I suppose if you could engineer a plant / thing that would convert sunlight, water and co2 into some liquid fuel you would have something.
There is no need to get bogged down on H2 or any fuel in particular, just something that is reasonably similar to either gasoline or diesel.
It would come down to capital cost and efficiency, but you could imagine lots of barren land in southern europe that could be employed.

Of course, the added bonus of solar power is that maximum electrical production mimics maximum demand, at least in Southern Europe and much of tUSA. So, solar production reduces the need for peaking power plants, which, by definition, are the least efficient (and often most polluting).

Hmmm...I have my highest electricity bills in the winter ~60-70 dollars per month. Lowest in the summer ~25-30 dollars per month. Doesn't seem like solar mimics my highest demand times. I have my heating system run on electric (Natural gas would have my bills see closer to $100 in the winter months). Of course this is all based on night time and weekend usage.

Where I am at, there really is little solar power available. The hydropower which supplies the region is already maxed out and consumer demand (by increasing population) is having to be met by other power sources. Wind is possible but not plentiful in this region either (low winds and a lack of constant prevailing winds).

300 rainy/overcast days a year, northern latitude, and mountains stopping winds. Not much opportunity for renewable energy out here at all. It would all be at very high cost (when factoring in actual output).

I'm all for research into a deeper understanding of photosynthesis but in the meantime, please crank up the production of regular biofuels and synthetics based on biomass feedstocks and improve on fuel economy (economic driver: high retail fuel prices). I'm sure there is plenty of potential for optimization left in these areas.

Creating an artificial leaf sounds straightforward, but so did artificial intelligence. Mother Nature is a hard act to follow when you have to start from scratch.

Rafael, you should see what is accomplished using neural networks (on a supercomputer platform), AI, and genetic algorithms.

Patrick -

thank you for proving my point. Achieving even an extremely crude facsimile of what evolution has wrought requires huge resources and decades of development.

Peak electrical demand happens each business day, typically worse in the summer when industrial, commercial and residential users are all online in the afternoon. As air conditioning becomes more popular, the problem tends to get worse. This is the time of day when all the expensive generating equipment has to be fired up or output increased so that there aren't brown/black-outs.

Solution:
Step #1: Convert as much waste as possible to liquid fuels. DOE/USDA estimates (billion ton vision) that US can replace a third of its oil needs this way. For EU it should be much more, considering the lower use of oil.

Producing waste would require no new resources, since we are already doing it. Since no process is 100% efficient, we will always have waste. It would also have many environmental benefits (less CO2 and CH4 frpm landfills, etc.)

Step #2: Ultimate solar collector: Algae. Grow these on wastewater (free fertilizer) and get clean water as a byproduct. Processing algae to liquid fuels would also produce fertilizer as a byproduct. Feeding CO2 and NOx rich offgas from manufacturing to the algal ponds would futher increase growth, while cleaning the offgas.

There are solar cells that are approaching 50% efficiency. It may be possible to exploit the fact that photosynthesis is focused on two spectrum bands, along with high efficiency frequency specific lights.
_
http://www.jdsu.com/index.cfm?newsid=427&pagepath=News/News_Releases&id=1851
_
http://www.steve.gb.com/images/science/action_spectrum_photosynthesis.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chlorophyll_ab_spectra.png
http://www.bios.niu.edu/sims/metabolism/c034f2c.gif

Speaking of high efficiency solar cells, check out:

www.DBKsolar.com

DBK claims to have a 3000w (yes, 3kw) solar panel with a
50in x 40in x 2in dimension. One panel could rerplace 17 typical solar panels. According to the website (and please visit it because I don't know what to think of it) just 2 of their solar panels could meet the electrical demands of most homes.

I wish this website had a forum!

Hmm, no mention of solid oxide high-temp electrolysis? This is a promising process which could eventually yield 45-50% solar to hydrogen efficiency, or ~33% solar to methane efficiency. For H2, you only need water (H2O) as raw material. For methane (CH4) you will need both H2O and CO2. The problem so far has been the short durability of the solid oxide cells for electrolysis, whereas in its fuelcell role, solid oxide fuel cell will last ten times more.
The mention of artificial leaf connote something far off in the future, the sci-fi stuffs, and can mislead the public away from the imminent feasibility of the direct-solar based fuel technology.
Patrick, if you live in sunless area such as Pacific Northwest, you have access to plenty of hydroelectricity, and you can also import solar hydrogen or solar methane produced elsewhere via your natural gas pipeline. Solar methane can also be produced in the desert middle east and shipped elsewhere as LNG in cryogenic tankers. This technology already exists.
Direct-solar-based synthetic fuel will be the most viable candidate to replace fossil fuel in the future without resorting to the "nuclear option." Gaseous fuels will be more efficient and cheaper than liquid synthetic fuel via FT synthesis pathway.

reg. the link www.DBKsolar.com from cs1992
Interesting picture " http://www.dbksolar.com/JIL-3000.htm " display 2.8kW but leads don't have a load.
Current Sensor measures current what goes to the Voltage Probe? How can that than be 2.8kW ????

50in X 40in = ~1.3 sq m
1 sq m of sunlight is roughly 1350W of power on average at the distance of the earth from the sun BEFORE accounting for atmospheric losses and WITH consideration of a 90 degree angle of incidence.

So how are they magically collecting more power than is available? I smell something that could be used to produce methane gases...

Roger-

In the pacific northwest we are already pulling all the hydro power we can. With over 3 million people in the Puget Sound the power demands exceed hydro output available. We don't have the option to build any more dams without doing significant further ecological damage. Fortunately they are installing wind power in the eastern part of the state and sending it across the mountains rather than building more fossil fuel plants.

Another possibility would be to use half the energy captured by high efficiency photovot. cells, for electricity, and half for lights to grow plants underneath the photovot. arrays.

As to hydroelectric, large dams cause environmental damage, and may distort the earth due to the enormous weight of the water (one cubic meter water=one metric ton/2,205lbs) and of the dam (often weighing more than the total weight of water in a full reservoir behind) itself. Perhaps fluid current energy, using slow rotating turbines (similar to wind turbines, or perhaps helical ones) from rivers and tides is the way to go. This is of course refering to the development of hydroelectric power, not old established ones not in need of replacement.
_
http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/05spr/gorlov1.asp

Patrick;

Pacific North West could easily satisfy electricity demand of all continent. Our hydro resources are only lightly tapped into. Yes, it will never happened, and not because of real damage to environment (it is minimal in mountain terrain), and not because worries about salmon – we have enough mountain streams lacking salmon, or because we will have to relocate a lot of people. The reason is a mysterious public illusion (probably derived from extensive flooding from flat terrain dams) that hydroelectric dams damage the environment.

Andrey, NIMBY plus distnce, plus Wyoming coal power, plus distance to East and South/Texas means hydropower from the Northwest (unless extremetly long distance high voltage DC interconnects are built) will serve the West, not elsewhere.

Allen:
I totally agree, Hydro is not a total electrical energy solution for all US and Canada(and nothing is). But for huge territories in mountainous terrain and 300 miles around (that includes most of California) it is.

I can only assume that the DBK solar 3000 watt panel is either fraudulent, or they really don't know what they're talking about. It's pretty clear that even with a 100% conversion efficiency, they couldn't generate more than 1200W with a panel that size (50x40"), to say nothing of the fact that the shadow produced by the panel indicates that they're not getting max solar to produce their "3000W". To say nothing of the lack of a load. Got to be a hoax. I wonder about the rest of their site?

I sent DBK an email which said;

"I’m a little confused on where the 3000W rating comes from; you’ve tested with 1000W/m^2, and you have an area of 1.29 m^2, so even with an efficiency of 100%, you could only be putting out 1290W. And with the stated efficiency of 75%, that’s only 970W. Am I missing something?"

Their odd response was;

"Yes, we link it a DC to DC inverter before it get to the DC to AC inverter."

Uh...okay. What? Did they get the wrong question?

TJ

I tried to get info out of these DBK people to use their pannels on a boat. No answer at all. Seems they can be rather shady when it comes to exact facts and figures on the site. Any way they could be checked out?

electric/solar powered cars that run by sensors in curbs and on streets, also satellites control time, major traffic control, speed set same for everyone, so there is a consistent flow rather than stop go, stop go. car is scheduled by owner when to leave and where to go, autopilot. comfortable cars, leg room, computer, coffee, news on tv, and a fridge for drinks. like a mini limosine. recognition of change will bring change and we will become evolved in a way of living. healthier lives, less chaotic and more free flowing. life wont seem so fast pace, rather it will bring a relaxed sense to many that work 9-5 in cities, or anywhere.

February 20, 2006
South Africa Claims Breakthorough in PV Solar
According to an article on the IOL, South Africa website, scientist Professor Vivan Alberts and his colleagues at the University of Johannesburg (formerly Rand Afrikaans University) have achieved a breakthrough in developing a "revolutionary, new highly efficient solar power technology" after 10 years of research. Panels will be available within a year. The technology has been patented throughout the world. It is claimed to be "much more efficient than the costly old silicon solar panels."

The article goes on to say:

A German company IFE Solar Systems, has invested more than R500-million (US $83-million) in the South African invention and is set to manufacture 500,000 of the panels before the end of the year at a new plant in Germany. Production will start next month and the factory will run 24 hours a day, producing more than 1,000 panels a day to meet expected demand. ....

The South African solar panels consist of a thin layer of a unique metal alloy that converts light into energy. The photo-responsive alloy can operate on virtually all flexible surfaces, which means it could in future find a host of other applications.

Alberts said the new panels are approximately five microns thick (a human hair is 20 microns thick) while the older silicon panels are 350 microns thick. the cost of the South African technology is a fraction of the less effective silicone solar panels.

According to this November 2004 article:

Prof Vivian Alberts of the Department of Physics at the Rand Afrikaans University in South Africa and team have developed and patented a novel manufacturing technique that finally makes it possible to construct CIGS solar panels at a very low cost. ....Work done over the last two years indicates that panels can be produced in commercial volumes at a cost of about R 500 (US $83 or $1.66/W) for a 50 Watt panel. This is much cheaper than existing solar panels available on the market.

$1.66/W is much lower than anyone else is achieving right now but, if you believe their price, they could be on about the same pace as some other non-silicon thin film producers will be in a year, so I don't see their technology as "revolutionary." Their installed price might be about $3.00-$3.50/W (at 2x panel price). The key to low cost cells is the manufacturing methods and it is awful ambitious of anyone to assume they can reach that price in one year, even with a "novel" manufacturing process.

Daystar and others are developing similar technology. Daystar may be reaching $3.00-$3.50/W installed price in 2007 with their Gen II production if everything goes right. They are achieving 20% efficiency in the laboratory which is much better than anyone most get with silicon. Daystar plans on reducing its installed price to the range of $1.00/W when its Gen III production is tuned up in 2009, but I suspect they may have to go to a Gen IV process, producing wider width cell panels and a higher production rate before they reach that price.

NREL has said that industry needs to get its price down to about $0.52 per watt (cost $0.26) to achieve installed price of under a $1.00/W, (for 13% efficiency CIGS panels) the holy grail of pricing necessary to compete with utility power without any subsidies in the US. Electricity is much more expensive in South Africa than in the US, so maybe their price is competitive over there. Prices this low are for large multi-MW installations, not for household installations, so that is another factor to consider. Supplies of Indium and Gallium become tight when you are talking about multi-GW production so yet another obstacle to overcome. And then could we have patent infringement lawsuits at some time? Life is so complicated.

Technorati tags: solar, PV solar, solar power, energy, technology

February 20, 2006 at 11:43 PM in Solar-PV | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/4305569

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference South Africa Claims Breakthorough in PV Solar:

I signed up for an exclusive territory with DBK for their 1,500 and 3,000 panels and was accepted; but before sending any money or signing a contract I did some research and read a lot of negative comments. When I inquired to DBK their only comment was that they are not a "fly by night company". I have a 100 house project pending and asked that they prove up before I promote their solar systems - no response after numerous requests. Does anyone have further comments?