[Tfug] OT: Big Oil? Windows Vista!

[Ronald Sutherland]

>
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:11 AM, johngalt1 <johngalt1 at uswest.net> wrote:
>>
>>> That explanation is spot on.  Thank you.
>>>
>>> I challenge anyone to substantially refute the assertions or
>>> facts contained in the previous message.
>>>
>>> It is interesting that 20 percent is cited as the efficiency
>>> in conversion of insolation
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation
>>> to DC electricity via photovoltaic panels. I note this
>>> because that is the same efficiency as the world's largest
>>> solar electric plants...
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEGS
>>> http://www.fplenergy.com/portfolio/contents/segs_viii.shtml
>>> ...with Brayton cycle heat engines employing
>>> sophisticated turbomachinery and heat transfer methods.
>>> http://www.flagsol.com/SEGS_tech.htm
>>> http://www.p2pays.org/ref/22/21026.pdf
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, what this means is that most of the solar
>>> power collected is wasted.
>>> There is no evil, villianous oil company to blame on that
>>> one... The reason for that is simple applied physics.
>>>
>>
Springerville generating station (SGS) has 3 types of PV modules FS-50, 300
DG/50, MST-43

These modules have a rated power output for 1000W/m^2 photon flux and no
Insolation. This can can be verified more or less by pointing the PV module
perpendicular with the suns photon flux.

FS-50 is 1.2m * .6m = 0.72 m^2, and at rated radiation flux 50W/720W = 7%
http://www.firstsolar.com/pdf/AZ-5-307%200404.pdf

300 DG/50 is 1.8923m * 1.2827m = 2.43 m^2, and at rated radiation flux
300W/2430W= 12.3%
http://www.solaraenergy.com/Downloads/ASE-300-50.pdf

MST-43 is 0.657m * 1.219m = .8m^2, and at rated radiation flux 43W/800 =
5.4%
http://home.comcast.net/~steveb13/solar/doc/mst43-panel.pdf

So they are all over the place, I should have looked a little better at this
page:
http://www.pvresources.com/en/sgs.php

So anyway my view of solar PV has not changed much, its not very efficient,
and has lots of up front cost that result from its high energy to
manufacture. I'm still convinced that heat engines are the better way to
convert solar energy into something useful. Also I finally updated the part
of my web pages with my own crazy heat engine idea. I think I said already
that it mixed some ideas from Rankine and Brayton, I'm not sure its clear
enough but thats life in my world.

Combustion version:
http://epccs.org/indexes/Enclosure/qIsobaricEng/

Solar version:
http://epccs.org/indexes/Enclosure/qIsobaricSolEng/

How much efficiency? I have no idea, it could be fairly high. Any other
reference ideas? Star Rotor
http://www.starrotor.com/Engines.aspx
has a Brayton cycle engine idea, but they must be having problems because
nothing new has been posted. I will say that I don't see my engine idea
getting 45-60%, but then I don't think the star-rotor will ever get that
either.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tfug.org/pipermail/tfug_tfug.org/attachments/20080601/54badb8c/attachment-0002.html>