@jeffleejlc I'm pretty sure some sprayers could be built to automatically be used when needed and the best part is the sun will dry what doesn't drip off. this is why it only takes a few people to run a solar powered plant. basically one person to watch the monitors and one person to fix the broken panels...! ( which rarely break )
We are in the early stages of all this technology......the price / watt will drop in an expadential mannor.....look at how the cost of light bulds came down as production volume went up. China will make it happen ........
CSP technologies are an attempt to squeeze dispersed solar energy into the old energy central station model that allows utilities to maintain their energy monopoly. Stirling systems especially are highly inefficient, destructive - virtually every Stirling project has been cancelled or converted to solar PV. Point of use solar in the VAST built environment is cheaper, faster and generates more local economic benefits while protecting our intact desert ecosystems and nation's cultural legacy.
@Ecopolitidae While on site generation is more efficient on the transfer side, it has a lot of problems on the gathering / storing side. Battery banks and inverters are not cheap, and batteries die regularly and needs to be replaced. Also easy to use pv requires more power to produce and haul them on site, than they give out in their lifetime. Cpv can change that supposedly, but then again, you need a tracker assembly and concentrator, so the benefit of the pretty flat panels are busted.
@kistuszek If only we could solve the problem of storing, and collecting... Oh wait we can! We can collect heat and store heat already, the storing medium is inert and don't need replacing (a thermos), the collecting device is a black surface. If only we could efficiently convert that low grade heat to electricity cheaply, now that would be the feat! We already have TEG, but well it is neither efficient nor cheap, stirling is even more expensive and complex in small scale...
only one problem: they need 20 000 dishes to produce a same amount of energy that a coal burning plant "or maybe even a nuclear plant" produces. This looks interesting, but where are you gonna put all those things.
@ppunts Yes, but they need no input. You don't have to BUY sunlight from Saudi Arabia. I have to think that at some point these dishes would actaully pay for themselves, 10 or 20 times over.
@semiLivedj It's because they are mechanical engines. They need service and makes a lot of noice when operating. A sterling engine is not very effective in small scale so therefore going fullscale is only option to make it worth it. A solar panel is different because it is flat, quite and contains no moving parts. The output/cost is also linear to the panel size. The critical part is aiming it to the sun. That system costs a lot.
@fredrik999z Solar on houses that is stationary is the only viable solution that looks good and cost effective. PV panels with the converters and all are much too expensive by 20:1.
There is a solution. Read my bio. No PV, Dish, or Stirling need apply.
This is all well and good as long as you are willing to turn the land into a moonscape to keep plants, animals and whatnot away from your dishes. Bad enough we have urban sprawl, this will bring us power plant sprawl.
Add the costs of storage and we can see why solar is not
YET a viable solution.
WHEN robotic factories do it ALL "under one roof" (including storage), the price of solar PV and possibly even this dish (will compete with coming shale oil prices!
take those panels and put them in the basement.first you take a parabolic solar concentrator and put an robotic arm on it to follow the suns path.then make the focal point a mirrored shape cone that will send the light down through mirrored glass tubing straight into a mirrored shape glass box inside the mirrored shape box will be several solar panels that spin to keep them cool the mirrored box must have the mirrors inward to reflect the light sending from the parabolic focal point.ken van horn
2 miles by two miles that's about the same foot print as a modern coal fired electrical generating plant. only thing is they run at night. but they also need to buy caol so in the long run they could buy night time power from somewhere else.
This magnitude is exactly where we need to see solar go. At that scale it becomes a real competitor, especially if you add in how much cheaper it is in the long run
I've been hearing about Sterling Energy Systems building that 500MW plant for a while now, was supposed to be finished in 2007, kept getting delayed each year and now say will finish in Q4 2010. Very suspicious, wonder if they can really match the claims they are saying or just another company which takes the money and fizzles out.
Ninety-three [93] millions miles, far from our Earth to Sun!!?? How much Energy down from the Sun to Earth? HOW MUCH WE-HUMAN ON THE EARTH USED WIND, SOLAR ENEGRY FROM SUN EACH YEARS?
soylentgreenb-as long as you're using existing transmission infrastructure-then why should it cost any more to transmit solar electricity than coal or nuclear electricity? After all, its all just *electrons*. Indeed, due to the ability of solar power plants to be built on a smaller, dsitributed basis, you can eliminate much of the waste associated with transmission & distribution from large, inefficient coal/nuclear power station.
I have a simple design where you mount 2 half dishes on equatorial mount. You do not need to move the target, just the dish. I think it is easier. Brian
The reason for 2 half dishes is to keep the center of gravity balanced as you change the dish angles over the seasons.
What makes this system different than the hundreds(literally) of solar power systems that all claimed to be cheaper than coal and either turned out to have made way too optimistic assumptions, misunderstood where the bulk of cost is(transmission!) or just plain lied?
@tsport100 The sun does not shine everywhere all the time and it would simply be not practical to construct these anywhere as a result. Surprised you, the host of this video would make such a claim. Transmission is indeed, necessary.
@soylentgreenb I'll tell you what makes this system different. It takes FAR less area to get the same output compared to a bunch of solar Panels. Try laying out solar Panels to get up to 25Kw. You will find out shortly that it requires far more space than 1 dish. Photovoltaic are only around 7% efficient because they only capture light photons though Spectrolab demonstrated the ability of a photovoltaic cell to convert 40.7%. This Stirling engine is around 40% efficient.
@soylentgreenb It says in the video and it is common sense! These are more efficient than solar panels and we widely sell solar panels! Claims from 25% up to 40% is well ahead of P.V's. You need less area as a result to get the same output. The materials required for Stirling engines and dishes are cheap. Most of it is steel. The mirror film is extremely cheap also!
can you imagine covering africa with these things? we'd have enough to power the whole fricken world. it's not like there's many modernized ppl living there. too bad we can't ship the power that far.
okay, some math. The average energy use per house hold is calculated at 3000w (I have seen 1500w used, but I can build a PC that uses that much. My sister's hair dryer uses 1000w too)
The efficiency claimed for a lot of the solar stirling set ups is 30%. The Insolation or power per meter squared is 1400watts at my latitude. So, to get 3000watts of power I would need a oh 4 square meter dish (12 feet by 12 feet).
That would be about the size of a storage shed you see in a lot of back yards!
You did your math wrong. For a circle with an area of 4 square meters your diameter would only need to be 2.26 meters wide. Slightly less that 7 feet. The energy output goes up by the square of the radius multiplied by Pi. Area of a circle = π*r^2 4=π*r^2 4/π=r^2 1.273239545=r^2 Square root of 1.273239545=r 1.12837916=r r*2=D 1.12837916*2=2.256758334
Okay, that allows for a lot of conversion inefficiencies then. I am very "turn of the century" when doing a lot of my math, error large towqards the good side. Too much is way better than not enough.
@bmecher The typical Solar Panel today achieves between 10% and 15% conversion, with a theoretical max of about 21%, which means stirling is a better option than panels, and even panels are becoming cheaper. It also appears to me that construction of these stirling types or even boiler to steam turbine)
@bmecher You are calculating it all wrong. You don't just calculate directly the watts generated per area by the sun. To go from energy received to energy generated requires conversion of solar energy into other forms (heat, electricity) at some reduced level of efficiency.
@toob247 Well, specs I got from one of the manufacturers several years back had a 60Db noise foot print. Medium loud tv/ stereo.............. You would want a fairly large yard or some way to damp down the noise..........
@bmecher 1362 w/m^2 30% efficiency = 408w/m^2 3000/408 = 7.353m^2 2m * 4m = 8m^2 3m * 3m = 9m^2 2.75m * 2.75m = 7.56m^2 = 9ft * 9ft 2m radius circle = 12.56m^2 Sooo...if you had a 9ft by 9ft square you should be about right... Now I ask, would cutting your electric bill in half be worth a 9x9 "yard ornament"? probably...
@soggieshorts1 The only place that gets the entire dish surface directed at it is.... the focal point .... funnily enough where the sterling motor is mounted...
Hi Soggie, that won't be a problem because the light is being focused at the stirling. Any light getting past there (unlikely as it would waste energy) would diverge again as sharply as it was focussed so it would only be very widely spread at plane height.
i m not afraid of this, its just not a viable replacement. you have to figure 500 mw is not that much power. a average household will use more than 3 mw a year.x 200 million homes in usa, and also industry uses alot of energy.
I would say around 30 000 kWh per year per household. Those stirling dishes produces a LOT more than just 500 MW in a year! :) 500 MW is the constant output and the equivalent of a small nuclear reactor.
30000 kwh a year! your very incorrect. and you said it your self a small nuclear reactor. or a small coal boiler. most coal plants produce at least 1000mw and ive heard of a couple that can produce up to 3000mw and nuclear can produce 1000mw per a unit. look up 4th gen. reactor, they can use the waste from the older reactors as fuel. aslo these solar have to be able to meet demand 24 hours a day which would be fine if it where sunny everyday. but it wont be!!
Well in sweden it is 20 000 - 25 000 kWh per year for a standard house...which should be around the same size as an american. Swedish climate is also colder, keep that in mind. 500 MW is DEFINATELY the same size as an old nuclear reactor. Sherlock, I do understand that new generation of nuclear powerplants produce EVEN(!) more than that. Hey, would you like to live like 2 miles from a nuclear powerplant?
my energy bill says i uas about 30.35k kwh of electricty, my bill is always lower than most around here. i turn power off to all my electronics when not home or when not in use. also it wouldnt bother me a bit to live close to nuclear, why would it? theres only been a few accidents and the worst being from russia, and that was when it was ussr.i live with in an hour of of 6 power plants. 5 coal and 1 nat. gas plant and none of them bother me. i work at one.
im not against these renewable energy sources, but they cant take all the load, heck they cant even take 5% load. keep in mind that most plants produce alot more than 500mw, those 500 mw reactors are just one unit, most plants use 4 units,i.e.=2000mw, also keep in mind that newer nuclear reactors can make 1000mw and with 4 of them can produce 4000mw. and it doesnt take 5 square miles to produce only 500mw and thats only during peak sunlight hours,amybe 6-8 hours a day
agreed on the whole no need to argue, but i hate when people think that solar and wind can produce enough power to shutdown all other power supplies. its just not feisable. i agree that we do need to keep pushing new tech. in the last 35 or so years coal has become cleaner to burn,[control the co2,sox with enviromental control systems]
also as for the mining, each mine will put out more than enough coal to make up for the space that is used. i.e more than 500 mw per 5 square miles. my biggest problem is with greenpeace, and the way they call everyone ignorant for not wanting to live in a hut and smell flowers all day.
dude sorry...but I think you are misinformed. I personally believe we do have all the technology needed to shut down ALL FOSSILE FUEL POWER PLANTS..and in like 20 years shut down the nuclear plants of the world. I think people in general are VERY mislead about the possibilities with new technology and what it can do to achieve cheap, clean energy in a viable concept. I've seen so much evidence that makes me very suspicious about the whole energy industry, which is the largest industry of 'em all
sure, the newer nuclear power plants are basically idiot proof. the worst that can happen is the reaction chamber melts and it needs local clean up inside the plant. no blow ups.
NUKES are bombs. nuclear power is designed to NOT be bombs.
it's like the spring brakes on a train. the default state of the system is for the springs to press the brakes against the system and stop the train. you have to put energy INTO the system (push back the springs) to allow it to go. if you cut the air line to the brakes on a train....the brakes engage. see? yes, you CAN mess it up by forcing the brakes back and welding them in place but the DEFAULT state is safe
Actually IT COULD work during night. You can use salt-based wateraccumulators which preserve heat and use a steam-generator 24 hours per day. The technology IS here. Strong winds will not knock these ones down.
The thing is, molten salt is used in a big collector tower, rather than a farm of parabolic generators. Since these are Stirling engine generators, they'll remain in motion for some time after sunset.
The thing is that you can always use some of the excessive heat and store it with salt-based water-accumulators...even though you are using a big collector tower OR stirling engines. I think stirling engines along with energy-efficient households and industries is the way to go!
At what cost? Do we shear off more Appalachian mountains to get that coal? Do we allow coal plants to continue dumping their toxic waste into streams and rivers?
There's no way to sustainably use coal or uranium; their impacts are simply far too high.
5 square miles for 500 mw, 500 mw is a small coal plant. the power plant i work at is 995 mw. 2 147.5 mw unit a 200 mw unit and a 500 mw unit. the 500 mw unit was built in 1964 so solar has a long way to go. not only that the city of cincinnati uses about 7500 mw during peak hours. so how much space would be needed for sandeigo, L.A and san fran. and not only that but we cant store enrgy on that scale so at night there would be no power. coal and nuclear plant work 24 hours a day 365 days
You haven't mentioned the size of the coal mine supplying the plant or the fact a GW plant sucks in 10,000 ton of the stuff every single day 365 days a year! Figure out how many cubic miles of coal does it burn through each year then multiply it by the 40 years it'll be operational?
First of all thanks for uploading, really exiting about this stuff.
And I have a question.:)
I'm saving for my own solar panels at home. But I'm really interested in trying to do the same as these guys(on an amateur level ofc), focusing the light.
How much capacity have the DIY panels above the normal capacity, and any ideas for a low tech(cheap) way of following the sun?
If I could get maybe 50% more out of them it would be awesome!
This technology will provide you the energy by easier way then the oil but still the price for it will be the same. Commercials make money from air you breath. Saaaad... THE SUN IS OUR ! ONE SETTLEMENT DEVICE TO EACH FAMILY !!!
The absolute record efficiency for a Solar powered sterling engine is 31.25%.
Concentrated PV, which use the same type dish but with a single PV cell replacing the sterling motor, is up to 36.5%.
Constant improvements in multi junction PV cells will result in 38% in 2010 and 40% by 2011. Concentrated PV also captures another 60% in thermal energy
I believe this, but I think you need a pretty high temp to get a lot of power out of this, meaning a huge mirror.. I seen some small examples... And for a small sterling engine on e-bay is not cheap... Close to 1000$ to produce around 10w... Normal Pv cells are not efficient. But concentrated pv cells sounds better. Must be expensive.
Sen. Feinstein is blocking them by trying to put a national monument there, to protect desert tortoises for the environmental lobby. Wonder why we haven't made more progress against global warming? There's your answer.
"If we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it..." - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
wind and wave power are good but need work, solar diffentley needs work and nuclear is very good and clean but getting rid of the waste is a problem :/
Not even close to a nuclear power plant. A 70's soviet model power plant was making 600MW. If the US would stop pussy footing around and build some nuclear power plants we wouldn't have any problems with energy.
I hate it when they say "energy crisis". There is no energy crisis, theres potential energy sources everywhere, its just that the Elite business mafias refuse to let them spread, unless they make as much profit as oil!!!
@sonofhendrix 100% true.. Wouldn't any company that is transitioning to another form of energy, want to make the same, if not more profits than the last? Wouldn't any company that is changing their products rather make the same if not more profits as a result? This world is driven on who can make the biggest piece of the pie. Money is what's keeping humanity unjust, barbarous, adults competing in a childish currency system.
@sonofhendrix That is why oil companies do not jump on this... That is why they fund to advertise against this.. Reduced demand of their products = reduced profits... They don't like the future outlook for their business, the way things are heading... It's all about the business in this world. From Prostitution to IBM and just about everything. Hard to get rid of the old when the old is so big. It's like teaching and transitioning an old dog to do new tricks. Too weak minded and fear of loss.
I think that we will witness an increase in diversity in ways of generating energy. Solar is good for California, Mexico, Shara region, but not so much for Denmark or Sweden for example. There wind and hydropower is more viable. For Czech Republic, Austria and Poland biomass and hydropower might be better solution, because the wind does not blow so much there and there is neither much solar energy available.
These don't need to turn the deserts into a vast dust bowl, no! And turning it into a giant black field (of PV) is obviously a no no. Using billions of post driven COOL mirrors (without the need to bulldoze) is the final solution to unlimited SOLAR thermal power with molten salt and graphite heat storage.
This Sterling Energy System's proven concept does not store heat BUT is twice as efficient! Maybe bat's or H2 could then be cost effective means? CSP (however) provides more jobs than oil!
The Stirling generators are good for when energy demand is highest (For Air conditioning, etc). The Power Tower design is good for storing the heat for use during the night.
Both technologies are still ehh in my opinion as acouple of days of poor sunlight means minimal output.
One of the few critical uses of electricity is for refrigeration of perishable foods. Even this could be obviated by the low-cost irradiation of foods. When one considers the pollution and extraction costs of fossil fuels, solar looks better and better. In a way, our cheap non-renewables are actually forcing the development of extremely efficient solar alternatives. It may not be entertaining, and no one will give you a medal for it, but anyone can cut his or her energy use!
About the same as any other internal combustion engine, between 15 and 30% comparable to PV cells.
The concetrating dish makes all the difference. There are dishes like this that use PV cells at the focal point instead of sterling motors that each generate 25kw and are being used in outback Australia to power small towns.
I thought Stirling's efficiency was higher :( It seems that concentrated PV would be more efficient, especially in the long run...since no mechanical components are involved.
You're right, heat has to be removed but it's been done.
Multiple 35kw PV dishes have been powering towns in Aust since 2003. The difference is a dish PV uses 1/1000th the PV material used in a Flat plate system of the same power.
The removed heat can also be used in generate &/or heat systems.
Less of an eyesore than chimneys pumping out smoke or cities polluted with smog. They're not that ugly, and they're not noisey. The fact is humans use a lot of energy and that is not likely to change, so we've got to pay the price one way or another.
this big power stations should really be dropped.. The whole thing is that they still want to sell us power day to day.
One of those can power 25 houses.. So a much smaller one could power my home and I wouldn't need to pay any more power bills.
Also building a giant farm to power the cities is a logistical bureaucratic cluster fuck, with a great deal of waste through middle men, taxes, construction, zoning laws, etc. etc.
It makes way more sense for everyone to have their own small one..
I hate to throw cold water on the idea, but 20,000 units sounds like a maintenance nightmare. And 500 MW is how much a small power plant might put out. One generator in Queens puts out 700 MW. The whole plant puts out more than 1500 MW. The Queens plant has the advantage of being right next to the load. There are no line losses or power lost to phase shifting. This plan looks like it is miles away from the load.
Fair enough but why not factor in the maintenance and cost of the fuel supply for both?
The Queens plant runs on natural gas, LNG doesn't just fall out of the sky and I'd be amazed if there was a natural gas well directly under the plant in queens. So there's massive supply infrastructure that is under pressure at all times.
How long is that supply line? Where does the LNG come from?
good work here
thejameskan 3 days ago
love the video really good
distractionxx 6 days ago
Already have one
tassaduq009 1 week ago
Remove the government money and this idea collapses.
There is no point in this concept. There is a better way by 10:1. Read my bio.
Stop the corruption. Stop the giveaway of tax money.
seaplaneguy1 2 months ago
This company has filed to bankruptcy.
freelife1014 3 months ago
@tsport100 my water heater uses more than that, nice house,
jurasichero 4 months ago
Those must be a bitch to clean. because if there not cleaned at least once a month there absorbing percentage will begin to drop...!
METALMAN4Wii 5 months ago
@METALMAN4Wii Honestly with that much power you could pump water and chemicals to spray on them on an interval that would easily keep them clean.
jeffleejlc 4 months ago
@jeffleejlc I'm pretty sure some sprayers could be built to automatically be used when needed and the best part is the sun will dry what doesn't drip off. this is why it only takes a few people to run a solar powered plant. basically one person to watch the monitors and one person to fix the broken panels...! ( which rarely break )
METALMAN4Wii 4 months ago
Thinking
normellow 5 months ago
Ah yes your right . I was thing more along the lines of each home running all it's appliances 24 / 7
normellow 5 months ago
You can build these yourself. Google Stirling engine and make the reflective dish.
The hard part is having it automatically track the sun.
TheSelfGoverned 6 months ago
@TheSelfGoverned
C or K-band sat tv dish rotator system. Just reprogram it to track the sun instead.
office888 6 months ago
@TheSelfGoverned Or maybe use a RV solar tracker to do that...!
METALMAN4Wii 5 months ago
or you build a nuclear reactor
FUR10USW45P 6 months ago
We are in the early stages of all this technology......the price / watt will drop in an expadential mannor.....look at how the cost of light bulds came down as production volume went up. China will make it happen ........
magna59 7 months ago
CSP technologies are an attempt to squeeze dispersed solar energy into the old energy central station model that allows utilities to maintain their energy monopoly. Stirling systems especially are highly inefficient, destructive - virtually every Stirling project has been cancelled or converted to solar PV. Point of use solar in the VAST built environment is cheaper, faster and generates more local economic benefits while protecting our intact desert ecosystems and nation's cultural legacy.
Ecopolitidae 7 months ago
@Ecopolitidae While on site generation is more efficient on the transfer side, it has a lot of problems on the gathering / storing side. Battery banks and inverters are not cheap, and batteries die regularly and needs to be replaced. Also easy to use pv requires more power to produce and haul them on site, than they give out in their lifetime. Cpv can change that supposedly, but then again, you need a tracker assembly and concentrator, so the benefit of the pretty flat panels are busted.
kistuszek 6 months ago
@kistuszek If only we could solve the problem of storing, and collecting... Oh wait we can! We can collect heat and store heat already, the storing medium is inert and don't need replacing (a thermos), the collecting device is a black surface. If only we could efficiently convert that low grade heat to electricity cheaply, now that would be the feat! We already have TEG, but well it is neither efficient nor cheap, stirling is even more expensive and complex in small scale...
kistuszek 6 months ago
@kistuszek Try "Organic Rankine Cycle" on Google for low temp energy generation, effectively an Air Conditioner in reverse.
tsport100 6 months ago
@kistuszek the solution to low garde heat is scale !
gloup81 5 months ago
we need them on the roofs of every skyscraper, and possibly use windows to reflect light to them.
leerman22 7 months ago
only one problem: they need 20 000 dishes to produce a same amount of energy that a coal burning plant "or maybe even a nuclear plant" produces. This looks interesting, but where are you gonna put all those things.
ppunts 8 months ago 3
@ppunts Yes, but they need no input. You don't have to BUY sunlight from Saudi Arabia. I have to think that at some point these dishes would actaully pay for themselves, 10 or 20 times over.
Shakespeare1612 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEWAVETEcH.yolasite.com
Uneakdawg 8 months ago
yeah,make fields of them so you can still charge people to have power!How about one on every roof of a home!
semiLivedj 8 months ago 14
@semiLivedj It's because they are mechanical engines. They need service and makes a lot of noice when operating. A sterling engine is not very effective in small scale so therefore going fullscale is only option to make it worth it. A solar panel is different because it is flat, quite and contains no moving parts. The output/cost is also linear to the panel size. The critical part is aiming it to the sun. That system costs a lot.
fredrik999z 5 months ago
@fredrik999z Solar on houses that is stationary is the only viable solution that looks good and cost effective. PV panels with the converters and all are much too expensive by 20:1.
There is a solution. Read my bio. No PV, Dish, or Stirling need apply.
seaplaneguy1 2 months ago
This is all well and good as long as you are willing to turn the land into a moonscape to keep plants, animals and whatnot away from your dishes. Bad enough we have urban sprawl, this will bring us power plant sprawl.
WUZLE 9 months ago
PVs at 20 cents per KW are just too expensive to compete with coal and nuclear.
But this on the other hand just may be able to be competitive as the dish would be far cheaper to manufacture then an equivalent PV array.
Membrane556 10 months ago
About $3/watt installed.
About 25% capacity (sun)
Thus times 4 for FF's replacement...
Add the costs of storage and we can see why solar is not
YET a viable solution.
WHEN robotic factories do it ALL "under one roof" (including storage), the price of solar PV and possibly even this dish (will compete with coming shale oil prices!
fireofenergy 10 months ago
lol i just heard 0:00-0:04 like eight times on accident try it you will laugh so hard
wendygroth 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
take those panels and put them in the basement.first you take a parabolic solar concentrator and put an robotic arm on it to follow the suns path.then make the focal point a mirrored shape cone that will send the light down through mirrored glass tubing straight into a mirrored shape glass box inside the mirrored shape box will be several solar panels that spin to keep them cool the mirrored box must have the mirrors inward to reflect the light sending from the parabolic focal point.ken van horn
kennethvanhorn 11 months ago
Comment removed
luckyluke1232 1 year ago
How much do one of these cost?
peth155 1 year ago
@peth155 I just read on their website "... a target installed cost of $3000/Kilowatt ot less..."
That equates to about $75,000 for one of the 40 foot dish 25KW Commercial units they build.
Under optimal sun conditions, this could run 3-6 homes in my estimation, depending on loads, during daylight hours only.
garwoodv6 11 months ago
2 miles by two miles that's about the same foot print as a modern coal fired electrical generating plant. only thing is they run at night. but they also need to buy caol so in the long run they could buy night time power from somewhere else.
datzfast 1 year ago
@datzfast uhh, in Spain they use a combination of troughs and molten salt for night use, they don't need to buy coal power lol
luc59457 1 year ago
where i can find some information about dish stirling engine?
orazio1912 1 year ago
@orazio1912 Greenpowerscience
luc59457 1 year ago
i dream of converting a used satellite dish and having it track the sun
toob247 1 year ago
Well can't the dishes have solar panels in them to collect the light? While the heat is reflected into the LNB. Best of both worlds!
duracell80 1 year ago
I will believe it when Wal-Mart starts installing these on the buildings that are located in areas that do not have height restrictions on signs.
inkdoe 1 year ago
Yeah! Then they buy that energy from North Dakota and never pay for it!!!
Fuck faces!
MaXG65 1 year ago
Ok greens,
what is the price for this single 25kW solar plant?
Or what is the price of 1kWh produced by this mirracle?
I'm dealing with yields.
SladkaPritomnost 1 year ago
I see, so its called a sterling Dish
dan020350 1 year ago
@dan020350 It is a Stirling engine (with an "I"). It is combined with a parabolic dish.
MaxOrbit 1 year ago
each system enough to power 10 homes
dan020350 1 year ago
here's how i see it, the north for wind, the south for sun
dzgfdg 1 year ago
This magnitude is exactly where we need to see solar go. At that scale it becomes a real competitor, especially if you add in how much cheaper it is in the long run
CalSolarEng 1 year ago
I've been hearing about Sterling Energy Systems building that 500MW plant for a while now, was supposed to be finished in 2007, kept getting delayed each year and now say will finish in Q4 2010. Very suspicious, wonder if they can really match the claims they are saying or just another company which takes the money and fizzles out.
Shwetank1 1 year ago
@Shwetank1 They just opened a 1.5MW plant with 60x dishes in Arizona and recently formed a partnership with Boeing.
It's not hard to find this info on Google.
tsport100 1 year ago 12
@Shwetank1 Your response below amounts to 25MW per dish as claimed. Of course it's not always going to match there claims, but at peak it will.
luc59457 1 year ago
Ninety-three [93] millions miles, far from our Earth to Sun!!?? How much Energy down from the Sun to Earth? HOW MUCH WE-HUMAN ON THE EARTH USED WIND, SOLAR ENEGRY FROM SUN EACH YEARS?
louielamson2000 1 year ago
soylentgreenb-as long as you're using existing transmission infrastructure-then why should it cost any more to transmit solar electricity than coal or nuclear electricity? After all, its all just *electrons*. Indeed, due to the ability of solar power plants to be built on a smaller, dsitributed basis, you can eliminate much of the waste associated with transmission & distribution from large, inefficient coal/nuclear power station.
MrHicks091 1 year ago
I will buy it.
nnnnnn7678 1 year ago
I have a simple design where you mount 2 half dishes on equatorial mount. You do not need to move the target, just the dish. I think it is easier. Brian
The reason for 2 half dishes is to keep the center of gravity balanced as you change the dish angles over the seasons.
gaiatechnician 1 year ago
we need all the CSP technology we can get.... dish, power tower, trough, I don't care, let's install it on a massive scale.
Good 500 MW start though. I understand these do not require water cooling?
freakshow1997 1 year ago
They have started building these now on a massive scale guys :)
Nichen 1 year ago
What makes this system different than the hundreds(literally) of solar power systems that all claimed to be cheaper than coal and either turned out to have made way too optimistic assumptions, misunderstood where the bulk of cost is(transmission!) or just plain lied?
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb Why would transmission even be necessary? The sun shines everywhere! You're confusing this with Wind!
tsport100 1 year ago
@tsport100 The sun does not shine everywhere all the time and it would simply be not practical to construct these anywhere as a result. Surprised you, the host of this video would make such a claim. Transmission is indeed, necessary.
luc59457 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb I'll tell you what makes this system different. It takes FAR less area to get the same output compared to a bunch of solar Panels. Try laying out solar Panels to get up to 25Kw. You will find out shortly that it requires far more space than 1 dish. Photovoltaic are only around 7% efficient because they only capture light photons though Spectrolab demonstrated the ability of a photovoltaic cell to convert 40.7%. This Stirling engine is around 40% efficient.
luc59457 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb It says in the video and it is common sense! These are more efficient than solar panels and we widely sell solar panels! Claims from 25% up to 40% is well ahead of P.V's. You need less area as a result to get the same output. The materials required for Stirling engines and dishes are cheap. Most of it is steel. The mirror film is extremely cheap also!
luc59457 1 year ago
can you imagine covering africa with these things? we'd have enough to power the whole fricken world. it's not like there's many modernized ppl living there. too bad we can't ship the power that far.
creamyfilling102 2 years ago
we'll get the blacks to carry it to us ;D
racist much?
nico0100000 1 year ago
okay, some math. The average energy use per house hold is calculated at 3000w (I have seen 1500w used, but I can build a PC that uses that much. My sister's hair dryer uses 1000w too)
The efficiency claimed for a lot of the solar stirling set ups is 30%. The Insolation or power per meter squared is 1400watts at my latitude. So, to get 3000watts of power I would need a oh 4 square meter dish (12 feet by 12 feet).
That would be about the size of a storage shed you see in a lot of back yards!
bmecher 2 years ago
Approx the same size as a common residential 'C' band satellite TV dish antenna.
tsport100 2 years ago 3
Frostlander 2 years ago
Okay, that allows for a lot of conversion inefficiencies then. I am very "turn of the century" when doing a lot of my math, error large towqards the good side. Too much is way better than not enough.
So I would have more like 5Kw to work with.
bmecher 2 years ago
You have a valid point. It's better to be a bit over than short.
Also I missed something myself. 3000 watts would be the power at a given time, not total energy.
To provide 3000 watts through the night one would need to raise the watt output of the dish to accumulate enough energy for through the night.
Frostlander 2 years ago
Yeah, you would need some sort of storage for nighttime. There are several ways, the main one right now is batteries.
If you are grid tied, you bank your daytime with the utility, and pull it back out at night.
bmecher 1 year ago
@Frostlander A year?! Okay yeah, you betcha I would go for this. If it was mounted right it would make a great sun shade........
bmecher 11 months ago
@bmecher You are correct... Theoretically.
Personally, I'd like to have one of those big dishes for myself. Would be enough power for a small farm.
Another thing to consider however... is water usage: You have to clean those mirrors... somehow.
chaz706 1 year ago
@bmecher The typical Solar Panel today achieves between 10% and 15% conversion, with a theoretical max of about 21%, which means stirling is a better option than panels, and even panels are becoming cheaper. It also appears to me that construction of these stirling types or even boiler to steam turbine)
schr4nz 1 year ago
@bmecher is overall cheaper than the manufacture of solar panels
schr4nz 1 year ago
@bmecher You are calculating it all wrong. You don't just calculate directly the watts generated per area by the sun. To go from energy received to energy generated requires conversion of solar energy into other forms (heat, electricity) at some reduced level of efficiency.
luc59457 1 year ago
@luc59457 Read my post carefully- see the 30% efficiency factor?
bmecher 1 year ago
@bmecher There are many different claims. Even at 30, it beats Photovoltaic cells. You need less area.
luc59457 1 year ago
@bmecher That's pretty good, It's only that wide one way.
luc59457 1 year ago
@bmecher 12x12 isnt that like 12 sq meters or more, either way arnt these beautiful? and no swooshing noise. although i like the turbines too
toob247 1 year ago
@toob247 Well, specs I got from one of the manufacturers several years back had a 60Db noise foot print. Medium loud tv/ stereo.............. You would want a fairly large yard or some way to damp down the noise..........
bmecher 1 year ago
@bmecher The only way to better trap the sound is to better contain the Stirling Engine.. But the sound is not a big issue anyways
luc59457 1 year ago
craftmatic2 11 months ago
what happens when a plane flys over and gets blided by the reflection lol guess that will just be a no fly zone good idea though
soggieshorts1 2 years ago
@soggieshorts1 The only place that gets the entire dish surface directed at it is.... the focal point .... funnily enough where the sterling motor is mounted...
tsport100 2 years ago
@tsport100 What a coincidence!
LNMagic 1 year ago
Hi Soggie, that won't be a problem because the light is being focused at the stirling. Any light getting past there (unlikely as it would waste energy) would diverge again as sharply as it was focussed so it would only be very widely spread at plane height.
zircon556 2 years ago
how much is the cost of just one of thoues?
irishkeebler 2 years ago
why are people arguing against this technology? its like they are afraid of it!
vertigoalopolus 2 years ago
i m not afraid of this, its just not a viable replacement. you have to figure 500 mw is not that much power. a average household will use more than 3 mw a year.x 200 million homes in usa, and also industry uses alot of energy.
coalandnuclear 2 years ago
I would say around 30 000 kWh per year per household. Those stirling dishes produces a LOT more than just 500 MW in a year! :) 500 MW is the constant output and the equivalent of a small nuclear reactor.
Nichen 2 years ago 4
30000 kwh a year! your very incorrect. and you said it your self a small nuclear reactor. or a small coal boiler. most coal plants produce at least 1000mw and ive heard of a couple that can produce up to 3000mw and nuclear can produce 1000mw per a unit. look up 4th gen. reactor, they can use the waste from the older reactors as fuel. aslo these solar have to be able to meet demand 24 hours a day which would be fine if it where sunny everyday. but it wont be!!
coalandnuclear 2 years ago
Well in sweden it is 20 000 - 25 000 kWh per year for a standard house...which should be around the same size as an american. Swedish climate is also colder, keep that in mind. 500 MW is DEFINATELY the same size as an old nuclear reactor. Sherlock, I do understand that new generation of nuclear powerplants produce EVEN(!) more than that. Hey, would you like to live like 2 miles from a nuclear powerplant?
Nichen 2 years ago
my energy bill says i uas about 30.35k kwh of electricty, my bill is always lower than most around here. i turn power off to all my electronics when not home or when not in use. also it wouldnt bother me a bit to live close to nuclear, why would it? theres only been a few accidents and the worst being from russia, and that was when it was ussr.i live with in an hour of of 6 power plants. 5 coal and 1 nat. gas plant and none of them bother me. i work at one.
coalandnuclear 2 years ago
im not against these renewable energy sources, but they cant take all the load, heck they cant even take 5% load. keep in mind that most plants produce alot more than 500mw, those 500 mw reactors are just one unit, most plants use 4 units,i.e.=2000mw, also keep in mind that newer nuclear reactors can make 1000mw and with 4 of them can produce 4000mw. and it doesnt take 5 square miles to produce only 500mw and thats only during peak sunlight hours,amybe 6-8 hours a day
coalandnuclear 2 years ago
You really are missing the point here. Considering the huge number of different types of power generation there is no need to ague 'either or'
Solar power is perfect for supplying 'peak' demand which coincidentally often happens when the sun is at maximum strength.
You seem to conveniently forget the 'off site' facilities coal and nuclear require.. mining and spent fuel disposal. Solar needs neither!
tsport100 2 years ago
agreed on the whole no need to argue, but i hate when people think that solar and wind can produce enough power to shutdown all other power supplies. its just not feisable. i agree that we do need to keep pushing new tech. in the last 35 or so years coal has become cleaner to burn,[control the co2,sox with enviromental control systems]
coalandnuclear 2 years ago
also as for the mining, each mine will put out more than enough coal to make up for the space that is used. i.e more than 500 mw per 5 square miles. my biggest problem is with greenpeace, and the way they call everyone ignorant for not wanting to live in a hut and smell flowers all day.
coalandnuclear 2 years ago
dude sorry...but I think you are misinformed. I personally believe we do have all the technology needed to shut down ALL FOSSILE FUEL POWER PLANTS..and in like 20 years shut down the nuclear plants of the world. I think people in general are VERY mislead about the possibilities with new technology and what it can do to achieve cheap, clean energy in a viable concept. I've seen so much evidence that makes me very suspicious about the whole energy industry, which is the largest industry of 'em all
Nichen 2 years ago
sure, the newer nuclear power plants are basically idiot proof. the worst that can happen is the reaction chamber melts and it needs local clean up inside the plant. no blow ups.
addmoreice 2 years ago
I am for nuclear, but this also.
luc59457 2 years ago
Do some research, start a wikipedia.
bmecher 1 year ago
the research is out there. what good would a wikipedia do?
what we need is MONEY and the public will.
addmoreice 1 year ago
@ moreice You obviously do not understand nukes- start at wikipedia about nukes. There are serious issues and no they are not idiot proof.
bmecher 1 year ago
nukes != nuclear power.
NUKES are bombs. nuclear power is designed to NOT be bombs.
it's like the spring brakes on a train. the default state of the system is for the springs to press the brakes against the system and stop the train. you have to put energy INTO the system (push back the springs) to allow it to go. if you cut the air line to the brakes on a train....the brakes engage. see? yes, you CAN mess it up by forcing the brakes back and welding them in place but the DEFAULT state is safe
addmoreice 1 year ago
@addmoreice Nukes=microwave ovens= reactors=bombs stop trolling
bmecher 1 year ago
exactly
luc59457 2 years ago
wind turbines FTW!
andruha11234 2 years ago
It is great on many levels, but:
1.Doesn't work at night
2.Clouds
3.Takes too much space
4.They are big and definitely not aerodynamic by design, strong winds may knock whole fields at the same time
...
But nevertheless, still awesome.
hr1100 2 years ago
Actually IT COULD work during night. You can use salt-based wateraccumulators which preserve heat and use a steam-generator 24 hours per day. The technology IS here. Strong winds will not knock these ones down.
Nichen 2 years ago 20
@Nichen
The thing is, molten salt is used in a big collector tower, rather than a farm of parabolic generators. Since these are Stirling engine generators, they'll remain in motion for some time after sunset.
melchior00625 2 years ago
in order for a steam generator, or boiler to work you must have constant heat input.
coalandnuclear 2 years ago
The thing is that you can always use some of the excessive heat and store it with salt-based water-accumulators...even though you are using a big collector tower OR stirling engines. I think stirling engines along with energy-efficient households and industries is the way to go!
Nichen 2 years ago
@Nichen Yes, spain is a leader in concentrated solar technologies, and they already have a plant that uses molten salt as the thermal energy storage.
luc59457 1 year ago
the gov't estmates we have 500 years of coal left, if we use as much as we did in 2007. we used asmost 900 million tonnes.
coalandnuclear 2 years ago
@coalandnuclear
At what cost? Do we shear off more Appalachian mountains to get that coal? Do we allow coal plants to continue dumping their toxic waste into streams and rivers?
There's no way to sustainably use coal or uranium; their impacts are simply far too high.
melchior00625 2 years ago
5 square miles for 500 mw, 500 mw is a small coal plant. the power plant i work at is 995 mw. 2 147.5 mw unit a 200 mw unit and a 500 mw unit. the 500 mw unit was built in 1964 so solar has a long way to go. not only that the city of cincinnati uses about 7500 mw during peak hours. so how much space would be needed for sandeigo, L.A and san fran. and not only that but we cant store enrgy on that scale so at night there would be no power. coal and nuclear plant work 24 hours a day 365 days
coalandnuclear 2 years ago
You haven't mentioned the size of the coal mine supplying the plant or the fact a GW plant sucks in 10,000 ton of the stuff every single day 365 days a year! Figure out how many cubic miles of coal does it burn through each year then multiply it by the 40 years it'll be operational?
tsport100 2 years ago
First of all thanks for uploading, really exiting about this stuff.
And I have a question.:)
I'm saving for my own solar panels at home. But I'm really interested in trying to do the same as these guys(on an amateur level ofc), focusing the light.
How much capacity have the DIY panels above the normal capacity, and any ideas for a low tech(cheap) way of following the sun?
If I could get maybe 50% more out of them it would be awesome!
TheSaltyAdmiral 2 years ago
This technology will provide you the energy by easier way then the oil but still the price for it will be the same. Commercials make money from air you breath. Saaaad... THE SUN IS OUR ! ONE SETTLEMENT DEVICE TO EACH FAMILY !!!
manoftnuva 2 years ago
5 square miles need to proved energy for one city?
investortownhall 2 years ago 2
If there are 5 square miles of dessert available, why not?
sweinberger 2 years ago
Actually, sterling engines are more effecient then either thermocouples or steam engines.
1 reason is that heat that is created in one stroke/cycle is partely used again in the next.
oceanmasterza 2 years ago
The absolute record efficiency for a Solar powered sterling engine is 31.25%.
Concentrated PV, which use the same type dish but with a single PV cell replacing the sterling motor, is up to 36.5%.
Constant improvements in multi junction PV cells will result in 38% in 2010 and 40% by 2011. Concentrated PV also captures another 60% in thermal energy
tsport100 2 years ago
Where did u take these figures from?
Regarding PV capturing heat, as far as I know:
1. PV doesnt capture heat. Is it?
2. Heat will melt the cells.
3. PV efficiency declines as temp is increased.
You mentioned in another post that in Australia they remove the heat. How do they do it??
KfirCohen123 2 years ago
The company is called Solar Systems. They OBVIOUSLY use a coolant based heatsink but it's their IP mate.... look it up yourself.
tsport100 2 years ago
I believe this, but I think you need a pretty high temp to get a lot of power out of this, meaning a huge mirror.. I seen some small examples... And for a small sterling engine on e-bay is not cheap... Close to 1000$ to produce around 10w... Normal Pv cells are not efficient. But concentrated pv cells sounds better. Must be expensive.
luc59457 2 years ago
Work hasn't even begun on these plants. Why?
ENVIRONMENTALISTS.
Sen. Feinstein is blocking them by trying to put a national monument there, to protect desert tortoises for the environmental lobby. Wonder why we haven't made more progress against global warming? There's your answer.
"If we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it..." - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
randommagnum 2 years ago
if a bird flies? you get grilled bird for free
jegelskersex 2 years ago
does anybody know what happens when a bird flies between the mirror and the sola collector????
davetileguy 2 years ago
START F*CKIN BUILDING MORE OF THEM! :)
Nichen 2 years ago
Come see my channel For awesome electric bikes and see my friends for other amazing conversions.
luc59457 2 years ago
Excuse for my little english
I didn't want to write anything against your video.
I'm italian and I didn't uhnderstand what the speaker said, I believed he told it could cover San Diego needs.
I'm from Milano, Italy.
CESI set up a sterling solar dish and it produces about 10 KW
When I watched your video I saw 500 MW! I thought it's incredible!
Italian government want to restart nuclear program
I think we have to produce power in different way like solar, wind ...
bye Davide
cvlet 2 years ago
wind and wave power are good but need work, solar diffentley needs work and nuclear is very good and clean but getting rid of the waste is a problem :/
tardisomga 2 years ago
Comment removed
beastsunleashed 2 years ago
I wonder if rocks or crystals could be used to harness the solar energy.
sfsoundhound 2 years ago
Not even close to a nuclear power plant. A 70's soviet model power plant was making 600MW. If the US would stop pussy footing around and build some nuclear power plants we wouldn't have any problems with energy.
burkjt 2 years ago
why use sterling engines? steam engines or thermocouples would be much more efficient
JordanMaster22 2 years ago
Well researched mate..... theromcouples are about 3% energy efficient!
tsport100 2 years ago
I hate it when they say "energy crisis". There is no energy crisis, theres potential energy sources everywhere, its just that the Elite business mafias refuse to let them spread, unless they make as much profit as oil!!!
ADMIT IT!
sonofhendrix 2 years ago 23
@sonofhendrix Makes sense: BP (British Petroleum) Recently Spent $15 Million towards advertising against Clean energy Sources.
luc59457 1 year ago
@sonofhendrix You. Are. So. Fucking. RIGHT!
xXGOPOGOXx 1 year ago
@sonofhendrix 100% true.. Wouldn't any company that is transitioning to another form of energy, want to make the same, if not more profits than the last? Wouldn't any company that is changing their products rather make the same if not more profits as a result? This world is driven on who can make the biggest piece of the pie. Money is what's keeping humanity unjust, barbarous, adults competing in a childish currency system.
luc59457 1 year ago
@sonofhendrix That is why oil companies do not jump on this... That is why they fund to advertise against this.. Reduced demand of their products = reduced profits... They don't like the future outlook for their business, the way things are heading... It's all about the business in this world. From Prostitution to IBM and just about everything. Hard to get rid of the old when the old is so big. It's like teaching and transitioning an old dog to do new tricks. Too weak minded and fear of loss.
luc59457 1 year ago
or maybe they could use giant fresnel lenses to heat up water into steam and drive turbines.
sonofhendrix 2 years ago
Forget efficiency, what's really important is Watts per dollar.
JoeB2C 2 years ago
I wonder which is gonna prevail more, solar or wind... I think solar is more likely
PiercingKnight 2 years ago
I think that we will witness an increase in diversity in ways of generating energy. Solar is good for California, Mexico, Shara region, but not so much for Denmark or Sweden for example. There wind and hydropower is more viable. For Czech Republic, Austria and Poland biomass and hydropower might be better solution, because the wind does not blow so much there and there is neither much solar energy available.
flamesholder 2 years ago
what a great movie !
SWINGREGORY 2 years ago
no way is it twice as powerful than solar to water collectors running steam turbines, electrical solar panels are still not fully efficient!
boxa888 2 years ago
These don't need to turn the deserts into a vast dust bowl, no! And turning it into a giant black field (of PV) is obviously a no no. Using billions of post driven COOL mirrors (without the need to bulldoze) is the final solution to unlimited SOLAR thermal power with molten salt and graphite heat storage.
This Sterling Energy System's proven concept does not store heat BUT is twice as efficient! Maybe bat's or H2 could then be cost effective means? CSP (however) provides more jobs than oil!
fireofenergy 2 years ago 2
The Stirling generators are good for when energy demand is highest (For Air conditioning, etc). The Power Tower design is good for storing the heat for use during the night.
Both technologies are still ehh in my opinion as acouple of days of poor sunlight means minimal output.
Lollocide 2 years ago
osborn le bouffon vert
zeepm 2 years ago
One of the few critical uses of electricity is for refrigeration of perishable foods. Even this could be obviated by the low-cost irradiation of foods. When one considers the pollution and extraction costs of fossil fuels, solar looks better and better. In a way, our cheap non-renewables are actually forcing the development of extremely efficient solar alternatives. It may not be entertaining, and no one will give you a medal for it, but anyone can cut his or her energy use!
99socks 2 years ago 2
What's the efficiency of a stirling motor? (in % of sun energy converted into electricity).
bellaggio1770 2 years ago
About the same as any other internal combustion engine, between 15 and 30% comparable to PV cells.
The concetrating dish makes all the difference. There are dishes like this that use PV cells at the focal point instead of sterling motors that each generate 25kw and are being used in outback Australia to power small towns.
tsport100 2 years ago
I thought Stirling's efficiency was higher :( It seems that concentrated PV would be more efficient, especially in the long run...since no mechanical components are involved.
bellaggio1770 2 years ago
put a pv instead of that sterling engine and it will melt. thats what makes sterling engines more effecient cost wise
Amjad756 2 years ago
You're right, heat has to be removed but it's been done.
Multiple 35kw PV dishes have been powering towns in Aust since 2003. The difference is a dish PV uses 1/1000th the PV material used in a Flat plate system of the same power.
The removed heat can also be used in generate &/or heat systems.
tsport100 2 years ago
seems like you could do a similar thing with geothermal and get power 24 hours 365 days a year
ojgville 2 years ago
If people thought in terms of setting one of these up on their property, they'd realize that 20,000 of these isn't very much, if they're spread out!
johan28 3 years ago
is this expensive to maintain?
joblagz 3 years ago
What maintenance? It's not like you have to dump a 10,000 ton train load of coal into it daily.
tsport100 3 years ago
these are promising the only drawback are dust collecting on mirrors and parts in sterling motors wearing out and losing efficiency
mor6726 3 years ago
do have a mini version heat and electrical power
svesolar 3 years ago
have the mini version prototype now
svesolar 3 years ago
have a mini version prototype and would cost 3000 materials and generate 2000 watts contact
svesolar 3 years ago
a field with 20,000 dishes? it's a great idea, but maybe a bit of an eyesore. idk what to think on that one.
creamyfilling102 3 years ago
Less of an eyesore than chimneys pumping out smoke or cities polluted with smog. They're not that ugly, and they're not noisey. The fact is humans use a lot of energy and that is not likely to change, so we've got to pay the price one way or another.
matt9741399 2 years ago
this big power stations should really be dropped.. The whole thing is that they still want to sell us power day to day.
One of those can power 25 houses.. So a much smaller one could power my home and I wouldn't need to pay any more power bills.
Also building a giant farm to power the cities is a logistical bureaucratic cluster fuck, with a great deal of waste through middle men, taxes, construction, zoning laws, etc. etc.
It makes way more sense for everyone to have their own small one..
linefoot 3 years ago
Yeah well some people live in apartments or crowded areas where that option aint possible...
Nichen 3 years ago
How about a miniature version of this, for every home?
LostInMadness220 3 years ago
I hate to throw cold water on the idea, but 20,000 units sounds like a maintenance nightmare. And 500 MW is how much a small power plant might put out. One generator in Queens puts out 700 MW. The whole plant puts out more than 1500 MW. The Queens plant has the advantage of being right next to the load. There are no line losses or power lost to phase shifting. This plan looks like it is miles away from the load.
gopmonster 3 years ago
Fair enough but why not factor in the maintenance and cost of the fuel supply for both?
The Queens plant runs on natural gas, LNG doesn't just fall out of the sky and I'd be amazed if there was a natural gas well directly under the plant in queens. So there's massive supply infrastructure that is under pressure at all times.
How long is that supply line? Where does the LNG come from?
tsport100 3 years ago
i bet the oil companies have bought these guys out by now and them devices are dismantled.
raulitech 3 years ago