I like this guy, he's promoting solar without bashing nuclear. I'm huge pro-nuclear and moderately pro-solar but I'm aware of the big drawbacks as is the speaker. He spelled out the main challenges of solar but reiterated that coal has to go. Solar PV might help in small areas, solar thermal probably would be better for large solar farms with central towers (molten salt heat transfer) like in So Cal. I'm hopeful breakthroughs in solar will make it more practical and cost-effective but we need a bigger leap in nuclear to gain widespread acceptance, uniformity, safety, and scaleablility. Throw in 500x efficiency over Gen 2 nuclear and you get Gen 4 (molten salt reactors). See LFTR videos by Kirk Sorensen and many others!
+Robert Weekes Unfortunately LFTR and Gen IV reactors are just a pipe dream that the nuclear industry is marketing to the gullible general public, while they spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year lobbying politicians to get more subsidies, higher electricity rates, new nukes licenses, and store forever growing amounts of highly toxic nuclear waste in more than 100 sites around the U.S, an unsolvable problem that is being left for future generations to deal with. *Meet the Nuclear Power Lobby* www.progressive.org/news/2008/03/158588/meet-nuclear-power-lobby *The High Cost of Nuclear Power* www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/green/report/2008/07/16/4634/the-high-cost-of-nuclear-power/ *The experts on nuclear power and climate change* thebulletin.org/experts-nuclear-power-and-climate-change8996 (in particular the articles by Amory Lovins, Mycle Schneider, M. V. Ramana and Peter Bradford)
The genie in the bottle can work wonders if you tame it. Harness the energy in an efficient, less expensive and exponentially safer method and you can solve all the problems of 1960s nuclear technology. Gen4 can liberate mankind from worldwide climate change, human suffering and political instability. The implications are incredibly far-reaching and no one dares to paint the ceiling! See "Kirk Sorensen: Thorium, an alternative nuclear fuel | TED Talk" - www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel
Robert Weekes I have a vague understanding but I've heard it must be solar thermal where are you make a greenhouse effect and heat water pipes or air instead of collecting sun rays in the form of electricity. apparently solar water heaters work very well even in Cloudy areas?
Are there any gen 4 molten salt reactors today? As far as I know the nuclear industry is not too keen since molten salts are so corrosive to their containers and the technology does not fit in with the rest of the nuclear supply chain.
*Thorium Molten Salt Reactors* and Nuclear fusion need help from innovators like Dave Follette. Solar Energy has limitations: *Dilute : need large area* * *Seasonal variations - Need fossil power backup* * *Intermittent on hourly basis - need battery/pumped hydro backup* * *Location specific*
My teacher in high school had a pressurized 1 cylinder engine with noble gas in it. On this device there eas a 1 foot wide reflective dish, when you heated the dish in the sunlight and aimed it directly at the gas cylinder, like a magnifying glass, the noble gas would expand, push the piston, flow through a 1 way valve while cooling off and rejoining the main cylinder to run the engine at an impressive level off of a small dish. The gas took a very long time to leak out and would naturally re-condense when out of the solar Heat. or something like that. Sterling engine.
Note that this TEDx presentation is from 2011. We are in 2016, and solar PV panels now cost less than one third what they cost in 2011, and are demonstrably cheaper than nuclear or coal or concentrated solar, per kWh. The issue of cost which Dave Follette mentions at the beginning of his excellent presentation is considered solved and researchers are nowadays working on other issues such as energy storage and distributed grids, etc... Worldwide, renewable energy is developing at an exponential rate.
Overhauling the grid will never happen. Do you have 3 trillion dollars laying around?? Advanced nuclear is the only option - see "Kirk Sorensen: Thorium, an alternative nuclear fuel | TED Talk" - www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel
"... will never happen." WRONG! It's happening already. Companies like Southwest Power Pool have been investing $ billions in modernizing their transmission capabilities and integrating renewables. SPP just peaked at >50% from wind power, supplying clean electricity to 18 million Americans. www.spp.org/about-us/newsroom/spp-sets-north-american-record-for-wind-power/
solar also takes up way more space per kWh and creates more waste. pannles have to be made and disposed of. your best clean sorce of of collecting solar energy grows from the ground and comes from the animals that graze that ground. you could solve the global food and energy issue if people looked more at bio-energy.
oil is heavily subsidised. plus solar is a lot cheaper in the long term when taking into account what we will have to do to sustain ourselves in the future to what we could have done if we had thought more long term and holistically and harmonised with each other.
Correct. Industries in subsidized glass houses should not cast stones. CONG - Coal Oil Nukes Gas. The future is renewable. The future is electric (cars, watercraft, aircraft). If progressives truly wanted a "war on coal" and wanted to cripple the coal industry further (thank you natural gas) they would purchase energy efficient AC units, appliances and LED lights for low to moderate income people in those states that rely heavy for electricity produced by coal (MO, WV, NM, CO, UT, WY, ND, OH,IW, KY, NB). Less electricity used means less coal burned and mined. Of course divestment, switching to providers that provide alternative energy, and more roof top solar (they did it in Germany - not the sunniest place in Europe).
George Warner Huh?! As ANY electrical device heats up, RESISTANCE builds and it becomes LESS efficient! That's why roof solar panels are mounted AT LEAST 2" above the roof--to help cool the panel! And while you're here salivating about the end of efficient power generation, you might want to remember that giga site in SoCal hasn't been able to come close to the level of grid current, instead relying on the Palo Verde nuke facility in AZ and the Columbia hydroelec dams here in OR. And you bozos are trying to shut those power sources down for your so-called 'renewables.' Pure idiocy of the highest order.
There is a lot of extra cost in tracking, structure, special cells, cooling them, etc. Probably more efficient way is to Stirling engine to convert concentrated solar power into motion and run a generator. Or melt some salt and extract a heat for power generation. Concentrated solar has some uses, but it doesn't really solve that much. Cost of simple PV panel is lower. Easier to replace individually, and more reliable. Land area is basically still the same, but panel base PV farm is flatter and nicer.
I think spherical mirrors arent the best option here. I think the trough would be better. Because it allows you to mount a tube since there is gonna be a mount for the panels, and this tube will be able to carry liquid and absorb excess heat, for additional uses. A sperical mirror concentrates to a dot, which may not give enough time to heat up the liquid, and more controllably too. Other than getting extra energy in hot water, this should also allow some cooling of the PV panels, extending their life. We saw what happened with that poor steel plate. Plus, a parabolic trough is definitely cheaper to manufacture and easier to clean too, and you only need to control one axis to track the sun. IF you wanna go concentrating the sun.
the efficiency of PV cells goes down when its temperature rises, so if you siphon off that excess heat into a sodium/water turbine system you'll be doing yourself a big favor
Ancient history. It still needs something the same area to collect the sun, there are loses in reflection, tracking, concentration, expansion, heat and refraction compared to direct rays on solar panel. Cleaning and maintenance would be higher as well.
Well as a part of urban design that kind of steel tree can serve as a shade too. That is some negawatts from having to cool less. Too bad we are semi committed to existing infra layout. Honestly at this point its some sensible to dismantle some of these suburban housing complexes.
I'm a big fan of solar power, but not a fan of this talk. A lot of stuff he says doesn't make any sense, and is even outright misleading. I totally give him TWO THUMBS DOWN, and TEDx really needs to screen their speakers better. First, he wants to put huge solar arrays in Arizona and export the electricity to other states. I agree with that. But when he lists the 3 "big hurdles", he completely misses the biggest one: building a distribution system. You want to build the solar farms out in the desert, where the land in undeveloped. But since that land is undeveloped, there are no power lines there to connect to. So you would need to construct lots of expensive long-distance transmission lines, and substations to step the voltage up for transmission. Second, his says lots of things that are very misleading. For example, he says "it's much easier to convert to electricity when your energy source is concentrated". Huh? Last I checked, photovoltaic (PV) cells convert sunlight DIRECTLY into electricity. Third, he presents concentrated solar power (CSP) like it's some kind of new innovation; it isn't. And this is where he gets REALLY misleading; he implies that by greatly reducing the amount of silicon, you greatly reduce the cost. Not true at all. Because CSP has a higher balance-of-system (BOS) cost. For example, CSP requires a relatively expensive structure (like the one he showed) to support the concentrators and PV cells, and track the sun. This is why CSP is struggling to be a cost-effective as conventional PV. Also, he suggests that conventional (non-concentrated) PV is not scalable? Uh, HELLO? The global PV industry has had explosive growth for decades, and we now have a large number of very big PV installations. That's scalability. And how is his contraction supposed to make it more scalable anyway? He doesn't say. And he raises the subject of reliability, but once again misleads the audience by implying CSP is somehow inherently more reliable. Any electronic engineer (including myself) will tell you a basic truth: heat is the enemy of electronics. Electronics doesn't wear out like mechanical things. Instead, electronic "wear out" is caused by chemical reactions, and these reactions speed up as the temperature increases, according to well-known equation. CSP uses a lot less silicon, but it gets a lot HOTTER. And therefore, long term reliability of CSP is even more challenging than with conventional PV cells. And he says solar is not cheap enough because it's subsidized? What?!? Subsidies make it cheap. In fact, solar is now able to compete with coal and gas without subsidies. And once again, how does CSP solve this "problem"? It doesn't. I could go on all day about what was wrong with this talk. This guy sucks.
500000 of those things to cover 1% of USA:s electricity needs? Imagine the amount of desert we'd have to level just to reach 10%. It's not like there isn't any plants or animals living on that desert..
Dear Dave, solar it is just in the very early beginning on his development (May 2019), still have long way to do before we can handle the power of the light.
Sounds like you need some subsidy. I can't imagine a contraption like that hanging around my back yard. BTW, this video is 9 years old with no updates.
+Felric Jones Here’s the complete step-by-step setup fully illustrated manuals and easy to follow video instructions present in the guide you will be able to create renewable energy at home*. Go here ==> www.solarenergy.ml
I am a little skeptical about this man's work. First off, PV's have a certain band gap, so concentrating light doesn't necessarily give the PV more light than what was already there (in the original area). One may argue in defense that you're using less silicon material, which makes things cheaper. However, PV's costs are already dropping significantly, and will continue to by the day. And it's because they're semiconductors and are being mass produced that the prices are falling. His CSP seems like it has lots different metal parts, which would make it more expensive to maintain, have constant high temperatures (possibly resulting in the ruin of the lifespan of the PVs), and be less scalable. If I'm wrong in my logic, please show me where my flaw is. Thanks.
You sound smart - perhaps you should join the thorium community! See "Kirk Sorensen: Thorium, an alternative nuclear fuel | TED Talk" - www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel
he's thinking inappropriately with solar cells. they should be boiling water or salt salt will stay hot overnight to generate energy in molten liquid form. steam can generate electricity Waters easy to boil and you can also pressurize Steam and use it later.
Disappointing ending, 500,000 of those to replace 1% of America's energy needs. That's a project killer right there. Would mean 50 million to cover all of needs. How much is each one? 100K? That would be 5 trillion dollars.
@@ascientist1238 ecat is not a scam. The year long, validation referenced below produced over 50 times more output energy than input energy over a period of 350 days, validated by two independent experts, paid for and chosen by Industrial Heat and Rossi. This is why Leonardo Corporation sued Industrial Heat for failure to pay as contracted. The legal arguments of Industrial Heat were an excuse to cover for the fact that they did not have funds to pay. Industrial Heat misrepresented their ability to pay. That is why Rossi never got the $89Million he legitimately earned as proved in a court of law (see court docs at bottom of referenced source). Industrial Heat did pay Rossi $10Million based on undisputed successful device performance, which Rossi put into development of a low cost device he intends to mass produce. Additionally, hundreds of successful replications validate LENR excess energy, including research at Mitsubishi, Toyota, the U.S. Navy, and SRI International. Research terms: sifferkoll lenr-energy-blackswan-revolution-is-a-fact-ecat-at-cop-50-for-350-days
@@timothyjohnson1511 I'm sorry, but if any of these were real, the inventors would already have received the Nobel prize in Physics - or be candidates for the next one.
+Cubepusher88 Energy storage and an improved distribution grid, local production + local consumption, efficiency measures, etc. All these technologies already exist and are widely available, waiting to be used once fossil fuels are priced "honestly" as James Hansen says.
+Payton Hatch To begin with, thorium is just an element in the periodic table, which happens to be fertile (not fissile). Next is the fact that thorium technology does not exist, whereas concentrated solar technology exists and has been producing electricity commercially for decades. Then we have various other "details" like the extraordinary cost of nuclear plants, the issues with nuclear waste, non-proliferation and other security issues, etc.
And yet another anonymous thorium troll posting lies on UA-cam under a fake name. Btw thorium is just another element like oxygen, carbon, hydrogen or uranium. It doesn't require a capital T in the middle of a phrase. Here is a report *from the nuclear industry* itself about the thorium cycle potential, in 2015. Read it and come back once you have understood what it says. www.oecd-nea.org/science/pubs/2015/7224-thorium.pdf
It is far easier to get approval for solar installations than nuclear ones. Also he can sell these to Iran, North Korea, Lybia and anywhere else without fears arising about nuclear proliferation. Also this system is fully recyclable at the end of its life, unlike radioactive contamination from thorium reactors. The spent fuel from this needs not be buried deep in the earth...... I can go on. For a final blow I will say that the levelized cost including mining refining, building the power producer, and dealing with the waste afterwards will cost less than going the thorium route, unless you live at the poles or on the moon.
douglas alderman Backnote: Solar/ focus mirror is nothing new, it is still probably the least cost effective (cost of setup per kwh captured), because it require a very large area to capture sunlight to power our life style. Most countries is holding out or spent very little on solar power due to it inherent cost issues like capture efficiency, storage & maintenance. Solar will be a minority unless these issues have been resolved OR it will be decision based on "needs not cost". So why not make the solar energy argument more elaborate? At least space mirror would resolve the need for storage (energy could finely controlled between the satellite and ground station). Solar tower reduce the maintenance to single location. Solar balloon is cheaper than making the mirror for the same size.
guesswho kk no larger area than solar tower though in both cases deasart land isnt used for much else. mirrors rotate so its how much the convex mirror costs verses building the tower This how ever doesn't need such a large initial investment to add two it and lets you do it small scale for remote area's. With space its around $4k per kg just to low earth using a Proton launch you want launches much cheaper than that + you would want geosynchronous orbit witch costs more per kg.
Gigawatt sized batteries not included.......some more work in that area is needed. In my experience, if a project is not financially feasibe, it won't get much backing. Necessity will likely be the driving force behind global solar energy, but I don't think it will happen while people are getting rich from fossil fuels. It's a money thing.
@donnie Agree too. But if looking at nature, even with evolution, parasites still exist. This shows that being a parasite is totally a feasible way of doing life. Why do I raise this up? Because global warming is a global effort. Whats stopping a couple of countries from producing carbon dioxide while other countries are straining themselves to be a net absorber of carbon dioxide? Legislation isnt the best method to shift to renewables. But theyre already going for about 2 cents a watt in the middle east with solar power, and round trip efficiency of battery systems can go up to 80%, assuming Tesla's products as a benchmark. So even when losing 20% this might mean about 2.5 cents a watt in total. Solar is very feasible. The thing is that oilrigs are expensive, and returns need to be made, so it would also be unfair to expect o&g to give up everything and stop all their operations.
Gosh. Had no one thought about that problem? A C- for solar power then! Good work for the day, but completely ignored the night. Back to square one. Or maybe square two.
I like this guy, he's promoting solar without bashing nuclear. I'm huge pro-nuclear and moderately pro-solar but I'm aware of the big drawbacks as is the speaker. He spelled out the main challenges of solar but reiterated that coal has to go. Solar PV might help in small areas, solar thermal probably would be better for large solar farms with central towers (molten salt heat transfer) like in So Cal. I'm hopeful breakthroughs in solar will make it more practical and cost-effective but we need a bigger leap in nuclear to gain widespread acceptance, uniformity, safety, and scaleablility. Throw in 500x efficiency over Gen 2 nuclear and you get Gen 4 (molten salt reactors). See LFTR videos by Kirk Sorensen and many others!
+Robert Weekes Unfortunately LFTR and Gen IV reactors are just a pipe dream that the nuclear industry is marketing to the gullible general public, while they spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year lobbying politicians to get more subsidies, higher electricity rates, new nukes licenses, and store forever growing amounts of highly toxic nuclear waste in more than 100 sites around the U.S, an unsolvable problem that is being left for future generations to deal with.
*Meet the Nuclear Power Lobby*
www.progressive.org/news/2008/03/158588/meet-nuclear-power-lobby
*The High Cost of Nuclear Power*
www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/green/report/2008/07/16/4634/the-high-cost-of-nuclear-power/
*The experts on nuclear power and climate change*
thebulletin.org/experts-nuclear-power-and-climate-change8996
(in particular the articles by Amory Lovins, Mycle Schneider, M. V. Ramana and Peter Bradford)
The genie in the bottle can work wonders if you tame it. Harness the energy in an efficient, less expensive and exponentially safer method and you can solve all the problems of 1960s nuclear technology. Gen4 can liberate mankind from worldwide climate change, human suffering and political instability. The implications are incredibly far-reaching and no one dares to paint the ceiling! See "Kirk Sorensen: Thorium, an alternative nuclear fuel | TED Talk" - www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel
Robert Weekes I have a vague understanding but I've heard it must be solar thermal where are you make a greenhouse effect and heat water pipes or air instead of collecting sun rays in the form of electricity. apparently solar water heaters work very well even in Cloudy areas?
Are there any gen 4 molten salt reactors today? As far as I know the nuclear industry is not too keen since molten salts are so corrosive to their containers and the technology does not fit in with the rest of the nuclear supply chain.
Concentrated Solar Energy plant exists already for several years in Southern Spain. Search for word Torresol
*Thorium Molten Salt Reactors* and Nuclear fusion need help from innovators like Dave Follette.
Solar Energy has limitations:
*Dilute : need large area* * *Seasonal variations - Need fossil power backup* * *Intermittent on hourly basis - need battery/pumped hydro backup* * *Location specific*
Achal H P limitation on Sun power it is only in our mind and not in the Sun.
My teacher in high school had a pressurized 1 cylinder engine with noble gas in it. On this device there eas a 1 foot wide reflective dish, when you heated the dish in the sunlight and aimed it directly at the gas cylinder, like a magnifying glass, the noble gas would expand, push the piston, flow through a 1 way valve while cooling off and rejoining the main cylinder to run the engine at an impressive level off of a small dish. The gas took a very long time to leak out and would naturally re-condense when out of the solar Heat. or something like that. Sterling engine.
Would ve been interesting to know David MacKay's opinion about this idea. RIP David
Note that this TEDx presentation is from 2011. We are in 2016, and solar PV panels now cost less than one third what they cost in 2011, and are demonstrably cheaper than nuclear or coal or concentrated solar, per kWh. The issue of cost which Dave Follette mentions at the beginning of his excellent presentation is considered solved and researchers are nowadays working on other issues such as energy storage and distributed grids, etc...
Worldwide, renewable energy is developing at an exponential rate.
Overhauling the grid will never happen. Do you have 3 trillion dollars laying around?? Advanced nuclear is the only option - see "Kirk Sorensen: Thorium, an alternative nuclear fuel | TED Talk" - www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel
"... will never happen." WRONG! It's happening already.
Companies like Southwest Power Pool have been investing $ billions in modernizing their transmission capabilities and integrating renewables. SPP just peaked at >50% from wind power, supplying clean electricity to 18 million Americans. www.spp.org/about-us/newsroom/spp-sets-north-american-record-for-wind-power/
Concentrating PV overheats the cells and they don't last very long.
solar also takes up way more space per kWh and creates more waste. pannles have to be made and disposed of. your best clean sorce of of collecting solar energy grows from the ground and comes from the animals that graze that ground. you could solve the global food and energy issue if people looked more at bio-energy.
the video was from 2011. it is 2016 now.. any update on this tech? and why no implimentation yet?
Am looking for something similar
oil is heavily subsidised. plus solar is a lot cheaper in the long term when taking into account what we will have to do to sustain ourselves in the future to what we could have done if we had thought more long term and holistically and harmonised with each other.
Correct. Industries in subsidized glass houses should not cast stones. CONG - Coal Oil Nukes Gas. The future is renewable. The future is electric (cars, watercraft, aircraft).
If progressives truly wanted a "war on coal" and wanted to cripple the coal industry further (thank you natural gas) they would purchase energy efficient AC units, appliances and LED lights for low to moderate income people in those states that rely heavy for electricity produced by coal (MO, WV, NM, CO, UT, WY, ND, OH,IW, KY, NB). Less electricity used means less coal burned and mined. Of course divestment, switching to providers that provide alternative energy, and more roof top solar (they did it in Germany - not the sunniest place in Europe).
But how do we make the earth much hotter so solar technology becomes more useful.
Sarah Hess: as solar panels get hotter their efficiency decreases.
Then why are their so many sun homes located in the desert?
George Warner Huh?! As ANY electrical device heats up, RESISTANCE builds and it becomes LESS efficient! That's why roof solar panels are mounted AT LEAST 2" above the roof--to help cool the panel!
And while you're here salivating about the end of efficient power generation, you might want to remember that giga site in SoCal hasn't been able to come close to the level of grid current, instead relying on the Palo Verde nuke facility in AZ and the Columbia hydroelec dams here in OR.
And you bozos are trying to shut those power sources down for your so-called 'renewables.' Pure idiocy of the highest order.
There is a lot of extra cost in tracking, structure, special cells, cooling them, etc. Probably more efficient way is to Stirling engine to convert concentrated solar power into motion and run a generator. Or melt some salt and extract a heat for power generation.
Concentrated solar has some uses, but it doesn't really solve that much. Cost of simple PV panel is lower. Easier to replace individually, and more reliable. Land area is basically still the same, but panel base PV farm is flatter and nicer.
I think spherical mirrors arent the best option here. I think the trough would be better. Because it allows you to mount a tube since there is gonna be a mount for the panels, and this tube will be able to carry liquid and absorb excess heat, for additional uses. A sperical mirror concentrates to a dot, which may not give enough time to heat up the liquid, and more controllably too. Other than getting extra energy in hot water, this should also allow some cooling of the PV panels, extending their life. We saw what happened with that poor steel plate.
Plus, a parabolic trough is definitely cheaper to manufacture and easier to clean too, and you only need to control one axis to track the sun.
IF you wanna go concentrating the sun.
the efficiency of PV cells goes down when its temperature rises, so if you siphon off that excess heat into a sodium/water turbine system you'll be doing yourself a big favor
Ancient history. It still needs something the same area to collect the sun, there are loses in reflection, tracking, concentration, expansion, heat and refraction compared to direct rays on solar panel. Cleaning and maintenance would be higher as well.
Well as a part of urban design that kind of steel tree can serve as a shade too. That is some negawatts from having to cool less. Too bad we are semi committed to existing infra layout. Honestly at this point its some sensible to dismantle some of these suburban housing complexes.
I would like to see concentrated solar power generation built to exclude interaction with wildlife.
I'm a big fan of solar power, but not a fan of this talk. A lot of stuff he says doesn't make any sense, and is even outright misleading. I totally give him TWO THUMBS DOWN, and TEDx really needs to screen their speakers better.
First, he wants to put huge solar arrays in Arizona and export the electricity to other states. I agree with that. But when he lists the 3 "big hurdles", he completely misses the biggest one: building a distribution system. You want to build the solar farms out in the desert, where the land in undeveloped. But since that land is undeveloped, there are no power lines there to connect to. So you would need to construct lots of expensive long-distance transmission lines, and substations to step the voltage up for transmission.
Second, his says lots of things that are very misleading. For example, he says "it's much easier to convert to electricity when your energy source is concentrated". Huh? Last I checked, photovoltaic (PV) cells convert sunlight DIRECTLY into electricity.
Third, he presents concentrated solar power (CSP) like it's some kind of new innovation; it isn't. And this is where he gets REALLY misleading; he implies that by greatly reducing the amount of silicon, you greatly reduce the cost. Not true at all. Because CSP has a higher balance-of-system (BOS) cost. For example, CSP requires a relatively expensive structure (like the one he showed) to support the concentrators and PV cells, and track the sun. This is why CSP is struggling to be a cost-effective as conventional PV.
Also, he suggests that conventional (non-concentrated) PV is not scalable? Uh, HELLO? The global PV industry has had explosive growth for decades, and we now have a large number of very big PV installations. That's scalability. And how is his contraction supposed to make it more scalable anyway? He doesn't say.
And he raises the subject of reliability, but once again misleads the audience by implying CSP is somehow inherently more reliable. Any electronic engineer (including myself) will tell you a basic truth: heat is the enemy of electronics. Electronics doesn't wear out like mechanical things. Instead, electronic "wear out" is caused by chemical reactions, and these reactions speed up as the temperature increases, according to well-known equation. CSP uses a lot less silicon, but it gets a lot HOTTER. And therefore, long term reliability of CSP is even more challenging than with conventional PV cells.
And he says solar is not cheap enough because it's subsidized? What?!? Subsidies make it cheap. In fact, solar is now able to compete with coal and gas without subsidies. And once again, how does CSP solve this "problem"? It doesn't.
I could go on all day about what was wrong with this talk. This guy sucks.
500000 of those things to cover 1% of USA:s electricity needs? Imagine the amount of desert we'd have to level just to reach 10%. It's not like there isn't any plants or animals living on that desert..
Dear Dave, solar it is just in the very early beginning on his development (May 2019), still have long way to do before we can handle the power of the light.
Play at 1.5x playback speed. ;)
MUCH better.
i thought about doing this once and then instantly thought nah no way it's too obvious clearly the panel can't take that.
Sounds like you need some subsidy. I can't imagine a contraption like that hanging around my back yard. BTW, this video is 9 years old with no updates.
I am sure their are ways we can make the nations warmer for more solar power.
does this concentrating of solar cause a build up of heat which would decrease the efficiency of the solar panels?
+Felric Jones Here’s the complete step-by-step setup fully illustrated manuals and easy to follow video instructions present in the guide you will be able to create renewable energy at home*. Go here ==> www.solarenergy.ml
I bought instruction from inplix and I built it very cheap.
Shannan Schisler does it work to generate electricity?
yes
I am a little skeptical about this man's work. First off, PV's have a certain band gap, so concentrating light doesn't necessarily give the PV more light than what was already there (in the original area). One may argue in defense that you're using less silicon material, which makes things cheaper. However, PV's costs are already dropping significantly, and will continue to by the day. And it's because they're semiconductors and are being mass produced that the prices are falling. His CSP seems like it has lots different metal parts, which would make it more expensive to maintain, have constant high temperatures (possibly resulting in the ruin of the lifespan of the PVs), and be less scalable. If I'm wrong in my logic, please show me where my flaw is. Thanks.
You sound smart - perhaps you should join the thorium community! See "Kirk Sorensen: Thorium, an alternative nuclear fuel | TED Talk" - www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel
USE 350 MW A/C DYNAMOS TO SEND THE POWER
he's thinking inappropriately with solar cells. they should be boiling water or salt salt will stay hot overnight to generate energy in molten liquid form. steam can generate electricity Waters easy to boil and you can also pressurize Steam and use it later.
how about showing his slides when he's actually talking about them?
How can i buy this solar panel.s
Disappointing ending, 500,000 of those to replace 1% of America's energy needs. That's a project killer right there. Would mean 50 million to cover all of needs. How much is each one? 100K? That would be 5 trillion dollars.
Leonardo Corporation E-Cat SK 20 kilowatt LENR thermal source is ready to ship.
Don't fall this scam.
@@ascientist1238 ecat is not a scam. The year long, validation referenced below produced over 50 times more output energy than input energy over a period of 350 days, validated by two independent experts, paid for and chosen by Industrial Heat and Rossi. This is why Leonardo Corporation sued Industrial Heat for failure to pay as contracted. The legal arguments of Industrial Heat were an excuse to cover for the fact that they did not have funds to pay. Industrial Heat misrepresented their ability to pay. That is why Rossi never got the $89Million he legitimately earned as proved in a court of law (see court docs at bottom of referenced source). Industrial Heat did pay Rossi $10Million based on undisputed successful device performance, which Rossi put into development of a low cost device he intends to mass produce.
Additionally, hundreds of successful replications validate LENR excess energy, including research at Mitsubishi, Toyota, the U.S. Navy, and SRI International.
Research terms: sifferkoll lenr-energy-blackswan-revolution-is-a-fact-ecat-at-cop-50-for-350-days
@AScientist 123 Also, just so you know, Infinity SAV also not a scam.
See youtube video number: zRMHNfug7Ec
@@timothyjohnson1511 I'm sorry, but if any of these were real, the inventors would already have received the Nobel prize in Physics - or be candidates for the next one.
A scientist using the Imperial system...
YOU NOTICE HE ONLY COMPARES SOLAR PLANTS TO COAL PLANTS ... NOT SOLAR ROOFED HOUSES ? ? ?
How do we then overcome the intermittency problem?
+Cubepusher88 Energy storage and an improved distribution grid, local production + local consumption, efficiency measures, etc. All these technologies already exist and are widely available, waiting to be used once fossil fuels are priced "honestly" as James Hansen says.
Elon Musk of Tesla Motors has market ready stationary batteries that capture energy from the sun and use it when the sun goes down. Visionary.
10 million megawatt hours to store in batteries for one day without sunlight. that is only one day! It is wishfull thinking
that graph does not paint a pretty image for Washington state
How does this even pretend to compete with thorium?
+Payton Hatch To begin with, thorium is just an element in the periodic table, which happens to be fertile (not fissile). Next is the fact that thorium technology does not exist, whereas concentrated solar technology exists and has been producing electricity commercially for decades. Then we have various other "details" like the extraordinary cost of nuclear plants, the issues with nuclear waste, non-proliferation and other security issues, etc.
And yet another anonymous thorium troll posting lies on UA-cam under a fake name. Btw thorium is just another element like oxygen, carbon, hydrogen or uranium. It doesn't require a capital T in the middle of a phrase.
Here is a report *from the nuclear industry* itself about the thorium cycle potential, in 2015. Read it and come back once you have understood what it says.
www.oecd-nea.org/science/pubs/2015/7224-thorium.pdf
It is far easier to get approval for solar installations than nuclear ones. Also he can sell these to Iran, North Korea, Lybia and anywhere else without fears arising about nuclear proliferation. Also this system is fully recyclable at the end of its life, unlike radioactive contamination from thorium reactors. The spent fuel from this needs not be buried deep in the earth......
I can go on.
For a final blow I will say that the levelized cost including mining refining, building the power producer, and dealing with the waste afterwards will cost less than going the thorium route, unless you live at the poles or on the moon.
@@andrebalsa203
Why the second comment?
Need to think bigger, much bigger scale, google "solar power tower" or the "solar balloon" OR "space mirror"
Id have thought that's more expensive for the same power. it would be interesting to get a predicted cost.
douglas alderman
Backnote:
Solar/ focus mirror is nothing new, it is still probably the least cost effective (cost of setup per kwh captured), because it require a very large area to capture sunlight to power our life style.
Most countries is holding out or spent very little on solar power due to it inherent cost issues like capture efficiency, storage & maintenance.
Solar will be a minority unless these issues have been resolved OR it will be decision based on "needs not cost". So why not make the solar energy argument more elaborate?
At least space mirror would resolve the need for storage (energy could finely controlled between the satellite and ground station). Solar tower reduce the maintenance to single location. Solar balloon is cheaper than making the mirror for the same size.
guesswho kk no larger area than solar tower though in both cases deasart land isnt used for much else. mirrors rotate so its how much the convex mirror costs verses building the tower This how ever doesn't need such a large initial investment to add two it and lets you do it small scale for remote area's.
With space its around $4k per kg just to low earth using a Proton launch you want launches much cheaper than that + you would want geosynchronous orbit witch costs more per kg.
Covering an area as big as England over the Sahara you get all 15 terawatts hourly.
0 terrawats at night or during a sand storm
Who powers the entire US at night?
batteries aka energy storage systems
Gigawatt sized batteries not included.......some more work in that area is needed. In my experience, if a project is not financially feasibe, it won't get much backing. Necessity will likely be the driving force behind global solar energy, but I don't think it will happen while people are getting rich from fossil fuels. It's a money thing.
@donnie Agree too. But if looking at nature, even with evolution, parasites still exist. This shows that being a parasite is totally a feasible way of doing life.
Why do I raise this up? Because global warming is a global effort. Whats stopping a couple of countries from producing carbon dioxide while other countries are straining themselves to be a net absorber of carbon dioxide? Legislation isnt the best method to shift to renewables.
But theyre already going for about 2 cents a watt in the middle east with solar power, and round trip efficiency of battery systems can go up to 80%, assuming Tesla's products as a benchmark. So even when losing 20% this might mean about 2.5 cents a watt in total. Solar is very feasible. The thing is that oilrigs are expensive, and returns need to be made, so it would also be unfair to expect o&g to give up everything and stop all their operations.
Gosh. Had no one thought about that problem? A C- for solar power then! Good work for the day, but completely ignored the night. Back to square one. Or maybe square two.
instead of indless rows of solar panels we need to incorporate solar into everything we use, or make solar forests.
...