Talk:Solar thermal energy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MicroCSP is not a separate system design - Hidden advertisement by Sopogy[edit]

Solarmind (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a) MicroCSP is not a term for a system design as proposed in the text. Sopogy (solar technology provider) uses this term for refering to small scale CSP plants. It is definitely not a term that should be mentioned together with "parabolic trough" "linear fresnel" etc, which are really distinguable system designs. Sopogy applies standard parabolic trough design.
b) The concentrating solar systems refered to by Sopogy are not high temperature but rather medium temperature and thus under the wrong section on this page.
b) A number of other companies also offer small scale CSP, e.g. NEP Solar[1], Solitem[2], Solarlite[3], Abengoa/IST and others. None of these companies use the term MicroCSP. I propose to delete this section or to relocate the content to a section that talks about applications of medium temperature solar collectors and include a number of suppliers.

Azuredu (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed MicroCSP is rather a commercial term. It is even trademarked by Sopogy. On the other hand, "parabolic trough" is more commonly used, also to designate concentrators of the same shape but of variable sizes. I suggest opening up a paragraph under "parabolic trough" explaining the recent trend of producing concentrating collectors of smaller size.

There is no intrinsic temperature limitation for small size parabolic concentrators. I am pretty sure [4] that the smaller ones can go to the same temperature as the bigger ones. As I have no solid product yet, take this under reserve but please be open on the subject.

Small parabolic troughs can also be used with photovoltaic cells to give heat and power cogeneration, for example by Absolicon[5].

International Automated Systems[edit]

Would somebody that knows more than me explain how this company claims to have invented something new? International Automated SystemsMichaelkrewson 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't invent something new, they just advanced the Photovoltiac technology. What they're saying is that their upgrade to the current technology is new.Watersoftheoasis 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved material from Solar power#Solar thermal electric power plants[edit]

I've done the move, so that all the material is in one place. I think it belongs here rather than in Solar power. Some of the subsections of Solar power#Solar thermal electric power plants arguably might be best moved here (Solar Tower etc). --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 09:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I certainly want to encourage you to create a state-of-the-art article on Solar thermal energy. On the other hand, it begs the question what function remains for the Solar power article. In my view the Solar power article should give an overview of all what is out there, without getting into too much detail on all of that; details are best dealt with in separate articles like the one you are creating on Solar thermal energy. I that vein I would advocate to leave a short discussion on this subject in Solar power, and then provide a link to this article for further deatil.
Another issue I am concerned about is the proliferation of closely related articles, which seem to mostly ignore each other. I did a quick search to see what is out there, and what pops up is Solar power tower, Solar thermal collector, Solar One, Parabolic trough, Nevada Solar One, Solar hot water, Heliostat, Solar Energy Generating Systems, Alkali-metal thermal to electric converter, and this is far from complete. I think there is a need to concentrate all that material in one place, and provide an overview of what is out there. Solar power already overburdened with too much stuff, so perhaps all Solar thermal energy related articles should be reviewed (or even combined) in an article like this one. JdH 13:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the merge discussion: I recommend not to merge; rather, move much of the content from here to solar thermal collector, and let this article be devoted to energy generation in general, including a review of the various power plants, etc. linas 23:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

degrees[edit]

"latitude plus about 10 degrees": give reason and examples. Also two paragraphs down you switch from F to C degrees in the same sentence. Use C.

conversion efficiency[edit]

The article gives a 2.6% conversion efficiency to the AndaSol power plant in Spain. However it takes in account a 1Kw/m2 insolation at land level, which is far away the effective insolation, which averages 200 - 300w/m2. The prior number applies to the solar irradiation BEFORE it enters the atmosphere.

If we use the appropriate data for insolation we get more than 10% conversion efficiency for AndaSol, and this by computing its entire area and not only the conversion apparatus itself.

--Dfv10 15:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost & found. I wrote this paragraph a while back to point out that the conversion efficiency of the solar updraft tower is pathetic compared to other solar thermal energy technologies. The paragraph was moved within minutes I inserted it from solar updraft tower to here, an a transparent attempt to obfuscate that fact. Solar updraft tower is a promotional disaster area, and I abandoned it because I was sick and tired dealing with that kind of nonsense. It should probably be moved back to there, unless somebody believes that it is of some use over here. JdH 15:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

coated steel tube

himin solar energy

There are four kinds of solar power technical program of parabolic troughs, dish stirling engines, fresnel reflectors ,tower system in the present solar power market. The solar parabolic troughs power technology has already had 20 year commercialization operation experience and is the most matured technology with the large-scale commercialization promotion; the other three are in the commercialization promotion earlier period or are carrying on the commercialization operation earlier period
Our company has had scale production capacity for coated steel tube. The performance of coated steel tube is excellent and the production process is stable.
The coated steel tube and the performance optimization (already having applied for patent of invention and patent of utility model each item)
To research and develop the new coating which its performance can keep stable under the 400℃ condition。

Data mismatch: 350MW or 330MW?[edit]

The "Parabolic trough designs" section says SEGS total electricity output is 350 MW, but in "Conversion rates from solar energy to electrical energy" section, that power is 330 MW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.185.46 (talk) 16:11, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Levelized Cost Calculation[edit]

I edited the obvious mistake, namely the 179 / 310 = 1.73 Euro. I'd like the original editor to fix the paragraph and clearly explain the assumptions he's making. Where does the division by 11.65 come from? If the lifetime is 25 years, and you repay the cost, C, in C/25 chunks with 7% interest on the remaining balance, then the largest(first) yearly payment you make is C/25 + .07*C. So, if 179 million KWh come out every year, you have to charge (1/25+.07)(C/179) = (.11)(1.73) = .19 Euros/KWh. If you consider the average yearly principal+interest payment, then you have (13*.07+1)/25*(C/179) = .13 Euros/KWh. An explanation of the financing assumptions the original editor used would be appreciated or I really think a more involved/useful analysis should replace that paragraph (or some citation to a study that calculated the levelized cost already). Meowist (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will update it this week. I assumed payment of interest, with a decreasing debt (so, total interest payment decreasing). This result in a more complex formula. Lkruijsw (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated levelized cost. It is a bit long now. A separate article would be fine, because it also counts for other renewable energy. I want it in, because for me it took quite a long time, to find out how much solar energy really costs. This would have helped. Lkruijsw (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that the levelized cost section doesn't qualify as original research? --  timc  talk   13:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank the people that have contributed to the description of levelized cost in connection with alternative energy sources. Since virtually all debate in the area revolves around cost relative to established methods, information bearing on this is important to an informed understanding.

But, as suggested above, perhaps the discussion of the concept itself would be better placed under subjects related to accountancy and akin to concepts like amortization and compound interest.

Levelized cost is an established concept in accounting. Description of the concept does not, therefoere, constitute original research and neither would applicaton of its rules to specific examples.

Johnfravolda (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to add a definition of levelized cost, and preferably a link to existing calculations.

Levelized cost -- The present value of the total cost of building and operating a generating plant over its economic life, converted to equal annual payments. Costs are levelized in real dollars (i.e., adjusted to remove the impact of inflation). --Cherlin (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed this section[edit]

I've removed the following section, as these technologies are just curiosities really, and only worthy of a mention in the See also list... Johnfos 21:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other solar thermal energy[edit]

There are a few other solar technologies that are based on thermal principles. They are similar to CSP in the sense that they can store heat and deliver energy at night. However, they do not concentrate the light and therefore can't be called CSP. They are based on heating or cooling of air and the principle that hot air rises and cold air sinks.

Unclear categorisation[edit]

This page is unclear in its layout: is it aiming to classify technologies by their application (process heat etc) or by the original method of capturing the energy (flat plate, concentrators, tracking, non-tracking etc). A significant rewrite is required to make the different technologies clearer, IMHO. The applications (process heat, electricity generation) are really secondary to that. Jdpipe (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E.mail: expoegypt@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.189.31 (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Solar Pyramids

Other Energy Storage Methods[edit]

Has anyone ever considered storing (excess) energy from CSP plants using a mechanical system of pulleys and weights. ie as gravitiational potential energy?

Tripod123 (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this approach is the unbelievably weak gravitational force (in comparison to others), resulting in very low energy density for storage - 2 to 3 orders of magnitude less than salt (for example). The following calculations show why: Salt Storage Power 100 MW Time 4 Hours Energy 400,000 kWh 1,440,000 MJ Height 9.144 Diameter 24.384 Tanks 2 Volume 8,540 m^3 Energy Density 168,615 J/l

Mechanical Energy Storage Mass of load material (Steel) 7,800 kg/m^3 Height of loading block 10 Mass of Loading block (assuming 1m^2 block) 78,000 kg Height of load lift 50 m Volume of energy store (ignoring surrounding structure) 60 m^3 Potential Energy stored 38,220,000 J Conversion efficiency (thumbsuck) 90% Energy Storage capacity 34,398,000 J Energy Density 573 J/l

So on a volume for volume basis (and it wouldn't be vastly different on a mass-for-mass basis either), the molten salt is roughly 300 times more effective than pulleys and weights. DudleyBaylis (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Pumped-storage hydroelectricity.--Yannick (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flywheels[edit]

Wouldn't flywheels be a much more efficient storage mechanism? They have around 90% transfer efficiency and I presume you could use the turbines to spin them up. They'd be good at responding to variations in demand, have good lifetimes and would eliminate losses due to cooling. — Lee J Haywood (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

solar distillation[edit]

I think there is a need to put in a new section on solar distillation - an important aspect of solar thermal.

Some of the articles could be:

1. Solar distillation of ethanol [6]

2. Solar desalination of sea water. [7] and [8]

218.248.79.4 (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are inappropriate as they are from a foundation which you work for. All of your edits here have been to try to link to nariphaltan. Please stop this, we've already had one discussion at WP:COIN where other editors have agreed that what you are doing is promotion in violation of WP:COI. ThemFromSpace 16:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power tower designs[edit]

The page says: "The disadvantage is that each mirror must have its own dual-axis control".

What about a design with dumb flat mirrors which have adjustable mounts (slides/bolts to hold in position) but no motors and a small number of robots which roll around adjusting them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.18.190 (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

46 MW in π sq.mi. is approximately 176000 m^2 per MW, not 16000 m^2. One of the figures must be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.196.50 (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add a company?[edit]

I am thinking about adding an article about this company cleanergyindustries, they have taken over the manufacturing rights of the SOLO-stirling engine. I am a bit uncertain if it could fits in the Wikipedia-policy. I have no connection to the company, the article would be a short presentation of the company with an update about their actual status, history behind the product, how it is related to the EUROdish and ENVIROdish projects etc. I plan to make an in-depth interview with their CEO.

Would an article like that be appropriate on Wikipedia? Grateful for any comments.--Evteriksson (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evteriksson (talk • contribs) 11:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The politics of using solar thermal energy as opposed to conventional sources[edit]

Talk pages are not discussion forums nor the right place to air our own opinions.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi all, what do you think about this little gem of information? It applies specifically to Australia but it would be great to work it in somehow.

All of Australia’s dirty coal-fired power (29 gigawatts) could be replaced by solar thermal power at a cost of around $20 billion (AUS$). Meanwhile the current power-station operators are seeking to raise about $100 billion (AUS$) to replace them with dirty systems that will meet anticipated climate change and air pollution laws. The main political parties oppose or are lukewarm on solar thermal for ideological reasons.

See this reference: http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/archives/11970

Freelion (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, except that your costs are at least 1 order of magnitude out - try hundreds of billions, not tens, and then there is the small problem of overcast conditions. Thank goodness our main political parties have an ideology of keeping the lights on and trying to keep us from going broke. GrahamP (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


If you look at that Fifth Estate link (they seem to be an advocacy organisation) the links that supposedly provide the $20 billion quote actually don't. One "reference" actually refers to a loan guarantee provided for a US company (not the cost of an operating plant) and the other makes the assertion (unverified) that 20MW thermal plants under construction in Morocco (or planned anyway) have estimated costs of $2,500 per kW. Now the Fifth Estate claims that Australia has 29GW of electrical capacity to be replaced. Using the Moroccan claim, that equates to $72.5 billion, not $20 billion. It isn't clear if the quoted cost for the Moroccan plant is merely the ex-factory cost of the components, or if it is the full project cost, including installation and commissioning. However even if it is to merely get the same RATED capacity as currently exists would cost 3.5 times as much as the Fifth Estate claims according to the supposed references they use!

The biggest threat to solar thermal power (or indeed any “emerging” technology) aren’t naysayers, but some of the proponents. Gross exaggeration of the current state of the technology or what it can achieve, and premature rollout will lead to a vast credibility gap which will destroy the technology as a viable option even when it has matured. Nuclear power is an obvious example of a technology pushed on for political reasons way before it was viable or the problems associated had been worked out, and for which extravagant claims were made, only for them to be exposed as hollow, and for the public to become aware of drawbacks which were either downplayed or ignored in the original publicity. The result is that many will not even think about a rational discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear energy so poisoned has it become. If any government really went with this dishonest, pie in the sky claptrap, and started to shutdown coal fired power stations, and build current solar thermal plants citing these ridiculously undercosted claims, and excessive claims for nightly production, the cost blowouts and teething problems would destroy the technology in the eyes of the public, and it would thereafter be smeared as a white elephant and failure no matter how the technology developed. The real political agenda is by the Fifth Estate and the various publications they misquote from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flat-panel solar thermal power[edit]

Hi. I have noticed the following types of solar power plants:

But, is there a flat-panel thermal? Any examples? Rehman(+) 04:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flat panel thermal collectors can only generate heat in the low and medium temperature range and are used for domestic hot water and space heating but not electrical power (see Solar thermal energy#High-temperature collectors). Jojalozzo 13:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get it. Thanks for the info. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 14:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Thermal Concentrator[edit]

Can we have Solar Concentrator plants be their own article? The one with mirrors that concentrate on a steam pipe-line. --70.62.142.66 (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acutally it already exists. It is a parabolic trough. Oh and I forgot to sign in so that was my IP. --Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also see the Concentrated solar power article. These three articles need to be merged, or at least better organized and cross linked. There only needs to be one full length description of CSP, with summaries and links on the other pages... I guess. I don't know. It would reduce wordiness. IDK112 (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incoherent statements[edit]

The quality of this article is poor.

"Higher temperatures leads to better conversion to electricity and the dish system is very efficient on this point."

The above statement contains a grammatical error followed by sub-literate expression.

"This prohibits any option of the direction of orientation of a given reflector."

Errors of grammar of compositional retardation of what's your first language.

"However, one fundamental difficulty with the LFR technology is the avoidance of shading of incoming solar radiation and blocking of reflected solar radiation by adjacent reflectors"

AMONGST the fundamental difficulties...

Here is where some capacity for composition and the English language could actually improve the writer's grasp of the material. Fundamental difficulty is a clumsy expression. It is better to think of inherent properties rather than fundamental difficulties. This naturally leads to a discussion of the various approaches for optimizing a design given those inherent properties. Words like "properties" and "characteristics" keep the focus on the subject material. Designs have properties. People have difficulties. The article is about design.

The article is poorly written.184.45.6.155 (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moody Sunburst.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Moody Sunburst.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Esolar 13.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Esolar 13.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cost?[edit]

On the cost of electricity page, PV is listed at 210.7 (avg $) per megawatt (table 2) versus 311.8 for thermal solar. Yet in this article thermal is characterized as much cheaper than PV. ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadaviskj (talk • contribs) 07:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is need to show brief comparison of costs for different generating systems for their individual (a) construction, (b) ongoing operation with periodic R&M (per kWh/mWh/gWh ?). Historical costs relate to expected future costs, by many when considering which approach to be taken, and when assessing forecast costs for assets when plan to construct or purchase such. Pwparker (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Molten salt storage melting points[edit]

I'm not a chemist so maybe I'm missing something, but the article makes it sound like calcium nitrate is a lower melting point than potassium nitrate. But when checking google it's showing that Calcium Nitrate melting point is 561°C, [1] and Potassium Nitrate melting point is 334°C [2]

That's the opposite of what the page states — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.116.63 (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are chemical interactions so that it is not just the average melting point of the mixture. Sodium chloride (MP 800 °C) reduces the melting point of ice. Chemical Engineer (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According the the salt company, Yara, their ternary potassium sodium nitrate has a melting point of 134°C. https://www.yara.com/chemical-and-environmental-solutions/solar-power-molten-salt/ This product is sold specifically for use in CSP towers. Phytism (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=melting+point+of+calcium+nitrate&aq=0&oq=melting+point+of+calcium+nit&aqs=chrome.1.57j0l2j62l2.6167j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 google.com
  2. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=melting+point+of+potassium+nitrate&aq=f&oq=melting+point+of+potassium+nitrate&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3j62l2.876j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Linking articles[edit]

I was reading up on the solar cooking and am putting some material together for the organisation that has the world's largest solar cooker. I was going to insert the organisation name and also borrow the more precise description from this article. The idea being to better improving the 'webbing together' of articles. I'm sure it's fine, but feedback welcome. Regards Danh108 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are solar thermal and wind power the only energy sources or technology to kill birds ?[edit]

A new section that I have deleted (and anyway the deleted section, if accepted, should go in Concentrated solar power ) states that it has been noted that insects can be attracted to the bright light caused by solar thermal technology, and as a result birds that hunt them can be killed (burned) by the invisible energy (heat) in the air. This can also affect raptors who hunt the birds. Should we put a section about birds in Thermal power station, Overhead power line ? It would be acceptable a Environmental effects section like in Wind power, but without the picture of a destroyed bird that nobody has caught on camera while burning. Wind power projects routinely kill birds and ruffle residents within their eyesight with concerns about visual blight. Geothermal energy projects have rattled nerves over elevated earthquake risks. Hydroelectric dams drove salmon runs to extinction, but Thermal Power Stations and Overhead Power Lines ? Indirect, social or environmental costs such as the economic value of environmental impacts, or environmental and health effects of the complete fuel cycle and plant decommissioning, are not usually assigned to generation costs for thermal stations, where are the environmental impact assessments ? On the other hand, the energy sources that should replace the thermal power stations are repeatedly attacked for their environmental effects. Giant solar thermal plants may harm flying birds that swoop into their rays, but such damage is minor in comparison to the environmental, economical, political, and even health problems caused by widespread reliance on coal. A bird that simply passes over the facility, won't have it wings feathers to begin to curl and singe, unless very near the top of the towers, over 450 feet. You can't record a temperature of 93° C on top a flat mirror, like stated in the Spectrum source: a flat mirror does not concentrate the flux. May be 93° F (about 34° C) ? If the mirrors would go so hot (93° C), it would be a lot of wasted heat. It stinks. --Robertiki (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this edit, as well. A picture of a burnt bird, or "steamer" (posted below). I approve the removal of this section, as a report from Foxnews is just not good enough. Any serious publication on this topic? The question is whether it's significant or not. As far as I know, there is also a known (misinformation)-campaign against wind power using the very same bird-argument. There is a nice diagram about bird mortality (thumbnail below) in article Environmental_impact_of_wind_power. Maybe there will be soon an article called Environmental_impact_of_concentrated_solar_power, LOL -- Rfassbind (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bird mortality
Warbler burned mid-air by solar thermal power plant

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Solar thermal energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solar thermal power in space[edit]

Would solar thermal energy be efficient in space or on the moon? #asknasa Phawley1963 (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solar thermal electric generators were much discussed in outer space futurism in the 1950s and 60s. The idea of a boiling mercury steam engine is especially prominent in my memory, at least. However, photovoltaic was vastly improved in later decades, and nobody's much interested in the more complicated technology anymore. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Thermal Energy would be very efficient in space or on the moon. Every hour, more solar energy reaches Earth than humans are able to use in a year. Since there isn't clouds or anything to block thermal energy, satellite based solar panels would be the go to. These panels are able to capture and transmit more solar energy than terrestrial solar panels.

Also, you can calculate the efficiency of the solar panels which shows the overall value on the energy acquired. Another thing to consider is how off grid systems work without connections to the grid. This means storing energy using battery storage such as a Tesla Powerwall.

[1] [2]

References

  1. ^ https://www.sempersolaris.com/resources/solar-information/solar-for-beginners/
  2. ^ https://www.energy.gov/articles/space-based-solar-power

molecular solar thermal energy storage system[edit]

Add more info about: molecular solar thermal energy storage system ?

Molecular Solar Thermal Power Generation https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/60c74ffa842e656c71db3938

Status and challenges for molecular solar thermal energy storage system based devices https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/cs/d1cs00890k

The Molecular Solar Thermal Energy Storage system https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/molecular-solar-thermal-energy-storage-to-bottle-solar-energy-into-liquid-fuel/#:~:text=In%20the%20Molecular%20Solar%20Thermal,transformation%20of%20norbornadiene%20into%20quadricyclane.

eh? limitless peace Michael Ten (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_thermal_energy&oldid=1212963733"