Say no to Fossil Fuels.

We all know the wind, and solar power are the only true forms of renewable energy.

Its posted here in this board many times about photovoltaic solar cells: the pros and the cons.

How about the Stirling Engine. It's been talked about on other free energy boards. Well heres a new twist. Take a bit of old technology and a little bit of new technology and poof; what do you have?

www.eetimes.com...

"The Stirling engine makes solar power so much more efficiently than photovoltaic solar cells can," said Robert Liden, chief administrative officer at Stirling Energy Systems Inc. (Phoenix).

The way I read this, it uses a, I think a parabolic dish, to concentrate solar energy to power the Stirling which in turns drives a mechanical generator. The system is being produced with the US Department of Energy. The cost benifits are atractive as well.

If the project succeeds, the DOE predicts that by 2011, Stirling solar-dish farms could be delivering electricity to the grid at costs comparable to traditional electricity sources, thereby reducing the U.S. need for foreign sources of fossil fuels.

I like it!!!!!!!!!!!111

I like it too! If it does come to fruition but so many of these plans never get off the ground.

We could also use nuclear power.

In France and Japan it's a major source of energy.

It's not really renewable, but what there hell, there's plenty of uranium
to go around!

Your right BlackJackel,

but I'll go futher

Right now about 20 EEs, including more than a dozen from Stirling Energy Systems, are working full time at Sandia to create the electrical-control systems to manage these sunshine stations.

What I see would be one of the problems with the Stirling would be the variable output. But, if you look at this in reverse, how do you control the speed of an AC synchronous motor. For the benifit of other readers out here, you use a speed control. It relgulates the voltage from the deadband setpoint to full voltage in conjuction with the frequency of the power applied. Actually a variable amplitude pulse width modulated system.

Now instead of using electrical power to run the motor, if you drive with say a diesel engine and control the speed of the engine. Wahlah, you have a generator.

If you want to this with a variable speed input, you do the above mentioned in reverse.

This is probably more than you wanted to know, I got carried away.

[edit on 2-12-2004 by birddawg]

Dont forget wave power if we tapped into a fraction of that power we wouldnt need anything eles for our power needs. They did studies into this awhile back and due to a error in calculation they increased the cost of making these generators ten fold. Thats a liitle shady if you ask me but thats a story for another thread.

wavepower

I do think the future is a mix of Solar,Wind, and wave power. All great sources and if you used them all you could cover all the bases.

While I do believe that wind, wave, and solar(esp. solar) will play a role in future energy, I think the major change will come from non-conventional energy sources. I believe ZPE will be the energy source of the future and it might be as soon as next year when it will be displayed(don't quote me). Ofcourse if the powers that be have their way we will never seen any of this.

If you really want to make the solar energy system efficient you would use a more efficient heat conversion system. I am not putting down the stirling engine, but there are far more efficient conversion systems like powerchips
www.powerchips.gi or thermoacoustic www.io.com... where the carnot efficiencies actually make solar worth it.

[edit on 2-12-2004 by Sigma]

The thing is that you are all making guesses, while statistics and reality dictate strongly otherwise.

Sorry to be the realist, but right now it's hardly feasible. Stirling engines aren't cheap, nor are photovoltaics, nor is solar steam, etc. etc.

People will do it when it is cheap and actually produces enough power.

Sigma,
Thanks for the reply,

Let me go a little further,
ZPE will probably never come to light. Why? Just about every law of every every engineering field would have to be broken. It seems to me like to many hurdles would have to be overocme.

Now with that said. let see about those websites.
www.powerchips.gi...
Where are they? Also a 30 to 40 percent gain in efficiency is streching it.

Power Chips will deliver up to 70-80% of the maximum (Carnot) theoretical efficiency for heat pumps (conventional power generation equipment operates at up to 40% Carnot efficiency).

Concerning the fellows research group and their cost of delivering power.

This tiny MEMS thermoacoustic generator converts heat into electricity. The source of heat can be solar radiation, combustible fuel, even body heat. It requires no maintenance and is cost competitive with all existing power generation equipment. (< $0.10/Watt)

Now in the original link, the enigineers state the the cost would be

same or less than the peak rates paid today � or "about 6.5 cents per kilowatt-hour during peak periods,

Or about ( < $0.000065/Watt)
I kinda put this in the same format so the differences would be more obvious. A kilowatt is 1000 more than a watt.

[edit on 2-12-2004 by birddawg]

Well I can't promise anything, but if everything goes right there may be a 1kw ZPE device by the end of next year, operating on principles not completely understood.

In regards to the powerchip technology they are pushing to get the devices in military applications within the fiscal year. The biggest hurdle at the moment is the packaging, however there are many technologies available right now, that with proper usage could make these chips rather easy to manufacture. Powerchips and Coolchips could be on the public market in 1-2 years, with the coolchips taking precedence(computer chips need extensive cooling).

In regards to the thermoacoustic generator, that maybe quite a wait before it hits the market due to the financial situation within the company. Their technology could possibly have some advantages over powerchips that would make them useful in highly unstable enviroments(exp. tanks), where excessive temperatures and vibrations may destroy the more sensitive Powerchip structure.

Whether or not there is such a thing as a harness-able ZPE power source is questionable; nonetheless, I think it's more sensible to look at realistic power options.

One of the biggest advantages -- from a cost-effectivity point of view -- is whether or not a new power source can use the existing transmission infrastructure.

That is one of the reasons why nuclear fission is the most sensible choice; it's healthier than burning hydrocarbons, there is a large supply of fissionables available, these fissionables can, to a large extent, be recycled, nuclear fission takes advantage of the existing power transmission infrastructure, and it's a proven and mature technology.

When we run out of oil (note that I said "when", not "if") we must have a proven power supply in place able to pick up the slack immediately. This means we have to start phasing out hydrocarbon burning now and replacing it with something that works.

And the only thing that works is nuclear fission.

I certainly don't want to bet the future of civilization on a power source that doesn't exist!

Sigma, I reread the the two sites you posted. They most definitely have a place in our increasingly tecnological world. I like the part about

even body heat

can used used to generate power. Body heat is wasted energy, right?

I have to ask, are the peltier devices? I could'nt find any reference on either site.

One last comment here before i go, could you expand on you statement

there may be a 1kw ZPE device by the end of next year, operating on principles not completely understood.

I just like to know more.
Thanks

[edit on 2-12-2004 by birddawg]

Street,
What are some of the things that have been recycled from fissionable materials? Do I come across them day to day?

Nuclear waste can be re-processed to gather the "un-used" portions.

Also, anything radioactive can be used to make a "battery" by utilizing an effect which creates electricity from radiation. Only.. no one really wants nuclear waste in the hands of Joe Anybody.

Exactly. correct me if I'm wrong, but nuclear waste is "recycled" into nuclear warheads, right?

But, nuclear waste is just that: nuclear waste. Nobody wants it in their back yard. Look at the nuclear waste spread out over south western Russia at Chernobyl, and the rest of the world for that matter.

Originally posted by birddawg
Exactly. correct me if I'm wrong, but nuclear waste is "recycled" into nuclear warheads, right?

But, nuclear waste is just that: nuclear waste. Nobody wants it in their back yard. Look at the nuclear waste spread out over south western Russia at Chernobyl, and the rest of the world for that matter.

Actually what they have found with the radioactivity near Chernobyl and the people living around it, it has had a rather unexpected affect. It has actually reduced cancer rate I read it on some science website a while back I'll try to dig up the link.

EDIT: But after a quick search showed, that the piece of "science" i was refering too is probably fraudulent I'll still try to dig up the link though, its always good to hear contrairian stuff every once in a while.

PS France recycles all of its nuclear waste into reactors not weapons im sure that the practice all over europe and in Canada. For what reason the US doesn't recycle its waste I have no idea since it reduces the volume of said waste. And no matter what people say I have yet to see solid evidance that DU munitions are more hazardous then lead munitions. If you see the evidance please do share.



[edit on 2-12-2004 by sardion2000]

Since the Gulf War (in which DU weapons were used) cancer has risen 10 fold in Iraq. The mysterious "Gulf War Syndrome" has no explanation.. except that maybe they didn't realize they were shooting off and wandering around in nuclear waste. Depleted Uranium weapons are highly desired because Uranium has 1.8 times the mass of lead and pierces all kinds of stuff easy, in case someone doesn't know. It's also heavily used in bunker busters. It has approximately 30% less radiation than raw Uranium. Any time a shell hits, radioactive gas is created. Most soldiers in Iraq probably have no idea, and the same with aid workers, etc.

Whenever Uranium is re-processed to gather the still good Uranium and re-used, there is still nuclear waste. What do you think it does, disappear afterward? Also, only a small bit of it is re-usable.

It can still be used for batteries, however, so long as it is radioactive (which is a long time).

[edit on 12/3/2004 by shbaz]

Actually I was under the impression after talking to my friend(who just happens to be a specialist in Isotopes) that lead is much more toxic but I'll look into some more. You know me shbaz I try to be as grounded in the realities of science as possible(allthough with the rate its moving at lately its becoming more and more difficult) If you could dig up some links from where you got your info I'll check em out.

[Offtopic]
hey shbaz any progress in your research on any Alt. energy(ie Aquafuel, stirling engines etc?)
[/Offtopic]

PS. My friends in the military still refuse to believe that DU is that harmful and these are fairly smart guys too soo i dunno what to think now....

Numerous studies of depleted uranium have not found any link between its use by the military and any form of cancer or other health problems. The most dangerous gamma and x-rays are removed during the extraction of uranium-235, leaving the more benign alpha radiation that cannot penetrate the skin to cause internal injury.

Is it wise to injest it No, but neither is injesting lead. Lead might even be worst to injest according to a EU study.

According to a European Union study released in 2001, "most of the ingested DU (between 98% and 99.8%, depending on the solubility of the uranium compound) will be rapidly eliminated in the faeces." The vast majority of any remaining uranium will be "rapidly cleared from the blood" in a few weeks. Similarly, the majority of inhaled DU dust will also be cleared via the bloodstream and kidneys. The EU report concluded that "exposure to DU could not produce any detectable health effects under realistic assumptions of the doses that would be received."


Tungsten is perhaps the only metal that could replace DU and it lacks the pyrophoric effect of DU making it less effective. Tungsten is also much more expensive then DU which is almost free. The US has to import Tungsten mostly from China and Russia the two largest producers of it in the world.

www.heritage.org...

reason.com...

heh shadow you beat me too it. here is the wikis stance on the issue(stay tuned to these links im giving all you cuz they could get updated without notice)

en.wikipedia.org...


and here is the dispute on the great wiki

en.wikipedia.org...:NPOV_dispute

en.wikipedia.org...epleted_uranium

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
According to a European Union study released in 2001...

If you look at the wiki page, notice that a good portion of the EU uses DU munitions.. hmm..

I wonder why an American soldier would also feel so strongly?

The long-term effects of this can't be seen in short-term testing, that's all I'm saying. The cancer increase in Iraq could be caused by chemical spills, etc, and not DU, but who can really say? The research is done by the governments who are using it, governments who definately don't want to give up their DU and use inferior weapons against enemies who do.