Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Cool Earth Is Scaling Up Solar Energy Generation

By Marsha W. Johnston, Contributor
December 5, 2008   |   30 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
30 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 30
December 5, 2008
I truly support grass growing under solar installations.
Electrical companies often use bare rock and lots of herbicide
to keep their installations clean and orderly.

What Ms. Johnston ignores is that grass is a high-sunlight plant.
When you shade it, other plants, even trees sometimes work
their way into the path of a good plan.

This plan has a lot of variables in wind, orientation, cell inflation, etc. that have the potential to reduce its efficiency.
Comment
2 of 30
December 5, 2008
This concept does seem to have something to offer:
- utilities will appreciate the lower up front costs, leading to much lower financing costs over the life of the plant
- communities and their politicians might very well consider the manned nature of the plants a plus as it equals job-creation
- farmers and land-use planners will like the ability to generate power on land without sacrificing its original purpose, e.g. agriculture

But the maintenance sounds like a killer to me. The water and air-flow control will require moving parts (that eventually break no matter what) plus electronic controlls (usually trickier and more costly than could ever seem possible). And I think it might be difficult to patch a balloon during daylight hours -- those concentrators should get quite hot.

And then of course there is the issue with wind storms. The solar cell inside the balloon, suspended by a small arm, doesn't seem like it would tolerate much turbulence. Can the balloons be deflated, retracted, and secured when high winds threaten?
Comment
3 of 30
December 5, 2008
Jim,

I wouldn't worry too much about getting enough sun for the grass. Here in Germany, there are a lot of large installations relying on fixed, tilted modules that *completely* block the sun...which is in short supply anyway given German insolation levels. And even then, the grass under the modules grows so fast that the cost of mowing it has to be figured into the sales proposals.
Comment
4 of 30
December 5, 2008
I am wondering if a similar technique could be adapted to make solar troughs for use with concentrated solar thermal. Solar thermal troughs presently require strong support structures for the parabolic glass and the use of thin film reflectors might serve to reduce structural requirements. The use of much larger reflectives sections might also lower manufacturing and maintenence costs and the lightness of the structure would make the tracking easier.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment
5 of 30
anyone wonder about the enormous waste of replacing these balloons every year? are they recycled? re-used?

with all that replacement and all that O & M, they need to discuss apples and apples. the reason PV is so expensive is because the ENTIRE 30 YEAR LIFE-CYCLE PRICE FOR 100% OF OUTPUT is laid out once, up front. so, what is the actual, per kwh price of these, including O & M, downtime, water, and 30 sets of full replacements?

i appreciate that they are lighter on the land, and don't require wholesale destruction of the ecosystem they sit in.

as an aside, i take exception to the "barren desert environment" comment, though, since many of the sites under consideration for destruction by Big Solar are carbon sinks that are very rich in biodiversity, and only become barren as a result of Big Solar's "greening" of them with metals, chemicals, herbicides, bulldozers, dynamite, wells, gas lines, roads, giant GHG-emitting powerlines, etc.. the land around Joshua Tree National Park is under siege, for example, and it is gorgeous and full of plants, animals, geology and cultural resources.

anyhow, let's see how these numbers work...
Comment
6 of 30
December 6, 2008
This idea is half-baked. Air cooling must replace water cooling or just don't accept so much heat in the first place, reflect away the IR (hopefully back out of the greenhouse atmosphere). Individual passive refrigerators would be doable as refrigerants can be transparent. Smaller or larger balloons could work better. Optimize by linear programming.
Ditching the absurd and unnecessary flag poles would save a lot, too. Increase the voltage and use thinner wires down the buoyancy maintenance tubes. Float the balloons and utilize an internal sun-facing mechanism based upon turgidity/flacidity like flowers instead of the goofy exterior cables.
FEMA should fund these as local solar generators for victims in need.
Basically they stopped working/thinking way too soon.
Comment
7 of 30
December 7, 2008
It looks like a nice starting point. However, it bothers me that a continuous (annual) supply of plastic is required. In this sense, it uses up limited resources (in this case the resources used to produce plastic).

I
Comment
8 of 30
December 10, 2008
Here is my invention: The Sunpress C4H10 Elextrix:

http://my.nowpublic.com/world/new-energy-breakthrough-sunpress-c4h10-elextrix-not-be-confused-solar-power


Actually it is Geothermal Development in Reverse. Aerothermal Development.
Comment
9 of 30
December 10, 2008
I wonder whether you could just lay them on a flat surface and have some internal robot rover move around to pin the proper side to the bottom. This might eventually destroy the reflective surface though...

Also, B Nicholson is right, coating the transparent side with an IR blocker seems like a good idea to reduce the heat loading.
Comment
10 of 30
December 10, 2008
is there any way to implement a solar/wind capturing dual system, thus
making use of space and capturing maximum energy in minimual spaces ?? or could collector panels be installed on windmill stations ??
Comment
11 of 30
December 10, 2008
I like the idea from Adrian Akau. Adapt this to solar thermal troughs using a sausage shape with a rigid backbone. No need for all the cooling complications. Tilt mechanism would be as for other solar troughs but much much more lightweight and cheap.
Comment
12 of 30
December 10, 2008
I see no reason these devices could not be somehow integrated with existing and new-construction 345KV towers that criss-cross the country. Complete integration of the grid with it's generating assests. Of course I'm sure there's a government regulation somewhere that would prevent such an obvious common-sense idea from happening (unless you bribe the right people of course....)
Comment
13 of 30
December 10, 2008
My observations: I find it telling that every time an article is published about some new potential technology, the naysayers-nit pickers and Chicken Little Sky Is Falling types post negative "can't be done" comments, and that the vast majority are Americans. Meanwhile someone from Germany, which is rapidly becoming a country powered by solar energy, and becoming a leader in producing automated equipment to assemble solar panels, takes a practical point of view (i.e. mow the grass). Is it any wonder the Big 3 and Detroit are going into the toilet.... Americans need to stop being critics and become inventors and manufacturers AGAIN!
Comment
14 of 30
December 10, 2008
Great effort to place a new solar collection system on line! We need new systems now with less negative comments about why not to use it. We need all efforts to stave off a lack of expensive energy. The US needs to take the technological lead for new tech energy systems instead of trying to throw road blocks in the way. Not only would this provide jobs but bring about a new avenue to a better economy.
Comment
15 of 30
December 10, 2008
Buck a watt installed? Better give these guys a chance here. If the prototype installed for a buck a watt, they have lots of room to work out the bugs!
Comment
16 of 30
December 10, 2008
Response to #13
You are correct that huge arrays of these or other solar PV devices could be "somehow" integrated into the existing grid. The deterrent is primarily economic. While power line corridors are highly regulated by government agencies including Homeland Security, the most formidable obstacles are the laws of physics of electromagnetism. Very high voltages can be induced in equipment that is not properly grounded, such as floating metal films and conductors. Those induced voltages will also manifest as harmonic AC currents in the DC production circuit requiring specialized, expensive regulation equipment before being connected to the grid. Sounds like free energy! Not exactly, it is actually very expensive.
A 345KV line offers few locations for interconnection and has expensive inverter, transformer and switch equipment requirements.

Locating systems with high maintenance requirements in an area where maintenance will be difficult and dangerous is not common sense.
Comment
17 of 30
December 10, 2008
There's more information about Cool Earth Solar concentrators and use of plastic films here: http://www.coolearthsolar.com/faq#Our%20Technology
Comment
18 of 30
December 10, 2008
Why would you not scale this for the home owner? Most people I know that are interested in supplying their own power simply can't afford it. By reducing the overall cost by 80 percent or so you open up a lot of doors.

Dominic Jermano: great concept but how do you get the gas back to 11F without expending more enrgy than your making? Some form of refrigeration must be needed
Comment
19 of 30
December 10, 2008
Grass is no problem. Put in a small flock of sheep. If woody plants start to grow, add a few goats. If really desperate and thorny vegetation appears, add a camel.
Comment
20 of 30
December 10, 2008
Hi Ric,

Actually it does not need to return back to 11 degrees. The pipe panel will always be at a higher temp, than inside the turbine case. That is enough drop in temp to foment recirculation. Depending on what the climate is like such as in the summer, Liquid Nitrogen can be used in its binary capacity, so when the C4H10 reaches the turbine, it spins off and hits a piped contained condenser of Liquid Nitrogen, which would drop its temp below 11 degrees. No energy is used. It is based upon gas heated pressure creation, while using cold gas Liquid Nitrogen to condense.

It is rather similar to using a Still in making Alcohol or ethanol. Instead of a fire to heat the C4H10 the suns heat does it. Instead of using cool water to change the steamed ethanol into a liquid, I use Liquid Nitrogen instead. The C4H10 condenses and is recirculated.

If need be magnifying glass or plastic is wrapped over the pipe panel. This would give the inside pipe panel a greenhouse effect thus enhancing the heat resource to keep the C4H10 at and above its boiling temperature.

You won't find much information on this topic..it is a brand new concept.
Essentially this idea would work in generating electricity in a moving battery electric car. The heat from the Electric Motor, and creating electric heat output from generator applied wheels along with human body occupants in the car, would keep the C4H10 always at an above boiling temp...This would give the need requirements to spin the turbine, keeping the batteries of the car charged. Any excess from over charging the batteries could be switched to direct drive on to the motor.

Thanks for reading.

I think all ideas are good to look and ponder up. It really comes down to preference and advantages. ..people are hoping to see what they get for the investment risk, and or own individual personal use. I like this concept.. because it is about using heat. Something the earth has a lot of.
Comment
21 of 30
December 11, 2008
We are engaged in producing usable solar thermal power: Heat, A/C, and electricity, all at very low cost, and high efficiencies - with proprietary designs in the collectors, "plumbing", and powerblock. $.05/kWh is our objective. CEO-Sannerprojects, Inc Sannerwind@gmail.com
Comment
22 of 30
December 12, 2008
Give these guys a chance. "Left-field" ideas work more often than we admit. Once they get the product in place, the market will sort out a lot of the details. Field experience will teach the Cool Earth people a lot, and they can adjust the concept/product as needed.
By the way, Mr. Viola makes a good point. The USA used to be known for its "can-do" attitude. It made a success out of ordinary people like Thomas Edison and Henry Ford. We need to bring that attitude back. History has much to teach us, if we take the time to learn. That learning may be critical to our survival.
"Opportunity is often missed because it comes dressed in coveralls and looks like work." - Thomas Edison
Comment
23 of 30
December 12, 2008
I see this as a breakthrough and a step along the path of continually evolving technology that will help move us away from poison power. We may be able to sythesize new polymers from biodiesel, which is better than burning it and producing carbon dioxide. Keep up the great work and I look forward to new developments.
Comment
24 of 30
December 14, 2008
Response to #25

I do not think it is too hard to deal with the inductive effects of high voltage power lines. I said it was too expensive to put solar arrays under them when there are other options. Inter-system inductive and capacitive reactances are real problems, not "stupid" little issues. In our vast experience of 100 years of electromagnetic experimentation we have killed many people and burned many structures developing better products and systems. Solar PV is a "decades old tech" which is the most valuable energy producing resource on the planet, when applied appropriately as a distributed system. Ignorant and stupid are not the same thing.
Comment
25 of 30
December 17, 2008
Assuming that the $1/watt number includes the cost of yearly replacements and other maintenance (including cooling, etc.), it is easy to calculate a ROI on this.

Assume: 10 cents/KWh, 8 hours generation/day, 365 days/year, and 1 KW/1000 watts

The amount of income generated is:

10 x 8 x 365 / 1000 = 29.2 cents per year. For a $1 investment that is a whopping 29.2% return. If this were deployed in homes and cooled with water, then the coolant could be used to recharge hot water heaters for an even better return.

The trick is maintenance. Can they really achieve $1/watt? If you spend $1 for 1 watt of power, how long do you get that watt? - a month, a year, 5 years? Clearly if it is for 1 year, you lose money. If all maintenance and replacement has already been paid for, you make money.

Just what are the facts?
Comment
26 of 30
December 17, 2008
you need to find an advanced material like a very efficient thermocouple to convert the infrared light to electricity. Could the right material convert the heat effectively enough to electricity that it could actually cool the collector?

It would be sheer madness to create a solar collector and waste all the heat energy! You're kind of throwing out the baby with the bath water!

Why does the PV cell have to be so close to the reflector? Couldn't you have an optical device refocus the light both infrared and other wavelengths into a beam targeting a larger conversion device that could split the wavelengths and shunt them to a respective converter i.e. thermal and PV. This kind of material must be the target of the research.

What comes to mind here is some kind of film that is composed of translucent, ceramic/polymeric beads that both conduct generated PV electric but also reflect the IR spectrum to a thermal collection point some distance away like a solar furnace. Let me know what you think!
Comment
27 of 30
December 17, 2008
response to comment #21 you've got me going here, How about a large blown up tubular doughnut, one clear side the other a PV cell material, combined with a distillable liquid that evaporates from solar heating and condenses on a shaded or air cooled side creating a solar powered water wheel effect solving the cooling problem while still serving as a collector and a turbine. I know I've seen the design concept before some where.

The key concept here is to lag together the multiple sources of energy, Photoelectric, thermal, and turbine effects in a way that takes the waste of one process and uses it as a way to propel the next phase of energy extraction/conversion.
Comment
28 of 30
December 17, 2008
RE:comment 29 see, Wally Minto's Wonder Wheel, popular science magazine....who could forget
Comment
29 of 30
December 18, 2008
A brilliant idea indeed! This one's got legs.
Comment
30 of 30
September 11, 2009
I wondered about the maintenance cost, so did a short calculation:

10 MW electrical, operating at 20% capacity factor (conservative estimate) is around 17,500 MWh electricity per year.

8 workers costing the company 40,000 dollars per year is 320,000 dollars. That's generous since much would be near minimum wage simple maintenance, however let's give the workers a good living.

320,000 dollars divided by 17,500 MWh is a cost of 18 dollars per MWh.

This is less than 2 cents per kWh!

Replacement cost of plastic would be trivial compared to wage. If these guys can deliver for 1-2 dollars per Watt at the system installed level, then it's going to be big!
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Solar Energy International (SEI) groSolar Enphase Energy Intertek Mersen (formerly Ferraz Shawmut) Via Expo Richardson RFPD, Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters