iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

Solar Revolution from MIT

Started by IMERC, August 03, 2008, 12:46:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

IMERC

Who ever invented work didn't know how to fish.... Here fishy fishy....

Warbird

That is amazing.  Thanks for sharing it.  One note, though...  they still haven't solved the problem of how to properly store hydrogen gas for long periods of time.  With this breakthrough, though, I bet someone will come up with a way pretty quickly.

TexasTimbers

That's revolutionary allright, and might even be an understatement.  10 years seems on the side of over-optimistic but not by much maybe.

This is great though, because about the time I have finished all my wind and solar projects and finally gotten off grid, this new technology will have eliminated the grid anyway and I'll be using inefficient, archaic windmills, solar panels, and salvaged fork lift batteries. ::)
The oil is all in Texas, but the dipsticks are in D.C.

Fla._Deadheader


 
QuoteThis is great though, because about the time I have finished all my wind and solar projects and finally gotten off grid, this new technology will have eliminated the grid anyway and I'll be using inefficient, archaic windmills, solar panels, and salvaged fork lift batteries.

  In the meantime, though, you will have gotten independent. Can you afford to wait 10 years or MORE ???
All truth passes through three stages:
   First, it is ridiculed;
   Second, it is violently opposed; and
   Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

IMERC

Quote from: Fla._Deadheader on August 03, 2008, 01:39:10 PM

 
QuoteThis is great though, because about the time I have finished all my wind and solar projects and finally gotten off grid, this new technology will have eliminated the grid anyway and I'll be using inefficient, archaic windmills, solar panels, and salvaged fork lift batteries.

  In the meantime, though, you will have gotten independent. Can you afford to wait 10 years or MORE ???

I did what you are working on....
only I used gel-cells instead of forklift batteries....

10 years isn't such a long time, maybe for some of us it is, but in in the overall scheme of things I'm WTB isn't much....
Who ever invented work didn't know how to fish.... Here fishy fishy....

TexasTimbers

Harold, just me being cheeky as usual.

IMERC i haven't read up any on gel cells. I know I can get the fork lift batteries I already have a line on some. Free. But i want to know about the gel cells have you discussed them any here yet?
The oil is all in Texas, but the dipsticks are in D.C.

IMERC

Quote from: TexasTimbers on August 03, 2008, 02:02:01 PM


IMERC i haven't read up any on gel cells. I know I can get the fork lift batteries I already have a line on some. Free. But i want to know about the gel cells have you discussed them any here yet?

I found a varity of wet-cell batteries for free or next to nothing....
but of course I always have to go off in a different direction than everyone else...

some of the things I was worried about was safety, maintence and spillage of the electrolyte along with the corossive off gassing.... not to mention the brain numbing cold in these higher altitudes...
essentually they are the same as wet-cells but the electrolyte is a gelliten...

unless you can find good batteries used and for a fair price the costs gets into unreal...
as in 5/600$ per 200AH battery...


and this is stolen from the WWW....
hope it answers yur questions...

A gel battery (also known as a "gel cell") is a rechargeable valve regulated lead-acid battery with a gelified electrolyte. Unlike a traditional wet-cell lead-acid battery, these batteries do not need to be kept upright (though they cannot be charged inverted). In addition, gel batteries virtually eliminate the electrolyte evaporation, spillage (and subsequent corrosion issues) common to the wet-cell battery, and boast greater resistance to extreme temperatures, shock, and vibration. These batteries are often colloquially referred to as sealed lead-acid (SLA) batteries due to their non-leaking containers, but they are not completely sealed; the valve regulation system allows for gas to be expelled. Chemically they are the same as wet (non sealed) batteries except that the antimony in the lead plates is replaced by calcium. This preserves the mechanical characteristics but renders the construction far less prone to gassing. The battery type is often referred to as a Lead-Calcium battery.

At high currents, electrolysis of water occurs, expelling Hydrogen and Oxygen gas through the battery's valves. Care must be taken to prevent short circuits and rapid charging. Charging with a constant voltage (called the float charge voltage; 2.26 V per cell for a lead-acid chemistry) can cause a rapid initial current, so therefore it is suggested to begin with a constant current, using constant voltage only for the final portion of the charging. However, the float charge voltage should not be exceeded by much for typical usage, so the switch between the two modes typically occurs when the float voltage is needed to sustain the charging current through the battery's internal resistance (as per Ohm's Law). The easiest way to implement this is to use a constant voltage device with a current limiter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRLA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-acid_battery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolyte

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrosion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimony





Who ever invented work didn't know how to fish.... Here fishy fishy....

IMERC

I also looked into fuel-cells....

but I got this nagging thought that I would have a very large hole in the ground for yard and home if something went wrong...

http://www.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell.htm
Who ever invented work didn't know how to fish.... Here fishy fishy....

Riles

Not sure I understand what the revolutionary part is. You can already run electricity through electrodes to produce oxygen and hydrogen. Presumably this is more efficient? They don't give any comparative numbers. Neutral pH water is different...

Still need to produce the electricity in the first place. The revolutionary breakthrough needs to come in the solar cells.
Knowledge is good -- Faber College

TexasTimbers

IMERC, thanks for the run-down. I think I am going to have to opt for the fork lift batteries unless I hapen across a real good deal on some gel cells, and wouldn't know where to begin scaveging.

Quote from: Riles on August 03, 2008, 09:49:56 PM
Not sure I understand what the revolutionary part is . . . . . The revolutionary breakthrough needs to come in the solar cells.


Riles, to quote from the article itself . . . .

"With today's announcement, MIT researchers have hit upon a simple, inexpensive, highly efficient process for storing solar energy."

Storing the energy in such an efficient, affordable manner is the breakthrough. On the ISPWH I am about to build, I have a hurdle to overcome in that. I have some ideas and thoughts I'll discuss when I start the thread, but with the catalyst arrangement they discuss (in general terms you are correct no numbers released yet) I would not have this hurdle.


Current solar cell technology will hopefully be improved, and I have no doubt we'll see quantum leaps in their efficiency over the years as technology advances, but the current relativley inefficient solar panel technology is dramatically improved indirectly by this breakthrough. They do acknowledge your observation though, and the "breakthrough" they are talking about is the new catalysts . . . . .


"Currently available electrolyzers, which split water with electricity and are often used industrially, are not suited for artificial photosynthesis because they are very expensive and require a highly basic (non-benign) environment that has little to do with the conditions under which photosynthesis operates."

Of course this is just my own interpretation of the article and I am taking what they say at face value. It does take a good amount faith and optimism, but which I tend to have with stuff coming out of MIT. Although we are dealing with individual humans in the end, MIT seems to have a higher standard about releasing results of preliminary studies.

The oil is all in Texas, but the dipsticks are in D.C.

Riles

I agree with you on the quality of MIT's reputation, but when I see a press release saying "revolutionary" when they mean "improvement in efficiency" I get suspicious. The confusing part is they're not even talking about generating hydrogen, their new catalyst improves the generation of oxygen. (Seems to me if you get one, you get the other.) I think the press release could be written better. Guess I need to dig up the paper in Science magazine.

As for the "highly efficient" storage of solar power, I think there's a lot of hype there as well. Conversion of sunlight to electricity, electricity to hydrogen, loss of hydrogen in storage, conversion from hydrogen to electricity, conversion from DC to AC... Love to see an overall efficiency number there.
Knowledge is good -- Faber College

TexasTimbers

yeah that's a good point. the more time you covert back and forth the more loss you have. the goal is to minimize conversion, and when you have to, use matrials that are cheap, redaily avaialble and efficient thermally or elcetrically.

Supposedly, Solar Two achieved a 99% *annual* thermal storage efficiency by using molten salts as the storage medium. This was a federal govenrment-backed proiject so take that with a grain of - molten salt.

I do believe all joking aside Solar One and Solar Two provided volumes of useable improvements and breakthroughs in solar technology.
The oil is all in Texas, but the dipsticks are in D.C.

Gary_C

I agree with Riles. There seems to be too many glowing adjectives and not enough facts to get too excited. Plus this does not really create a solution to the storage problem as they have only converted the energy into another form. There still remains the problem of storing the oxygen and hydrogen in large quantities that is not addressed.

Plus electricity, hydrogen gas and pure oxygen are not exactly safe companions in any environment.    ::)
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

TexasTimbers

I think most people still have opinions based on solar technology from the 1970s and 80s. Solar technology, storage efficiency especially (even before the MIT discovery) is further ahead than most of us including me realize. the market hasn't caught up to it yet because fossil fuels were too cheap to warrant the widescale implenetaion and orginaztion of wind and solar.

For myself, just because i know very little about the nuts and bolts of the technology itself, it seems apparent that the time is here. Most of you naysayers today will look back in ten years and say "Yeah I said all along solar and wind was where it's at but no one but me saw it coming." ::)
The oil is all in Texas, but the dipsticks are in D.C.

Gary_C

TT, you totally misinterpret what I said when you caracterize my comments as being from a naysayer.

I know all to well how those large research institutions work when the are "pandering" for grants and that press release was simply too much glowing praise for themselves and lacked any real facts to be of much interest right now. I have no doubt there is some pioneering work being done right now to solve these energy issues but we will never hear about them untill they are finished because these research institutions are so afraid that someone will steal their ideas and beat them to the market and the financial windfalls that come with those developments.

So not getting excited about these glorified "press releases" is not being a naysayer.   ;D ;D
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

TexasTimbers

Okay Gary fair enough, sometimes ya gotta spell it out for me. :)

I did run across an article that went into the science a little deeper than what i have yet read. Doubt i could find it again but if i run across it i will link. What I gathered from it, was that it is in fact the discovery of the particular catalysts (cobalt being one) that have given the storage issue the "revolutionary" (I agree the word is worn out and probably hype in this case too) level of efficiency both in initial cost of the catalyst (presently platinum is the most efficient ctatlyst metal for anodes i think) and the efficiency of the conversion itself.

My notion is that even if the MIT thing is not all it's cracked up to be, heck even if it is a farce, solar is far more advanced (efficient) than most people realize. It is not the holy grail of energy though, i do realize that. IMHO nuclear is the closest thing to that. But daytime solar, nightitme wind augmented with some degree of stored solar, seem to represent the most promising system for the average homeowner that i can see. But at the stage we are at it also means alot of DIY to be affordable for most people.

I think what is going on in this thread though, is that you are simply staying on point much better than some of our other members in the north east Texas area. I won't mention any names if you won't.  The thread is titled "Solar Revolution from MIT" which you addressed, and I concentrated the Texas guy seems to be focused on the part that says "Solar Revolution". in general. ::) Just ignore him, is my advice. ;D
The oil is all in Texas, but the dipsticks are in D.C.

Coon

TT   You crack me up.   :D :D  That's why I always say "It's mind over matter.  If you got no mind, then it really don't matter."  :D :D
Norwood Lumbermate 2000 w/Kohler,
Husqvarna, Stihl and, Jonsereds Saws

TexasTimbers

Well Coon that just goes to show you ...................... smiley_headscratch  ........................ well I don't really know, but it's bound to show you something. smiley_heh_heh


smiley_confused



smiley_goofy_face



smile_juggle



8)
The oil is all in Texas, but the dipsticks are in D.C.

Coon

Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most.   :D :D
Norwood Lumbermate 2000 w/Kohler,
Husqvarna, Stihl and, Jonsereds Saws

Handy Andy

  We have a gell battery in the wife's Miata.  The first time I replaced it, the car was 5 years old.  Had to replace it this spring, the car is 12 years old now.  Never had to clean the battery cables, and the cable ends still look like new.  Only down side I can see is the cost.  It was something like 82 dollars at the Exide outlet store, we have an Exide factory here, and no one stocks one.  Jim
My name's Jim, I like wood.

SwampDonkey

Joint Centre for Artificial Photosynthesis

http://solarfuelshub.org

Doesn't say anything much on that site.

But one storage method for hydrogen is chicken feather fibres created by heating the feathers to 700 degrees. No pressurized storage required, cheap. That's just one area being explored.  ;D
"No amount of belief makes something a fact." James Randi

1 Thessalonians 5:21

2020 Polaris Ranger 570 to forward firewood, Husqvarna 555 XT Pro, Stihl FS560 clearing saw and continuously thinning my ground, on the side. Grow them trees. (((o)))

Handy Andy

Last night on Nova, the pbs program had several of these breakthroughs. One guy making nano tubes from recycled shopping bags, some tiny cards used for fuel cells, the chicken feather storage system for hydrogen, and power generation from trash.  Pretty interesting. Didn't see any projects I could jump on.  Oh, and somebody had a new photovoltaic  system based on a leaf.
My name's Jim, I like wood.

SwampDonkey

Yeah I saw it to the other night. The artificial photosynthesis is what that link is about and the guy on the show is also involved from Cal-Tech. Light was used to separate the hydrogen in a glass flask. Turned the switch on (light) and the hydrogen was rising to the top in bubbles.
"No amount of belief makes something a fact." James Randi

1 Thessalonians 5:21

2020 Polaris Ranger 570 to forward firewood, Husqvarna 555 XT Pro, Stihl FS560 clearing saw and continuously thinning my ground, on the side. Grow them trees. (((o)))

Thank You Sponsors!