3 ms·

OP's point (I'm guessing) is that transmission is the problem with remote generation like this. Production of liquid fuels would probably be better than the eno

OP's point (I'm guessing) is that transmission is the problem with remote generation like this. Production of liquid fuels would probably be better than the enormous cost of building transmission capacity and the associated VAR and resistive losses.

eloff 11y ago
Do you really think it's more expensive, in terms of energy to transport electrons over a wire than liquids over the surface of the earth? I find that hard to believe. Mind you, I haven't done the math.
- dcarmo 11y ago
  I think OP's point is more about storage than transmission. Yes you can transport electrons over a wire, but that has a cost and then you have a limited reachability. With liquid on the other hand, you can store in massive tanks and transport anywhere in the world to produce energy locally.
- vox_mollis 11y ago
  Bulk transport over the ocean is extremely cheap, so much so that oil speculators are paying ships to idle in anticipation of price rise. Electrical transmission will lose you anywhere from 1%-1.5% per 100 miles depending on the voltage you step up to. Transmitting from the Sahara to the places where the load is gets you to rather large resistive losses. Also, there are generation losses. A traditional heliostat boiler + turbine will get you about 15-20% effficiency. then you have to shunt the waste heat somewhere in a place with very little fresh water. Oops. PV doesn't get you much better, with about 18% efficiency, but you do solve the need for coolant, at the cost of another problem: Sahara dust on your panels. The OP talks about using the thermal output from heliostats directly, which would probably (like you, I haven't done the math) be more efficient in fuels production than 15-20%, although you do have the coolant problem again. One of us should do the math :) Until then, my intuition is that liquid fuels production from such a remote location would probably be more efficient.
  - ars 11y ago
    It's for sure more efficient. Just think about the power density of even a small gas pipeline - it utterly dwarfs any electrical line, and they are much cheaper to build.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  People in Australia are considering a commercial plan to build a solar power to liquid hydrogen plant, possibly converting the hydrogen to LNG or ammonia, and then shipping it to Japan. http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-12/renewable-hydrogen-plans-to-export-pilbara-sunlight-to-japan/6935906 http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-12/renewable-hydrogen-... The mere fact that LNG (liquid natural gas, at -180 degrees Celsius) is already being shipped across the worlds oceans today, supports the notion you are questioning.

eloff 11y ago

Do you really think it's more expensive, in terms of energy to transport electrons over a wire than liquids over the surface of the earth? I find that hard to believe. Mind you, I haven't done the math.

dcarmo 11y ago
I think OP's point is more about storage than transmission. Yes you can transport electrons over a wire, but that has a cost and then you have a limited reachability. With liquid on the other hand, you can store in massive tanks and transport anywhere in the world to produce energy locally.
vox_mollis 11y ago
Bulk transport over the ocean is extremely cheap, so much so that oil speculators are paying ships to idle in anticipation of price rise. Electrical transmission will lose you anywhere from 1%-1.5% per 100 miles depending on the voltage you step up to. Transmitting from the Sahara to the places where the load is gets you to rather large resistive losses. Also, there are generation losses. A traditional heliostat boiler + turbine will get you about 15-20% effficiency. then you have to shunt the waste heat somewhere in a place with very little fresh water. Oops. PV doesn't get you much better, with about 18% efficiency, but you do solve the need for coolant, at the cost of another problem: Sahara dust on your panels. The OP talks about using the thermal output from heliostats directly, which would probably (like you, I haven't done the math) be more efficient in fuels production than 15-20%, although you do have the coolant problem again. One of us should do the math :) Until then, my intuition is that liquid fuels production from such a remote location would probably be more efficient.
- ars 11y ago
  It's for sure more efficient. Just think about the power density of even a small gas pipeline - it utterly dwarfs any electrical line, and they are much cheaper to build.
semi-extrinsic 11y ago
People in Australia are considering a commercial plan to build a solar power to liquid hydrogen plant, possibly converting the hydrogen to LNG or ammonia, and then shipping it to Japan. http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-12/renewable-hydrogen-plans-to-export-pilbara-sunlight-to-japan/6935906 http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-12/renewable-hydrogen-... The mere fact that LNG (liquid natural gas, at -180 degrees Celsius) is already being shipped across the worlds oceans today, supports the notion you are questioning.