SunCatchers: Simplifying the Solar Power Production Method

Interesting, some idea of cost/price would be interesting.
Interesting to see if direct light-to-electricity solar panels or this sort of thing will win in the end.
_{Still havn't built a solar powered toaster or kettle...but I've had a busy year.}
Del

I am always very optimistic about solar power. It has a bit farther to go before acceptance is acquired, but they have a brighter possible future than wind power (or so it seems). No one wants a big metallic windmill in their eyesight. I remember driving by a collection of the windmills and being so awestruck, it was a majestic site to watch all of them turn.

I see myself using solar power in the future when/if I get my own house. I can't believe that 60% of the product was essentially taken away and that it still stands. With all the money that goes into research, how did someone not notice how much extra 'stuff' there was?!

Very good entry and I look forward to seeing more entries!

I hear ya Del. I've heard that solar panels were about 20% efficient for normal/older panels, were newer ones were 40%. Will relying on an engine based solar collector be more efficient?

Currently, six first-generation SunCatchers at the National Solar Thermal Test Facility (NSTTF) are producing 150 KW of electrical power each day.

Umm, 150 KWhs? Or it produces 150KW of power? Details, details, details!!!

150 KW of power

150 KW of electrical power

He already told you it was power in his blog entry.

Yes but there's still a problem with the wording:-

150 KW of electrical power each day.

On its own, doesn't make a lot of sense: we need to know how many hours of each day on average throughout the year it achieves this rate of power output.

There there...kitty understands.
maybe they mean kwh ?

Thanks Randall, glad to see somebody's on my side !

Rscincy - if you can get a solar to electricity panel to be 10% efficient I'd be surprised...

40% is ridiculously incorrect...

Well, I don't know what kind of juice that an inverter or the wiring would suck out of the usable power, but this website should help my point.

https://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/21405/

~Ryan

Re: "Details"...etc ... like, "agreed" .

"...new systems are 5,000 pounds lighter than previous .... also round in shape, resulting in a more efficient use of steel. The new machine also runs more effectively by using 60% fewer engine parts...."

So; instead of 8 gazillion pounds, they now weigh-in at 7.999527 gazillion pounds...?

And, those round reflectors are a scant / mere 80 yards across...?

And the motors, instead of having 62,580 parts, now have a mere 25,032 parts ... with a life expectancy of...?

"Hoop-de-doo" ... this is what we get, in the way of journalism, when we keep DUMBING-DOWN the requirements for grad-u-ma-ta-tion!

The important thing to take away from the article is that the technology is being improved and simplified hopefully to the point of mass production. Regardless of the level of improvement, it is being improved!! A point you have ignored. We can't expect a substantial improvement in all aspects of a complicated system like the SunCatcher, these developments take time. In my opinion, progress is progress and I am glad these two companies are sticking with the project even if the improvements seem minor.

I guess I'm missing something with the whole alternative energy initiative particularly with the solar power approach, but I am willing to be convinced that solar power (or any of these sustainable technologies) is viable and worthwhile. I am particularly interested in understanding how to obtain massive amounts of solar energy from sunlight when:

(1.) The average incidence of sunlight on the surface of the Earth is fairly well defined and known to be relatively small (if it were higher, we would likely all be fried to a crisp).

(2.) The maximum collection/conversion efficiencies for solar energy recovery are small.

Even if 100% efficiency were attained, the quantity of energy/ square meter is insufficient to provide a major amount of power without HUGE collection facilities which (1.) deface the land and (2.) only can collect power during sunny periods.

Wind power is also inconsistent and suffers from many of the same problems as solar power.

Nuclear power is a viable energy source but has massive costs associated with construction and maintenance (as well as political issues) and has problems with waste disposal that make fossil fuels pale by comparison.

Hydrothermal and Geothermal power (which I personally would support) sources are often located in remote areas requiring long distance transmission problems and would require major capital expenditures; however, they at least could provide non-polluting sources of energy.

Please someone explain to me what I am "missing" in this debate over sustainable energy sources.

Imagine if you will, every new house built mandated to include a solar based, absorption A/C unit, if one is installed at all, along with micro-solar power generation. Yes, this would produce only when it is sunny, but would partially offset the peak demand associated with normal A/C useage. Add in regulation for all large buildings to incorporate some sort of solar energy capture and you are well on your way to smoothing out the demand curve that would limit the amount of highly inefficient, simple cycle gas peaking stations that are required on hot sunny days.

For me the big thing in this debate over sustainable energy is that they are sustainable. We live in a finite world and the resources that we are currently using for energy are rapidly dwindling. I'm not gonna go crazy and say that we need to stop drilling for oil. In fact I love oil, we get so many useful/essential products from it. I just think it is a waste to simply burn such a versatile resource. I think the next few years will be very interesting and exciting to see what new innovations will come from this push for viable and cost effective alternative energy sources.

Dan

how much does each suncatcher weigh?