h a l f b a k e r yI like this idea, only I think it should be run by the government.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Salt water can be used to capture solar energy. If salt is dumped into a closed off bay a temperature gradient will exist where the temperature at the bottom is higher and there will be less thermal loss at the surface.
Using a bay to capture solar energy is much cheaper than mirrors and provides
the additional benefit of being close to cooling on the condenser side of a Rankine cycle, on the other side of a sea wall in deep ocean. Furthermore the ocean current itself can drive the pumps in the cycle mechanically, thus removing this parasitic loss.
The Rankine cycle should be set up using CO2 instead of ammonia. It is easier on the environment and has the ability to go super-critical at reasonable temperatures and pressures.
In general, ocean bay solar plants are very location dependent. Such a plant should be picked in prime locations close to the equator, strong currents, and cold deep trench ocean. Independence Bay Peru is a good exampe of a prime location.
Wikipedia: Rankine cycle
http://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Rankine_cycle
Pressurize a liquid, heat it, run vapors through a turbine, condenses. [jutta, Jul 14 2008]
[link]
|
| |
What difference does the specific thermal cycle make to this idea? Or the specific working fluid? That's just more of the "smoking mirrors" you said you were dispensing with. And why do you need a thermal inversion when any sort of temperature difference will do? |
|
| |
I think thermoclines should not be confused with Calvin Klein's or Kevin Klein. |
|
| |
Relatively small amount of power produced, with the trade-off being loss of the complete ecosystem of whatever ocean bay you terraform. Also, solar pools are best kept small - if you have a very large one, it means there is probably at least one axis where any small amount of wind will be able to cause a 'flip' in your liquid density gradients. The pools take some time to recover from these events. |
|
| |
---- As specified in the description, the specific working fluid being CO2 provides low impact on the environment. |
|
| |
---- The power produced is not small as so causually stated, but instead is very large based on the amount of sun hitting a 100 square km surface area, this energy represents the power of 10 Hoover dams. Ocean energy is a vast untapped energy resource. |
|
| |
---- The use of salt in the bay is not critical and can be dispensed with, any 'flip' event in temperature gradients do not effect deeper ocean layers, only surface mixing. |
|
| |
Big ideas that promise revolutions in otherwise hampered industries are usually not well received on here, [rslippert]. The reasons are manifold. One would assume that if such an idea were actually good, it would already be in place. People take the opportunity to be conservative in their points of view, because this stance often winds up being correct. I like optimism and your approach is sufficiently simple, fitting neatly into a type 1 civilization. I commend you for your efforts. [+] |
|
| |
Why hasn't this been done if it is such a great idea? These types of energy plants while producing 10 times the energy of hydro-electric dams, will also cost ten times the cost of hydro-electric dams. That is why they have not been done. The easy sources of enrgy, things like coal, while easy on the budget, are not near as easy on the environment. |
|
| |
What the hell is a smoking mirror? |
|
| |