• pedz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I know this is a meme community but I was curious about this. It seems some birds do get burned, but not blasted. It varies a lot depending on the installation and it can also be mitigated. Also, the amount of birds dying from this is significantly lower than just the amount of birds hitting windows. For the benefit of other curious people, I’ll try to condense the relevant information from wikipedia and the sources.

      In more general terms, a 2016 preliminary study assessed that the annual bird mortality per MW of installed power was similar between U.S. concentrated solar power plants and wind power plants, and higher for fossil fuel power plants.

      How it was calculated for fossil fuel

      Sovacool estimated avian mortality from fossil fuel power plants across the United States as a result of collision with infrastructure, electrocutions, pollution and contamination, and climate change. In addition, Sovacool estimated climate change-induced avian mortality (in terms of habitat loss and changes in migration) predicted to be the result of fossil fuel power plant operations.

      A preliminary assessment of avian mortality at utility-scale solar energy facilities in the United States: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148116301422?via=ihub

      Review of Avian Mortality Studies at Concentrating Solar Power Plants: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1364837

  • megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 day ago

    I really like the concentrated solar systems that use molten salt, where rather than heating water directly, molten salt is heated and stored In large insulated tanks and tapped off to a heat exchanger to run the turbines, thus allowing power generation to match demand and continue at a constant rate even when light level very (such as at night).

    One interesting idea is to use a concentrated solar system to run an Einstein–Szilard refrigerator, or some other absorption refrigerator cycle.

    • rothaine@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      16 hours ago

      What are the tanks made of? “Molten salt” sounds like it would fuck up most materials

      • megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Various common steels with a bunch of insulation around it usually, sometimes with a thin coating. The potassium/sodium/calcium nitrate mixes that are used with concentrated solar systems operating in range between 200 C and 600 C. So like, yah you don’t want to touch it, but it’s not gonna do much to steel. It can be somewhat corrosive, but, this is fairly easily mitigated by design.

        Molten salt for heat transfer and thermal storage is a pretty mature technology that goes way back before we started using it in concentrated solar systems.

        • how_we_burned@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Molten salt for heat transfer and thermal storage is a pretty mature technology that goes way back before we started using it in concentrated solar systems.

          Isn’t the core problem with anything that uses molten salt is that when the heat sauce source (thanks autocorrect, really, the context in that sentence means you should suggest “sauce”?) fails you just end up with a huge lump of solid salts that clog every part of your system?

          The Russian Alfa class had a similar problem due their use of lead-bismuth heated into a liquid.

          When they lost power for whatever they’d essentially end up being written off as reheating them was incredibly difficult and very tricky.

          • megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            molten salt systems can be fail safe by having the coolant drain from parts of the system that can’t operate with solidified salt in them, even if they do, you can sends someone with a heating element to remelt the system at critical points before turning it on. It’s not like water where the coolant will physically expand and burst things when it freezes, water’s actually pretty weird in that regard, most things take up less volume when they freeze.

            I don’t know why they couldn’t do the same for an alpha class, but I suspect it’s because running the reactor without coolant in it would have caused a melt down, and if any coolant was left inside it when turned off, the control rods would have been frozen in place preventing it from being restarted. Perhaps in such a tightly sealed system, the shrinkage caused by cooling could have caused things to break as well.

      • I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 hours ago

        As a first guess, I would use glass fused to steel tanks. I would need to do a detailed look at material compatibility, talk to vendors, and run some bench scale studies before I moved forward with anything.

        Source: am licensed engineer

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    This is old technology that is more expensive/complicated/maintenance-ey than PV. An economic falacy is that if you have oil/fossils you should use that instead of solar. It’s always better to use cheapest energy. Export the fossils, import solar. It is more jobs to have solar as well, and in fact most of the deployment costs are local work/materials (wiring/support structures).

    • freebee@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 day ago

      But t solar boiler can still be useful in some cases. Where heated water in “solar” on the roof is used immediately for shower etc.

      • Redjard@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Modern solar into a modern heat pump is gonna be more efficient than heating water. It’s also more versatile and convenient, cause it maintains that efficiency when you pull power from the grid at night. And of course lets you use the power for other purposes.

        • freebee@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          22 hours ago

          I agree. But installing a waterboiler on a roof right above a shower is a lot simpler and probably still cheaper, for example in a camping hut situation, so off grid

          • Redjard@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            20 hours ago

            Lots of huts probably have an ac or heater. This could all be the same device, at which point it’d definitely be easier than running the pipes for water and maintaining pumps and a dedicated tank.
            Don’t see a reason you couldn’t have a simple ac window unit that also has a warm water port, which you plug a single cable into going straight to your pannels on the roof.

            Edit: And once batteries are more affordable (or if you have a few grand to burn) you can then plug in a battery pack conveniently on the indoors side of your window unit.
            The indoors side can just have a few regular outlets you can extension cord around to where you need them.

    • megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      Solar thermal has some distinct advantages when you start talking about really big instillations. Especially when considering power storage, molten salt systems can store heat and allow the generators to keep working even at night. Much cheaper than batteries at very large scales.

      Thermal solar systems are generally very efficient when the goal is heating something, not just generating power. So say, you want to run an ammonia plant without burning natural gas, or if you want to melt down metals for recycling. There are so many industrial applications where it’s a better way of doing it than using an electric heating element.

    • oneser@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I mean it seems the more complex solution in deployment for sure, but its design could still have use in low heat industrial uses (sub 250°C, e.g. food prep, textile, sanitation etc.) where it is used heat -> heat rather than heat -> electricity -> heat. Maybe these replace thermal collectors eventually.

      But that is not the point of this meme at all, just my thoughts.

        • zout@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Only with small temperature differences, the higher the difference the lower the COP.

            • zout@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              16 hours ago

              I really don’t get where those temperatures come from? I was referring to something like this. The higher the temperature difference between cold and warm side, to worse the COP gets. If you wanted to go from ambient to 200°C, the COP would drop lower than 1 and you’d be better off using an electric boiler.

              • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 hours ago

                My point is that the “small difference in temperatures” where it’s worthwhile to run a heat pump is still wide enough to run an air-exchange heat pump cost effectively damn near anywhere on Earth outside of the poles. You’re arguing the finges when almost nobody would be affected by it.

                And if you’re using a geothermal heat pump, your thermal sink continuously sits around 50°F (while homes tend to be kept at 65-75°F), which means it should always be efficient.

                Quit this conservative-esque route of arguing. It’s bullshit and you know it.

  • village604@adultswim.fan
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 day ago

    I wonder if we could kill 2 birds with one stone. Have parabolic solar panels that reflect unabsorbed light to boil water.

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      How about running water through the back side of the panels to keep them cool, transfer the heat into a heat battery (sand) then us that to assist your hot water heater.

      • village604@adultswim.fan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        Either that or use it for temperature differential power generation.

        Although I guess you could use the power generated by the panels to run a heat pump to boil the water used for cooling too.

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Right on. and PV get’s less efficient when it gets hot, I’m unsure if there’s enough waste heat to do anything useful. but there is at least a marginally good reason to cool them.

    • OwOarchist@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 day ago

      It would be a less efficient boiler (because the ‘mirrors’ would be much less reflective), and much more expensive (because solar panels – especially custom-made curved ones – are much more expensive than mirrors).

      Overall, I suppose maybe you could come out ahead if you used very efficient solar panels for it, and that would let you generate slightly more watts per surface area used…

      But we really don’t need to optimize for surface area in 99% of cases. Almost everywhere solar power is used, space to install panels is abundant, and it would be much cheaper and more effective to just put one or the other of these solar collection methods over a slightly wider area if you want increased production. (And even then, most of the cases where production-per-surface-area is very important are on solar-powered vehicles, and these parabolic sun-tracking mirrors are impractical for use on a moving vehicle.)