Why don't people swallow the steam punk pill?

File: fq6GF3z.png (545KB, 2922x2068px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 2922x2068px

that's awesome if you live in the desert or in Southern-Europe

>saving temperature
what did he mean by this

>>1165802
They do. We have quite a few people that use that style for water heaters.

As for producing electricity? Nah, it doesn't scale down well. Great when you have acres and acres of land in the desert, shit when you only have a rooftop. A rooftops worth of mirrors and pipes plus the equipment needed to turn the heat into power costs A LOT more than a grid tie photovoltaic systems anyway. It is also ugly as shit and produces less power when it is cloudy.

File: infinia.jpg (43KB, 485x340px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 485x340px

>>1165835
>>1165836
That's incorrect. Even in terribly unsunny places you can use solar pretty well. It just happens to be "better" in very sunny locations. Don't misunderstand that something "better" means "the only place you should ever do it", because that is wrong.

>>1165802
It is already done and being done more and more. Though, there's more single use for Stirling engines that use dishes now than actual steam engines.

>>1165802
Scales down poorly, has moving parts, is larger and heavier than solar panels if your goal is electricity.

File: 1920px-BrightSource_Energy_Luz_Power_Tower_550_at_full_load_(installed_at_Ivanpah_Stateline_Solar_Facility,_Nipton,_CA).jpg (79KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1920x1280px

>>1165835
>what did he mean by this
Supposedly the salts help things like this keep working during the night, because of the stored heat

>>1165852
(this photo is not taken at night of course)

>>1165841
Photovoltaic, yes. Solar concentrators, no. Were you paying attention to the OP? He is talking about generating steam with sunlight. So he was excluding photovoltaic solar, which is the only kind that does well in cloudy conditions.

>>1165841
>Even in terribly unsunny places you can use solar pretty well
No you don't. And even if you could there's still something called winter, where your output won't be very significant.
Are you one of those people that think it's a good idea to do huge investments in solar panels in places like northern england or Scandinavia?

>It just happens to be "better" in very sunny locations
I think "better" is a bit of an understatement.

>Don't misunderstand that something "better" means "the only place you should ever do it", because that is wrong.
>double or tripple the output for the same investment cost that is also extremely reliable compared to other places isn't really that significant

I really hope they'll never put you in charge of "green" energy wherever you live

>>1165852
I was pointing out that "saving temperature" is very poorly formulated. "storing internal energy" is the correct term

File: 1409450234364.jpg (668KB, 1352x1756px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 1352x1756px

cause steampunk is for fagts

File: sunny-vs-rainy-day-3.jpg (26KB, 615x400px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 615x400px

>>1165868
>photovoltaic solar, which is the only kind that does well in cloudy conditions.
Could you explain why? Because some quick googling suggests that photovoltaic production is also highly affected by the weather

>>1165882
>photovoltaic production is also highly affected by the weather
Jesus fuck you are a pedantic little shit, aren't you? No one said it wasn't. I was just saying photovoltaic does better than solar concentrators does in overcast weather. Quit reading into what people *aren't* saying. If you want the full dissertation on solar fucking research it. Don't ask stupid questions on an imageboard about Tibetan throat singing.

>Could you explain why?
Photovoltaics are all about electrons. They penetrate clouds better than the heat energy of sunlight. So, while your solar concentrators are generating next to nothing in heat because they rely totally on focusing of sunlight, the photovoltaics are still putting out a decent fraction of their potential. Less than 30% but more than 10%, generally.

>>1165886
>They penetrate clouds better than the heat energy of sunlight
There's no such thing as "heat energy", both use electromagnetic spectrum that is left unabsorbed and is converted, absorbed or reflected depending on the materials used. No preference for photovoltaics in that sense

>>1165886
>. I was just saying photovoltaic does better than solar concentrators does in overcast weather.

It doesn't though. The same amount of energy is striking both, only PV is less efficient.

Solar Stirling Engine world record is 32% Efficiency.
PV world record is only 26.6% Efficiency.

>>1165873
Even the lowest numbers for solar in "shitty" areas are very worth doing.

>>1165835
1000kWh/m2
What did he mean by this?

>>1165841
I've seen systems like that but more in the 32kW range, that one looks small enough to go on a rooftop.

>>1165882
PV drops linearly with a drop in sunlight.
Concentrators die the moment the sun is diffused in clouds.
You can flip a PV cell over and it'll still pick up SOMETHING from the light bouncing off the ground.
Concentrators won't work at all unless you get near max sunlight.

The same amount of energy is striking both, only PV is less efficient.
And yet the real word numbers show PV is better when it is cloudy. Huh. Why? Because we are talking about COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SHIT but you are too stupid to understand that. Quit fucking up for 5 minutes and read.

>Solar Stirling Engine world record is 32% Efficiency. PV world record is only 26.6%
Efficiency and potential are NOT the same things. Get your head out of your ass.

Solar power generators that use mirrors, lenses, etc, and focus HEAT need DIRECT SUNLIGHT or their output goes to shit regardless of their maximum efficiency. You try using a solar cooker when it is overcast. It will take you all day to melt chocolate. It is like that. When the heat they are generating drops below a certain level they can no longer make power because they don't have enough energy to generate steam.

"but-but Stirling..."

Shut the fuck up. Look at OPs picture. That is not a Stirling engine. He is talking about solar concentrators that use a fluid, like water or molten salt. They work great in large power plants and can keep generating power when a cloud goes by or the sun goes down. Problem is, if it's cloudy all day, their power generation is poor because they never get a chance to 'warm up'. So, they need to be built someplace with very few cloudy days. They also suck on a small scale for the same reason. Small system's total heat storage is low so they cool off very quickly when it gets cloudy. That is why you only seem them for things like water heaters on people's homes.

PV, on the other hand, generates some power even when it is cloudy. Even if it's cold. Even if it doesn't get a chance to 'warm up'. Even if its total efficiency is lower. Why? Because they don't really give a fuck about heat. They just pull out elections. So even when it is overcast they can still generate power (https://solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-do-solar-panels-work-in-cloudy-weather/).

>live in California high desert
>land of failed and forgotten green energy farms

>reflective mirror array power plant
>has to turn itself away from wind
>>protects the mirror from becoming a sail and being sand blasted.
>>cali high Desert is windy with 30+ mph 4-7 days a week

>government gets "clever" makes reflective mirror power plant focusing all light in an area at a single point.
>heat at and around collection tower is very hot
>>melts bird feathers as they pass through.

>government gets "smart" installs wind farms across thousands of acres in high desert mountains
>>they have a max wind limit
>>need to turn themselves off for most of the afternoon.
>>blades spinning kills birds also

>government gets "super smart"
>installs photovoltaic panel farms.
>>causes massive heat shimmer heating up the air locally despite the wind.
>>really don't have a down side yet, they seem to shade the ground well enough for Desert plants to grow more easily.

>>1165924
They are equally affected by weather and clouds by the mere physics of the process.

>>1165928
>Solar power generators that use mirrors, lenses, etc, and focus HEAT
You don't focus heat lol. It's impossible. You focus electromagnetic waves from the sun.

>>1165928
The post reads like total bs as well, again and again assuming that you concentrate the heat, lol.

>>1165935
Wrong. As has already been covered in the thread.
>>1165936
Citation needed
>>1165940
Citation needed

>>1165934
>reflective mirror array power plant
>has to turn itself away from wind
>protects the mirror from becoming a sail and being sand blasted.
Doesn't have more than PV at the correct angle would. They need the same angle. Can work at the very same height. Just one is bent, other is not. They lose the same amount of energy by being polluted with dust or anything else. So this is bullshit

>government gets "clever" makes reflective mirror power plant focusing all light in an area at a single point.
>heat at and around collection tower is very hot
>melts bird feathers as they pass through.
These are non-problems though.

>government gets "super smart"
>installs photovoltaic panel farms.
Does it? Because PV degrade both over time and with high temperature.

>>1165945
reading comprehension fail. Back to grammar school with you, dimwit.

>>1165943
>Wrong. As has already been covered in the thread.
Are you get paid to post here? Sun sends us electromagnetic radiation, objects only heat because they absorb certain frequencies it radiates, not because it sense the "heat". There's no "heat" that travels the space lol, either that or you have some new scientific theory about how our world works!
Mirrors are used just to reflect that em radiation.

>>1165873
We already have a power grid where we shovel and truck coal all over the fucking place to then push power all over the fucking place.
Solar's better.

>>1165949
>>Wrong. As has already been covered in the thread.
>Are you get paid to post here?
Seriously, bro, what is wrong with your reading comprehension? I'm responding to a guy that is talking about the efficiency of PV vs concentrators and you are talking about something completely different. Why are you quoting tested from one post and then ranting on a subject from a different post? Are you drunk? High? Retarded?

i still wonder why no one has built something based on a fressnel lense. it has so much power potential. i saw how quickly it melts stuff, even brick, that must be usable to generate power/steam etc.

File: Untitled.jpg (498KB, 3508x2480px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 3508x2480px

Can someone tell me if this is a stupid idea?
I was thinking about using a polished satellite dish to reflect sunrays into a peltier plate (covered with a black metal plate), cooled with a heatsink and fan on the other side. The satellite dish orientation would be controlled by an arduino and a solar tracker sensor, the temperature will be monitored with a thermistor, in case of reaching the temperature limit the arduino will change the dish orientation so the sun doesn't burn out the peltier plate.

I post this because I can have free access to all in pic related except the peltier plate, which is around 10 bucks in ebay for a 150W one.

What efficiency / power should I expect to get from this setup?

File: tumblr_mefsupcgxH1qdm61io1_500.gif (31KB, 453x700px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 453x700px

>>1165802
>saving temperature.
>pic related.

Because governments want u pay for electricity. Living in East Europe and this installation is illegal cause baterie capacitors supposed exploding and shit

>>1166009
Well he did mention using the steam to perform mechanical work, rather than going to electricity generation.

Also, it could work by using the steam as a direct radiant heating system, like a gas boiler, only solar.

>>1165898
>world record
do you also have relevant data?

>>1165936
And what wavelength, pray tell, of EM radiation are we interested in?

>what is infrared radiation

File: comparing-different-solar-air-heaters.jpg (20KB, 407x246px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 407x246px

So speaking of solar --

Has anyone made a solar air heater?
Anyone know which designs are considered the most efficient?

>>1166005
The reason people don't do that is because you can expect shit efficiency. Just do the same thing with a Stirling engine, or better yet get some PVs. Unlike the steam powered gay shit in the OP, there are some pretty impressive Stirling engines around (for larger scale power production, on your scale it's not worth doing either, unless you're just doing it for fun).

>>1165992
It needs to be constantly focused.

File: Soda Can Solar Air Heater 05.png (327KB, 3760x2224px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 3760x2224px

>>1166046
lrn2google

>>1165928
All solar devices work to some extent even on a completely cloudy day. Including steam, Stirling, and PV. The steam and Stirling stuff use vacuum insulated tubes in the coldest areas so there's to problem with outside temps.

Perhaps you should read up on the subject before spouting so much broscience, kid?

>>1166005
I'm going to be doing the same thing. You need to make sure the highest heat it gets is less than the highest temp the plate can withstand. So long as the heatsink and fan keep it under that, you are good to go. Here's the ones I got:

http://www.gearbest.com/development-boards/pp_142071.html

5 for $15.45 two years ago. All I need to get is the thermal paste & heliostat, I have everything else. Here's the datasheet on its specs:

https://www.soselectronic.com/productdata/18/29/1829/TEC1-12706.pdf

>>1166084
I have. Do not make the ones with soda cans and tiny holes in the top and bottom. Those waste a shit load of paint, a shit load of time, and the air flow is super slow even if it is really hot. You want a sheet of metal, like corrugated roofing for this, but any metal sheet will work. It is easy to paint and easy & fast to install. The vents need to be as large as possible, preferably as wide as the top and bottom of the unit. Max air flow is your goal. You can use a simple piece of plastic over the holes to act as check valves so the air doesn't reverse flow at night. You will also want something to shut off or narrow the inlet hole to adjust the heat.

However, the use of soda cans is so overwhelming that people still insist on making them. Here's the best design I can give you. Take note of the red text in the red box in the bottom left corner.

>>1166074
Here you go, kid:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-exactly-does-light-tr/

>>1166116
>>1166119
>the more I call other people kids, the smarter I look

I just want to know why in the name of fuck you're making that peltier module solar generator. If it was a fireplace generator, I could slightly understand it, but solar, no.

>>1165928
Kill yourself you butthurt fuck

>>1166130
>thinking "kid" is a slur

>why

Because we can. I've used mine for tons of stuff from making water from air to making electric from my rocket stove to making a ultramini fridge and a seedling heat mat. Those things are uber cheap and really fun to play around with.

You should probably take that stick out of your ass, kid.

>>1166157
I think you might be severely retarded or have some bad trouble with the English language

>>1166161
Did you reply to the wrong post, kid? You've used that "lrn2read" back pedaling argument twice ITT when you got rekt hard.

>>1165873
There is a lot of photovoltaic in nortern europe though. (denmark for example). Maybe people invested there cause they found it effective, maybe they are dumb.

File: PA222772.jpg (122KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 960x1280px

>>1166166
It is used in the arctic and Alaska all the time too.

>>1166165
>gets told off twice in a single short thread for being unable to read
>instead of reflecting on his dumb shit posts that don't even respond to the questions posed, resorts to petty insults
Severe retardation it is, go and get your autismbux

>>1166170
The first time wasn't even me. I just happened to read the entire thread. I'm really not sure what your problem is, kid. You've been flipping out since the get-go.

File: yhst-14664268937570_2270_3602690436[1].jpg (100KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 500x500px

>>1165992
They have. Mirror based systems are generally cheaper and get the same results.

>>1166006
He is talking about the large scale solar concentrators that can store heat and continue to generate power after the sun goes down.

>>1166157
>thinking "kid" is a slur
You must be a newfriend. That was word-filtered on this board for ages.

>>1166165
That was not him. That was me. You've been called out three times by two different people know. Accept that you have a problem and correct it.

>>1166166
>>1166167
PV solar works well enough in cold climates or where it is cloudy. Solar concentrators don't. Some tards in this thread can't accept that. yet won't nut up or shut up and provide a source of solar concentrators being used in those climates.

>>1166175
So we've got two tards in the thread. Great. You both from Florida or something? Come from the same "branch" of the family tree?

File: concentrator-vs-flat-plate-title-page.jpg (685KB, 1000x1710px) Image search: [Google]

685KB, 1000x1710px

>>1166199
>You must be a newfriend. That was word-filtered on this board for ages.

I know, I was the reason, kid. Everyone was a talented/diyer/ for a while. I've been bugging the kids in /out/ with it for a while now. People still think its a slur for some reason. They are probably underaged or millennials.

>Solar concentrators don't.

"Evacuated Tubes" are what they use for those areas.

Commercial version showing large bare tubes without a concentrator (not needed for this application).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vQh0urj5I
http://alaskasolartour.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2010-Alaska-Solar-Tour-Statewide.pdf

The concentrator systems are much the same but look like those in the OP image. They are not normally used in the first place since the evacuated tubes are so efficient on their own and these applications are small scale homes. Though there are a few who do use them when they want a more compact system with less tubes.

You should probably do more research before mouthing off, kid.

>>1166116
Thanks for the input.

File: baffles.png (8KB, 750x572px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 750x572px

>>1166293
>>1166116
So with this kind of heater you think adding baffles would slow down the air and make it worse?

File: 1347919952706.jpg (32KB, 420x450px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 420x450px

>>1165886
>Photovoltaics are all about electrons. They penetrate clouds better than the heat energy of sunlight.

>>1166304
You want high flow rate. Slowing it down just means it reaches its peak air temperature far down inside instead of near the outlet. You can experiment with adding only a few baffles so that the air temps and flow rate are a mix of what you need. Flow rate is almost always needed to be high though.

File: 1344981471692.png (22KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 200x200px

>>1165886
>Photovoltaics are all about electrons. They penetrate clouds better than the heat energy of sunlight.
I know this is /diy/ but holy fuck

>>1166167
They use them on satelites and ISS too
conventional power generation BTFO!

>>1165886
You are retarded. Solar cells collect light (photons) that are emitted from the sun not electrons. The current is the movement of electrons caused by the metal's absorption of photons. Know what the photovoltaic effect is before talking about it you stupid piece of shit. gtfo if you are this stupid

File: 1792Model.jpg (82KB, 350x523px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 350x523px

what a fucking shit fest

>>1166214
Whatever you say, kid.

could this finally be it?

can we finally see a /diy/ thread appear in /trash/?

I BELIEVE IN YOU MODS.

>>1166584
Just a bunch of buthurt fagots fighting over semantics and elementary physics.

>>1165882
Okay, so since so many people in this thread are having a hard time with it, I'm gonna do my best to explain it:
Sunlight is highly directional. The light source is very far away, has an apparent size of only half a degree across and thus the light coming from it has minimal scattering. However, on a cloudy day, this directional sunlight rarely reaches the ground directly. Instead, it is scattered by the clouds in all directions. Ever looked at your shadow on an overcast day? Odds are it's vague and undefined, since light is coming in from all directions across the entire sky, not just straight from the sun.

A PV panel doesn't really care which direction photons are coming from just as long as they land on the correct side of the panel. So even on a cloudy day, whatever light gets to the panel (which admittedly isn't much, since a lot of the reflected/scattered sunlight goes back up into space... but it's something).

A solar concentrator, on the other hand, is HIGHLY DEPENDENT on the directionality of incoming light in order to effectively focus and intensify it. Only light coming directly from the sun will bounce off the reflector at the proper angle to illuminate the receiver. Scattered light coming in from random angles will reflect off in an equally-random direction. So even though it may still be reasonably bright out under a thin overcast, the degree of scattering still makes concentrated solar virtually useless until the sun comes back out.

>>1166409
I do find it kind of curious that no spacecraft have used concentrated solar yet, since cloud cover and scattering are non-issues. I suppose it must have to do with reliability, or maybe weight (concentrated solar certainly doesn't scale down very easily).

>>1166768
>So even on a cloudy day, whatever light gets to the panel (which admittedly isn't much, since a lot of the reflected/scattered sunlight goes back up into space... but it's something) will still be absorbed and generate power.
Fuck that's the worst proofreading fail I've made in a while.

>>1165918
In a time frame that is specified in the article where the image was published....

>>1166768
>I do find it kind of curious that no spacecraft have used concentrated solar yet

Because it is far heavier. The PV panels and their support structure is the only weight there is. For concentrators you have the unit itself and the support structure, but you also have a massive amount of extra piping, pumps, heat exchangers, and electric generators. It is also mechanical while PV are solid state.

>>1165802
>Why don't people swallow the steam punk pill?

Why haven't YOU? Save that shit for /g/ unless you are actually gonna DIY something.

This isn't a spoonfeed forum. Fuck you. You aren't going to build anything. I hope you are blinded by the next cock at the glory hole you use for nourishment.

>work by producing stean and direct mechsbical force

There's your problem.

The efficiencies of tamking mechanical energy out of steam are very low.

The most efcicient way is to create a heat engine, and it is regulated by the Carnot cycle. So efciciencies go around 30-50% in normal conditions.

While the efficiency of a PV cell is just regulated by it's conversion to electric snce converting electeic to mechanical is around 95% efficiency

>>1165802
around here? middle europe?
price, lack of sunny days
people in houses use like fotovolt so water heating panels but only in combo with other - gas, wood, coal, oil and normal electric connection(most is from nukes - so heating water to make steam - lol)
you dont want end up with no power and heat
same goes for electricity producents they only build when its a state grant - mostly fotovolt dont know any plant with mirors around here when building a small hydroelectric power plant is more efecient and state supported

>>1167666
How drunk were you while making this post?
Anyway, it's true that generating electricity/mechanical work by using a thermodynamic cycle is bound by the Carnot efficiency, but PV cells don't have an efficiency of unity
Try something like 20%-30% for the most modern commercial ones

Central Europe here too.

One question for solar system PV
How many years do I have to wait for back money ?

>>1168266
depends
webs say from 5-10 years - around 8 years average
+ you can get a grant from state if there is a open program

>>1165802
Photovoltaics work better in terms of cost. They directly produce electricity

>>1167666
On a large scale solar thermal is more efficient than photovoltaics today. 47.5% solar conversion efficiency is damn good.

The problem is it's hard to get funding for such systems because there is fear that photovoltaics will make them obsolete before the cost of building the power plant is paid back.

>>1168266
It depends on the cost of the system versus the cost of electric and how much electric you are using.

I can't recoup expenses on a solar system of any kind within 25 years. If it has batteries, that number is raised to infinity. This is because the battery replacement every x years costs more than the money I'd be saving. I simply don't use enough electric and it simply does not cost enough to make it worth getting a PV system even if I DIY the entire thing.

A supplemental, wind powered, single battery system is the way to go for me. I can DIY that easily and recoup costs in less than a year.

>>1168293
>fear that photovoltaics will make them obsolete

That's hilarious. PV isn't going to jump in efficiency suddenly. It will only become more costly as time goes on.

File: efficiency_chart.png (640KB, 4190x2456px) Image search: [Google]

640KB, 4190x2456px

>>1168296
Not suddenly, but steadily.
It's understandable that funding can be difficult to get.

>>1168293
thats nice, you forgeting you need a place for it, and ideal places are rare
and there is no sutch thing as absolute
PV are easyer to set up, and not to forget people living near poser plants, when u see peple geting pissed off by a wind turbine then imagine a big ass mirror field with a tower

>>1168311
>a quite mirror field with 1 tower vs a field of tons of moving noisy towers.

I'm sure people would choose the mirror field.

>>1168303
You missed the "It will only become more costly as time goes on." Which means it will cost more than anything else due to the stuff that makes up the PV cells.

>>1168330
That's not a very convincing argument. The cost of normal silicon-based cells comes mainly from processing, not materials. The thin film and concentrator cells in turn need much less (semiconducting) materials to begin with.

Either way, this assumed significant increase in price isn't going to happen so quickly that it would affect the majority of today's research funding decisions.

>>1168296
Bullshit. Photovoltaics are increasing in efficiency and decreasing in cost.
>>1168330
Most solar cells don't use uncommon elements, the ones that do don't use much.

There are a couple ways solar cells could radically decrease in price. One way is polymer solar cells, essentially just making solar cells out of plastic. Another way peroskvite solar cells, which are made from common elements like lead (not much), carbon, and chlorine/bromine/iodine, which you just spray on at room temperature.

>>1166005
To Calculate power output;

1. Find solar energy at your location,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/SolarGIS-Solar-map-World-map-en.png
Assuming you live in USA a estimate is 3.8 Kwh/square meter

2. Find the area of solar collector. I used area of a circle for a rough number. Using a 90cm diameter dish, 0.636 square meters

3. Multiply energy and area to calculate power entering the system.
3.8Kwh/square meter a day x 0.636 square meters = 2.43 Kwh per day

4. Find efficiency of whatever you are using to convert solar to electricity, peltier plates have 5-8% efficiency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator#Efficiency

5. Multiply power into the system by efficiency
2.43x 6.5% = 0.158 Kwh per day

That's 6.58 watts on average, leaving out other losses like light reflection and absorption. That's enough power to run a night light, or charge a phone, but not enough to run a household LED bulb.

This is a fun project, but don't hope to get any power out of it.

>>1168674
>That's 6.58 watts on average, leaving out other losses like light reflection and absorption. That's enough power to run a night light, or charge a phone, but not enough to run a household LED bulb.

And a bit of nitpicking. I'd you are going to run it with a average load of ~6W you need to store it. And you again loose some eddiciency!
There will be a peak of X watts and some slope on both sides. The problem with solar is that you need a place to push the power into. Biggest electricity users are hot water, dishwasher and washing machine. Heating if you live in a cold climate. Then fridges and freezers. And all of these run in cycles. Hot water, heater and coolers are used through the day at some frequency.
You could heat water with the electricity and use the electricity in appliances when needed but I don't know if it makes sense. Biggest need for electricity tricot is when people come home from work and usually the sun is not at its peak efficiency anymore then....

>>1168708
That's one of the main issues with solar and wind turbines; matching the production with the demand
A lot of people don't seem to realise that maxing your power output during midday while the demand peaks at the evening somehow doesn't really work out.
So you still need conventional power stations that don't do anything half the time and guess what, shit's expensive

>>1165835
This dude lives at around 60 degrees north. And he needs an UPS to avoid overheating.
http://www.sondred.info/solvarme.htm

>>1169071
I changed my lifestyle by 4 hours to match the sun so I get maximum efficiency from my rooftop solar.

>>1169485
His overheating problem just means he isn't using the hot water fast enough he's producing, that doesn't mean the sun is scorching the earth even at 60°N
But i'm curious about how much this system contributes to the heating of his house when he needs it the most
Also generating hot water and electricity are two completely different things

>>1169502
Good job anon-kun.

>>1169519
Well, he has 3 big collectors and get about 5 KW power on a sunny day. With insulation the out door temperature matters little.

On a clear sunny day you get nearly 1 KW per square meter, be it in Sahara or on the Arctic circle. Heliostats improve the energy collection but he uses fixed panels on his roof and that is sufficient, evidently.

Around here about 30 - 50 % of the electricity is used for heating, including hot water, more if you have teenage daughters. So solar heat collectors are cheap and effective, low tech and reliable. After all he made this himself.

It is true that heating is intermittent but a 1000 l tank works well enough according to the graphs he show. Scaling up is not that much of an issue and if you plan for this when you build the house you can put in of the order of 100 such tanks in the foundation.

it is true that this does not generate electricity, yet as mentioned above it solves your heating problems and saves a bit of electricity, or gas if that is what you use for heating. The obvious continuation of this system is to add a Stirling engine and generate electricity from the temperature differences, more so when it is night and you can use the solar collectors as heat sinks.

>>1165886
>Photovoltaics are all about electrons. They penetrate clouds better than the heat energy of sunlight.
>>1165896
>There's no such thing as "heat energy"
I am expecting some serious breakthroughs from you guys. I am sitting at the edge of the chair as we speak.

>>1166005
Solar tracking can also be done entirely mechanical since the Earth moves like, well, a clockwork. Just use a polar mount and 24 h clockwork plus a little bit to compensate for time of year and equation of time. That way you get away with using just one motor.

Anyway, a Peltier element is element for cooling and what you want is the very closely related Seebeck element. The difference is in the choice of semiconductor materials, that the latter will withstand higher temperatures without damage.

Along the same lines you will need to actively cool the cold end of the Seebeck unit as 1 kW power per square meter is quite a bit and you use a concentrator. I would recommend UPS protected water cooling using a 1 m3 accumulator tank. With some extra work like a large heat sink you could use the tank to run hot water through the Seebeck unit and generate power also at night. The tank can easily get > 80 C if you use a few square meters of concentrators.

Don't expect more than 5 - 10 % efficiency.

>>1166084
>most efficient
Make sure that the black absorber is dark also in the IR band. Even if something is black in visible light it may be reflective or transparent in IR. Some sunglasses have been shown to be IR transparent, a really bad idea. Iron works well.

>>1166166
>>1166167
Photovoltaics is more efficient when the ambient temperature is low. Germany is big on photovoltaics and there is a huge industry now and a whole lot of roof space is covered in panels. Denmark is following suit and Norway and Sweden is also coming up.

>>1166584
Se are close but there are still some gems in this pile of manure.

>>1166768
>I do find it kind of curious that no spacecraft have used concentrated solar yet. I believe some have, using tiny lenses rather than mirrors.

It is a question about scale and cooling. Mylar mirrors are far lighter and cheaper than semiconductors but the problem is that you also need to dissipate excess heat.

>>1168330
most of PV i saw over here are fixed - people are to cheaping on this so are the firms

File: gLOBEsUNSrAYS.jpg (128KB, 1115x658px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1115x658px

>>1169803
>On a clear sunny day you get nearly 1 KW per square meter, be it in Sahara or on the Arctic circle
'no'. The higher the latitude the larger the surface becomes for the same amount of solar radiation
If this was true there wouldn't even be seasons. Also i don't know where you live but here near the atlantic clear days are a minority

>Around here about 30 - 50 % of the electricity is used for heating, including hot water, more if you have teenage daughters. So solar heat collectors are cheap and effective, low tech and reliable. After all he made this himself.
Won't argue with that. Still, how much does this generate in winter with like 4 hours of sunlight with a sun that barely rises above the horizon, aka when you need your heating the most?

>The obvious continuation of this system is to add a Stirling engine and generate electricity from the temperature differences
With an efficiency of what, about 5-10%? Don't forget the temperature differences are rather small, which kills the Carnot efficiency

>>1168285
>>1168295
1 kW = 0,18 €
1 month = 170 kW
Global Horizontal Irradiation (GHI) 1100-1200 kWh/m2

Direct Normal Irradiation (DNI) 1000-1100 kWh/m2
Price PV ???

Please recalculate !!!

>>1170194
>>On a clear sunny day you get nearly 1 KW per square meter, be it in Sahara or on the Arctic circle
>'no'. The higher the latitude the larger the surface becomes for the same amount of solar radiation
We are talking about normal incidence, not flat on the ground. This is /diy/ and I assume a bit of insight from the fellow anons. Near equator it is OK to place a panel flat on the ground, at 60 degrees north one tilts it about 60 degrees.

>If this was true there wouldn't even be seasons. Also i don't know where you live but here near the atlantic clear days are a minority
I live 59 degrees north. I have lived north of the polar circle. I like to think I am familiar with seasons.

>>Around here about 30 - 50 % of the electricity is used for heating, including hot water, more if you have teenage daughters. So solar heat collectors are cheap and effective, low tech and reliable. After all he made this himself.
>Won't argue with that. Still, how much does this generate in winter with like 4 hours of sunlight with a sun that barely rises above the horizon, aka when you need your heating the most?
A magazine citing no sources stated that from February solar radiation is enough for heating around here.

>>The obvious continuation of this system is to add a Stirling engine and generate electricity from the temperature differences
>With an efficiency of what, about 5-10%? Don't forget the temperature differences are rather small, which kills the Carnot efficiency
With 10000 litres water going from 80 to 30 degrees and 5 percent efficiency I get
>10000*4200*50*0.05 J = 105 MJ
Even with 1 percent efficiency that is still plenty.

>>1170380
>at 60 degrees north one tilts it about 60 degrees.
Which limits the power output for a given horizontal area. For a single panel the the difference is probably negliable, but for the size OP has in mind, no.

>With 10000 litres water going from 80 to 30 degrees and 5 percent efficiency I get
Bruh you're throwing 95% of your collected energy into the atmosphere for a tiny bit of electricity
Also getting 10000l water from 30° to 80° assuming 5kW of power 7 hours a day takes like 16-17 days, and that's being very optimistic. three weeks to a month sounds like a more realistic value.

Generating mechanical work from warm water borders the insane. If you're really that desperate for electricity from solar you're far better of with PV's and some batteries, or a steam generating system like in the OP.

>>1168674
>>1168708
Certainly you are correct, there will be more losses if you store the energy in batteries or water.
Realistically, talking about using this much energy in the home doesn't make much sense, its just too little. To give you an idea, ignoring losses and generously assuming 6 watts is generated for 12 hours a day, gives enough energy to heat 1 liter of water (1 quart) to ~80 deg C (176F). That's how much energy is generated per day. there is no way anyone is going to be running a heating system or dishwasher off of this.

I can't speak for the specific efficiency of battery systems, but at this power level no appliance in your home will run.

>>1170760
>Bruh you're throwing 95% of your collected energy into the atmosphere for a tiny bit of electricity
Sure. But it is simple and cheap. For home use I prefer to reduce complexity, that tends to reduce maintenance as well.

>Also getting 10000l water from 30° to 80° assuming 5kW of power 7 hours a day takes like 16-17 days, and that's being very optimistic. three weeks to a month sounds like a more realistic value.
You can as you say accumulate over several days or cover all non-window surfaces with solar panels. As you can see from the link up there the collectors are simple and dirt cheap.

>Generating mechanical work from warm water borders the insane. If you're really that desperate for electricity from solar you're far better of with PV's and some batteries, or a steam generating system like in the OP.
By the time you factor in conversion efficiencies in PV cells, losses in recharging and discharging, the cost and limited lifetime of batteries even that route doesn't look so good. The main advantages with the warm water approach is simplicity and that you get power also at night.

>>1171132
>Sure. But it is simple and cheap. For home use I prefer to reduce complexity, that tends to reduce maintenance as well.
If you're going to have to save up a month worth of solar energy to produce electricity for about 3 days for the average household, then i have some severe doubts about this project.

>As you can see from the link up there the collectors are simple and dirt cheap.
Yes, but building basically a small and also insulated swimming pool isn't. Getting rid of 10m^3 of dirt isn't exactly free either.

>By the time you factor in conversion efficiencies in PV cells, losses in recharging and discharging, the cost and limited lifetime of batteries even that route doesn't look so good.
And i'm sure your your generator will happen to run at exactly 50Hz at 230V with no phase angle relative to the net frequency, right?
Also losses in charging/recharging aren't really significant. The only issue is indeed the batteries, but if electric cars are becomming a reality then why not apply it to homes as well?

>The main advantages with the warm water approach is simplicity and that you get power also at night.
So you basically want something like >>1165802 >>1165852 but with about a tenth of the efficiency.

Making warm water from solar sounds ok to me, but as someone who has some basic knowledge about thermodynamics this idea looks highly questionable.

>>1171309
>If you're going to have to save up a month worth of solar energy to produce electricity for about 3 days for the average household, then i have some severe doubts about this project.
It is the low cost that makes this attractive. An ordinary house here is about 150 m2 area and you also have another 50 m2 wall area you can use. Heating with 100 kW represents a lot of power.

>Yes, but building basically a small and also insulated swimming pool isn't. Getting rid of 10m^3 of dirt isn't exactly free either.
True. this is based on the idea that you build this into the foundation when you build the house. Around here it is normal to have a solid foundation and there are advantages in keeping the foundation heavy, by rocks or by tanks.

>And i'm sure your your generator will happen to run at exactly 50Hz at 230V with no phase angle relative to the net frequency, right?
For most home use you can use DC.

>Also losses in charging/recharging aren't really significant. The only issue is indeed the batteries, but if electric cars are becomming a reality then why not apply it to homes as well?
I am not pretending this is the optimum in efficiency, my point is that simplicity also has advantages even if losses are large. If you want efficiency you could use water cooled solar cells and indeed make good use of electric car batteries. The only issue is complexity. My focus here is the /diy/ aspect.

>So you basically want something like >>1165802 (OP) >>1165852 but with about a tenth of the efficiency.
We can agree that the efficiency is pitiful. If it is enough to get by it can stil be attractive.

>Making warm water from solar sounds ok to me, but as someone who has some basic knowledge about thermodynamics this idea looks highly questionable.
Well, I have provided some figures here. You make very good points, my focus is just a "good enough" DIY project.

>>1171776
>For most home use you can use DC.
? basically anything that isn't lighting is AC as far as i'm aware. My point was that combining net and your own produced electricity isn't trivial, but if you're completely decoupled from the net then it's not really an issue if the load allows it

Anyway, do you know someone/a project who has produced a significant amount of electric power using a stirling engine running on hot water?

>>1171795
>? basically anything that isn't lighting is AC as far as i'm aware.
There is heating though that would be silly with the exception of coffee makers etc. Electronics such as TV, Radio, PCs, have rectifiers inside anyways. USB for power applications is coming up and that is DC.

Some electrical motors can run AC and DC, depends on the design.

>Anyway, do you know someone/a project who has produced a significant amount of electric power using a stirling engine running on hot water?
Only seen solar concentrators heating the hot side of Stirling engines but I am not sure if that is direct heating or if they use a liquid heat transport.

as someone who got a degree to go into power and solar, this thread hurt me.

File: cells.png (2MB, 1597x800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1597x800px

i bought 30 solar cells from aliexpress. but cells has 3 bands instead of two. how can i wire them?

i already broke 5 cells trying to measure with a multimeter in the sun.

pic related, front and back of the cell.

>>1172161
>Electronics such as TV, Radio, PCs, have rectifiers inside anyway.
Those rectifiers are placed behind a transformer to get the right voltage, which happens to differ quite a lot. And even if you could power everything from the same DC source it would mean modifying every single adapter and device in your household.
Why are you so adamant about DC anyway? Get a transformer and frequency converter and you're good to go

>Only seen solar concentrators heating the hot side of Stirling engines but I am not sure if that is direct heating or if they use a liquid heat transport.
The fact that searching for Stirling englines running on hot water only results in toys should say something.

>>1172260
>i already broke 5 cells trying to measure with a multimeter in the sun.
wtf

top is pos
bott is neg

wire in series to add voltage
wire in parallel to add current

>>1172286
i already tried those with a voltimeter under the sun. it shows 0 volts

maybe i am doing something wrong

>>1172291
Try measuring any of the front electrodes with one probe and the back surface with the other. Most likely the 3 stripes are meant to be connected in parallell.

>>1165802
Cos burning gas is so much more easy and practical and cheap and reliable and tested and trusted and non-bullshitty

>>1172353
nothing beats nuclear though

File: wind: brown is the worst.jpg (12KB, 284x270px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 284x270px

>tfw you live where both solar and wind are too unsustainable

That sad brown spot

>>1172615
do they even have electricity in pooland lmao

>>1172631
no

>>1172353
>trusted
People still die from carbon monoxide poisoning.

>>1172394
Sure, decommissioning costs and storage that go into the millennia are hard to beat.

File: Deaths-per-TWh-of-power-produced-vs.2.png (6KB, 596x256px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 596x256px

>>1173064
>decommissioning costs and storage that go into the millennia
Except old radioactive "waste" can now be used as fuel for newer reactors already, it's not the 50's anymore you know
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor

>inb4 muh Tsjernobyl
>inb4 muh Fukushima
pic related

>>1173364
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor
Did you even read that article??

Hint: if it really were as trivial as you think we would not have any high level waste issues. Instead these reactors are being decommissioned.

File: 1366029656103.png (52KB, 508x398px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 508x398px

>>1173507
Looks like i read over the economic part
Still, radioactive waste isn't THAT much of an issue, and waste processing is a thing
Here's another page on the same concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

Also i'll take a few kg of nuclear waste deep underground over a few million kg of CO2 in the atmospere any day of the week
Why "green" people hate nuclear really is beyond me, it's literally the cleanest energy source to date

>>1173575
>Why "green" people hate nuclear really is beyond me, it's literally the cleanest energy source to date
1. Because they don't understand it.
2. Nuclear smoke stacks are scary
3. Nukes are scary

>>1173577
perfect example for 100% automation - nuclear powerplant operation, processing, and most importantly - management

>>1173575
>Why "green" people hate nuclear really is beyond me, it's literally the cleanest energy source to date
I don't come from the "green" angle, it is more about what I have learned in life.

By training I am a physicist. We learn how things work and by extension we get to think that being technically right is what matters. Sadly that is not what moves the world. Management issues and politics do. Pathos trumps logos.

The best and worst example is the Challenger disaster. Techs said do not launch. Management demanded launch. In spite of going against the technical advice, killing 7 astronauts, destroying equipment for billions and destroying manned space projects for a long while not a single member of management were put on trial. In fact not one of them even lost their jobs. And they will never see the insides of a jail.

So yes, in theory nuclear can be an excellent source of power. In reality other factors come in every single time.

And that is why I am a skeptic.

>>1173658
your example would only make sense if techs recommended a space shuttle and management insisted on a zeppelin. we're using the electricity, launch IS happening

>>1173661
No. The point is about non technical issues overruling technical facts. And that it had no consequences for those who gave the orders.

Richard Feynman had many good observations on this issue:
https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt

>>1173599
they tried 100% automation on 3mile island. the reactor would have been just fine, until humans got involved and fucked the process up

>>1173575

Waste processing isn't a thing, it doesn't significantly reduce waste. The waste from MOX burning plants is itself not reprocessed.

Breeder reactors can significantly reduce waste, but the only types of breeder reactors near ready for commercial launch are liquid sodium cooled ones. They keep catching on fire. There are other more promising designs out there, which could be ready in 30 years or so.

There are some promising low cost multi-day storage methods for PV generated electricity (which will just keep getting cheaper) which could be ready in 30 years or so too.

>>1173364

>Except old radioactive "waste" can now be used as fuel for newer reactors already, it's not the 50's anymore you know

Indeed, in the 50s&60s we had far more experts with practical knowhow about fast reactors :)

>>1173704
nuclear batteries can be made from waste now, and last 5,000 years lol
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-diamond-age-power-nuclear-batteries.html

>>1173726
Just what you need to catch fire in your cell phone.

>>1173726
That, and betavoltaics, have been possible for decades. Radiotoxicity remains a huge problem.

>>1173726
Of course they generate practically no power

>>1165835
>>saving temperature
>what did he mean by this

I assume that where ever the heat is being gathered to acts like a heat battery.

>>1173364
You're a niggerfaggot. Fissionable materials, like helium, are (read: should be) the common property of mankind. They should only be used for spacecraft and glassing sub-humans.
We have a finite and ever-dwindling supply, we shouldn't waste it on terrestrial power gen.

File: 1001 hours.png (222KB, 4056x3500px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 4056x3500px

>>1170194
That picture is blatantly wrong and nearing nigger-tier 'science'. (unless ofc it's some sort of explanation of a bond doomsday weapon)
Parts of the earth other than the equator receive less sun because the earth is in the way. The sun is large enough that sunlight effectively comes from everywhere and at every angle.

File: 1002 hours.png (246KB, 4056x3500px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 4056x3500px

>>1174935
>>>1170194
I fixed my picture to make my point more clear.

>>1174935
Are you really this fucking dumb?

File: 1475303948165.gif (400KB, 493x342px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 493x342px

>>1174927
>Helium
>fissionable
ayy lmao you don't have a clue have you?

>uranium
>finite
The amount of uranium that can be extracted from the oceans is de facto unlimited

>>1175064
Uranium inventory is only good for hundreds of thousands of years.

>>1175098
If several times the length of the recorded history is not "de facto" enough, then what is?

>>1175098
https://web.archive.org/web/20130114062518/http://sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.pdf
5 billion years when using breeder reactors and seawater extraction

>>1172615
Uff... I'm so happy, I live under this brown spot.

>>1175064
>ayy lmao you don't have a clue have you?
X, in the same manner as Y, should be [characteristic].
Sorry jose, you have to go back.

>de facto unlimited
Wrong.

>>1175105
The lifetime of the sun.

>>1175113
down for matinence rn. How is that conclusion arrived at? Is it based on our current rate of use?


>>1175049
>Are you really this fucking dumb?
Apparently. Care to articulate a point, or do you just intend to shitpost?

>>1175064
>The amount of uranium that can be extracted from the oceans is de facto unlimited
Hyperbole aside you can say much the same about gold and other valuable elements. There is however a critical lack of large scale extractions from sea water even though people have thought about this for 100+ years. The reason is that it is not cost effective.

Present known viable uranium sources are good for 200 years of current use. If you really scale this up with 10x we have only enough for 20 years use in which case the sunk cost fallacy will mean we start sea water extraction at a brutal cost leaving nobody happy.

>>1175837
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx
>"The US Nuclear Energy Institute suggests that the cost of fuel for a coal-fired plant is 78% of total costs, for a gas-fired plant the figure is 87%, and for nuclear the uranium is about 14% (or 34% if all front end and waste management costs are included)."
>"Doubling the uranium price (say from $25 to $50 per lb U3O8) takes the fuel cost up from 0.50 to 0.62 US c/kWh, an increase of one quarter, and the expected cost of generation of the best US plants from 1.3 c/kWh to 1.42 c/kWh (an increase of almost 10%)."

https://cna.ca/news/theres-uranium-seawater-renewable/
>"The advances by PNNL and ORNL have reduced the cost of extraction by a factor of four in just 5 years, but the cost is still about $200/lb compared to traditional uranium mining which ranges between $10 and $120/lb."
>"Fortunately, the cost of uranium is a very small percentage of the cost of nuclear power. Therefore even at $200/lb, the cost of nuclear power would not increase dramatically."
>"Researchers continue to seek more efficient and economic ways to extract uranium from seawater, because the amount of uranium is truly unlimited. It is renewable energy in every sense of the word, and should be considered alongside solar, wind and hydro."

In other words; it's already very doable with today's technology and anything but "at a brutal cost"

>>1176188
>>"Researchers continue to seek more efficient and economic ways to extract uranium from seawater, because the amount of uranium is truly unlimited. It is renewable energy in every sense of the word, and should be considered alongside solar, wind and hydro."
>finite ever decreasing material
>infinite
Article disregarded.

I may have let it slide if they were using hyperbole for thorium, because its so plentiful that by the time we make a dent we'll be among the stars anyway. But I can't forgive them for saying the same of uranium. (inb4 thorium -> uranium)

>>1177282
You claimed that sea water extraction would make nuclear power come "at a brutal cost leaving nobody happy" and got proven wrong completely.
>b-but it's not TRULY infinite
>t-thorium is more common anyway
That's not even a counter argument to your original point. And how is enough uranium for the next few billion years not 'unlimited' unless you have severe autism?

>>1177342
>You
Not that anon.

>your original point
Not my point.

>severe autism
I'll have you know that i'm a high functioning mild autist.

>>1177356
So you're ONLY bitching about the use of "infinite" in a case where shit lasts only a billion years, or maybe two? You know, roughly the same time Earth can be considered habitable?

>>1177363
I don't think you've taken into account the civilizing of several billion third world shits.

So that billion just turned into like 200,000 years.


Once we start tapping into nuclear with serious effort, we will never ever be able to go back to only using as much energy as we receive from the sun (read: sustainable). At least without forcing/killing people into being paleo-niggers.

>>1174937
>>1174935
thanks man

>>1165873
Nigger can you even into evacuated tube collectors

>>1177422
>So that billion just turned into like 200,000 years.

If we can't figure out something else within two hundred fucking thousand years, we don't deserve our continued existence.

>>1177515
We've already thought of it. Only use what comes in and build a dyson ring to make more come in.

>>1177422
>So that billion just turned into like 200,000 years.
No. The reason the article calls it an infinite resource is that it is infinite in the same sense as the sun, or more accurately, a well. You can extract only a certain amount of uranium per year, but you can keep doing that for a very long time.

In other words, it is sustainable.

>>1176188
>>"The US Nuclear Energy Institute suggests that the cost of fuel for a coal-fired plant is 78% of total costs, for a gas-fired plant the figure is 87%, and for nuclear the uranium is about 14% (or 34% if all front end and waste management costs are included)."
>>"Doubling the uranium price (say from $25 to $50 per lb U3O8) takes the fuel cost up from 0.50 to 0.62 US c/kWh, an increase of one quarter, and the expected cost of generation of the best US plants from 1.3 c/kWh to 1.42 c/kWh (an increase of almost 10%)."
All that is saying is that a nuclear power plant is expensive. No news there. Presenting this as an advantage is advanced reaganomics.


>https://cna.ca/news/theres-uranium-seawater-renewable/
If I had a penny for every miracle article about "real soon now" stuff that somehow never makes it, I would be stinking rich. As it happens promises tend to evaporate.

I am all for research, having been a researcher myself, but we have to be realistic about time frames and probability.

>>1177854
>All that is saying is that a nuclear power plant is expensive. No news there. Presenting this as an advantage is advanced reaganomics.
You can word it however you want, the fact remains that the price of uranium only has a small influence on the energy price, and that's what it is all about no? This being an advantage or not is beside the question.

>>1165896
>no such thing as heat energy

u fookin wot m8

>>1177922
>and that's what it is all about no?
It's all about cheap energy. As long as we have freedom, the only thing that matters is end price.

>>1178196
There is also the aspect of safety/security.

Cost is a rather tricky thing to calculate since in many cases the cost of building the reactors was covered over secret defence budgets since the primary purpose was to obtain weapons grade plutonium. We will probably never know the real cost.

Similarly accidents were swept under the carpet. Windscale is one example of the size of the problems.

I hope then that the decommissioning costs will not be passed off to the tax payers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning

>>1178276
>We will probably never know the real cost.
Plenty of reactors have been built entirely for civilian use, specifically designed so that their usefulness for plutonium production is low. Many of those reactors are in countries which have no nuclear weapons program or even waste processing plants. So no, the cost of building a new nuke plant is not a secret.

>Similarly accidents were swept under the carpet.
>Windscale is one example of the size of the problems.
It's impossible to cover up an accident like that today. If a nuke plant releases large amounts of radioactive shit, even the neighboring countries will notice it.

>I hope then that the decommissioning costs will not be passed off to the tax payers:
The produced electricity is priced to include the decommissioning costs. Whether some particular reactor operator ultimately manages to avoid paying it (due to bankruptcy or w/e) is empty speculation.

>safety/security
The available evidence says that nuke power is safer than the alternatives. Whether you prefer the slow, predictable trickle of dead bodies over rare large accidents is a matter of opinion.
Well, there's also the problem of nuclear proliferation, but it's kinda difficult to predict.

>>1178389
>Well, there's also the problem of nuclear proliferation
The problem solves itself if we split the world up into America, Russia, Japan, Australia, Sealand, England, Nordland, Rhodesia, and Germany.

If all nations are civilized nuclear nations, then you don't have to worry about shitskins being retarded.