quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: NASA uses them. what is CSP?

Oh sorry, as I mentioned earlier, I work in this industry, so I get used to using terms that my peers instantly understand. CSP = Concentrated Solar Power.

And what does NASA use them for. From what little I have really dug into about stirling engines, there's a big problem scaling them up any usable size. So they work great for desktop novelty items, not so great if you want to generate power with them in any reasonable amount.

[This message has been edited by SGS (edited 01-12-2010).]

http://www1.eere.energy.gov...dish_engine_rnd.html

they claim over 30% from solar, using CSP & pistonless stirling engine, in 2007, and a 25 Kilowatt setup

I myself am working on building my own version of a striling engine which I hope will be 2-3x the power from the same heat difference

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 01-12-2010).]

Interesting!

quote Originally posted by SGS: Interesting!

and CHEAP.
a smaller version could be in everyones yard - even mine here in Michigan
but - as all systems right now - the most costly part is the damn interface to the existing electric grid.....

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: and CHEAP. a smaller version could be in everyones yard - even mine here in Michigan but - as all systems right now - the most costly part is the damn interface to the existing electric grid.....

That's not expensive here. My state passed a net metering law. You provide the required interlock equipment, which is not cost prohibitive, and the utility sets a meter that runs both directs...at no cost.

How cheap is a setup like that? 25kw would MORE than run my house.

no clue - but - I am assuming its cheap (relative to photovoltiacs) because it is simple tech. no special compounds or materials. and, because if I can build it in my garage - how much can they charge?
the 25Kw are pretty big - the 1-3 Kw look like they are a 6-10' dish by the photos.

and, while here - I hear in S.America, they have a windmill fueled hydroelectric station. as in a resevior is filled by windmill pumps, and the downflowing water runs a hydro station. I thought this was a VERY slick way to "store" the energy, in the form of elevated water. yes, I expect there is much loss there as well - being water pumps are usually fairly sloppy - especially if they are classic farm windmill style - but - it also solves one of the problems with most of these setups: what to do when the wind/sun aint there?

that link above has some info on heat storage as well for CSP - but - molten salt is beyond "garage work"

The problem is that a 3kw setup won't get you very far.

My house uses an average of about 1000 kwh a month, which works out to an average load of 1.39 kw....running 24/7.

Also, you obviously need some sort of active system that aims the mirror and keeps it in alignment with the sun.....that'll add to the cost.

quote Originally posted by SGS: The problem is that a 3kw setup won't get you very far. My house uses an average of about 1000 kwh a month, which works out to an average load of 1.39 kw....running 24/7. Also, you obviously need some sort of active system that aims the mirror and keeps it in alignment with the sun.....that'll add to the cost.

yes - but - tracking is pretty damn easy. I myself am going to use Legos for that task
my daughter got me a Lego Mindstorm robotics set for x-mas this year - and the controller can run 3 motors & has 4 sensors
2 motors will run the x & y axis for the tracking, the 3rd will run the hot/cold pumps.
for keeping it centered - simple: a peice of tube. when it is centered, the light sensor in the center will be "white", when off center, it will go thru 1 of 4 colored lenses, and the color deteremines which motor to activate, and, of course - the other 2 sensors will be broad, for morning aquisition, and the last sensor will be temp of the hot side fluid.

Well, you get yours set up, and let me know how it works!

That would be a slick set up. Run your house for nothing and actually make a little coin on the side supplying power to the grid

quote Originally posted by red85gt: That would be a slick set up. Run your house for nothing and actually make a little coin on the side supplying power to the grid

Can you guys get paid in Canada for putting power on the grid? In most places in the USA, you can't. They'll net meter, so you can basically use the grid like a battery, but they won't pay you. They tried to pass legislation for a feed in tariff in my state last year that would have ENCOURAGED people and paid them well to put power on the grid, but of course the electric utilities used their political muscle to squash it.

I remember the electric cars of the 90,s CRAP ,troublesome,EXPENSIVE,, the only people who wanted them were mother earthers and those who did not HAVE TO pay the real cost..
The movie is pure propaganda,,THE REAL COST WAS NOT BEING PAID BY THOSE WHO WANTED TO KEEP THIER ELECTRICS
CAN NOT WAIT TILL THE AIR IS FILLED WITH BATTERY ACID ....
THE TESLAS WERE TROUBLESOME YET YOU WERE NOT TOLD THIS ..
The new G.M. VOLT is a billion dollar boondoggle beyond beleave .one of the reasons G.M. almost went under .I hope Chevy can sell this,, there is hope


........................................................the movie ??CRAP & PROPAGANDA,,white wash.lies

I think the Volt is a great idea but will be poorly executed. It's gonna cost $40k, and at that price, I don't think it will have any takers. At $25k, that would be a different story. But someone who has $40k to spend on a car isn't going to give a rat's ass about the Volt.

In the last couple of days GM has implied the Volt will be under "well under" $40k before the rebate. No specifics yet.

But they have to start somewhere and there are plenty of people out there that will buy them. Hopefully the next generation will be cheaper. Of course, car prices rarely ever go down.

Even at $25k they aren't worth owning if you are looking at ROI. Heck, if you own a car outright, $10k is even marginal. So it really gets down to how much people will pay to just own one. I am more likely to waste $25k on a car but not $35k.

I have seen the movie and while I do not agree that everything in it is true. I was saddened seeing the cars taken away and destroyed. I can appreciate that the experiment may have been a failure but at the same time I see no reason to not leave the existing cars on the road. The Leasers were willing to buy the cars outright and while that may not have been the full value of the car it would be better for GM's perspective to at least get the big check. GM could have sold the cars and released any interest and then the maintenance and stuff would be on the new owners.

Being a big car nut It makes me sad for such an interesting car to suffer such a horrible death even if it was a failure. Imagine for a minute that in 1988 GM had taken all the fieros back and crushed them, how would that make you all feel?

Just my thoughts

I thought they did take all the 89 Fiero's and crushed them along with all the tooling and moulds for body parts. Dident they destroy everything just like they did the EV-1? I agree the cars obviously passed crash tests and what not so they could of been sold to the people using them for say 35K each? GM might have not made money but if there was 50 cars thats 1.7 mil back in there bank instead of a fat zero and the crushing costs. No I dont think we get paid to put elec into the grid. I dont think we are even allowed to do it here in sask. Something I havent thought about doing cause I dont have to capital.

GM said they got everything they could from the cars and since they would have to support them with spare parts at extremely high costs since so few were built (legal requirement), it was something they just couldn't afford to do. They didn't order production run volumes of the parts. I know I would have been pissed to find out a new steering wheel would have cost me $500 or a new motor was $15,000 (generalizations but you get the point.) They were cheap cars to build.

It would have been nice to have been able to keep one but by taking them back they were able to write off some of the loss. If they sold them, no one would have been willing to pay the $80-100k each it cost to build them to minimize the loss (and not get a warranty to boot.)

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 01-13-2010).]

How many 89 fieros were there? I was under the impression that there was only one or two prototypes but no final production versions. It is lame that GM destroyed all the tooling and stuff. How short sighted to invest and build a car from the ground up then destroy all the bits to make parts after the car has been discontinued.

It is like making a special tool to do a project then when the project is done smashing it up so it is unusable. None of us would do that in our shops wed keep the tool around incase we needed it later.

quote Originally posted by thedrue: How many 89 fieros were there? I was under the impression that there was only one or two prototypes but no final production versions. It is lame that GM destroyed all the tooling and stuff. How short sighted to invest and build a car from the ground up then destroy all the bits to make parts after the car has been discontinued. It is like making a special tool to do a project then when the project is done smashing it up so it is unusable. None of us would do that in our shops wed keep the tool around incase we needed it later.

If you don't need why keep it? We destroy tools all of the time once we have built up a spare parts inventory. You can't run them forever and since no cars existed, there wasn't much need.