2

1/10/2008 11:04:07 AM

Quote :

"The information I've gathered was told to me by Abraham Clearfield during the NASSC Conference in Texas A&M University last May. You may research his papers to see what he has to say about his work in nuclear waste treatment."

The waste he is referring to is a result of the nuclear weapons program - NOT civilian nuclear power. He wants to remove certian isotopes (U238, Cs 137, Sr 90) from storage tanks via well-designed chemistry. These isotopes will then be vitrified - the final storage medium for the nuclear material will be a glassy solid, not a liquid.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand. Nanosolar appears to use a transparent, conducting, polymer for the top electrical contact (yay google patent search). Are these types of polymers stable over a long period of time? Even though it is transparent in the visible, it might not be in the UV, which means it will photodegrade over a period of time. Even if the solar panels are cheap, if they don't last long, it doesn't matter if I have to replace them every year (although it might make them some money in replacements).

Quote :

"NaTaO3 is a metal oxide compound that, when immersed in water and exposed to UV light, produces H2 gas, which can then be stored and transported as an energy fuel source much easier than pure electricity. This method also produces no harmful greenhouse gases that could damage the environment like CO2. This compound is over 50% efficient in UV light."

Is anyone doing research on this - I can't seem to find anything on the internet, and there are a whole bunch of questions that come to to mind. For instance:
By 50% efficient, do you mean for every two photons you get 1 H2 molecule? Is there enough Ta and Nb to make this feasible? Does the water have to be chemically pure? How much impurities can be tolerated? How do you design a reactor for this? Is the efficiency number at a specific wavelength, or over UVA, UVB, etc?

Nukes FTW, in any event.

1/10/2008 11:08:06 AM

Quote :

" Quote : "NaTaO3 is a metal oxide compound that, when immersed in water and exposed to UV light, produces H2 gas, which can then be stored and transported as an energy fuel source much easier than pure electricity. This method also produces no harmful greenhouse gases that could damage the environment like CO2. This compound is over 50% efficient in UV light." Is anyone doing research on this - I can't seem to find anything on the internet, and there are a whole bunch of questions that come to to mind. For instance: By 50% efficient, do you mean for every two photons you get 1 H2 molecule? Is there enough Ta and Nb to make this feasible? Does the water have to be chemically pure? How much impurities can be tolerated? How do you design a reactor for this? Is the efficiency number at a specific wavelength, or over UVA, UVB, etc? "

I am working on this field, as are many other people. It's hard to find specific scientific journals via the internet, I usually go through the NCSU journal libraries website to find relevant information and/or use Scifinder Scholar to find these articles.

50% efficiency means that for every 2 photons that strike the metal oxide, there is 1 electron that is excited to the conduction band of the oxide that allows for reduction to produce hydrogen. Since h2 has 2 electrons, it will require 4 photons and 2 excited electrons.

There is enough Ta and Nb to make this project actually work on a large scale if that's what you are referring to, but this isn't the only compound that has been developed. I have several compounds that are active in visible light using less expensive materials, but the efficiency is decreased. I'm currently workng on new systems that have good efficiency in viisble light

if you are referring to catalytic activity from the metal centers of the oxides in the experiments themselves, this also correct.

Distilled or deionized water is usually used in these scientific experiments, but there are other papers with different compounds that have used seawater and achieved the same water splitting reaction, so I don't see why this isn't possible

Simple setups and designs for lab experiments can be thought up in your head. We have small scale experiments here as we are a research group. For large scale stuff, Consult an engineer


The efficiency is at <350nm wavelength of light. with reference to the solar spectrum, this is in the UV range of light, and since UV comprises about 4% of the total light striking earth, it is not feasible to design UV active systems. Visible light is >50% of the total amount of light striking earth, so it is MUCH more desired to develop visibly active systems for research. This is what I do in my research.

1/10/2008 11:34:54 AM

A problem with nuclear energy is that the waste is very nasty stuff and no one wants it anywhere near them. You can use conservative methods to minimize the waste, but in the end you're going to accrue some vile shit that won't become harmless until hundreds (thousands?) of years pass. Once one landfill - whatever form that takes - fills up, it becomes a major policy/political issue to create the next storage facility. I think there was an issue a couple years back with waste that was being trucked/trained/stored through Utah or Nevada or someplace and everyone was saying to get that crap out of my state.

1/10/2008 11:43:36 AM

Quote :

" already made several comments about alternatives to using battery storage as an energy source. For one, hydrogen fuel. Take time to read before you go on your internet tirade and show what a big e-man you are. "

you have yet to make one single comment about the feasibility of large scale energy storage. hydrogen fuel is more of a pipe dream than a reality. our existing natural gas systems are not capable of handling the fuel, fuel cell generators have not come anywhere close to meeting industrial requirements, and the storage systems that would need to be put into place would cost astronomical sums of money.

Why don't you get your facts straight before you try to prove "what a bit e-man you are". Some of us actually work in the utility industry and understand the practicality of the issue. You've done nothing but consistently run your mouth over bullshit that everyone in here has been able to easily refute.

We'll see solar energy be applied at a commercial scale in the not too distant future, but it won't come from solar cells - it will come from solar collectors that boil water for running a steam turbine.

1/10/2008 12:38:38 PM

^^ well its either thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste for the past 30 years or so (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/spent_fuel/ussnfdata.html)

or it is trillion of tonnes of CO2 per year (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2emiss.pdf)

pick one

you dont get a free lunch

[Edited on January 10, 2008 at 12:50 PM. Reason : more data is always fun

1/10/2008 12:39:55 PM

coal is the future.

1/10/2008 12:45:51 PM

I'd rather take my chances with CO2. plants seem to like it just fine.

1/10/2008 12:46:34 PM

iknorite?

we have a shit load and its cheap

that must mean that its the bestest!

1/10/2008 12:47:12 PM

eleusis

quit your crying dude, it's the internet. If you can't easily talk shit and say what shitty ideas everyone has, then nobody would ever come here.


I work in hydrogen production, not hydrogen storage.

If you want to see the future in Hydrogen Storage, google Omar Yaghi and look at some of his ideas. I obviously don't have all the answers to everything, I just wanted to share what I have done in this field and some of the things I've heard. I can't help it that everybody gets a boner trying to tell me what a shitty job i'm doing. For the most part, nobody has really done any research, they just post what they've heard and discount everyone else's opinion.

Congratulations if you work in the utilities industry. You obviously are super offended that somebody said something negative about you over the internet and now your day is ruined. Sorry. I'm in the energy field myself, so I must be an authority on the subject too, like you, and that's why I post here all the time.

Hydrogen technology is getting there. It can be done, it's not a pipe dream. Nobody thought man could fly for a while, either.

If you really want me to make a good argument, read my above post about metal oxide photocatalysis. I'm one of a very small handful that has had experience in this field and can probably answer those questions more effectively than anybody else in this forum

1/10/2008 12:57:26 PM

hydrogen is just not a good idea because of its abysmal energy density

1/10/2008 12:58:34 PM

FYI does anybody know what hte biggest greenhouse gas of all is??


Water Vapor


Funny, huh?

Good thing it can condense and rain back on earth


CO2 doesn't have quite the same cycle

1/10/2008 12:59:56 PM

dharney -

quit your crying. You obviously have said a bunch of really stupid shit in here and you've gotten called out on it. It's obvious that you work in a recearch field doing small-scale applications and have little to no understanding of the size or complexity of the issue at hand with meeting world energy demands. I'm sorry that everyone in here knocked you off your high horse and ruined your day.

1/10/2008 1:00:50 PM

Hydrogen has the most energy by weight, but by volume it is quite low.


The catch is trying to compress hydrogen and doing it efficiently


New Hybrid Organic/Inorganic Structures developed by Omar Yaghi have tried to tackle this problem by making molecular 'cages' which can actually store hydrogen better than conventional low temperature compression. It's pretty cool stuff if you want to check it out

1/10/2008 1:02:27 PM

let it go dude


you win the argument of the century. You are now the foremost authority on alternative energy internet forums. Everyone will flock to you for answers to all of life's questions

1/10/2008 1:07:47 PM

compressed hydrogen also doesn't sound like the best idea for putting on a car, train, or plane.

[Edited on January 10, 2008 at 1:08 PM. Reason : ^I never boasted about how great my ideas are. I simply pointed out half-assed yours are]

1/10/2008 1:08:01 PM

Why not have large hydrogen stations that do all the fuel storage and electricity production, then just have electric cars?

1/10/2008 1:09:54 PM

Unless you can figure out how to recharge a dead battery in 2 minutes, then you've practically eliminated long distance travel or vehicles that are required to run 24/7/365.

[Edited on January 10, 2008 at 1:14 PM. Reason : hydrogen powered buses seem to be catching on since they can use the same filling station repeatedly]

1/10/2008 1:13:12 PM

Yeah but you could make special exemptions for large transport vehicles, construction equipment, etc.


If you can switch 1/2 the cars from gas to electric, you've essentially cut the demand for oil/doubled the supply (not considering things other than vehicles.)

It's a medium term solution that could lead towards something permanently accessible.


Hybrid electric cars are catching on pretty well though, which hopefully will allow us to stretch out our fuel supply further until something more feasible can come along. It also solves the problem of charging time with the alternator keeping the battery hot

charging stations and length of time for a recharge idk about. It's all about the mobility of ions in the cell itself. I've read a little about some new pyrochlore compounds that are being used for batteries, but i don't remember what it said bout recharge time

1/10/2008 1:22:26 PM

Quote :

"Why not have large hydrogen stations that do all the fuel storage and electricity production, then just have electric cars?"

then what is the point of the hydrogen if we already have zero carbon emission energy generation sources that we can build today and then you can just plug your car in at home...and no new infrastructure has to be assembled

[Edited on January 10, 2008 at 1:32 PM. Reason : 

1/10/2008 1:29:46 PM

This is fantastic news, always good to hear about alternative energy progress. That being said:

Quote :

"I expect in a decade or two gas powered cars will be the exception in this country, not the norm. "

Not a freaking chance.

1/10/2008 1:30:38 PM

passenger vehicles like buses and airplanes would be the first choice for hydrogen power, since they tend to be much safer in construction and operation. They could also utilize the same fueling station over and over again for their specific area, since they tend to come through their hub on a periodic basis.

in order to get passenger vehicles running on hydrogen, we would have to figure out how to build fueling stations nationwide to support them. Most gas stations in existance do not have enough additional land to build storage tanks and additional pumps that would be required for the new fuel.

Another thing to keep in mind with battery powered cars is that the batteries are very dangerous to the environment, both with their construction and their disposal. We would have to build facilites for storing the batteries and device cleanup procedures.

My personal biggest concern with hydrogen powered vehicles is the safety of the vehicles in a collision. Buses and Airplanes tend to be rather safe in that they are operated at designated speeds and have strict licensing procedures, but there are plenty of idiots on the road that insist on driving recklessly and eventually will wreck. While it's not as complicated to seal off a liquid fuel tank using baffles and double walled containers, pressurized fuel tanks are a completely different animal. You're going from making a vehicle a moderate fire hazard during a wreck and converting it into a severe explosion hazard.

1/10/2008 1:32:08 PM

hydrogen as a fuel for automobiles will never be viable until a way is discovered to produce hydrogen on the cheap, and with more energy coming out instead of going into that process.

1/10/2008 1:39:48 PM

then what is the point of the hydrogen if we already have zero carbon emission energy generation sources that we can build today and then you can just plug your car in at home...and no new infrastructure has to be assembled


Got a link or something?


If it's what i think you are talking about, the zero net emissions, there are still CO2 emissions, they are just sequestered out before exhausted into the atmosphere. There is still the issue with where to put the stuff

Most of the electricity in the US comes from burning Coal, and there are emissions from this process, mostly CO2 and sulfur emissions.


A Hydrogen power station from solar electricity, NOT methane, will have no dangerous emissions at all

1/10/2008 1:47:37 PM

^that is true. but using electricity to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen isn't gonna work, and i blieve thats how its mostly done now.

1/10/2008 1:56:59 PM

actually the majority of hydrogen is produced from cracking methane, which does release CO2 as well.


using electrolysis to produce hydrogen is costly, and net loss


Using Solar energy I believe is the cleanest and best way to get H2, we just gotta keep researching

1/10/2008 2:00:52 PM

^^^that would be nuclear power plants

1/10/2008 2:12:26 PM

Here's the quote of what I was talking about for nuclear power earlier.


To read the full PDF article, http://nsl.caltech.edu/files/Energy_Notes.pdf

Quote :

"One option that is not on the charts in this presentation, but which must be included prominently in any discussion of carbon-free power, is nuclear power, either from fission or possibly in the future from fusion. Currently about 400 nuclear power plants exist globally. The IPCC projections included an expansion of nuclear power in arriving at the quoted energy mix overall. However, it is possible to consider a much larger contribution of nuclear power to address the carbon-free power need. Nuclear power plants typically do not scale well because of heat dissipation, and their size is now about 1 GW. To produce 10 TW of power would require construction of 10,000 new nuclear power plants over the next 50 years, i.e., one every other day somewhere in the world for the next 50 years. I will leave the reader to decide whether or not that is a viable option, but it is technically possible in principle as an approach to obtain the required level of carbon-free power."

I just don't believe this can happen to meet world demand by 2050

1/10/2008 2:26:01 PM

do you honestly believe it is feasible to construct 10,000,000 MW worth of capacity using solar power by 2050?

1/10/2008 2:31:52 PM

I don't know what is possible, but I do believe there will be people here, so we'll figure out something

[Edited on January 10, 2008 at 2:33 PM. Reason : jkl;]

[Edited on January 10, 2008 at 2:34 PM. Reason : jk;l]

1/10/2008 2:33:21 PM

this quote is from the same paper

Read it, see what he says

He goes through several different alternative energy sources and tries to explain them all and what he concluded was that solar power was the only reasonable alternative because o the overwhelming supply

Quote :

"The solar constant is1.76x105 TW, hence, there is ample solar energy potential. Solar energy is, in fact, theonly renewable resource that has enough terrestrial energy potential to satisfy a 10- 20 TW carbon-free supply constraint in 2050. From the 1.2x105 TW of solar energy that strikes the earth’s surface, a practical siting-constrained terrestrial global solar power potential value is about 600 TW. The numbers range from very conservative estimates of 50 TW to optimistic estimates of 1500 TW, depending on the land fraction devoted to power generation. A good number to use for onshore power generation potential is probably 600 TW. Thus, for a 10% efficient solar farm, at least 60 TW of power could be supplied from terrestrial solar energy resources. For calibration, photosynthesis currently supplies 90 TW globally to make the biosphere run, so the amount of power available from the sun is very large number by any measure."

1/10/2008 2:36:50 PM

sounds like the guy is a nutcase with no understanding of the grid. He doesn't realize that over half of the world is completely unsuitable for solar power and located too far away from areas that are suitable for bulk power transmission. Solar power is worthless to places like northern Russia and Canada, and to a large extent in the south due to how cloudy and hazy it gets around here.

The only renewable energy that will be practical in the southeast is wind and tidal. That has been well documented.

1/10/2008 2:46:39 PM

Nathan Lewis is one of the most well respected chemists working in today's field. He's a professor at CalTech.

as I said before, READ THE PAPER to get the full gist of what he's talking about

after that huge tantrum you threw about me hurting your feelings because you are a meter lady, now you are just shrugging this guy off as a nutcase. don't be such a hypocrite

1/10/2008 2:51:44 PM

if he actually believes solar energy is the way of the future, then he is a nutcase. end of discussion. What makes it even worse is that you're too stupid to see why the claims this guy makes are preposterous.

[Edited on January 10, 2008 at 4:34 PM. Reason : the only person in here getting their feelings hurt is you, since you repeatedly get proven wrong]

1/10/2008 4:33:25 PM

how is just disregarding someone else's work as him being a nutcase proving me wrong?



you must have been quite the debator in the college team

1/10/2008 4:36:57 PM

Quote :

"if he actually believes solar energy is the way of the future, then he is a nutcase. end of discussion. What makes it even worse is that you're too stupid to see why the claims this guy makes are preposterous."

exactly

these arent engineers that are thinking about this

1/10/2008 4:57:40 PM

the science has to start somewhere. To solve a problem, you try to work it on the small scale, then work your way up to real world solutions.

These aren't answers the engineering behind the problems, im not an engineer, im a chemist. These are potential solutions to the science behind the problem. Once we figure that out, then an engineer comes in and designs a proper system.

everything starts with an idea.


and I don't believe you ever read the paper, so you don't even know what Lewis' ideas are.

Nor do I believe you came to Dan Nocera's talk here last semester about this. I seriously doubt you would make these ridiculous comments to him to his face

1/10/2008 5:06:29 PM

well where to start with that post

Quote :

"These aren't answers the engineering behind the problems, im not an engineer, im a chemist. These are potential solutions to the science behind the problem. Once we figure that out, then an engineer comes in and designs a proper system."

well we figured out the problem, you just an idealist for whatever its worth and it makes sense why you cant see the big picture and the pitfalls

Quote :

"and I don't believe you ever read the paper, so you don't even know what Lewis' ideas are. Nor do I believe you came to Dan Nocera's talk here last semester about this. I seriously doubt you would make these ridiculous comments to him to his face"

who is this guy? you keep spouting off all these names, and they are always different. i cant keep up but if this guy did propose that this would work for the whole fucking planet id laugh at him because there are thousands of problems with this solution...until you can make a sufficient energy storage system, solar will never work. it doesnt power shit at night, it will never work as a baseload system

[Edited on January 10, 2008 at 5:21 PM. Reason : oh and i read the paper

1/10/2008 5:20:20 PM

don't you know that eleusis is the resident TWW expert on everything?

1/10/2008 5:39:23 PM

are you sure that isnt Noen?

1/10/2008 5:41:24 PM

Quote :

"To solve a problem, you try to work it on the small scale, then work your way up to real world solutions. "

you don't solve large problems by seeing if it's possible at the molecular level. just because something works in a laboratory doesn't mean that it's feasible to apply those results on a commercial scale.

There's a huge difference between a scientist and an engineer. A scientist only cares if something is possible. An engineer is concerned with how much it's going to cost him to make it work. Seeing as how the problems with our current grid are mainly a problem of economics, the opinion of engineers in more pertinent to this discussion.

and by the way, I'm not going to read your paper because your paper is pure garbage. Quit acting like you're somehow better informed because you've subjected yourself to stupid propaganda.

1/10/2008 5:44:49 PM

Quote :

"I seriously doubt you would make these ridiculous comments to him to his face"

if he tried to tell me solar cells are the way of the future, I'd ask him what he was selling.

1/10/2008 5:46:47 PM

Quote :

"im not an engineer, im a chemist."

Exactly.

And elusis is unfortunately very right on this entire thread of discussion. Solar power is not a viable mass energy alternative. Even ocean based wind farms are a better option.

Quote :

"To produce 10 TW of power would require construction of 10,000 new nuclear power plants over the next 50 years, i.e., one every other day somewhere in the world for the next 50 years."

That's making so many assumptions that it's not even a valid statement. Also, China has a new plant coming online something like monthly. It's also assuming a radical and consistent increase in power consumption in the next 50 years, which is very highly debateable. If anything I'd say power consumption will increase at a much slower rate than in previous decades even with China and India's rapid growth.

1/10/2008 7:23:41 PM

Quote :

"solar energy is now cheaper than coal nuclear."

courtesy Duke University

http://theenergycollective.com/oshadavidson/40559/study-solar-power-cheaper-nuclear

Quote :

"The Holy Grail of the solar industry — reaching grid parity — may no longer be a distant dream. Solar may have already reached that point, at least when compared to nuclear power, according to a new study by two researchers at Duke University. It’s no secret that the cost of producing photovoltaic cells (PV) has been dropping for years. A PV system today costs just 50 percent of what it did in 1998. Breakthroughs in technology and manufacturing combined with an increase in demand and production have caused the price of solar power to decline steadily. At the same time, estimated costs for building new nuclear power plants have ballooned. The result of these trends: “In the past year, the lines have crossed in North Carolina,” say study authors John Blackburn and Sam Cunningham. “Electricity from new solar installations is now cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear plants.” If the data analysis is correct, the pricing would represent the “Historic Crossover” claimed in the study’s title. Two factors not stressed in the study bolster the case for solar even more: 1) North Carolina is not a “sun-rich” state. The savings found in North Carolina are likely to be even greater for states with more sunshine –Arizona, southern California, Colorado, New Mexico, west Texas, Nevada and Utah. 2) The data include only PV-generated electricity, without factoring in what is likely the most encouraging development in solar technology: concentrating solar power (CSP). CSP promises utility scale production and solar thermal storage, making electrical generation practical for at least six hours after sunset. Power costs are generally measured in cents per kilowatt hour – the cost of the electricity needed to illuminate a 1,000 watt light bulb (for example) for one hour. When the cost of a kilowatt hour (kWh) of solar power fell to 16 cents earlier this year, it “crossed over” the trend-line associated with nuclear power. (see chart below) The authors point out that some commercial scale solar developers are now offering electricity at 14 cents a kWh in North Carolina, a price which is expected to continue to drop. While the study includes subsidies for both solar and nuclear power, it estimates that if subsidies were removed from solar power, the crossover point would be delayed by a maximum of nine years. The report is significant not only because it shows solar to be a cheaper source of energy than nuclear. The results are also important because, despite the Senate’s failure to pass a climate and energy bill this year, taxpayers now bear the burden of putting carbon into the atmosphere through a variety of hidden charges – or externalities, as economists call them. Fossil fuels currently account for 70 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. annually. (Nuclear generates 20 percent.) Having dropped below nuclear power, solar power is now one of the least expensive energy sources in America "

7/30/2010 2:42:46 PM

yay nanotechnology

7/30/2010 3:06:09 PM

some of you folks are clearly wasting your time as worker bees when you should be professors at Duke or Cal Tech

7/30/2010 4:02:36 PM

Solar simply isn't a viable option for base load generation. People can tout solar all they want, but until we achieve more technological advances in that area, solar power might be able to keep a utility company from using their peaking units.

7/30/2010 5:11:14 PM

Quote :

"Solar simply isn't a viable option for base load generation. People can tout solar all they want, but until we achieve more technological advances in that area, solar power might be able to keep a utility company from using their peaking units."

People are working on storage technologies as well from molten salt to redox batteries...which by the way actually address your second point for existing energy generation.

7/30/2010 5:32:44 PM

All of which have been in the works for decades and haven't yielded anything practical.

7/30/2010 5:36:13 PM

Easily the dumbest fucking thing I've heard this month.

7/30/2010 5:39:04 PM