Nice technology but noisy, has moving parts subjected to wear, and I find it hard to believe it can beat printed PV in terms of cost even without taking maintenance costs into account.
Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 10:28 PM Subject: [Vo]:Stirling Demo >I am at a loss as to why so many otherwise intelligent > folks in the 'green' movement are fixated on > photovoltaic solar cells as being the best way to > convert energy from the sun. > > Photovoltaics, even the nano,flexible and so forth - > are just too expensive, compared to alternatives. Yes, > photovoltaics are simple, and simple can be good; but > not always. > > Here is a nice small solar Stirling demo - > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q4UENGN_Yk > > You can take the best thin-film nano solar prototype > photovoltaic cell- and project its lowest possible > cost - and yet it will still be a factor of (2-10 > times; depending on which accountant does the > analysis) MORE costly, and therefore less effective as > a workable solution, than the solar stirling - > especially in mass production. Both the starting raw > materials for photovoltaic cells, and the required > lithography process are FAR too expensive; PLUS the > Stirling can drive a 120 volt AC alternator, > eliminating another costly component. > > This is where KISS has a double meaning. Keeping it > simple, like solar photovoltaic, is real stupid IMHO > because the unwarranted empahsis and VC money being > poured into this dead-end keeps money away from better > solutions, like the solar Stirling. > > In a perfect world, the DoE would be converting an old > GM plant into a million unit per year solar Stirling > plant. > > If you want a KISS pronouncement for solar energy that > does make good sense, here is one: Nothing for > collecting solar energy beats a mirror ! ERGO whatever > complex device can use mirrors to the greatest > benefit, will be the better solution. > > To be precise, one could put Michael Foster's Fresnel > lens into the low-cost category, along with mirrors; > and yes, you could use photovoltaics with Fresnels or > mirrors - but AFAIK, that is still less cost effective > than the solar Stirling. > > Jones >
