Live data from Hacker News

Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

extremetech.com

131–140 of 161 posts

Re: Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can build power plants in the middle of the desert and ship power out. The technology exists; we just haven't done it yet. Transmission losses are not a concern for superconducting cables (though maintaining the cryostat jacket is). Such cables are currently being proven before being used in larger grid connections. http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/superconduc... http://www.htstriax.com/columbus.ht…

The real problem is that a nuclear power plant needs a staff of several hundred people. They can't travel 500 miles every day to work to the middle of a desert. Even if they wanted to relocate there, they would have to build a little town to serve these people and their families, and now we are back to the original problem.

Other problems with building nuclear plants (or any other type of plant that requires large steam turbines) in the desert include:

* Difficulty cooling. If you build next to an ocean or river, you can just use some of that water to provide the cold end of the temperature differential that you're using to generate power. Deserts are trickier, and more expensive.

* Transportation. If you build next to navigable waterways, you can ship really big components on barges. In deserts, you can ship some things by rail.

But hey, at least it's politically convenient to stick scary power plants in deserts.

Re: Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

#132
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget supercondictivity, what about HVDC [1]? HVDC can be as efficient as 97%, compared with the US average of 93%. That 4% "inefficiency tax" would likely pay for long-haul HVDC connectors (as outlined in one of Obama's 2008 energy proposals) within years. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Adv...

You know I've never heard of HVDC until I read this. So was Edison right all along?

No. AC is still far more useful in many key scenarios [1]. However, for long-distance power transmission, lots of money could be saved (and jobs created in doing so) by switching from AC to HVDC.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Dis... (note: some of these are due to AC parts having economies of scale and decades of efficiencies and process that HVDC may not be able to tap into without widescale implementation)

Re: Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

#133
The thing I'm puzzled about here is why saving silicon makes your solar cells cheaper. I mean, silicon is really cheap, right? Metallurgical-grade silicon is 77 cents a pound: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silicon/sil... — and that works out to around a penny a watt.

I tried to dig into this a few years ago. Evergreen Solar's 10-K for 2007 http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/947397/000095013508... has some information. Evergreen's competitive advantage is supposedly that they use less silicon than other manufacturers because they don't saw their wafers — they grow them. They say they use about 5g of silicon per watt (in 2007, planning to reduce it to 2½g per watt by 2012), and it sounds like they get paid about US$3.87 per watt on average (US$58M revenue in 2007, maxed-out manufacturing capacity of 15MW/year, 276 full-time employees in manufacturing). Their "cost of revenue" (i.e. manufacturing cost) was US$53M, or US$3.53/W. But 5g of metallurgical-grade silicon at the price above is US$0.008. If each employee costs US$120k per year (including health benefits, and remembering that a bunch of them are Ph.D.s) then that would be US$2.20/W in labor costs, which already accounts for the majority of that cost of revenue.

But they're not buying metallurgical-grade silicon; they're buying "polysilicon", short for "polycrystalline silicon", which is perhaps a bit of a misnomer, since how many crystals are in each piece of silicon supplied by their suppliers is somewhat immaterial, since Evergreen melts the silicon down and crystallizes it in polycrystalline silicon ribbons in their "String Ribbon" furnaces. Maybe that costs a lot more than metallurgical-grade silicon?

It used to be hard to find that information! But it's much better now; http://pvinsights.com/ lists current PV-grade polysilicon prices at US$29 to US$35 per kilogram, and http://www.pv-tech.org/news/polysilicon_prices_declines_will... explains that this is a major drop from previous prices of US$80/kg. 5 g at US$35 per kilogram is US$0.175. But "Silicon PV Module Price Per Watt" ranges from US$0.75 to US$1.40. Dropping 17½¢ off that price still isn't going to get you to 40¢. And if Evergreen has really made it to 2½g/W, silicon cost is even less of the total cost.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/008483.html mentions that in 2008 polysilicon prices peaked at US$400/kg.

Anyway. I'm obviously no expert, but I'm skeptical that peeling silicon with a particle accelerator is going to decrease the cost of photovoltaic cells.

Re: Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're nowhere near that limit. From Wikipedia: According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the contiguous United States has the potential for 10,459 GW of onshore wind power. The capacity could generate 37 petawatt-hours (PW·h) annually, an amount nine times larger than current total U.S. electricity consumption. The U.S. also has large wind resources in Alaska, and Hawaii. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win…

Since we're engaging in fantasy (for now) what would happen if we DID extract that much energy (or even a significant fraction of that) from the atmosphere? What kind of climate change would that precipitate?

None. The amount of energy extractable by wind turbines is only a tiny fraction of the total, close to the surface.

Re: Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

#136
post #133

The thing I'm puzzled about here is why saving silicon makes your solar cells cheaper. I mean, silicon is really cheap, right? Metallurgical-grade silicon is 77 cents a pound: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silicon/sil... — and that works out to around a penny a watt. I tried to dig into this a few years ago. Evergreen Solar's 10-K for 2007 http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/947397/00009501350…

This isn't raw silicon, it's spun ingots. The cost is almost entirely from the process they undergo, not the raw materials. From Wikipedia:

"A typical wafer is made out of extremely pure silicon that is grown into mono-crystalline cylindrical ingots (boules) up to 300 mm (slightly less than 12 inches) in diameter using the Czochralski process. These ingots are then sliced into wafers about 0.75 mm thick and polished to obtain a very regular and flat surface."

So it's a better way to slice the ingots into wafers. Those ingots are ridiculously expensive.

Re: Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

#137
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering how unpopular wind energy is in some areas due to either killing a large number of raptors, or "despoiling" the view from Martha's Vineyard, I doubt the production will continue to double indefinitely.

Turbines kill fewer birds than coal plant smokestacks. Newer, bigger ones move more slowly, killing fewer birds as well as being quieter. They also produce more power per area. As for the view... well, you can't please everyone.

Actually that's incorrect, at least for centralized wind farms:

http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/volume-4/...

The key takeaway from that thesis is:

"As determined in the risk characterization, a centralized wind farm does have a greater impact on avian mortality than the coal fired- power plant. "

Re: Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

#138
post #4

That is some amazing technology right there, almost fun to read because it sounds like science fiction but it's real. And privately designed/built/owned particle accelerators? It's definitely a new era. What if one day the other side of the globe getting sunlight powered the grid for the other half? Of course this would require very peaceful nations on each continent, so even if we had the cost-effective technology n…

>>What if one day the other side of the globe getting sunlight powered the grid for the other half? Of course this would require very peaceful nations on each continent, so even if we had the cost-effective technology now, it would take hundreds if not thousands of years to happen politically.Why? Look at the world today. Russia supplies energy to Western Europe, Saudi Arabia provides energy to the US, Australia provides coal to China. None of them have much love for each other, it's just mutual self-interest.

Re: Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

#139
post #4

That is some amazing technology right there, almost fun to read because it sounds like science fiction but it's real. And privately designed/built/owned particle accelerators? It's definitely a new era. What if one day the other side of the globe getting sunlight powered the grid for the other half? Of course this would require very peaceful nations on each continent, so even if we had the cost-effective technology n…

There's an obvious opportunity that most people miss - put energy-intensive manufacturing processes in sundrenched places. Industrial energy consumption is about 30% of total use in the US, representing a greater share than either transport or domestic use. Aluminium smelting requires massive amounts of electricity, so we're already locating smelters near to hydroelectric dams to take advantage of cheap electricity.

There are hundreds of other processes with huge energy inputs that are currently satisfied by cheap fossil fuels, but could well be met by equatorial solar facilities. Considering how quickly manufacturing transitioned to China, it seems entirely plausible that we could move most high-energy, low-labour processes to equatorial regions within a couple of decades.

Re: Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels

#140
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget supercondictivity, what about HVDC [1]? HVDC can be as efficient as 97%, compared with the US average of 93%. That 4% "inefficiency tax" would likely pay for long-haul HVDC connectors (as outlined in one of Obama's 2008 energy proposals) within years. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Adv...

You know I've never heard of HVDC until I read this. So was Edison right all along?

Not really. The AC transformer was the most efficient way to adapt voltages until very recently. The IGBT and GTO thyristors are the technology that makes something like HVDC affordable today, and they are very modern developments.

Mercury-arc rectifiers (the technology replaced with IGBTs and GTOs) were very large and expensive, and also less efficient (even more so before the 1930s or so) so HVDC only made sense for submarine cables (which have huge capacitive losses). With IGBTs and GTO thyristors it start to become feasible to e.g. do an HVDC line across a continent.

As an example the HVDC inter-island was built using mercury-arc valves (it included a submarine leg), but they have since benn replaced with solid-state devices.

HVDC is also a good to tie two separate grids together; since they will be on different time-bases you can't just directly AC couple them.

Post reply on HN