Specifics

Caveats

This is not a treatise. Rather, it’s an expanded explanation of Figure 1 and attendant preliminary calculations meant to encourage professionals in any and all relevant fields to either correct, validate or reject them.

Parameters
Not only are local characteristics and circumstances unique, so are the ever-evolving boundaries of science and technology. As a result, all potential locations require substantial adjustments. This synopsis is only about California.

Electricity and Hydrogen
Although electricity can be transmitted overland, it cannot be shipped across the ocean. In contrast, while not cheaply, hydrogen can be stored, piped, and shipped. Accordingly, non-landlocked countries with an abundant, reliable source of renewable energy such as geothermal (as in Iceland’s case) or with high solar irradiance, and that are presently compelled to earn hard currency to pay for the hydrocarbons they consume, would have an extraordinary opportunity to flip their cash flow 180 degrees!

Water
Since time immemorial humans have been largely at the mercy of the natural water cycle, even with reservoirs and desalination. And climate change is exacerbating the dependence. The rate at which glaciers are melting is accelerating virtually everywhere, many of the world’s great aquifers are critically stressed, some beyond the tipping point, and the planet’s vast deserts cannot be irrigated to plant trees and grow additional food.

Concept
This proposes a three-phase interaction between solar energy, seawater, hydrogen and gravity to generate a surplus of electricity and create a new source of pure water. The rationale for this proposal is explained here. Phase 1 consists of excavating a sea-level canal from the Pacific Ocean to Death Valley; the price tag of this is estimated here. In Phase 2 residential dwellings and solar farms transmit electricity to new electrolysis plants in a (flooded) Death Valley. In Phase 3 the hydrogen produced in Phase 2 is used to generate electricity and produce steam. The steam is collected, condensed and stored at room temperature. Subsequently it is piped by gravity to either a series of small cascading hydro generators on the side of the mountain or to a large generator at the bottom.

At night, when the demand for electricity is less, the electrolysis plants would either use batteries or burn some of the hydrogen itself to. A variation of this concept is currently under construction in Chile. The justification for the cascading generators shown in Phase 3 is explained here. Crucially, expensive dams are not required.

Since nothing on the scale of Death Valley has been tried before, it’s impossible to know how many rooftops would participate or what the size and rated capacity of future solar farms might be. As a result, any projections of future performance might be inaccurate and misleading. Therefore, feasible goals might be considered such as:

• Producing enough hydrogen to replace fossil fuels used in the state to power vehicles and generate electricity;

• Creating a new source of water to make the California and Colorado River Aqueducts superfluous. Not only would that save a lot of electricity, surplus water might then be made available to the San Joaquin Valley, Nevada, Arizona, and northwestern Mexico.

• Calculating how many rooftops equipped with solar panels would be required to produce the hydrogen that would replace the fossil fuels and produce the water.

What’s More Efficient, a Single Large Generator at the Bottom of a Mountain, or a Series of Smaller Cascading Generators?

Answer:

It’s generally more efficient to have a single, larger generator at the bottom of the mountain than a series of smaller cascading generators. Here’s why:

  • Energy Losses: Every time water flows through a generator, there are energy losses due to friction and turbulence. Having multiple generators means multiplying these losses.
  • Efficiency: Larger generators tend to be more efficient at converting potential energy into electricity compared to smaller ones.
  • Maintenance and Cost: Multiple smaller generators mean higher installation, maintenance and repair costs compared to a single larger unit.
  • Complexity: Managing water flow and coordinating multiple generators adds complexity to the system.

However, there are some potential advantages to a cascading system in specific situations:

  • Terrain: If the mountainside is very steep or has challenging terrain, a series of smaller generators might be easier to install and maintain.
  • Water Flow Variation: If water flow from the reservoir fluctuates significantly, a cascading system could potentially operate some generators even with lower water levels, while the larger generator might require a certain minimum flow.

In Conclusion: While there might be specific niche scenarios where a cascading system could be beneficial, in most cases, a single, larger generator at the bottom of the mountain would be more efficient and cost-effective solution for maximizing electricity generation.

How Much Land Needed to Install a Solar Plant with a Capacity of 11.1 GW?

Question: Assuming that virtually unlimited flat land is available in a desolate desert, how many square kilometers would be required to install a solar plant with a capacity of 11.1 GW?

Answer: Here’s an estimate of the land area required for an 11.1 GW solar plant, along with some important considerations;

Assumptions:

  • Solar Panel Efficiency: We’ll use an average efficiency of 20% for this calculation.
  • Solar Panel Density: A typical large-scale solar farm has a panel density of around 1 MW per hectare (1 hectare = .01 square kilometers). This can vary depending on the specific panel type and layout.

Calculations:

  1. Total Land Area (Hectares):
  2. Total Capacity (MW) / Panel Density (MW/hectare) = Land Area (hectares).
  3. 11,100 MW / 1 MW/hectare = 11,100 hectares
  4. Total Land Area (Square Kilometers):
  5. Land Area (hectares) *.01 = Land Area (square kilometers)
  6. 11,110 hectares * .01 = 111 square kilometers.

Important Considerations:

  • Real-World Variations: The actual land area required could be larger or smaller depending on factors such as:
  • Panel Efficiency: Higher-efficiency panels would require less land.
  • Panel tilt and spacing: the angle and spacing of solar panels affect how much sunlight they capture.
  • Site Layout: The shape and topography of the land can influence the layout and efficiency of the solar farm.
  • Infrastructure: Space for roads, substations, and other infrastructure will also be needed.
  • Environmental impact: Even in a desolate desert, large-scale solar installations can have environmental impacts. It’s essential to consider potential effects on wildlife, vegetation, and soil.

Water Use: Solar panels themselves don’t use water for electricity generation, but cleaning them can require significant amounts of water. Water availability and management are crucial consideration, especially in a desert environment.

How Much Solar to Produce 611,800,000,000 kg of Hydrogen/Year?

Question:

Given: a recent breakthrough of researchers at the University of Adelaide has yielded an electrolysis process that is 100% efficient with a catalyst that prevents the anode and cathode from decay; the amount of hydrogen desired is 611,800,000,000 kg per year; the temperature of the seawater is 60 degrees C; the salinity of the water is 35 parts per thousand; the voltage used in the process is 1.87 V; the intensity of sunlight is 7.5 peak solar hours per day. Assuming the above parameters are correct, how much solar energy would be required during the time frame specified?

Answer:

Let’s calculate the solar energy required, given the assumption of 100% electrolysis efficiency:

  1. Energy for Electrolysis
  2. The theoretical energy calculation is 1.095 x 1017 Joules.
  3. Hours of sunlight per year: 7.5 hours/day * 365 days/year = 2737.5 hours/year.
  4. Seconds of sunlight per year: 2737.5 hours/year * 3600 seconds/hour = 9.86 x 106 seconds/year

Required Solar Power

  • Power (Watts) = Energy (Joules) / Time (seconds)
  • Power = 1.095 x 1017 J / 9.86 x 106 s = 1.11 x 1010 Watts = 11.1 Gigawatts (GW)

A solar power plant with a capacity of approximately 11.1 GW would be needed to generate enough energy to produce 611,800,000,000 kg of hydrogen per year, assuming 100% electrolysis efficiency and the given parameters.

Important notes:

  • 100% Efficiency: While the breakthrough claims 100% efficiency for the electrolysis process itself, it’s crucial to remember that there will still be losses in other parts of the system (e.g., capturing sunlight, converting electricity, etc.).
  • Real-World Conditions: Solar power output varies depending on weather, time of day, and location. The calculated power requirement assumes constant peak sunlight, which is not realistic.
  • Land Use: a 11.1 GW solar power plant would require a significant land area.
  • Other Factors: This calculation doesn’t account for energy storage, transportation of hydrogen, or potential maintenance requirements.

In conclusion, even with the remarkable breakthrough of 100% efficient electrolysis, producing such a massive amount of hydrogen would still necessitate an enormous solar energy infrastructure and careful consideration of real-world factors.

WordPress theme: Kippis 1.15
Translate »