I can imagine hearing this kind of flannel coming from a politican, especially of the Irish variety, 100 years ago.

Nanotechnology is not about 'carbon nanotubes and bucky balls" for god's sake. You really have no idea of what's going on in science and technology do you? There are 2 definitions for nanotechnology: 1) the study and manipulation of matter on the scale of 1nm - 100nm, basically from individual atoms and molecules up to structures the size of 100nm. 2) the study and manipulation of the unique properties of matter that manifest themselves at these ranges. There are many things which manifest themselves at these ranges which seem impossible at the macro scale, such as negative refraction of light, such as the ability to create plastics that conduct electricity, such as metal that can conduct heat in one direction while the sides of the metal are cold to the touch. Through the manipulation of quantum dots investigations are ongoing into creating solar cells that will generate mulitples of the incoming power through cascading electrical effects within the quantum dot itself. So depending on your definition of thermodynamic it can mess with these on the macro level in ways that you previously thought impossible.

Is this seriously your objection? You could use nanotechnology to cover it in self-cleaning glass. You can buy this today in Deansgrange or Belfast if you're so minded to. Wait let me see, you'll say it's probably too expensive and sure isn't it untested in industrial applications...

I only entered this discussion as a result of an off the cuff one-line comment I made that solar would be king over the next 20 years. I was prepared to give consideration to wind and any other technology that someone wished to put forawrd the facts about. But as the discussion has gone on it has become clear to me that you're chancing your arm when trying to give the impression you know about science and technology. It seems to me that either you're an enthusiast who has got it into his head we should all have wind farms everywhere and isn't for turning or you are a vested interest of some sort, possibly related to the CIF. Your clod-hopping comprehension of science while masquerading as a technologist suggests to me more the latter than the former.

In any case, I leave it to our avid readers to make their own minds up about the science, the numbers and the right future direction.

[quote=Civic_critic2;1989590]Your repeated descent into name calling is a sign to me that you feel you are losing the debate

So is it your suggestion that we all sit here with our arms folded and wait for these amazing advances to emerge from the labs

I know all about pilkington activ, I used it a few years ago to make my first experiment with a solar thermal panel, trust me it doesn't self clean as efficiently when it is operated anywhere near the horizontal. And you are correct it is expensive, although its thermal properties are good.

Apart from real applications such as tunneling josephson junctions, I am part of the great unwashed as far as experimental quantum physics are concerned, you see my customers are only ever interested in real applicable tech. But I would not be doing my job properly if, when producing specifications I didnt leave avenues of upgrade in the future, and it is that modularity of the S of I project that makes it a perfect fit for Ireland at this time.
Once again I will state that with the exception of Padraig Howard, who's co op recently received planning permission, not one member of S of I has a vested interest, we are a volunteer group who came together to fix the wind, and we each pay our own expenses, we will publish a more developed proposal in mid September and at that stage will form a not for profit legal entity to promote the project nationally for 100 days, what happens after that is up the rest of country.

Finally I don't have an objection to solar, but as I said many posts ago, it is not developed enough yet to invest in on a large scale, and none of your posts to date have changed my opinion. My thoughts would be that the solar industry will use countries nearer the tropics to build the reputation of their tech, before moving on to the northern countries such as Ireand.

As you say other readers of this site will have formed their own opinions.

__________________
Regards, Pat Gill
My posting name does not indicate my political views
labourure or greenure, do not have the same ding.

For those who believe that Spirit of Ireland are alone in the view that electricity storage is a vital strategic requirement

We should look at energy storage technology

We dont have many sites for compressed air storage, but we have plenty of sites for more efficient and cost effective pumped hydro storage

__________________
Regards, Pat Gill
My posting name does not indicate my political views
labourure or greenure, do not have the same ding.

I can't see compressed air as an option for large scale storage. The energy loss in compressing the gas followed by expansion at a later date will be much higher than pumping water and letting it flow downhill through a turbine. There is also the safety aspect of storing a large volume of compressed gas - probably why they're looking at salt mines. In general, liquids are much easier to work with than gases - one of the reasons oil is valuable.

The compressed air is mixed with a small amount of natural gas and burned to replace some of the energy lost in the compression phase, it is no match for hydro storage on efficiency grounds, however Texas does not have many suitable hydro sites.
There is a small compressed air storage unit being built in Larne at the moment. but I have no indepth knowledge of the project.

__________________
Regards, Pat Gill
My posting name does not indicate my political views
labourure or greenure, do not have the same ding.

As of 26th August another record of 43% solar cell efficiency has been achieved. The same group from Australia's University of New South wales are already offering, in proper entrepreneurial spirit, cells up to 25% efficiency for sale on their website. These are currently an eye-watering 100 times the price of a normal solar cell, presumably this can be dramatically cut if they were to licence this technology for mass production. In any case the limits of solar cell efficiency continue to be broken from month to month.

Looking at those figures again, the University of New South Wales' (UNSW) 25% solar cells currently cost 100 times the price of an ordinary solar cell and can be bought over the internet. The plastic solar concentrator (known as a Luminescent Solar Concentrator or LSC) by the team at MIT under Baldo is being commercialised over the next 3 years and uses up to 200 times less solar cell area. So using the UNSW's high perfomance cell (100 times the price) together with Baldo's LSC (200 times less solar cell needed) yields a cost per panel that is half the price of current solar cells for 25% efficiency. That works out at around $55 dollars per square metre wholesale or $75 retail. MIT's LSC is to be commercialised over the next 3 years by their spin off company Covalent Solar - if during that time the cost of UNSW's cell could be cut to only 20 times the price of today's cells by the application of better production techniques and mass manufacturing, then the cost of a 25% efficient solar cell could be $11 per square metre. This is a firm production and cost target for the next 3 years based on today's technology which is self-evidently doable.

This is just one of many many approaches to solar development currently ongoing.

Civic_Critic2

Brilliant, however by the time these are commercialised and manufactured and installed it will be at least 10 years from now, and to really make your case you have to show that these tech's will work in IRELAND, tests carried out anywhere else do not qualify

meanwhile in Britain they really have a problem

Britain facing blackouts for first time since 1970s - Telegraph

__________________
Regards, Pat Gill
My posting name does not indicate my political views
labourure or greenure, do not have the same ding.