A solar cell that stores its own power: World's first 'solar battery' runs on light and air

October 3, 2014 by Pam Frost Gorder
Researchers at the Ohio State University have invented a solar battery -- a combination solar cell and battery -- which recharges itself using air and light. The design required a solar panel which captured light, but admitted air to the battery. Here, scanning electron microscope images show the solution: nanometer-sized rods of titanium dioxide (larger image) which cover the surface of a piece of titanium gauze (inset). The holes in the gauze are approximately 200 micrometers across, allowing air to enter the battery while the rods gather light. Credit: Yiying Wu, The Ohio State University.

Is it a solar cell? Or a rechargeable battery? Actually, the patent-pending device invented at The Ohio State University is both: the world's first solar battery.

In the October 3, 2014 issue of the journal Nature Communications, the researchers report that they've succeeded in combining a and a solar cell into one hybrid device.

Key to the innovation is a mesh solar panel, which allows air to enter the battery, and a special process for transferring electrons between the solar panel and the battery electrode. Inside the device, light and oxygen enable different parts of the chemical reactions that charge the battery.

The university will license the solar battery to industry, where Yiying Wu, professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Ohio State, says it will help tame the costs of renewable energy.

"The state of the art is to use a solar panel to capture the light, and then use a cheap battery to store the energy," Wu said. "We've integrated both functions into one device. Any time you can do that, you reduce cost."

He and his students believe that their device brings down costs by 25 percent.

The invention also solves a longstanding problem in solar energy efficiency, by eliminating the loss of electricity that normally occurs when electrons have to travel between a solar cell and an external battery. Typically, only 80 percent of electrons emerging from a solar cell make it into a battery.

With this new design, light is converted to electrons inside the battery, so nearly 100 percent of the electrons are saved.

The design takes some cues from a battery previously developed by Wu and doctoral student Xiaodi Ren. They invented a high-efficiency air-powered battery that discharges by chemically reacting potassium with oxygen. The design won the $100,000 clean energy prize from the U.S. Department of Energy in 2014, and the researchers formed a technology spinoff called KAir Energy Systems, LLC to develop it.

"Basically, it's a breathing battery," Wu said. "It breathes in air when it discharges, and breathes out when it charges."

For this new study, the researchers wanted to combine a solar panel with a battery similar to the KAir. The challenge was that solar cells are normally made of solid semiconductor panels, which would block air from entering the battery.

Doctoral student Mingzhe Yu designed a permeable mesh solar panel from titanium gauze, a flexible fabric upon which he grew vertical rods of titanium dioxide like blades of grass. Air passes freely through the gauze while the rods capture sunlight.

Normally, connecting a solar cell to a battery would require the use of four electrodes, the researchers explained. Their hybrid design uses only three.

The mesh solar panel forms the first electrode. Beneath, the researchers placed a thin sheet of porous carbon (the second electrode) and a lithium plate (the third electrode). Between the electrodes, they sandwiched layers of electrolyte to carry electrons back and forth.

Here's how the solar battery works: during charging, light hits the mesh solar panel and creates electrons. Inside the battery, electrons are involved in the chemical decomposition of lithium peroxide into lithium ions and oxygen. The oxygen is released into the air, and the lithium ions are stored in the battery as lithium metal after capturing the electrons.

When the battery discharges, it chemically consumes oxygen from the air to re-form the lithium peroxide.

An iodide additive in the electrolyte acts as a "shuttle" that carries , and transports them between the battery electrode and the mesh solar panel. The use of the additive represents a distinct approach on improving the and efficiency, the team said.

The mesh belongs to a class of devices called dye-sensitized , because the researchers used a red dye to tune the wavelength of light it captures.

In tests, they charged and discharged the battery repeatedly, while doctoral student Lu Ma used X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy to analyze how well the electrode materials survived—an indication of .

First they used a ruthenium compound as the red dye, but since the dye was consumed in the light capture, the battery ran out of dye after eight hours of charging and discharging—too short a lifetime. So they turned to a dark red semiconductor that wouldn't be consumed: hematite, or iron oxide—more commonly called rust.

Coating the mesh with rust enabled the battery to charge from sunlight while retaining its red color. Based on early tests, Wu and his team think that the solar battery's lifetime will be comparable to rechargeable batteries already on the market.

The U.S. Department of Energy funds this project, which will continue as the researchers explore ways to enhance the 's performance with new materials.

Explore further: Self-powered smart window also functions as a self-rechargeable transparent battery

Related Stories

New, high-energy rechargeable batteries

June 30, 2014

While electric vehicles offer many advantages—including reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the country's dependence on imported petroleum—at least one barrier stands in the way of their large-scale adoption: "range ...

Recommended for you

Computer learns to recognize sounds by watching video

December 1, 2016

In recent years, computers have gotten remarkably good at recognizing speech and images: Think of the dictation software on most cellphones, or the algorithms that automatically identify people in photos posted to Facebook.

51 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
1.9 / 5 (28) Oct 03, 2014
Looks like the anti-solar, petroleum-lovers now have even more to fear. With advanced storage for wind turbines, flow batteries, and such, we are on our way to being relatively oil-free.
jburchel
5 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2014
Just a quibble, but light is definitely NOT "converted to electrons" inside the battery. If so this experiment would be heralded much differently, I can assure you. Precision of language please!! (That said, the idea sounds fantastic, and I'm glad the electrons _pre-existing_ the absorption of solar photons can be utilized in this way to store voltage in the unified device without losing energy to the environment while being transferred into a separate battery!)
howhot2
5 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2014
Wow. That's a lot to digest. I'll get back to you next week.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2014
Could pmaher_art not hack to defeat the 1000 char limit ?
Could pmaher_art focus on the article instead of flooding ?

You ignored the site advice
Brevity is the soul of wit: 1000 characters left.
doesn't that mean you are logically therefore "witless" ?

A bit of discipline pmaher_art would help you get some credibility & attention if you actually want to be mature & engage in a reasonable dialectic...

(shakes head at the hubris of those discovering copy & paste)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (26) Oct 04, 2014
the hybrids are coming, tra la, tra la.
39+ BLACK SWANS
What an ass. This is like fundys spray painting crosses on your car. Who do you think you are dickhead?
weathervane
4 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2014
pmaher_art you start your argument with a common tilt at the amorphous bogey men of big finance and big oil playing to popular conspiracy BS.

For sure there is some interesting science and observations. However for the most part these would currently be considered as just curiosities.

You need to understand a number of things about energy.

We need energy now.....not just in 10 - 20 years time
We need energy which is relatively cheap
We need a LOT of energy and building utility scale anything is very difficult
We need energy that we can move around with a relatively high energy density.

Anyone is more than welcome to build those experimental systems, but don't expect government to shell out millions on research which looks like it will not solve the above issues.

Note the main beneficiaries of fossil fuels are government not the oil and gas co's. If you don't understand this you fail to understand how the world works.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 04, 2014
Perhaps weathervane is unaware of the plethora of systems which can be employed today. I suggest he start with looking at the wind and geothermal potential in the US. We are all aware of the strong investments in solar PV recently, with local and municipal systems. The increases in storage technology will assist in the change-over.
weathervane
4.5 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2014
Perhaps gkam does not understand the current capex and opex consideration of currently building and running these systems and how much it cost to add storage?

Eventually alternatives will dominate and make a lot of sense, in fact they are getting there pretty quickly, no question about it. However they also have their own issues and ultimately face the supply demand wall when they reach sufficient scale.

There future energy mix will be very varied for sure and there is plenty of room for new tech and new ideas. But there is huge engineering gap between an observation of a new phenomena and something that can be made to supply at utility scale at current utility prices.

vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2014
Hats off to pmaher_art - I will look further .
My Cosmology Vedas interlinks keeps a record on Cosmos Quest- Twists and Turns of the present day Big-Bang , Blackhole psychology, misleads through LHC and many more. Scientists unable to comprehend this borderland beteween science and Philosophy- Nature Divine Gift..
Best of Brains Trust is the need for the benefit of Society- Wisdom in time
Eikka
5 / 5 (20) Oct 05, 2014
Based on early tests, Wu and his team think that the solar battery's lifetime will be comparable to rechargeable batteries already on the market.


In other words, it will break in three years of continuous daily cycling, or 6-8 years in storage.

Also, if the design is supposed to be open to the atmosphere, what happens when water vapor comes into contact with the lithium? Wouldn't it just instantly turn it into lithium hydroxide and stop working?

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2014
In other words, it will break in three years of continuous daily cycling, or 6-8 years in storage.

If that means no fossil fuel energy has to be dumped into it that seems acceptable.

Also, if the design is supposed to be open to the atmosphere, what happens when water vapor comes into contact with the lithium? Wouldn't it just instantly turn it into lithium hydroxide and stop working?

Most other batteries aren't too happy about moisture, either. So not a drawback particular to this kind of setup, I'd say.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (22) Oct 05, 2014
Weathervane, when I was with the utility, we got our power from many disparate sources, unlike your utility, whatever it is. Our PG&E system was fed by wind, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, pumped storage, landfill gas, gas peaking boilers, supercritical gas boilers, solar thermal, photovoltaic, fuel cells of all kinds, some sources I forgot, and even the emergency generators in the facilities of our customers dispatched directly by us.

Wind power and cheap gas (for the short term), already have closed three nuclear power plants. When we integrate all the energy-saving and advanced sources, we will all be suppliers and customers, at our choice. We can and will wean ourselves of Filthy Fuels for the most part.

We really CAN produce our electricity without coal or nuclear problems. Have land? You can produce PV power, and the power company has to buy it. It supports the grid from inside and reduces transmission and distribution losses. Got wind? Wind has shut down dirty powerplants.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (24) Oct 05, 2014
I think many of you not in the business do not understand how grids work. We will not close down all plants of one kind, there is too much money in them. We will instead replace them one at a time, with more modern and efficient and practical sources, integrated into the system one at a time.

That is how we got our distributed system in California. A Primer: In the late 1970's reeling from Reagan, we had no way to produce the electricity we needed for recovery. Clean air laws prohibited us from polluting and the costs of fuels were extremely high. The air conditioning loads in the Summer peaks were killing the grid. So we installed the wind turbines at Altamont. When it gets hot, the San Joaquin Valley ventilates, pulling in air from the Bay Area, turning the turbines exactly when we need the power.

No transmission losses. No fuel. No pollution. No cooling water. No sweat. Just clean power for the customers and good returns for the stockholders.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 05, 2014
Want to see the potential of just some of the alternative resources?
http://maps.nrel.GOV/re_atlas

Go through and check out the resources one at a time.
Eikka
5 / 5 (21) Oct 05, 2014
If that means no fossil fuel energy has to be dumped into it that seems acceptable.


Yes, but it also has to be ridiculously cheap in order to justify replacing every 2-3 years, because the labor costs are a significant portion of PV installations, and conventional photovoltaics have a payback time in 20-30 years unless near the tropics.

Most other batteries aren't too happy about moisture, either. So not a drawback particular to this kind of setup, I'd say.


I don't know of any lithium battery that isn't sealed from moisture, because it makes them heat up and explode. Water is one of the open concerns of lithium-air batteries because H2O binds with the lithium and forms LiOH instead of Li2O2, and the stored energy is released as a hydrogen ion and heat instead of electrons.

The hydrogen escapes the cell and the LiOH cannot be reversed back to lithium metal, so the cell becomes useless over exposure to water, and at worst it catches fire.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (20) Oct 05, 2014
That is how we got our distributed system in California. A Primer: In the late 1970's reeling from Reagan, we had no way to produce the electricity we needed for recovery. Clean air laws prohibited us from polluting and the costs of fuels were extremely high. The air conditioning loads in the Summer peaks were killing the grid. So we installed the wind turbines at Altamont. When it gets hot, the San Joaquin Valley ventilates, pulling in air from the Bay Area, turning the turbines exactly when we need the power.


You're still playing it as if the Altamont Pass wind farm is anyhow significant in the scale of California, when in reality its nominal capacity is just 567 MW and the annual production is equivalent to a 125 MW conventional powerplant.

Which is like, 1/5th of a single medium size baseload power station, and all it took was 4930 wind turbines.

Someone's got a pretty secure job fixing them, that's for sure.
Goika
Oct 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (23) Oct 05, 2014
That is how we got our distributed system in California. A Primer: In the late 1970's reeling from Reagan, we had no way to produce the electricity we needed for recovery
-And then there was Enron.

"At the end of 2001, it was revealed that its reported financial condition was sustained substantially by an institutionalized, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud, known since as the Enron scandal..

"Senator Phil Gramm (D/R), the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Enron, succeeded in legislating California's energy commodity trading deregulation...

"Before passage of the deregulation law, there had been only one Stage 3 rolling blackout declared. After passage, California had a total of 38 blackouts defined as Stage 3 rolling blackouts, until federal regulators intervened during June 2001. These blackouts occurred mainly as a result of a poorly designed market system that was manipulated by traders and marketers."

-Howd that work out?
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (20) Oct 05, 2014
Our PG&E system was fed by wind, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, pumped storage, landfill gas, gas peaking boilers, supercritical gas boilers, solar thermal, photovoltaic, fuel cells of all kinds, some sources I forgot


PG&E owns and still operates the only remaining nuclear powerplant in California, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, which supplies them with 1.5 times the electricity of all the wind power and imported wind power in the state combined.

The reality of the situation is that they're getting the vast majority of their energy from conventional power sources such as their 68 hydroelectric powerstations, nuclear power and gas turbines, whereas the variety of renewables are mostly just piddling for state/government support and subsidy money.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (24) Oct 05, 2014
Eikka even found ways to criticize our pollution-less wind turbines at Altamont. The ones that require no fuel and run exactly when we need them. Those. Wow. That's SOME bias.

BTW, the 68 hydro are renewable sources, not to be counted with the fossil stuff. We have a long history of renewables in the West.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (25) Oct 05, 2014
Your hydro are quickly silting up and becoming unusable. And they cost enormous amounts of money to remove. And because of their age they are more prone to damage and catastrophic failure from earthquake.

There is nothing renewable about hydro. They are build - run for 20 years - decommission and let them rot. Just like turbine farms. See previous threads for all pertinent refs.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 05, 2014
Unusable? We have been using them for a hundred years here. We have high-head stuff, not the mud-laden rivers you folk have in the East and midwest. And when dams silt up, it is from the bottom up, maintaining their hydro head. Tell me which ones we have had to abandon because they silted up and cannot generate any more power.
Eikka
5 / 5 (21) Oct 06, 2014
Wow. That's SOME bias.


What do you mean "bias"?

You have 4930 wind turbines that barely supply a fraction of the energy demand of one city at Altamont. That's not bias, that's a fact.

Bias is you pretending that you've accomplished so much with renewable power in California, when in reality you've accomplished very little and haven't solved any of the fundamental scalability issues around these alternative power sources.

And when dams silt up, it is from the bottom up, maintaining their hydro head.


That makes them lose their reservoir capacity, which means they can't be adjusted to meet demand any longer except by dumping water past the turbines, which means their yearly production drops since they can't store any excess water for later use. They also lose the ability to meet peak loads, since they have no reservoir - unless you keep dredging them.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (22) Oct 06, 2014
pollution-less wind turbines at Altamont


There is no such thing as pollution-less wind turbine, btw.

What do you think happens when you manufacture the steel, the glass, and the concrete you need for the towers and foundations of tens of thousands of turbines? You use energy, and you create pollution. Then the wind turbines themselves have parasitic power use when the wind isn't blowing, because they have computer systems, hydraulic pumps, heaters, coolers, etc. that need power even at standy, and that power comes from outside sources which create pollution. Even the guy who drives his truck every day to the farm to fix some broken equipment creates pollution, and the turbines don't last forever, so you need to keep rebuilding them, which creates more pollution.

Wind energy may be low in emissions per unit of energy, but it is definitely NOT pollution free. Claiming that it is is just pure propaganda.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2014
Yes, but it also has to be ridiculously cheap in order to justify replacing every 2-3 years,

As you say: no more so than the conventional kind that has to be replaced every 2-3 years.
As you're not paying for the energy that goes in - as opposed to regular accumulators and also don't pay the environmental cost of the regular batteries being filled with fossil/nuclear energy then - If you add all that up - it would be acceptable to pay a higher up-front price and still come out cheaper overall. We have to stop acting as if things don't have an impact on anything else? Ignoring ancillary costs doesn't make them go away, you know?

I don't know of any lithium battery that isn't sealed from moisture

Do you tend to operate or store batteries in a moist environment? I don't. I don't know anyone who does. What's the use-case here that has you so frightened?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2014
Most other batteries aren't too happy about moisture, either. So not a drawback particular to this kind of setup, I'd say.
- AA

As if the opinion of a failed but qualified nurse counts for anything.

bluehigh
1 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2014
We have to stop acting as if things don't have an impact on anything else?
- AA

You sure need to follow your own words. You must have been talking to your psychiatrist. Get well soon.

This solar cell technology is a remarkable achievement.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Oct 06, 2014
Unusable? We have been using them for a hundred years here. We have high-head stuff, not the mud-laden rivers you folk have in the East and midwest. And when dams silt up, it is from the bottom up, maintaining their hydro head. Tell me which ones we have had to abandon because they silted up and cannot generate any more power.
Gladly.
http://en.wikiped..._removal
http://www.mercur...s-carmel
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2014
As if the opinion of a failed but qualified nurse counts for anything.

I think you are somehwat confused as to what this site is for. This is not a site where people review publications.
This is a site where people comment on popular articles written ABOUT articles published in journals. What we write here means about as much to any scientist as a sack of rice toppling over in China means to an astronaut.
So what I'm doing is putting out an opinion in the hopes of starting a discussion. I'm not making a 'pronouncement from on high'. You obviosuly fail to understand this distinction.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 06, 2014
Poor Eikka, losing every day we install more renewables.

I think Eikka knows nothing but what it takes to build a nuke plant. Shall I explain how much energy goes into that special steel, and all that concrete put there so it won't kill us?

Can we send that nasty Plutonium straight to your house? Nobody else knows how to store it.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (22) Oct 06, 2014
Thanks, Otto. We environmentalists have been saying for decades how dams are losers.

Now, how much electricity production did we lose in those instances?
SURFIN85
1 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2014
We need a ton of energy now, we'll need a ton of energy later.

When Apple has a transmitter implanted up everyone butt, monitoring all the Deep Thoughts the modern techno-addict has, we'll need even more as Deep Thoughts clog the Cloud.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Oct 06, 2014
how much electricity production did we lose in those instances?
Well heres at least one.

"The Bull Run project was located about 30 miles east of Portland on the western slopes of Mount Hood, and consisted of:

• Marmot Dam, a 47-foot-high, 345-foot-long roller-compacted concrete dam that was built in 1989 to replace an earlier timber structure.

• Little Sandy Dam, a small concrete diversion dam on the Little Sandy River.

• A complex system of connecting canals and flumes.

• A 22-megawatt powerhouse.

• Roslyn Lake, a 160-acre forebay located 320 feet above the powerhouse.

Approximately 980,000 cubic yards of sediment — silt, gravel, cobbles and boulders — had accumulated behind Marmot Dam during its lifetime.

"PGE committed to removing the dam within one construction season in 2007"

-You dont think there are others?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 06, 2014
Of course there are others. They are the low-head stuff. Our high-head hydro has been pumping it out for over a hundred years.

And when torn down, we can take the former lakes back into farmland, rivers, parks, with wind turbines and PV.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Oct 06, 2014
Of course there are others. They are the low-head stuff. Our high-head hydro has been pumping it out for over a hundred years.

And when torn down, we can take the former lakes back into farmland, rivers, parks, with wind turbines and PV.
What, you think I don't know how to look things up?

"A low-head hydro project generally describes an installation with a fall of water less than 5 metres (16 ft). Most current hydroelectric projects require a large hydraulic head to power turbines to generate electricity"

-You don't know wtf you're talking about which is very easy to prove.

The dams you consider high-head - certainly the earlier examples I gave fit your category. Are you saying they are tearing down these failed storage dams but keeping the failed hydro dams of the same configuration?
gkam
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 06, 2014
I am talking about powerhouses which use the natural topology for their head, not the height of the dam holding the impounded water. And I am talking of heads of about 1000-2500 feet.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2014
gkam asked of TheGhostofOtto1923
Now, how much electricity production did we lose in those instances?
& he replies with everything EXCEPT the amount of "electricity production". This is TheGhostofOtto1923's classic response pattern, he claims to have answered questions but doesn't, does he have a cognitive problem or is being intentionally obtuse or afraid to concede he couldn't find it ?

Encountered TheGhostofOtto1923 b4, eg his immense devotion to blacklight power & his claim all my questions are answered in a video, which was a total waste of time as they were NOT.

TheGhostofOtto1923 goes on with a veiled attack along lines of "..you think you are the only person who asked this..its all there.." etc huh ! Whilst continuing to claim my answers & especially re signed off validation reports are covered by a Mill's video, which I reminded TheGhostofOtto1923 its NOT the same as a properly drawn up signed off report !

Sadly TheGhostofOtto1923 comes across as unhelpful even slimey.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 07, 2014
Ghost looks things up. I was there, in the highest-head hydro plant in the world in 1971, on a little temporary catwalk between the six dripping nozzles and the Pelton buckets. In my Thermodynamics and Prime Movers class we went through way too many powerplants.
Eikka
5 / 5 (19) Oct 08, 2014
As you say: no more so than the conventional kind that has to be replaced every 2-3 years.


And that's why it's currently not economically feasible to run battery systems for homes. Even if the electricity was free, as in the case of a solar panel that also acts as a battery, the cost of the system is still more than the cost of an equal amount of electricity from the grid.

Unless made otherwise by various artifical taxes and surcharges and subsidies.

Do you tend to operate or store batteries in a moist environment? I don't. I don't know anyone who does. What's the use-case here that has you so frightened?


Lithium batteries are -very- sensitive to moisture. They're sealed because the normal level of humidity in air will cause them to degrade in a matter of hours or days.

But as for the air-breathing solar batteries, the main concern is obvious: rain.

Eikka
4.6 / 5 (19) Oct 08, 2014
I think Eikka knows nothing but what it takes to build a nuke plant. Shall I explain how much energy goes into that special steel, and all that concrete put there so it won't kill us?


You don't need to. The embedded energy costs of nuclear powerplants, and the resulting CO2 equivalent GHG emissions are actually about equal to wind power, or slightly less, and significantly less than for solar power or geothermal etc. due to the large amount of materials needed vs. their poor output.

You can ask the IPCC for that information if you don't believe me.

Can we send that nasty Plutonium straight to your house? Nobody else knows how to store it.


Reuse it.

But you're building a strawman anyhow. I don't advocate for nuclear power. I advocate for not lying about our options and situation. As I see, all the alternative power sources at the moment are nothing but piddle, designed to milk subsidies out of the taxpayers and not really solve anything.
Eikka
5 / 5 (20) Oct 08, 2014
Shall I explain how much energy goes into that special steel, and all that concrete put there so it won't kill us?


Here. Let me do that for you.

http://report.mit...-iii.pdf

A summary of the results:

http://en.wikiped..._sources
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 08, 2014
Your analysis did not include the thousands of years we have to protect the deadly nuuclear waste. But you are not pro-nuke, are you just anti-anything new?

Your are talking to yourself, because we are employing these technologies because they make sense, not because of political pressure. Did you not get the lesson of Altamont? Every kWh we produce with clean energy is one we do not pollute to produce.

Are you married to coal? Is that it? Do you resent us doing better than we have in the past? We are getting rid of a filthy fuel for cleaner ones. Look up the ratio of cleaning toxic pollution at the source versus the costs of the health effects downwind. Environmental Economics is a mature field, you can find it.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 08, 2014
I want Eikka to know things are changing because they must. We cannot continue to foul our nest and still survive. Alternative energy folk are not wild-eyed nuts, they are the folk who are bringing us tomorrow. They are professionals in their field, and not politicians, lying politicians, or the business men who defend their markets to the death.

We are in the process of evolution of power sources, bear with us.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 08, 2014
Want to see what happens when you are tied to old technologies? Look up:

First-Energy_-A-Major-Utility-Seeks-a-Subsidized-Turnaround-OCT20141

gkam
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 08, 2014
While we argue, Fukushima is hemorraging intensely-radioactive toxins into the Pacific.

One of the reasons we do not hear much about it is because of the secrecy. Abe wants the Olympics, and will lie to get them. Use the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists for a professional source. I took their publication from the late 1970's, when I worked with the effects of nuclear weapons on industry, and kept it until the Soviet Union broke up.

The statement: " In late 2013, the National Diet passed a draconian official state secrecy act that provides jail terms for a variety of offenses, including independent helicopter surveillance of the reactors and publishing negative information regarding Fukushima's nuclear power station." is the reason we do not get information from Fukushima. (http://thebulleti...isaster)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (23) Oct 08, 2014
Hi mikey ;)
& he replies with everything EXCEPT the amount of "electricity production"
I spent a little time looking and found one. I am sure there are others. Many are slated for demolition as there are many obsolete, silted up, and dangerously degraded hydro dams on the west coast.

I also found out gkam has his own def of high head which is not the same as the industry standard.

But enough of that. Zephyr/Zipper will be happy to hear that the 3rd party report on rossis ecat is now out. Salmon will be overjoyed to get their rivers back.

"The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 ºC and 1400 ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh. This amount of energy is far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume."
http://www.e-catw...eleased/
gkam
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 08, 2014
Otto has to rely on books instead of knowledge, which can be misunderstood by those not in the business. I told him of our hydro, but he weasels out of the discussion.

Give us the magawattage we will lose soon in shutting down hydro dams. Tell us!

He is not aware of the entire issue, so is easily sidetracked by words and concepts not in his field. I told him of the high-head hydro with which I have experience, so he just says "But enough of that."
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Oct 08, 2014
Give us the magawattage we will lose soon in shutting down hydro dams. Tell us!
I dont know if that info is available or not. And the internet is not a book. You do seem confused.
I told him of the high-head hydro with which I have experience
-And I gave you a quote which said you dont know what you are talking about. Perhaps you should visit the source of that quote and discover the nature of your errancy.

And BTW you do know that CA imports a substantial portion of its power from soon-to-be-obsolete and demolished dams?
http://www.realcl...ity.html
gkam
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 08, 2014
"-And I gave you a quote which said you dont know what you are talking about."
----------------------------------

No you didn't. Perhaps you did not understand the jargon of the industry in which you have no experience.

And yes, I understand how our 500kV Intertie and our DC line are used. It is called a grid, and allows power from resource-rich areas to be sent to resource-poor areas with loads. It may be new to you, but it is how we provide power with a disparate set of sources.

But first, show me which dams are going to be shut down and how much hydro power we will lose. I think you do not understand the differences.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (22) Oct 08, 2014
you did not understand the jargon of the industry in which you have no experience
Youre not refuting the quote and the source, written by professionals, which youre not. How come? You think you already know all there is to know?

Remember you tried to get people to believe that plutonium was raining down in idaho. You seem to enjoy that alarmist conspiracy bullshit. Like this for instance;
Fukushima is hemorraging intensely-radioactive toxins into the Pacific... One of the reasons we do not hear much about it is because of the secrecy
"there is about 13 Bq/L of natural radioactivity on average is the oceans... Measurements of Cs-137 were made after the disaster at 50 stations 40-600km from the coast of Japan... at 600 km Cs137 activity was 0.3 Bq/L (2% of natural radioactivity). Research scientists did not have to take any precautions while handling seawater, sediment and biological samples collected during the study because the radioactivity was so low."

-See?
gkam
1 / 5 (19) Oct 08, 2014
Once again, Otto: The statement: " In late 2013, the National Diet passed a draconian official state secrecy act that provides jail terms for a variety of offenses, including independent helicopter surveillance of the reactors and publishing negative information regarding Fukushima's nuclear power station." is the reason we do not get information from Fukushima. (http://thebulleti...isaster)

See?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.