"john" wrote in message
...
I see now that the original question referred to energy input/payback,
not dollars. Hopefully we will see much greater efficiencies in the
production of solar cells as the technology evolves, which will reduce
the cost and energy input. The potential for improvement through
innovation in solar cells is probably much higher than in corn to
ethanol.
Like batteries for cars, its promise always seems to be just over the
hill. When I was doing new-materials research for Japan's MITI, back in
1981-82, I was working with an MIT prof who had developed a
phosphorescent-augmented solar cell that was going to revolutionize the
technology. It didn't, and I learned a few lessons from that experience
(I had reported it enthusiastically g). One lesson is that the basic
physics of solar cells are pretty well wrapped up -- there's nowhere new
to go. Another is that this doesn't stop people from trying, and that
many of them, including a lot of college profs involved in research, are
working a different side of the street. They're after research money and
investment dollars. They seem to recognize that they're more or less
playing in a sandbox.
There are new places to go with materials, however, and the thin-film
approaches are where the action is. Without studying it, my impression is
that they're looking for a magic potion that they can deposit in multiple
layers of different materials, which will involve low embedded energy and
fairly long life. Honda's CIG cell is one example. It looks like a layer
cake. Sony has a "dye-sensitized" cell that's still in early stages, and
there are in-situ electrolysis cells that generate hydrogen. As far as
basic science is concerned, there is action in biologicals, trying to
strip down the biochemistry of photosynthesis to some basics that can be
synthesized. The last two are not about generating electricity directly,
but rather towards producing an intermediate fuel.
It's been a frustrating half-century of research, IMO, filled with
disappointments and blind alleys. It's hard not to be cynical about it if
one has followed it with hope through all that time, as I did for a
couple of decades. Now I just sit back and wait.
I think wind power installations are a hideous blight on the environment,
I don't see technology changing that aspect much.
I think they're kind of inspiring. g We see some in Indiana, off to the
south of I-80, that I pass by a couple of times a year and they make my
jaw drop. There's a new project getting started here in NJ, with wind
turbines placed 10 miles or so off the coast. Present circumstances may
leave it stillborn, but I want to see it happen.
--
Ed Huntress
Wind energy is another boondoggle financed by govt grants. I am supprised
that the enviomentalists are not up in arms about windmills growing like
mushrooms across the enviorment.
You know its a boondoggle because of the way they rate the output of them
vs. true cost.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfa...able/wind.html
"The Energy Kid's Page"?? That's where you get your engineering and
economics data? Hoho...No wonder the country is in trouble. g
If you like that page, John, you'll love this one:
http://www.thekidzpage.com/colouring_menus/index.htm
Tell us, please, what data you extracted from "The Energy Kid's Page" that
leads you to believe that wind power is a boondoggle? Specific references,
please.
This one nuke plant dwarfs the output of all the windmill generation
systems in the whole country.
19,046,000 megawatt-hour facility vs 26.6 billion kWh per year
http://www.pplweb.com/ppl+generation...fact+sheet.htm
Uh, John, you've got generating capacity rates and Watt-hours a bit mixed
up. The PPL Susquehanna nuke plant is a 2.4 MW facility. The installed wind
power capacity in the US is 22.0 MW -- almost ten times as much as PPL's
nuke. PPL produces 19.0 terawatt-hours of energy per year from that plant.
Wind energy produced in the US is 48 TWh per year -- 2-1/2 times as much as
PPL's nuke, and roughly 2,000 times as much as you state above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_po..._note-AWEAQ4-6
If you don't like Wikipedia references, you'll see that those numbers are
linked extensively to original sources.
That's not to say that wind power is going to replace nukes -- we need a lot
more nukes, IMO -- but, even now, with wind power still in its infancy, it
replaces 2-1/2 decent-sized nukes in the US. That's not a bad thing.
They are now in the process of building another plant so Ed can keep his
lights on in NJ.
I don't think we get any power from PPL. We do, however, have our own nuke
at Oyster Creek, which, my utility tells me, supplies 28% of my power.
The thing I like about it is that you can catch fluke (summer flounder) in
their cooling stream until the end of October. And the crabs they grow
there...well...let's just say you wouldn't want to meet one in a dark alley.
d8-)
The proposed offshore wind farm in NJ is getting $19 million of state money,
which is a drop in the bucket. It's just over $2 per person in the state.
Its capacity will be 346 MW, which is more than 50% the size of our Oyster
Creek nuke. Not bad for a start.
I do admit though that a local company that manufactures the towers for
windmills is doing quite well, but with the building of the second nuke
plant, the stimilus to the local economy will be a welcome addition. A
certified welder can make a fortune in the coming years. They are
becomming very hard to find.
Well, if there's a market for certified welders, we'll always have them.
Meantime, let me make clear that I'm all in favor of building a lot more
nukes. In most of the country, they're likely the best bet for handling base
load capacity. But the economics of wind are looking pretty good from what
I've seen. The limitations are significant, but they look like they pay off,
where they can be well-sited, as long as you don't try to use them for too
much of your base capacity.
--
Ed Huntress