays, that is universally generated right now using the burning of hydrocarbons.

the metal industry use induction furnace heating which is electrical, it's much more efficient than burning hydrocarbons

And what about the other components of solar cells... the cells themselves, the other electronic components, transistors, resistors, etc... are ANY of these components manufacturable without hydrocarbon elements, or the burning of hydrocarbons in order to generate heat during the manufacturing process?

i know we can make both P and N dopes of silicon which cover BJT, JFET and MOSFET transistors as well as diodes, zener diodes , Schottky diodes and Tunnel diodes, resistors are just wires, capacitors are 2 metal plates (and i have never heard of a hydrocarbon dielectric) and inductors are coils of wire so not really, though manufacturing processes and incorrect disposal can cause environmental harm that is aside from carbon footprints

People don't realize that hydrocarbons are not only about gasoline or oil, most ALL of the components we use every day require hydrocarbon ingredients or hydrocarbon inputs during manufacturing.

i can't agree with you more on the first though manufacturing is getting less hydrocarbon reliant, alot of chemical reserch is organic but you have to remeber that alot of things found naturally are hydrocarbons
plants consist mostly of hydrocarbons and we have to technology to revert to naturally found oils to make plastic, it's just more convenient to use what's dug up

 

[somone uk]

20 years is the payback time of what are called "1st generation" which are made from relatively expensive silicon wafers and don't yeald much in terms of efficiency and i would also want to add the rule of thumb is replace them every 20 years meaning that you would never get any money back

Why is there a "rule of thumb" to replace them every 20 years??

because the power output of a solar cell decreases as they are used, it really depends on the technology and that's why it's only a rule of thumb
but you have about 95% output at 10 years, 80% output at 20 years but it then starts to fall quite rapidly i remember it being something like 50% at 25 years, saying that this is purely on first generation cells, we haven't had 2nd or 3rd generation long enough to apply such a rule but it's thought to follow the same trend

 

[Bryan]

because the power output of a solar cell decreases as they are used, it really depends on the technology and that's why it's only a rule of thumb
but you have about 95% output at 10 years, 80% output at 20 years but it then starts to fall quite rapidly i remember it being something like 50% at 25 years...

DAMN!!! I've been involved with electronics as a hobbyist almost my entire life, and this is the first time I've ever heard such a thing about solar cells!! Do they have any idea why that happens??

 

[somone uk]

Nope, nope, nope. You guys are getting it wrong. The future of solar energy is not cells. It lies in thermosolar plants which are way more efficient. The future is already here. Humanity is saved. Cheer up. unk:


http://www.abb.es/cawp/seitp202/1cd713e ... d1358.aspx

at the moment, yes
but
the laws of physics restricts themosolar to 49 percent efficiency the missed advantage of PV is that there is no middleman, no heat engines, no moving parts, once we learn to harness IR radiation and convert it straight to electricity thermosolar would be dead

saying that PV would have to be inverted though it wouldn't with HVDC but i am not sure how practical HVDC would be because industrial applications such as factories rely on AC for large motors, DC motors are nowhere near as efficient as AC

 

[oni]

DC motors are nowhere near as efficient as AC

Please explain how? and what do you mean by "efficient"?