Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Heat Is Where Exergy Goes To Die

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-10 04:47 PM
Original message
Heat Is Where Exergy Goes To Die
I used my own title. Because I like it better. This is the first time I (personally) can recall seeing a discussion of exergy on the intertubes.

Still, the problems with net energy and economic triage both ultimately rest on thermodynamic issues, because the exergy available from solar energy simply isn’t that high. It takes a lot of hardware to concentrate the relatively mild heat the Earth gets from the Sun to the point that you can do more than a few things with it, and that hardware entails costs in terms of net energy as well as economics. It’s not often remembered that big solar power schemes, of the sort now being proposed, were repeatedly tried from the late 19th century on, and just as repeatedly turned out to be economic duds.

Consider the solar engine devised and marketed by American engineer Frank Shuman in the first decades of the 20th century. The best solar engine of the time, and still the basis of a good many standard designs, it was an extremely efficient device that focused sunlight via parabolic troughs onto water-filled pipes that drove an innovative low-pressure steam engine. Shuman’s trial project in Meadi, Egypt, used five parabolic troughs 204 feet long and 13 feet wide. The energy produced by this very sizable and expensive array? All of 55 horsepower. Modern technology could do better, doubtless, but not much better, given the law of diminishing returns that affects all movements in the direction of efficiency, and most likely not enough better to matter.

Does this mean that solar energy is useless? Not at all. What it means is that a relatively low-exergy source of energy, such as sunlight, can’t simply be used to replace a relatively high-exergy source such as coal. That’s what Shuman was trying to do; like most of the solar pioneers of his time, he’d done the math, realized that fossil fuels would run out in the not infinitely distant future, and argued that they would have to be replaced by solar energy: “One thing I feel sure of,” he wrote, “and that is that the human race must finally utilize direct sun power or revert to barbarism.”

He may well have been right, but trying to make lukewarm sunlight do the same things as the blazing heat of burning coal was not the way to solve that problem. The difficulty – another of those awkward implications of the laws of thermodynamics – is that whenever you turn energy from one form into another, you inevitably lose a lot of energy to waste heat in the process, and your energy concentration – and thus the exergy of your source – goes down accordingly. If you have abundant supplies of a high-exergy fuel such as coal or petroleum, that doesn’t matter enough to worry about; you can afford to have a great deal of the energy in a gallon of gasoline converted into waste heat and pumped out into the atmosphere by way of your car’s radiator, for example, because there’s so much exergy to spare in gasoline that you have more than enough left over to send your car zooming down the road. With a low-exergy source such as sunlight, you don’t have that luxury, which is why Shuman’s solar plant, which covered well over 13,000 square feet, produced less power than a very modest diesel engine that cost a small fraction of the price and took up an even smaller fraction of the footprint.

This is also why those solar energy technologies that have proven to be economical and efficient are those that minimize conversion losses by using solar energy in the form of heat. That’s the secret to using low-exergy sources: heat is where exergy goes to die, and so if you let it follow that trend, you can turn a relatively diffuse energy source to heat at very high efficiencies. The heat you get is fairly mild compared to (say) burning gasoline, but that’s fine for practical purposes. It doesn’t take intense heat to raise a bathtub’s worth water to 120º, warm a chilly room, or cook a meal, and it’s precisely tasks like these that solar energy and other low-exergy sources do reliably and well.

http://www.energybulletin.net/51901
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-10 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. The ignorance in that article is staggering...
the use of "intense heat" for thermal generation of electricity is as inefficient a process as humans could devise. PV is one of the most efficient.

Electricity is, by far, the most versatile energy carrier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Except for the fact that peak sunlight is only available 4 to 6 hours a day.
Your right if you ignore that one "minor" fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-10 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. That isn't a major factor in comparison to thermal inefficiencies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-10 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. LOL.
The combination of solar insolation AND PV panels low efficiency (15% to 20% on average) means PV panels currently convert less than 2% to 4% of suns potential energy.

That isn't important?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-10 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. coal or any other fossil fuel
Solar > chemical (biologic matter) > concentration (geobiologic matter) > (mining) fuel > (burning) heat > (steam turbine) mechanical energy > electricity > work

Solar > PV > electricity > storage (75-99% round trip efficient) > work

Care to dig out and run the numbers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-10 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Very very very low.
However luckily a bunch of stuff died millions of years ago and created those fossil fuels.

The advantage of that is that energy cost is already sunk. We can't get back billions of years of sunlight if we don't burn fossil fuels.

The disadvantage is that stored sunlight (in form of coal, oil, natural gas) is finite.

Like you indicated the process takes very long time and is inefficient. Technically on a long enough timeline fossil fuels are renewable. Given another billion years or so current organic matter will become new fossil fuels. The bad news our rate of consumption will exaust fossil fuels in a tiny fraction of the billion years necessary to make more.

Stil if you want to compare apples to apples.
A solar hot water heater is a magnitude more efficient than PV are. PV are far less effective at converting potential energy into electricity than any heat engine (except maybe combustion engines).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-10 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Your definition of "efficiency" is unique.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-10 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Unique as in the one used in this universe?
A solar hot water heater converts a higher % of solar energy into usable energy than the best PV arrays even come close to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-10 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Um...um...um...um...
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 06:01 PM by NNadir
If there was ever a time in my life that I wanted to make like a dumb hand waver and post a lot of rofl smileys, this would be it.

But I'll restrain myself.

My son is in the sixth grade and he understands why so much research has been done to raise the temperature of power plants around the world, including the dangerous fossil fuel plants that all the anti-nukes don't care about.

Ever hear of Carnot?

No?

Why am I not surprised?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-10 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. This seems unfair to me
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 06:24 PM by OKIsItJustMe
"the use of "intense heat" for thermal generation of electricity is as inefficient a process as humans could devise"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_efficiency#Engine_cycle_efficiency
...
  • Power plants: Rankine cycle The Rankine cycle is the cycle used in steam turbine power plants. The overwhelming majority of the world's electric power is produced with this cycle. Since the cycle's working fluid, water, changes from liquid to vapor and back during the cycle, their efficiencies depend on the thermodynamic properties of water. The thermal efficiency of modern steam turbine plants with reheat cycles can reach 47%, and in combined cycle plants it can approach 60%.
  • Gas turbines: Brayton cycle The Brayton cycle is the cycle used in gas turbines and jet engines. It consists of a compressor turbine that increases pressure of the incoming air, then fuel is continuously added to the flow and burned, and the hot exhaust gasses are expanded in a turbine. The efficiency depends largely on the ratio of the pressure inside the combustion chamber p2 to the pressure outside p1
...


"PV is one of the most efficient."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Record_efficiencies
...

The record for multiple junction solar cells is disputed. Teams led by the University of Delaware, the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, and NREL all claim the world record title at 42.8, 41.1, and 40.8%, respectively. NREL claims that the other implementations have not been put under standardized tests and, in the case of the University of Delaware project, represents only hypothetical efficiencies of a panel that has not been fully assembled. NREL claims it is one of only three laboratories in the world capable of conducting valid tests, although the Fraunhofer Institute is among those three facilities.

...

(Please note that these are record efficiencies, the vast majority of solar cells do not approach these efficiencies.)


http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2008/solargrid.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 12, 2008

Sandia, Stirling Energy Systems set new world record for solar-to-grid conversion efficiency
31.25 percent efficiency rate topples 1984 record

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. —On a perfect New Mexico winter day — with the sky almost 10 percent brighter than usual — Sandia National Laboratories and Stirling Energy Systems (SES) set a new solar-to-grid system conversion efficiency record by achieving a 31.25 percent net efficiency rate. The old 1984 record of 29.4 percent was toppled Jan. 31 on SES’s “Serial #3” solar dish Stirling system at Sandia’s National Solar Thermal Test Facility.

The conversion efficiency is calculated by measuring the net energy delivered to the grid and dividing it by the solar energy hitting the dish mirrors. Auxiliary loads, such as water pumps, computers and tracking motors, are accounted for in the net power measurement.

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-10 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. THe context is the OP discussion of "exergy" - see post 6
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-10 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. When you focus brain power of an ant into one cranium, you'll get the brain power of this author. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC