Holy grail for solar energy? Solar Chimney/Sunstack

[Bread and Circus]

Fascinating stuff:

http://www.solarserver.de/lexikon/aufwindkraftwerk-e.html
http://www.gluckman.com/SolarChimney.html
http://seecl.mae.ufl.edu/solar/chimney.html
http://www.globalwarmingsolutions.co.uk/the_solar_chimney.htm
http://www.visionengineer.com/env/solar_flue2.shtml

Man, google solar energy on the web. It's amazing what's out there.

[Warpy]

1. I'm sure this will be part of the solution

What we will eventually need is a whole collection of power generating systems, from geothermal to wind to solar such as this. No one system will work throughout the world, which is what simpletons on the right always grumble about. They want a simple, one size fits all solution, and are terribly annoyed that it is a problem that defies such reasoning.

Eventually, too, we'll start having to reclaim petroleum from our landfills via thermal depolymerization.

Any long term solution will also need public transit systems, both long and short distance.

[Bread and Circus]

2. Agreed....and the more I look into it, the more I see that's outright

fascinating

Solar ovens, solar chimneys, parabolic energy concentrators. It goes so far beyond photovoltaic cells.

The other thing is that solar energy sources have chance to look so artistically cool. If only the architects would get on top of this. Working w/ shapes like parabolos/cones and the like has so much potential.

[yowzayowzayowza]

3. Thanks for the links.

I've spent alot of time googling on earthen housing and the like also... Itz easy to get lost.

[gottaB]

4. I believe photovoltaics will become more economical

The energy conversion efficiency favors pv. I don't really know what I'm talking about--how would you compare the two in layman's terms?

[Bread and Circus]

5. I'm agreeing w/ warpy.

The cool thing about alot of solar energy is that you can make it on your property w/ your own two hands.

You can bake a loaf of bread w cardboard and tinfoil, check this shit out:

http://www.knowledgepublications.com/sunshine_to_dollars_google_adwords2.htm

It's about 1/4 of the page down.

[Warpy]

8. I'm a fibre crafter, I spin and dye my own yarn

I've had good success with solar dyeing in my back yard during the summer, just setting a jug of water and dye out in the sun (I'm in the high desert). Adding a tinfoil reflector would probably take it from a simmer to an outright boil, something I really haven't needed.

Solar dyeing has another advantage beyond economy: many of the natural dyes smell awful. This keeps the whole business outdoors.

[bemildred]

6. Cheap plastic solar cells:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/03/28_solar.html

[gottaB]

9. If they can really get to 10% that would be great

Current pvs on the market have slightly higher efficiencies, if I'm not mistaken. But manufacturing costs are still high.

Imagine wearable plastic solar cells. Need to recharge a cell phone? Plug it into your hat. Voila.

[bemildred]

10. We are going to need something, and soon.

They are slightly less efficient, IIRC, but if cheap enough
it matters little. We will need to use a variety of methods
to tap a variety of energies in a distributed network. A sort
of energy internet is what will come in due course. The solar
stack is a very cool idea too.

[nannah]

7. solution focused du! ya gotta love it!

i only wish this thread were at GD where there seems to be so much reader traffic. engergy towards solutions not against problems can shift momentum . thanks for a great post!!

[phantom power]

11. one thing about solar-chimneys: they need to be huge to be efficient

The one they're talking about in Australia would be 3000 feet high, the tallest man-made structure ever.

I tried running numbers to compare (a) the amount of electricity that could be generated on the same real-estate, with PV versus a solar chimney, and (b) the cost of the same two options. The amount of power was similar, but the cost of the chimney was about half.

Of course, I have to make lots of assumptions to do the comparison. In real life, technology and economics change constantly.

[bemildred]

12. I would wager it gets a lot of attention because it fits

in with the centralized power generation paradigm we are
already fond of and used to. You can have your own home
solar generation capability, people already do, but you can't
have your own solar chimney, it needs to be big. The ENRONs
of the world will find this technology much more attractive
than solar. OTOH I would bet that cheap solar is more popular
in the less-developed world.

[JFreitas]

13. The centralized paradigm is the important thing

I am very convinced, and have been so for a long time, that one of the main points of the discussions on alternative energies as to do with the fact that the powers that be (government, corpos, etc...) instinctively fight any solution that puts the energy collection and distribution in the hands of the either local communities or individuals. It is a question of scale of revenues (for corps) and control of population (fro governments). People who are "off" the grid, not paying reguar monthly fees, dependent on any kind of service from a centralized government, have little incentive to pay taxes, to obey, to report, etc...

Here in Portugal, it was (and may still be) illegal for you to produce your own electricity - solar, a fuel powered enerator, etc... whatever - the state had(s) a monopoly. The same is true of water. Drill a hole and take water and you're liable to pay a tax to the water company, after some deductions. Of course, fewpeople were actually controled and this monopoly is not enforced. n a priate, individual level. But if you're suddenly talking about putting up enough solar panels for a village of 100 people, for instance, and suddenly you need to cut a deal with the electrical company. The cell hone companies were installing their retransmitting antennas all over the country (along highways, for example) and decided that they were going to make them solar powered - they had to fight a reasonably complex battle to do so (but they did, paving the way for a lot of changes). And one of the three companies here is state owned!

Best

[bemildred]

14. I agree. Thanks for your testimony. nt

[Bread and Circus]

19. Yes, I agree as well.

[phantom power]

15. I'd have to say that people here in the US are pretty free to be...

"off the grid".

Any property owner is free to drill for their own water, or generate their own electricity.

However, you are probably correct that power companies will do whatever is in their means to keep a hold on their business. Lately, it's hard to tell, since they are allowed to meet in secret with our vice president. But I'm sure they have our best interest at heart.

[Bread and Circus]

17. Fuck that, you can't tap your own well or harness energy...

?!?

The US is fuckin whacked but if we ever get to that point, I'd be livid.

[Xithras]

20. Water wise, that already IS the norm in much of the west.

In most of California, for example, it is illegal for you to sink or use a well if your residence is served by a municipal water district. Why? Because under western resource laws, the water "belongs" to the water district, and if you sink a well and pump water from under your own house, you're stealing.

My dad went through this in a little town called Ceres. There has been a house continually on his lot since the 1890's, and the current house was built in the 1960's, and they had always been watered by a well behind the house. In 1987, that changed. He and his neighbors were finally surrounded by the urban sprawl, annexed into the city, and a water line was run into their neighborhood of old ranchettes and farmhouses. Within weeks of the line going live, he and his neighbors were notified by the city that they had one year to transition onto the city water system, or they would begin receiving ever escalating fines. Since my dads well was old and needed to be redrilled anyway, he took the city up on its free connection offer and began using the city water right away. Some of his neighbors fought for years though, until they were finally ordered to shut the wells down by a judge.

You do NOT have the right to free water in California.

On the other hand, we have TONS of tax breaks for people willing to generate their own power :)

[Bread and Circus]

22. I live on a well where there is plenty of free water....

and with a septic tank/leach field the water just goes back in the ground.

That's a luxury of living where it rains all the time.

I still think it's wrong that individuals can't tap for water on their own land for their families in California. However, California is a fantasy land most of which is built on a Desert. It's no surprise they have such rules.

I know this because I went to Med school in CA and my wife is from CA.

[NNadir]

21. Personally, I favor a charge on drilling wells.

I happen to live in a place where we are dependent on well water, and where developers drill whenever they want. The cowboy approach, masquerading as "freedom" and "independence" is certainly reducing the sustainability of our water table.


It happens that in most cases, large scale power systems are cleaner than small systems. This effect is mostly seen in the difference between coal stoves in domiciles, where scrubbers are non-existent, and coal power plants, which, at least until the Cheney dictatorship was installed, were being built with rather sophisticated scrubbing systems. This is a topic of active discussion in China, where coal stoves represent a powerful assault on human health.

Over four million people die world-wide annually from the effects of air pollution and the World Health Organization expects that this number will rise to eight million by the end of the decade. The vast majority of these people, roughly three quarters) are killed by the burning of biomass (usually wood and dung) in what might be called "distributed energy systems."

Biomass burning advocates here are always posting references to model woodfired powerplants that have relatively low pollution profiles, especially compared to ordinary fireplaces in ordinary homes. These plants are clean mostly because of the economies of scale. It is possible to install equipment that mitigates the toxicity of biomass combustion products only because of the scale of operations.

Of course, the favorite distributed power option, photovoltaics, do not pollute during their operation, although they almost certainly DO pollute in the manufacture and WILL pollute when, after 40 years of operation, they need to be discarded. In the later case they will represent one of the most intractable of pollution problems, point source pollutants, much like motor oil, discarded mercury thermometers, old degreasing rags and discarded paint solvents. Moreover, when you read these home power magazines and advertisements, at some point you learn that most of these systems are designed to operate connected to the power grid. Personally, I applaud people who install such systems, especially because they help address the important issue of peak loads, but the fact is that the owners of these expensive systems are rather like Thoreau at Walden, who made grand work of pronouncing his self-sufficiency but still, nonetheless, seldom missed Sunday dinner at his mother's less than rustic house, especially when he was hungry. These photovoltaic home generating systems similarly hardly qualify as "independent power production."

I think we make a big mistake on the left when we confuse technical issues with vaguely socialistic (anti-capitalist) emotions that some of us find very dear. (I no longer find socialism endearing, but that's just my opinion.) It is simply not true that small is always better.

[Bread and Circus]

23. So what do you support?

[NNadir]

24. It depends on whether one is asking for long term or short term solutions.

Although I often phrase it badly, I actually do largely support the expansion most forms of solar energy with the possible exception of hydroelectric power.

I say this a lot in this forum:

My two favorite systems of generating primary energy are wind power and vastly expanded nuclear energy. I qualify that by adding that I am in favor of any form of primary energy that does not contribute to the greenhouse effect. This includes the same photovoltaics I bad mouthed in my earlier post. I am not saying that photovoltaics are worthless, and I certainly don't believe they're more harmful than many of their alternatives, only that they are limited in the overall impact they can have. My opinion is that their potential is way oversold.

In any case, I regard global climate change as the most important issue in our times.

My favorite form of stored energy is very clearly the chemical dimethyl ether. I hope that someday we will have a dimethyl ether economy. I suspect that this outcome is very possible.

My preferred long term environmental solution involves the humane reduction of the human population by means of attrition, meaning that I favor one and two child families or childless families.

I expect and fear that my long term solution will not be realized, and that the human population will be reduced by catastrophe rather than by attrition. I hope I am wrong on that, and will do whatever is in my power to make sure I'm wrong, but sometimes, especially lately, I am terrified that I am right.

[Bread and Circus]

25. You seem very knowledgeable but very cynical...

I get the sense that you are very well read in this area but like many of my scientist friends tend toward the skeptic side of things.

Personally, I am very optimistic as I think the energy coming from the sun is boundless. Furthermore, I don't think we need to either reduce our population or reduce energy utilization. I think we need to maximize energy utilization, just channel it more effectively.


I think if green people trashed the "reduce, reuse, recycle" mantra and adopted the mantra of "boundless energy for boundless wealth" they would actually get farther.

The first mantra being punitive and going against our very human nature, the second being more in line w/ the innate need to develop, utilize, and control.

Managing/channeling the flow of energy is not inherently bad in my opinion.

Finally, what kind of nuclear energy are you talking about? After all, the sun is just a nuclear power plant.

PS: here is the MSDS on Dimethyl ether. It seems kind of dangerous. I'd like to know more:

http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/DI/dimethyl_ether.html

[phantom power]

27. Optimism is good, but it doesn't represent a solution

Solar energy is not boundless. There is a finite surface area on planet earth, and a finite amount of energy passes through that area. Every square meter we use to collect that energy for electricity, is one square meter less that we can live on, or grow our food on, or leave as wilderness for other living.

Changing the planet's economy to work without fossil fuels is going to require solving really hard problems, and it's going to take an enormous amount of time and effort. So far, we're dabbling around the edges.

If we wait until things get obviously bad, a lot of people are likely to die before we can make the transition. As in, billions of people. The survivors may or may not have the resources left, or the organization, to maintain an industrial civilization.

That's not skepticism or cynicism, that's just the unfolding of cause and effect.

[phantom power]

16. I propose that a hurricane is a solar chimney, made out of atmosphere

discuss amongst yourselves.

[Bread and Circus]

18. Yeah, and look how powerful it is.

[Massacure]

26. I'd bet that you would end up dead before you got electricity from it.

I'm not trying to sound rude or anything, but it is probably true.

[phantom power]

28. I'd say you are absolutely right :-)

I would never propose trying to extract usable power from a hurricane, I just thought it was an interesting idea to ponder.