Future PV tech rant…

Gloworm

In 1984 when I was in High School, I wondered what it would take to make the entire paint job of a car photovoltaic, even if it was only 25% of the efficiency of a regular PV panel. In fact, I was positive that by the year 2000, there was simply no way in heck we would be spewing CO2 in the air with our cars. Well other than the PV panels on the roof of Justin Bieber’s chrome Fiskar Karma, we are laaaaaaging behind in my opinion. I think the problem I have with PV tech is that in order for it to be worth the investment, it has to fully replace other sources of power when even a slight return of energy would be worth the effort in terms of reducing pollution at this point in our ecology’s history.

For example, why are there not partially photovoltaic LCD’s in smart phones? People set the things out in the sun all the time, I do…and it is just sitting there losing juice in 4G land when a membrane of PV material could very well be giving back, even more so if laid face down, to hell with what designers think is pretty, make the back of the phone actually DO SOMETHING!

Everything we own that requires power should have *some* form of PV on it, even if it only adds a teeny-tiny bit of return, it all adds up! I look at the 72 square feet of rubberized hypalon wall material on my small pop up camper and I think what a waste all that surface area could not be worth even 100 watts of PV. Some cool “Solar-strand” or other PV coating could be giving…what, 20 watts?

Where is the innovation? It does not have to power Times Square, just give something back for Pete’s sake!

Cariboocoot

Re: Future PV tech rant…

There's this thing called "physics" which keeps getting in the way of great ideas.

Gloworm

Re: Future PV tech rant…

Cariboocoot wrote: »

There's this thing called "physics" which keeps getting in the way of great ideas.

In a basic sense, yes, but I know that if enough funding is poured in, quite often the laws of physics can be innovated past. My step father is a nobel laureate physicist, we both agree with the latter.

BB.

Re: Future PV tech rant…

Problem is loads use quite a bit of energy vs their size (cars, computers, lighting, etc. all use a lot of power--relatively speaking).

Devices that don't take much power (small flash lights, watches, radio receivers with headphones/small speaker) are already available with solar panels. Add a capacitor or small rechargeable battery and you are good for day or night operation.

Otherwise, I am not really ready to leave my $600 (list price) smart phone setting out on a picnic table for several hours in the middle of the day.

I did get a "small" (12,000 mAH @ 5 volts) battery pack for not too much money (~$50) that seems to do a nice job of recharging my various USB devices.

I would be much more open to leaving a small form factor battery pack + solar panel out during the day and recharging when convenient from the battery pack.

Still need to find a good "Solar Panel" to USB charger for the battery bank...

-Bill

Gloworm

Re: Future PV tech rant…

BB. wrote: »

Problem is loads use quite a bit of energy vs their size (cars, computers, lighting, etc. all use a lot of power--relatively speaking).

Devices that don't take much power (small flash lights, watches, radio receivers with headphones/small speaker) are already available with solar panels. Add a capacitor or small rechargeable battery and you are good for day or night operation.

Otherwise, I am not really ready to leave my $600 (list price) smart phone setting out on a picnic table for several hours in the middle of the day.

I did get a "small" (12,000 mAH @ 5 volts) battery pack for not too much money (~$50) that seems to do a nice job of recharging my various USB devices.

I would be much more open to leaving a small form factor battery pack + solar panel out during the day and recharging when convenient from the battery pack.

Still need to find a good "Solar Panel" to USB charger for the battery bank...

This is exactly what I am talking about as the problem, you are trying to power these devices, I am talking about reducing the overall power requirement even if by a tiny amount until the tech gets even better....which will be decades down the road it would seem. What if a paint job on a Prius was worth 50 watts of PV? That could be fed back into the overall power requirement and make *some* form of difference. Given the rate we are altering our planets ability to support life as we know it, common sense says to me that we should be doing*EVERYTHING* we can to slow down that process.

But we don't bother unless it can actually fulfill a large percentage of the overall power requirement, so that is a lot of metric tons of crap in the air that we are not thinking about in the big picture sense. Everything that requires power should have some form of PV, period.

I use my USB car charger in the 12V plug in my camper to top off our iPhones and iPad with no problem by the way....

BB.

Re: Future PV tech rant…

Gloworm wrote: »

What if a paint job on a Prius was worth 50 watts of PV? That could be fed back into the overall power requirement and make *some* form of difference.

A typical electric car may use around 250-500 WH per mile... A 50 watt "paint panel" may produce ~3x its rated power on a sunny day (~3x50 watts = 150 WH). So, at best, a fraction of a mile worth of power per day...

That is sort of the problem--Moving objects take quite a bit of power (full sized motor cycles do not get much better fuel mileage, if any, than a Prius/etc.). Wind and power train drag are things that--even if you address one (low wind resistance fairing on a bicycle)--The law of unintended consequences may come back to bite you (large fairings can be dangerous in crosswinds).

-Bill

bill von novak

Re: Future PV tech rant…

Gloworm wrote: »

This is exactly what I am talking about as the problem, you are trying to power these devices, I am talking about reducing the overall power requirement even if by a tiny amount

There are much easier ways of reducing energy requirements that don't involve expensive/delicate solar panels or paint jobs.

What if a paint job on a Prius was worth 50 watts of PV?

Then you would have reduced its energy needs by .5%. Filling the tires a little past rated pressure would do a lot more. (BTW my Leaf DOES have a solar panel on it that provides about 10 watts. Doesn't do much either but keeps the 12V battery charged.)

But we don't bother unless it can actually fulfill a large percentage of the overall power requirement, so that is a lot of metric tons of crap in the air that we are not thinking about in the big picture sense.

I think that by concentrating on the big stuff we do a lot more good. If your choice is to put a solar panel on your Ford Suburban, or do the work and design a Prius - you are going to do far more good in the long run by designing the Prius.

Everything that requires power should have some form of PV, period.

Really? Your furnace should have PV? The refrigerator in your kitchen? Submarines? Air conditioning compressors? I'd much rather that money go towards making them more efficient. And if you really want to add solar, taking that money and spending it on a roof-mounted solar PV system is going to be a lot more effective.

Consider it this way. PV has a cost. Should that money be spent on a solar system that will live in the dark most of the time, or should it be mounted on a roof in direct sun? Which gives you the most bang for the buck?

I use my USB car charger in the 12V plug in my camper to top off our iPhones and iPad with no problem by the way....

Why do you waste energy like that? Doesn't every little bit help?

Cariboocoot

Re: Future PV tech rant…

Let's see. Suppose you want 25 HP like a 1958 VW Bus. That's 18,650 Watts. The bus is about 1.5 meters wide and 4.5 meters long or 6.75 square meters. So you need to gather 2,762 Watts per meter square.

Now then, what's the insolation rate here on planet Earth? 1004 Watts per meter square. Problem.

It's things like that which interrupt the dreams.

Gloworm

Re: Future PV tech rant…

I just want to see more innovation. And I am talking about these innovations in addition to things like tire inflation, bigger picture things and what not. I have been part of tanks recently and brought this up a few times, I am not the only one thinking these things, what *else* can be done to curb this hemorrhage of ecology.

I only use the USB car charger in the camper for my iDevices when working out in the field, not at home and I really don't even use them that much because I am usually out of range and would rather stay on task than futzing around with gadgets.

Cariboocoot

Re: Future PV tech rant…

Economics definitely plays a part. If there's little return there's no sense in doing it. If you can get 18% efficient panels for $1 per Watt but 20% efficient panels are $5 per Watt guess which one sells?

Likewise the more efficient anything is the more it costs for each small improvement. If the first 80% of efficiency costs $80 and the next 1% improvement costs $80 more it simply isn't economically feasible to add that 1%.

Or as an engineer of my acquaintance used to say: "talk to me about 10% or don't talk to me".

We keep using fossil fuels because their cost/energy density is unparalleled in the world.

bill von novak

Re: Future PV tech rant…

Gloworm wrote: »

I just want to see more innovation. And I am talking about these innovations in addition to things like tire inflation, bigger picture things and what not. I have been part of tanks recently and brought this up a few times, I am not the only one thinking these things, what *else* can be done to curb this hemorrhage of ecology.

Agreed - that's a good goal, one that many of us are pursuing. We have to be careful to go after solutions that make a big difference rather than 'waste our time' with solutions that make no difference or make a minimal difference.

I only use the USB car charger in the camper for my iDevices when working out in the field, not at home and I really don't even use them that much because I am usually out of range and would rather stay on task than futzing around with gadgets.

Good example. You are willing to live with a little inefficiency for the sake of convenience. Most people make similar tradeoffs.

niel

Re: Future PV tech rant…

even if you could reap the power you need in that small of a space there would be many other problems that would arise like the pvs getting dirty or small fender benders causing cracks in the modules and/or cells. i do understand your frustrations though as we, meaning the human race, should be farther along in many ways. in too many ways i think we've progressed backwards. i know contradictory terms.

SolInvictus

Re: Future PV tech rant…

Thin-film PV panels needed to conform to the curved surfaces of cars are made from rare elements, such as First Solar's CdTe cells. Using rare elements in inefficient applications is not an optimal use for them.

Cadmium is also toxic. Are you sure you want to put toxic chemicals in automobile paint?

Thin-film PV panels are black which would make all cars black. It is a bad idea to park a black car in the hot sun in Phoenix, Arizona.

ggunn

Re: Future PV tech rant…

Someone once asked me how long it would be before a solar panel "this big" (holding his hands about a foot apart) will be able to produce enough energy to power his house. I answered that it would be whenever he reduced his household energy usage to about 50 watt hours a day. I cannae rewrite the laws of physics, Cap'n!

waynefromnscanada

Re: Future PV tech rant…

ggunn wrote: »

Someone once asked me how long it would be before a solar panel "this big" (holding his hands about a foot apart) will be able to produce enough energy to power his house. I answered that it would be whenever he reduced his household energy usage to about 50 watt hours a day. I cannae rewrite the laws of physics, Cap'n!

I wish this forum had a "LIKE" button. I would have used it here.

northerner

Re: Future PV tech rant…

Another approach is to replace fossil burning power plants with pv powered plants plus storage. The ideal storage solution isn't quite here yet, but I'm confident better solutions will be available very soon. The PV plant could be backed up with natural gas for power, when there isn't enough sun to meet demands. This solution if implemented throughout all communities, could potentially eliminate the need for high voltage transmission lines as well.

BB.

Re: Future PV tech rant…

Energy storage is one of those things that the Laws Physics/Thermodynamics just plays havoc with. Short of going with fission/fusion reactors (thorium reactors are actually something that may give us lots of locally generated electricity)--There just is not that much room for improvement...

For off grid systems--We are still using 100+ year old technology (lead acid batteries/fossil fuel generators). There are the newer battery technologies--But they still have similar cost/performance as lead acid--And the improvements are just a few percentage points of improvement at a time--No factor or 2x or better cost/benefit designs appear to be out there just yet (electronics/computers are improving by a factor of 2x every ~2 years--And those are gains from scaling to smaller and smaller structures).

Solar panel cost improvements have been the typical "industrialization revolution" path of improved automation, supply chain efficiency, using less materials (thinner cells, higher voltage arrays) and exporting pollution/labor to regions with lower costs/regulatory restrictions.

With power, if you could make a panel 2 times "smaller" every 2 years--Each panel would just collect 1/2 the amount of sun for every downwards scaling--Not really useful for homes/industries that want to use more power (computers/HVAC/transportation, etc.). And many potential improvements seem to use "rare earth" minerals--Which will probably have source scaling issues of their own.

Not saying that something won't be found some day--But it is still looking pretty bleak for "game changing" improvements.

-Bill

northerner

Re: Future PV tech rant…

BB. wrote: »

Not saying that something won't be found some day--But it is still looking pretty bleak for "game changing" improvements.

-Bill

I really don't think change on this order will happen overnight. Point is we need to be striving to make these changes and progressively over time, we can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. There are countries out there that are moving towards renewable sources of energy, whilst others are bucking this trend and content on burning coal!

BB.

Re: Future PV tech rant…

northerner wrote: »

There are countries out there that are moving towards renewable sources of energy, whilst others are bucking this trend and content on burning coal!

And there are countries that are doing all three (renewables, burning coal, and looking at radiological solutions)--Such as China.

China: Here Are Some Great Things About Toxic Air

You can’t make this stuff up. On Sunday, with swaths of eastern China shrouded in a polluted haze, Chinese state media decided to release a list of five “surprising benefits” of smog. Here, courtesy of Wang Lei, an editor for China Central Television’s website, are five good things about bad air:
1. It unifies the Chinese people.
2. It makes China more equal.
3. It raises citizen awareness of the cost of China’s economic development.
4. It makes people funnier.
5. It makes people more knowledgeable (of things like meteorology and the English word haze).

The above was not parody--It was an (apparently ill-fated) attempt at trying to blunt the very serious issues China, and other rapidly growing countries, are facing.

-Bill

solar_dave

Re: Future PV tech rant…

BB. wrote: »

Energy storage is one of those things that the Laws Physics/Thermodynamics just plays havoc with. Short of going with fission/fusion reactors (thorium reactors are actually something that may give us lots of locally generated electricity)--There just is not that much room for improvement...

For off grid systems--We are still using 100+ year old technology (lead acid batteries/fossil fuel generators). There are the newer battery technologies--But they still have similar cost/performance as lead acid--And the improvements are just a few percentage points of improvement at a time--No factor or 2x or better cost/benefit designs appear to be out there just yet (electronics/computers are improving by a factor of 2x every ~2 years--And those are gains from scaling to smaller and smaller structures).

Solar panel cost improvements have been the typical "industrialization revolution" path of improved automation, supply chain efficiency, using less materials (thinner cells, higher voltage arrays) and exporting pollution/labor to regions with lower costs/regulatory restrictions.

With power, if you could make a panel 2 times "smaller" every 2 years--Each panel would just collect 1/2 the amount of sun for every downwards scaling--Not really useful for homes/industries that want to use more power (computers/HVAC/transportation, etc.). And many potential improvements seem to use "rare earth" minerals--Which will probably have source scaling issues of their own.

Not saying that something won't be found some day--But it is still looking pretty bleak for "game changing" improvements.

-Bill

Actually solar thermal on an industrial scale with molten salt for storage is viable. Back that up with nat gas to keep the generators spinning in the event of maintenance or a stretch of low sun should make more economic sense.

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/12/01/green-jobs-solar-power-at-night-abengoas-280-mw-solana-csp-plant-nearly-ready/

This plant has about 6 hours of storage but it is conceivable that a 24 hour operation could be built. The six hour storage fits into APS's peak load and could carry the higher demands needed for just after dark AC usage in summer without firing up a peaker plant until the demand drops to the base load from Palo Verde Nuclear generation.

I for one hates the idea that APS might be doing something right by using the no cost fueling from the sun. This certainly has to have less capital outlay than another Nuclear plant and has fueling cost way less.

BB.

Re: Future PV tech rant…

I agree there are incremental improvements (molten salts may well be viable in many locations)--But I don't think you will see "Moore's Law" type of improvements (2x every 2 years) in our power systems...

-Bill

bill von novak

Re: Future PV tech rant…

northerner wrote: »

Another approach is to replace fossil burning power plants with pv powered plants plus storage.

Or thermal solar plants with thermal storage. (Tanks are cheaper than batteries.) It also allows a more gradual transition:

Phase 1 - natural gas thermal plant
Phase 2 - natural gas at night, solar during the day
Phase 3 - solar during the day, thermal storage at night, natural gas during long periods of darkness (storms)

This solution if implemented throughout all communities, could potentially eliminate the need for high voltage transmission lines as well.

I think cheap/effective solar will tend to _increase_ the requirements for transmission lines. Phoenix will want to be shipping power to Pennsylvania. During PA's high demand time (7pm) a west facing array can be generating gigawatts in Phoenix and shipping it out.

Cariboocoot

Re: Future PV tech rant…

China Television left out reason #6: it helps reduce the surplus population.

solar_dave

Re: Future PV tech rant…

BB. wrote: »

I agree there are incremental improvements (molten salts may well be viable in many locations)--But I don't think you will see "Moore's Law" type of improvements (2x every 2 years) in our power systems...

-Bill

I agree, the issue of physics come into play where as in Moore's law parallelism has kept it moving at those kinds of paces. I never thought they would get to the densities they have now in CPU traces, but eventually even that has a physical limit.

solar_dave

Re: Future PV tech rant…

bill von novak wrote: »

Or thermal solar plants with thermal storage. (Tanks are cheaper than batteries.) It also allows a more gradual transition:

Phase 1 - natural gas thermal plant
Phase 2 - natural gas at night, solar during the day
Phase 3 - solar during the day, thermal storage at night, natural gas during long periods of darkness (storms)



I think cheap/effective solar will tend to _increase_ the requirements for transmission lines. Phoenix will want to be shipping power to Pennsylvania. During PA's high demand time (7pm) a west facing array can be generating gigawatts in Phoenix and shipping it out.

I think the Nat Gas plants used for peakers today use a hybrid technology of a direct fueled turbine driving a generator and the waste heat from that to generate steam for a steam turbine.

http://www.cpsenergy.com/Services/Natural_Gas/natgas_generation.asp

http://www.ge-energy.com/products_and_services/products/gas_turbines_heavy_duty/flexefficiency_50_combined_cycle_power_plant.jsp

No reason solar thermal could not be integrated into that system pretty effectively.

bill von novak

Re: Future PV tech rant…

solar_dave wrote: »

I think the Nat Gas plants used for peakers today use a hybrid technology of a direct fueled turbine driving a generator and the waste heat from that to generate steam for a steam turbine.

In general those are referred to as "combined cycle" plants and can have fairly high thermal efficiency; some are hitting 60% now which is pretty impressive. In general though they take a long time to fire up and settle into steady-state operation.

Some peakers are combined cycle, but most are cheap and fast-starting straight through gas turbines. They can be fired up within a few minutes and are around 40% efficient. Since they run rarely (perhaps a few times a month) their inefficiencies aren't a big deal. (To be more accurate, their fuel costs are tiny compared to their capital costs.)

We have two power plants here at work that are cogenerators but not combined cycle. We have a total of three 7 megawatt natural gas turbines that generate power during the summer, and the waste heat drives both our heating needs (just hot water during the summer) and cooling needs (via an evaporative cycle chiller.)

Gloworm

Re: Future PV tech rant…

waynefromnscanada wrote: »

I wish this forum had a "LIKE" button. I would have used it here.

+1, and I thought I was dream'n beeg!

Gloworm

Re: Future PV tech rant…

BB. wrote: »

I agree there are incremental improvements (molten salts may well be viable in many locations)--But I don't think you will see "Moore's Law" type of improvements (2x every 2 years) in our power systems...

No, but I think we are about to start seeing Moore's law kick into high gear in regards to our ecology and biology's shift from a balanced support of life to one that is downright scary. Humans are a funny thing, we are just smart enough to get the candle in the room lit but not smart enough to realize the drapes are on fire.

It's like asking the gunman at the ATM who is demanding all your money if you can have change for a $20 for a cab.............

.......BANG!

northerner

Re: Future PV tech rant…

bill von novak wrote: »

I think cheap/effective solar will tend to _increase_ the requirements for transmission lines. Phoenix will want to be shipping power to Pennsylvania. During PA's high demand time (7pm) a west facing array can be generating gigawatts in Phoenix and shipping it out.

The key being in implementing the plants throughout all communities, would allow each community to be self sufficient and not dependent on power imported through a power line. Power lines could still be useful in some areas, where plants located in sunny areas, could supply power to cloudier locations.

PNjunction

Re: Future PV tech rant…

BB. wrote: »

Still need to find a good "Solar Panel" to USB charger for the battery bank...

This may do the trick if you don't want to build your own regulator. In fact I'll be testing one tomorrow on a similar battery. Radio Shack / Enercell #273-446 Micro-Usb Car Adapter directly to a 10 maybe 15 watt panel with female cigarette lighter jack. They make similar models for mini-usb and also Apple. In fact the batt is a 4000mah #23-2018

What I like about this is that the usb charger is spec'ed for 12-24v INput, so that should have no problem on the typical small 12v nominal (typ 18-22v ocv) panel. 1-amp / 5v output from the charger. But one has to look at the specs carefully to make sure the adapter can go up to 24v input! These do.

I think this is a pretty easy way to go for a more or less direct connection with a bit of regulation. Normally I 2-step charge stuff like this from a large agm, but this direct-charge to a small usb style battery is yep - better than leaving the good stuff out in the sun prone to damage or theft.

Cariboocoot

Re: Future PV tech rant…

northerner wrote: »

The key being in implementing the plants throughout all communities, would allow each community to be self sufficient and not dependent on power imported through a power line. Power lines could still be useful in some areas, where plants located in sunny areas, could supply power to cloudier locations.

Curiously power loss in transmission is one of the big problems with the grid. Inefficient storage is another.

Sound familiar? Just like off-grid, only multiplied by a few million.