Serowbot wrote on 08/01/12 at 20:00:46:


Now you're catching on Sero! The whole basis of "flying under the radar" is not to "drop out" but to blend in. If you appear average and the bad guys don't see anything different they'll pass on by.

Back on topic......I have the same problem....trying to keep batteries online for my ham radio equipment. I try to keep enough battery power in storage to operate my radio shack for a week, but at least 72 hours minimum during a natural disaster. Thats a lot of batteries and charging racks!

WebsterMark wrote on 08/02/12 at 05:19:42:


Webster that's a trick system.........but I'm thinking the cost must be way more than the measley $25k/year I make !

Webster that's a trick system.........but I'm thinking the cost must be way more than the measley $25k/year I make

no, i've seen them and they are in service around the world in selected applicaitons. However, yea, they cost some serious money!....

Very expensive to build. The problem with these systems and all these  energy producing systems we're talking about is the margin of error is razor thin. That nasty little 2nd law of thermodynamics gets in the way of everything. One little piece of equipment that's not maximized to perfom whatever function it's suppose to perform, robs the total system of energy. When that happens, you've spent a hell of a lot of money to make a something that can light a 100 watt light bulb and that's about all.

We should at the high level research level be thinking about this. Sunlight is one of those things that if we harness even 1% of it we will kick all forms of energy to the ground. Something like in 1 hr you get enough to power your house for a year.
BTW There is a rare earth called cerium - and it has been the new darling of those that want to generate hydrocarbons (like gasoline) using the sun and the air. Google and look it up, I am bound to screw it up somehow if I try to explain it.
Cool.
Srinath.

Amazing th info available if the right ? is asked.. I dont have to just pull an opinion outtamyass,,


How Much Solar Energy Hits Earth?

Posted on 14 June 2006.

If solar power is the purest form of renewable energy known, then how much solar power have we got? The answer to this question, when considered alongside how efficiently we can convert raw sunshine into usable power, helps determine whether or not it is realistic to consider solar energy as a viable alternative to conventional energy sources.

In full sun, you can safely assume about 100 watts of solar energy per square foot. If you assume 12 hours of sun per day, this equates to 438,000 watt-hours per square foot per year. Based on 27,878,400 square feet per square mile, sunlight bestows a whopping 12.2 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year.
grab this widget | start a petition | by Care2

The Sun

With these assumptions, figuring out how much solar energy hits the entire planet is relatively simple. 12.2 trillion watt-hours converts to 12,211 gigawatt-hours, and based on 8,760 hours per year, and 197 million square miles of earth’s surface (including the oceans), the earth receives about 274 million gigawatt-years of solar energy, which translates to an astonishing 8.2 million “quads” of Btu energy per year.

In case you haven’t heard, a “quad Btu” refers to one quadrillion British Thermal Units of energy, a common term used by energy economists. The entire human race currently uses about 400 quads of energy (in all forms) per year. Put another way, the solar energy hitting the earth exceeds the total energy consumed by humanity by a factor of over 20,000 times.

Clearly there is enough solar energy available to fulfill all the human race’s energy requirements now, and for all practical purposes, forever. The key is developing technologies that efficiently convert solar power into usable energy in a cost-effective manner.

For energy conversion constants a good website is Energy Conversion, to help elucidate this data.
http://www.ecoworld.com/energy-fuels/how-much-solar-energy-hits-earth.html

I've often thought of Solar energy use, but with current tech it's just way to expensive plus you still have to rely on either batteries or public power for use when sun light is less then optimal.

R.F.

I hate to be Johnny Raincloud here, but ….

100 watts of energy per square ft is miniscule compared to a simple internal combustion engine.  In Germany I saw a huge solar panel field powering a single building the field.  In Denver outside of their airport, there is a huge field of solar panels. Because of the size required to generate enough usable energy you have to have us use large tracts of land. Add to that is low energy output, poor efficiencies to overcome, ½ the day of potential generation minus cloudy days. Finally you need an energy storage system to store unused energy up for later use at night or cloudy days.  Solar has an important role to play, but it’s very small; remote areas requiring low energy usage or a few panels on a single house to cut electrical usage, but if solar power was the answer to widespread energy generation, it would have happened by now.

currently, solar is so inefficient it doesn't make economic sense...doesn't mean that a breakthrough couldn't happen...I like the idea of a solar tower arrangement...concentrate the energy to a tower filled with a high thermal load material (I think they are using salt) it becomes molten, turns water to steam and drives the turbines cloudy rainy days or nightfall there is still enough energy in the molten salt to drive the turbines...