Calculations of Domestic Solar Concentrator efficiency
- Sep 4, 2019 11:16 pm GMT
- 263 views
In response to Michael Moore’s allegation that the Renewable Energy sector cannot deliver.
Michael Moore's movie is naturally an interesting little movie, and I guess it has potential to stir the waters.
Let me reveal some factual figures which may leave your jaws hanging down on the table, as you are currently wasting your money paying for Grid-based energy
I am, as I write these lines here, spearheading a Climate Change project, development of a heat generating solar concentrator for domestic use (from 6 square meter reflectors up to some 60 square meters (the latter for homes in Denmark, sized 400 square meter and above)), which, based on prototype cost pricing, delivers heat energy from the sun at a cost, 119 times lower - let me repeat such that we do not swallow the breakfast with the wind pipe - hundred and nineteen times lower - cost per kiloWattHour delivered, than hitherto known pricing.
If you still did not get it - because some asks us severally: Yes, you will be SAVING 99.16% in your heat energy bill.
This is based on Danish pricing of kWh - which is - in Danish Kroner - DKK 2.26 per kWh delivered to the house/building. This Danish cost would resemble some USD 0.33 or thereabout per kWh delivered to your home in the USA. USA pricing is different, so do your math. Maybe if you pay USD 0.166 for the kWh delivered to your homes in USA, your savings are only 59.5 times. Well - worth going for, I would presume?
What is the CARBON FOOTPRINT of this solar concentrator monster?
The carbon footprint of the biggest system - a 60,000 Watt solar concentrator - resembles 244 liter of petrol. The energy equivalent of 244 liter of petrol resembles pretty accurately 10 times more in kWh - namely 2443 kWh. This system of 60,000 Watt solar concentrator would, in some of the least solar influxed regions (1200 kWh per square meter per year) produce a whopping 72,000 kWh in a year.
Saving 99.16% on your heat energy budget
Thereby, the net savings in CO2 (if one calculates that angle) - resembles that after operation in 2443 / 72000 * 52 weeks = 1.8 weeks time, the CO2 has been balanced out. The remaining 49 years and 50 weeks, the CO2 savings are of a similar level - 244 * 2.68 = 653.92 kilogram of CO2 ever 1.8 weeks. this resembles that the net savings of CO2 over the life span of the solar concentrator of 60,000 Watt, resembles 244 * 2.68 / 1.8 * 52 * (49 + 50/52) = 943824 kilogram of CO2, or, net saving 943.824 TON of CO2.
The system itself pays for itself after a maximum of 2 years (this is including the cost of maintenance for 50 years)..
Why 50+ years?
The system life span is estimated to be some 50+ years (It is made by stainless steel throughout, and particular plastic polymers with 50+ outdoor life span).
The CO2 waste from producing the solar concentrator has been saved after 1.8 week of use - or - 12 days of use. The remaining 49 years, 50 weeks and 2 days - it saves 944 Ton CO2...
Even so, we have designed it with 100% return to base of all materials and components, either due to repair, maintenance or end-of-life. Due to that we do not glue even 2 components together, the only thing we have not yet solved the return of, is the microcomputer, which is 6 x 8 centimeter in measurement (a typical printed circuit).
The last 1 centimeter to Cradle-to-Cradle?
We are working on that one too - such that we, without failure, can promise a 100.0% return of all goods - and not only that - we can promise an environment friendly reuse of all components, or end-of-life service leaving no environment footprint.
We are then - subsequent to that - going to go backwards, up the supply chain, to ensure that when we grow bigger - we safeguard the production facilities who deliver to us the spareparts.
So, to be a bit particular - we can provide energi for something like USD 0,0028 per kWh - at the prototype stage. We expect that the cost will come down when local production of this system comes up on a license, in every country between 65th Northern latitude and 60th Southern latitude in this world.
Therefore, Mr. Michael Moore - while I indeed admire your initiative, to keep the renewable energy sectors on their toes - which is indeed commendable (!), there ARE indeed providers of such renewable energy, where no other known form of energy can get any foothold in competition.
Maybe not - but surely - Blue Ocean Business...
Please, Mr. Moore - challenge me on this. Any and ALL calculations are laid bare above. Only thing missing is you to pick the figures apart, and confront us if we have made any errors or ask questions if anything is not clear. This can maybe serve also as a documentation for how you, yourself, can do similar calculations on your solar panels etc.
I have not bothered you with the lookup of facts - if you want to verify the above you would have to lookup those facts anyway, yourself - ie. 1 kilogram of fuel contains 45 MegaJoule of energy, which resembles 12.5 kWh. That 1 kilogram of fuel produces 2.68 kilogram of CO2. And so it goes. Feel welcome to ask any and all questions at any time also not necessarily related to this article in terms of calculations, I will be happy to help.
Michael Moore has a serious point, though - that the Global Energy-mafia will hold on to the distributed energy with arms, legs, bics and claws, because - if it is truly possible to produce energy much cheaper - then surely there is a margin to harvest for those who convinces or armtwists people to join the central energy production with their ubiquitous distribution nets.
David T. Svarrer