Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
IBM Power Technology

IBM Solar Concentrator Can Produce12kW/day, Clean Water, and AC 268

Posted by samzenpus from the all-in-one dept.
Lucas123 writes IBM Research and Switzerland-based Airlight Energy today announced a parabolic dish that increases the sun's radiation by 2,000 times while also producing fresh water and air conditioning. The new Concentrator PhotoVoltaics (CPV) system uses a dense array of water-cooled solar chips that can convert 80% of the sun's radiation into useful energy. The CPV, which looks like a 33-foot-high sunflower, can generate 12 kilowatts of electrical power and 20 kilowatts of heat on a sunny day — enough to power several average homes, according to Bruno Michel, the project's lead scientists at IBM Research in Switzerland.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Solar Concentrator Can Produce12kW/day, Clean Water, and AC More

IBM Solar Concentrator Can Produce12kW/day, Clean Water, and AC

Comments Filter:

  • OK (Score:5, Funny)

    by SpankiMonki ( 3493987 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2014 @07:15PM (#47989043)
    Bring this to Texas please. Do it now. Thanks in advance.

  • Cubic litres (Score:5, Funny)

    by Darktan ( 817653 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2014 @07:21PM (#47989079)

    The system is capable of producing up to 1,600 cubic liters of water per day

    Either the author is an idiot, or his universe has more dimensions than mine.

    • Re:Cubic litres (Score:5, Informative)

      by crioca ( 1394491 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2014 @07:25PM (#47989109)
      I'm pretty sure he's an idiot, or at least doesn't understand the difference between increasing something and concentrating something:

      a new parabolic dish that increases the sun's radiation by 2,000 times

      Nope.

    • Re:Cubic litres (Score:5, Funny)

      by slinches ( 1540051 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2014 @07:32PM (#47989163)

      It must be the higher dimensionality thing since he successfully converts that to 350 cubic gallons (imperial, no less) a bit further along.

      Alternatively, the water produced by this process is cubic in shape which would make it difficult to use with traditional plumbing systems.

      • Once this thing turns up the sun's radiation by 2,000 times, nothing traditional will work, and we'll lose another planet.

      • True, but at least it could be transported on a flatbed trailer, rather than an expensive tank truck.
        Not to mention, getting water to you cows just got a whole lot easier. Just kick one off the back of your pick-up!
        I don't know...It sounds pretty good to me.

    • Maybe it doesn't work unless the liters are cube-shaped.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pubwvj ( 1045960 )

      "Either the author is an idiot, or his universe has more dimensions than mine."

      The latter seems more likely.

      I love this idea. Until the cooling system fails.

  • 12kW/day? (Score:5, Informative)

    by viperidaenz ( 2515578 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2014 @07:23PM (#47989089)

    Is that 12kWh or 12kW/24h which is 288kWh

    W is a unit of power, not energy.

    • Hmm, TFA also says the collector can produce "1600 cubic liters per day" of H2O.

      So I suspect very strongly that the author hasn't a clue what he's talking about as regards this device....

      • It takes a sodium chloride solution and produces water and salt

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 )

          *sighs* yes, it produces 1600 CUBIC LITERS of it.

          To explain (for the slow), liters are cubic decimeters. A cubic liter would be decimeters raised to the 27th power.

          Note that we don't actually have twenty-seven spatial dimensions available to produce cubic liters in....

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Sorry for nit picking but a cubic liter is a decimeter to the 9th power. L^3 = (dm^3)^3 = dm^9, not dm^27.

            Not that this helps those of us constrained to 3 (or 4) dimensional space.

          • Didn't notice that.

    • Re:12kW/day? (Score:5, Informative)

      by MattskEE ( 925706 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2014 @07:33PM (#47989177)

      It could also be 12kW peak, which with typical sunlight variation over a day would work out to around 60kWh per day.

      Most of the time I see a non-technical article about solar with a kilowatt figure it's the peak power available from the cells, and as a first estimate you can multiply the peak solar power by 5 hours to get the daily output.

      • It is 12kW peak according the TFA.

      • Rather depends where you are.
        That's about double (on average) the total solar panel output here (UK). (5h/day = 1800kWh/kWp, UK average is around 1K)
        An important caveat is that this is entirely useless for places that get a lot of diffuse light.
        Concentrated panels work only when you can see the bright disk of the sun - a cloudy bright day produces no power.

        • Yes, it's a very crude estimate, and more of a summertime number too here in the US.

          In the US I would refer them to PV Watts [nrel.gov] which will take examine a database of historical solar data and tell you how much daily energy to expect through the year for different types of setups, even including solar panel fixed angle or angle tracking systems. But it will not take into account your point on the effect of diffuse light on concentrated systems.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      According to the article:

      "can generate 12 kilowatts of electrical power and 20 kilowatts of heat on a sunny day "

      (implying peak performance)
      and later in the article:

      "still generating electricity with a more than 25% yield or two kilowatt hours per day"

      25% is 2kwh, so full yield is about 8kwh per day. This would suggest that 12kw probably happens rarely and very briefly.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Altrag ( 195300 )

      Well if its 12kW and you run it for an hour, then it would be 12kWh no? And if you ran it for 24h (assuming constant output which of course isn't valid but regardless..) then you'd have 12kW/24h.

      W is the right unit here if he's dissociating from the amount of time in use. Saying its 12kWh means nothing if you don't know whether that's for a single hour or summed over the sunny part of the day or what.

  • 47 square yards? (Score:3)

    by HaeMaker ( 221642 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2014 @07:26PM (#47989113) Homepage
    Really? 47 square yards. Who uses "square yards" as an area measurement? Took me all of two seconds to find out this is 423 sq ft, but still...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )

      " Took me all of two seconds to find out this is 423 sq ft,"
      so..not a problem then? Other then the use of imperial, that is.

      • This is one of those rare times where SI and imperial almost align... yards and meters are close enough unless you are building something.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nickovs ( 115935 )

      It's used by the same sort of people who measure their irrigation water in ache feet [wikipedia.org].

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by arielCo ( 995647 )

      I thought you were going to say "this is 39 square meters". Even Google converts automatically into m.sq. when you input "47 square yards".

    • I think he converted 40 square meters to 47 square yards, which is fairly reasonable. But then he really goofed and called it 47 yards square, which is something completely different altogether -- something that is a square with 47 yards per side [mathforum.org]!
    • Hey, be grateful those weren't cubic square yards

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rinikusu ( 28164 )

      You typically buy fabrics by the square yard/meter. I know cubic yard is common for landscaping, as well. I wonder if construction trades also do similar for certain construction?

  • Sure you can have these fancy concentrators, but nothing will cost less per kW than plain solar panels arrays or wind power. Why concentrate the suns rays instead of using solar panels, whose costs decrease all the time?

    • But these give you heat as well. It's kind of a heat collector with solar panel piggy backed on. I suppose it saves space and is serviced by the same company, which may not be true of using heat collectors + solar panels, though I'm not sure of the economics. Also where a power grid is available, I would favor using heat collectors alone for heating/cooling/warm water and power grid for power (duh).

    • Sure you can have these fancy concentrators, but nothing will cost less per kW than plain solar panels arrays or wind power. Why concentrate the suns rays instead of using solar panels, whose costs decrease all the time?

      Because making solar panels is horrific for the environment.
      http://www.scientificamerican.... [scientificamerican.com]

      • Fortunately, all those metals can be recycled, can't they? Also, the description doesn't make much sense to me. "Solar needs much more tin and silver than other energy sources do, albeit relatively little by weight"...? What does that mean? So does it need a lot of it, or only little? Does it need much by volume, if only "little by weight"? And given that the sizes are "relative to the current energy mix", some of the huge circles could simply mean that, e.g., silver almost isn't used at all currently relat

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by trip11 ( 160832 )
      Actually it can be cheaper in some cases. Say 1 square yard (hey just using the units in the article) of solar cells costs $100. Then if you can focus 20 times the light on it you're generating slightly less than 20X the power for that $100 bucks plus the cost of the concentrator. If said concentrator costs less than $100 bucks * 19 you win. If it costs more, you don't win. But no cost announced so I'm guessing its stupid expensive or they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.
      • The cells you can buy for $100 per square yard are not the same ones that survive high temperatures while generating electricity with multiple junctions made of different and often expensive materials using a complicated manufacturing process.

      • Then if you can focus 20 times the light on it you're generating slightly less than 20X the power

        No, actually more like 80X! Because it converts the light to electricity at 80% efficiency instead of 15%-20% for un-concentrated. This is due to the extremely steep temperature gradient between the super-heated front-face diode receiving the sunlight and the water-cooled electrode behind it. (I'm sure somebody else can explain the physics better).

        The point being, say you have a rooftop in a city and wan

        • Wrong : the 80% efficiency is not electricity but heat + electricity. Or that is what I understand. 80% eletric efficiency would be big news. And even then, maybe the figure is optimistic i.e. apply perfect black paint to a piece of cardboard and you have a 100% efficient device, even though it's of no pratical use.

          • Wikipedia says: "Semiconductor properties allow solar cells to operate more efficiently in concentrated light, as long as the cell Junction temperature is kept cool by suitable heat sinks. Efficiency of multijunction photovoltaic cells developed in research is upward of 44% today, with the potential to approach 50% in the coming years.[4]"

            So not 4x efficiency like I said, but still 2x.

    • Sure you can have these fancy concentrators, but nothing will cost less per kW than plain solar panels arrays or wind power. Why concentrate the suns rays instead of using solar panels, whose costs decrease all the time?

      Concentrated solar power is a popular concept because mirrors cost a helluva lot less than solar panels.

      Actually, my money is on plants, because they cost a helluva lot less than solar panels or mirrors. Yeah they're probably around 1% efficient compared to 16%-18% for most commercial p

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by itzly ( 3699663 )
        Plants need plenty of water, and the places where good water is available are already covered in plants.

  • link to a genuine source, not this shitty article (Score:5, Informative)

    by supernova87a ( 532540 ) <kepler1@@@hotmail...com> on Wednesday September 24, 2014 @07:46PM (#47989253)
    My head is about to explode with the level of pure units stupidity by this article's author. He should be banned from the profession of writing...

  • Found the IBM link. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24, 2014 @07:51PM (#47989279)

    Here is a link to the IBM release: http://www.ibm.com/ibm/responsibility/corporateservicecorps/solar.html
    This confirms a power output max of 12 kwel and 20 kw of heat from the device, so they are talking power rates here.
    Here is another link to more info: http://www.research.ibm.com/labs/zurich/dsolar/product.html

    Note that the dimension given are in the metric system, and the author of the article botched the conversion, going to square yards instead of square feet.
    It is 10 meters high with a 40 m diameter dish.
    Of course I would like to see what wind loading a 40 m dish would take, in terms of thunderstorms and the like.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kesuki ( 321456 )

      "Of course I would like to see what wind loading a 40 m dish would take, in terms of thunderstorms and the like."

      since the device is made from concrete i would imagine it is nice and stable if properly installed. that is instead of glass in the mirrors which are just aluminum with a silvered surface... and yes that was from the fine article.

    • Wind loading... why not just put it on an axle and let it spin to make even more kW per day and possibly even more cubic liters of water!!

  • Watch the establishment try to stop this product through such excuses as building codes etc.. It is wonderful. It is new. And therefore every powerful element in society will fight to stop this product. Just as they have tried to stop Tesla.

    • Watch the establishment try to stop this product through such excuses as building codes etc..

      They won't have to lift a finger. Nobody is mass-producing the photovoltaic cells that can accept the whopping concentration of sunlight the thing uses, and even if they were, almost nobody has access to sufficient water flow to keep it cooled. Cool water goes in, really stinking hot water comes out. It's illegal to dump high volumes of water that warm into rivers and lakes in the US (which is why nuclear power plants have huge cooling towers, despite being located next to rivers and lakes). So even if

    • Lucky for you, this stuff is nice and shiny, so it makes a good substitute for tin foil.

  • How? (Score:2)

    by mark-t ( 151149 )
    I'm pretty sure I recall reading somewhere that that the average power from the sun hitting earth is just over 1kw per square meter. How can they get 20kw without using about 20 square meters, exactly?
    • They measured in days, not hours....a trick to hype up the amount.

  • Pretty innovative...easy to mass produce. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Scottingham ( 2036128 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2014 @08:08PM (#47989391)
    TFA is pretty poorly written, but the pictures are pretty awesome. IMHO the biggest innovation here is the use of those circular mirrors veruses some custom curved mirror that pretty much all existing parabolic-type solar arrays had used. These can be mass produced super cheaply so replacement is more about fixing individual components versus chucking the whole array. They are also likely able to fine tune each mirror to guide the sun towards the center the best. I wonder if they could actively change via computer control. The actual PV section is also pretty smart, as it is a relatively smaller footprint than unamplified PV arrays. Hopefully that'd translate to few materials and lower costs. These always bring up more questions though...like: What about stray reflections? Could they blind people or melt cars if placed in a parking lot (like the example given in TFA) What is the lifespan of those solar arrays if they're getting blasted with such high amounts of light. How fast would they fail if the coolant system ran out? Would it fail catastrophically?

  • *SIGH* Units FAIL (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Irate Engineer ( 2814313 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2014 @08:13PM (#47989419)
    God, just be done with it and convert it to horsepower per barn. That was good enough back in the day. Damned kids.

  • Desalinisation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by steveha ( 103154 ) on Wednesday September 24, 2014 @08:25PM (#47989505) Homepage

    The article is pretty terrible on the details. It seems that this CPV device is intended to be built near the ocean, and use salt water for cooling; the water can then be run through a desalinization system.

    The hot water can then be used in an attached desalination system that creates drinkable water by passing itwater[sic] through a Gortex-like membrane.

    According to Wikipedia there are several desalinization processes available that use heated water and a membrane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination#Desalination_powered_by_waste_heat [wikipedia.org]

    The article is vague on how the CPV system provides cooling, but the CPV system produces heat as a byproduct, and it is possible to use extra heat for cooling. There are refrigerators that run on propane, with no motors. (There is a sort of pumping of coolant that relies on gravity [ehow.com].

    There are a lot of places in the world that get lots of sunlight, are near salt water, and could use more fresh water. So this sounds like a good idea, but it isn't going to be installed everywhere.

  • "It is not ready for commercial application but should be in 3-5 years."

    How did I do?
  • Put off by the title. "12 kW on a sunny day" means something "12 kW/day" has nonsense dimensions.

  • The Facts from IBM scientists on Sunflower (Score:5, Informative)

    by IBMResearch ( 3853375 ) on Thursday September 25, 2014 @03:42AM (#47991171)
    Glad to see so much interest on Slashdot for our sunflower. I'd like to address a few misunderstandings and share with you how YOU can test one of our systems in your home town. 1. The standard commercial system will be available in 2017 for both heat and electricity, the water desalination will come later. 2. This presentation explains the science behind the sunflower and how it can also provide cooling: http://www.zurich.ibm.com/pdf/... [ibm.com] By means of a thermally driven sorption chiller, cool air can also be produced. A sorption chiller is a device that converts heat into cooling via a thermal cycle applied to a liquid or solid sorption material. Adsorption chillers, with solid silica gel adsorbers and with water as a working fluid, can replace compression chillers, which place a burden on electrical grids in hot climates and contain working fluids that are harmful to the ozone layer. Although absorption (liquid sorption) systems are already available for combination with the HCPVT system, they provide less cooling output compared to low-temperature driving heat for the adsorption (solid sorption) systems under development at IBM. The systems can also be customized with a transparent back for urban installations. 3. This presentation highlights the regions and the commercial applications: http://www.zurich.ibm.com/pdf/... [ibm.com] 4. Here is a YouTube video showing the prototype in Biasca, Switzerland http://youtu.be/JVB9_3IKIAE [youtu.be] 5. The news was announced at a TED conference in San Francisco on Tuesday. You can watch the presentation here: http://fora.tv/2014/09/23/Solv... [fora.tv]

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close