Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power Patents Technology Science

Super Soaker Inventor Hopes to Double Solar Efficiency 288

mattnyc99 writes "With top geeks saying photovoltaic cells are still four years away from costing as much as the grid, and the first U.S. thermal power plant just getting into production, there's plenty of solar hype without any practical solution that's efficient enough. Until Lonnie Johnson came along. The man who invented the Super Soaker water gun turns out to be a nuclear engineer who's developed a solid-state heat engine that converts the sun's heat to electricity at 60-percent efficiency—double the rate of the next most successful solar process. And his innovation, called the Johnson Thermoelectric Energy Conversion (JTEC) system, is getting funding from the National Science Foundation, so this is no toy. From the article: 'If it proves feasible, drastically reducing the cost of solar power would only be a start. JTEC could potentially harvest waste heat from internal combustion engines and combustion turbines, perhaps even the human body. And no moving parts means no friction and fewer mechanical failures.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Super Soaker Inventor Hopes to Double Solar Efficiency

Comments Filter:
  • by StandardDeviant ( 122674 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @07:44PM (#21976908) Homepage Journal
    It may be "oxidized" as in the opposite to "reduced". See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox [wikipedia.org]

    (I haven't RTFA to figure out for sure, but if they're talking "hydrogen" on one side of a reaction and "proton/electron" on the other, it seems plausible on first blush.)
  • by MonorailCat ( 1104823 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @08:08PM (#21977266)
    The article doesn't say the device is good for 60%, it states IF they are able to design it to work with with high-temperature ceramics, and IF it is able to reach 600C, then CARNOT efficiency is 60%, of which this device will obtain some fraction.

    I didn't see any details on how this is any better than century-old heat engine ideas, unless the solid state design allows dirt cheap mass production, in which case he might be onto something...
  • Re:Hmmm.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by jdjbuffalo ( 318589 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @08:12PM (#21977296) Journal
    Normally I would agree with you here and while IANAP (Physicist) I think you are not interpreting what he is saying properly.

    He's not saying he found a more efficient solar cell (a doubling of that would be high on the BS scale). He is stating that he has created a new evolution of the Stirling Engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine [wikipedia.org].

    From what I've read he looks to be on the up and up but again IANAP. Obviously since he has yet to have a production model we need to take it with a grain of salt but it looks very promising. *Crosses fingers*
  • by BlendieOfIndie ( 1185569 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @08:17PM (#21977362)
    From TFA

    The engine does not require oxygen or a continuous fuel supply, only heat.

    This might just mean that oxygen is not consumed, while it could also mean the system contains no oxygen.
    But also...

    On the high-pressure side of the MEA, hydrogen gas is oxidized resulting in the creation of protons and electrons... On the low-pressure side, the protons are reduced with the electrons to reform hydrogen gas.

    Here it looks like the article describes the reaction: H => e- P+ => H
    So I think you might be right: oxidize is equivalent to ionize
  • by TrekkieGod ( 627867 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @08:18PM (#21977370) Homepage Journal

    Huh? Recycling waste heat from a internal combustion engine? That sounds like someone is trying to violate the Kevin-Planck statement of the second law of thermodynamics!

    As I understand it, there's only a violation if that someone claims they can use ALL of the heat to do work (thermal efficiency of 1). If some heat is still being dispersed into a cooler temperature environment, it's still perfectly doable. After all, are you going to tell me you can't use waste heat from the ICE to heat up some water?

    I'm not an expert in the subject (I'm an electrical engineer, so I've only gotten very basic freshman-level introductions to the laws of thermodynamics), but I think there's a well-known upper bound to how efficient recovery of heat to do work can be. Some googling led to wikipedia which tells me that upper bound is the efficiency of the Carnot Cycle [wikipedia.org]. Apparently it's not quite possible to reach it, but you're not violating thermodynamics if you're below it.

  • by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @08:20PM (#21977398) Journal
    From TFA (the popSci URL that does explain it):

    Here's how it works: One MEA stack is coupled to a high- temperature heat source (such as solar heat concentrated by mirrors), and the other to a low-temperature heat sink (ambient air). The low-temperature stack acts as the compressor stage while the high-temperature stack functions as the power stage. Once the cycle is started by the electrical jolt, the resulting pressure differential produces voltage across each of the MEA stacks. The higher voltage at the high-temperature stack forces the low-temperature stack to pump hydrogen from low pressure to high pressure, maintaining the pressure differential. Meanwhile hydrogen passing through the high-temperature stack generates power.

    IOW, you still need a constant heat source. TFA mentions that they're working on a 200 degree C version, and managed to get their prototype going w/ 60% efficiency if the temp is at 600 degrees C... TFA also mentions that current solar furnaces can jack out around 800 degree C heat when you have a shitload of parabolic mirrors pointing at your boiler.

    Overall, you're still taking in heat (read: energy) from an external source, so there's (from the looks of it) no cheating going on here.

    /P

  • First? (Score:3, Informative)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @08:30PM (#21977534) Journal

    the first U.S. thermal power plant just getting into production

    Way to mis-quote. According to TFA, that's the first solar thermal MANUFACTURING plant... As in, they make the equipment. There are several U.S. solar thermal power plants, dating back to the 70s.

  • by Copid ( 137416 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @08:47PM (#21977736)

    Ohh yeah, a guy that can hook up an air pump to a water reservoir, he's WELL QUALIFIED to beat the laws of thermodynamics.
    Errr... the guy has degrees in mechanical and nuclear engineering and has worked for ORNL and JPL. In fact, some of his work has been in cooling systems. My guess is that he has a better handle on the laws of thermodynamics than most people.
  • by Nautical Insanity ( 1190003 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @08:48PM (#21977754)
    Actually, anyone who's had a stitch of molecular biology knows that Matrix won't happen. The basal metabolism of a human being is 1600 calories per day. I'm not sure how far a cryogenic state would lower that, but for argument's sake, we'll say that the basal metabolism of a "matrix" human would be 600 calories, an absurdly low number. That means that each person on the grid would be consuming 600 kilocalories every day. (the calories you see on the nutritional information are really kilocals) That chemical energy is equivalent to the amount of energy required to heat 1 kilogram of water 600 degrees Celsius.

    Food production is an energy-intensive process. Even if it is some slop that is pumped into your bloodstream, there must be potential energy in the chemical bonds within the food, which of course, requires energy. The human body also doesn't metabolize all the food it consumes as energy and the metabolic process itself requires caloric input. Even if you collected 95% of the heat produced, you'd have an inefficient system that would not be close to producing enough energy to heat 1 kilogram of water 600C within a day. It would be more efficient to burn the food and collect the energy from that. Even better, skip the entire nutrition thing and just directly use the energy that would have been wasted in the yeast vats that maintain the useless humans.

    Fortunately, the Matrix is more of an allegory on the philosophy of Idealism than a forum for discussing alternative energy.

  • by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @08:51PM (#21977784) Homepage Journal
    It's equivalent, but more precise -- something that you might want and expect in a nuclear engineer. Some atoms oxidize to form ions, and others reduce to form ions. He's just specifying the particular direction.
  • Re:And... (Score:4, Informative)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @09:00PM (#21977898) Journal
    That's a nice theory, but it doesn't actually work in practice.

    There is a limit to how much water is naturally evaporated from the ocean each year (far, far less than we're dumping into it) and rained down onto solid ground. There is a limit to how quickly water absorbed by the soil will leech down into the aquifers it was drawn from (it takes centuries) and that's where most of our water supplies comes from.

    And as for location, there's no place on earth where the rainfall would possibly exceed the needs of a densely packed urban population, without conservation. The troubles Atlanta is having are just a start. Being located in the desert merely brings the problem to the forefront more quickly.

    Look at the farm-packed interior of the US, and you'll find ridiculous quantities of water being used, all drawn from a gigantic aquifer, which is now being dramatically drawn down, with no sign of replenishment. You're welcome to go tell them they're just imagining it, when they run out of water supplies.

    I'd gamble that, over the next decade, cities all across the US will have to begin copying the water conservation measures that have long been in-use in the southwest. And if they don't, the cost of water is going to go through the roof, as the expense for finding new supplies, and building new recycling facilities, goes through the roof.
  • Re:Oxidization (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @09:08PM (#21977998)
    Would someone knowledgable tell me if all ionization is oxidization?

    They overlap incompletely.

    You can obtain ions by oxidation. You can also obtain ions by reduction.

    However, many reactions involve pairs of oxidations and reductions, leading to no change in charge, and thus no ions.

    HTH.

    Also, mod parent up, just because they both start with "Ox" doesn't mean they have much to do with each other beyond the fact that Oxygen is a decent oxidizer.
  • not exactly :) (Score:5, Informative)

    by StandardDeviant ( 122674 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @09:21PM (#21978144) Homepage Journal
    No, I was merely pointing out that "oxidized" doesn't have to mean "oxygen" or "that crud you think of on old metal", that in fact there is a technical meaning to the term the average software engineer who took one freshman level science course a decade ago -- which may not have even been chemistry -- might not connect with. Ionization and oxidation/reduction are in fact closely related terms, which the wikipedia link was meant to illustrate. If you compare the two entries ("Redox" and "Ionization"), I think you'll see the connection. Describing the process as oxidation and the effect as ionization is not a priori incorrect.
  • Re:sterling engine? (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Master Control P ( 655590 ) <ejkeeverNO@SPAMnerdshack.com> on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @09:38PM (#21978316)
    This device runs on the same principle as a Stirling engine and it shares the same theoretical efficiency: (Hot temp) / (Hot + Cold temp), all in Kelvins.

    According to TFA, their first prototype is limited to 200*c because of material concerns. If they were to draw ice-cold water from the deep ocean as the cold side, it could theoretically acheive 473 / (473 + 273) or 63% efficiency. They talk about future materials allowing a hot side of 600*c, which despite being nearly twice the absolute temperature would only raise theoretical efficiency to 76%. Some sort of exotic oxide ceramic that could run at 1500 or 2000K would only add another 10% or so.

    What fraction of that efficiency this or other engines acheive depends on the design. I believe the most efficient toy stirling engines can reach 90-96% of Carnot efficiency.
  • by jimdread ( 1089853 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @10:01PM (#21978536)
    This page has a flash animated diagram of how it works, with wiggly lines going in the top on one side, and coming out the bottom on the other side, and black blobs zooming along one way and meandering back on the bottom. I don't know if that really helps people understand the device, but here it is: http://www.johnsonems.com/jhtec.html [johnsonems.com] I think that diagram would be much better if it had labels on it, like "wiggly lines are heat, black blobs are hydrogen ions, and electricity comes out where the plus and minus signs are".
  • by TigerNut ( 718742 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @10:29PM (#21978838) Homepage Journal
    The majority of wasted energy in an internal combustion engine is in the exhaust gas and in the coolant, which is continuously pumped to a radiator. In a conventional gasoline engine about 1/3 of the energy content of the fuel goes out the exhaust pipe, 1/3 gets radiated by the radiator, and only 1/3 actually ends up doing work on the input shaft of the transmission...

    This is why turbochargers are often used on high performance engines - it extracts extra energy from the exhaust flow and thereby raises the thermodynamic efficiency of the whole package. Typical exhaust gas temperatures (at the exhaust manifold) are on the order of 1500 degrees F, which is hot enough to do lots of work.

  • by blincoln ( 592401 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @10:53PM (#21979052) Homepage Journal
    If you right-click on the animation and choose "zoom in", you can make out the blobs as being H(sub)2 (hydrogen gas) when floating between green areas and H+ (positive hydrogen ions) in the green areas. The description below is pretty good at getting across the concept.
  • Re:sterling engine? (Score:3, Informative)

    by evanbd ( 210358 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @11:00PM (#21979100)

    Your math is slightly off. Carnot's theorem [wikipedia.org] gives the max efficiency as (Th - Tc) / (Th), or (200 / 473) = 42%. That is, the fraction of the energy you can remove is exactly equal to the fraction of the temperature you can remove. Plugging in 873 for Th (aka 600C) and 300K Tc (a very good radiator), I get 65%, which is on par with TFA's 60% number.

    The interesting question is how close to theoretical they can get...

  • Patent 7,160,639 (Score:5, Informative)

    by k2backhoe ( 1092067 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @11:08PM (#21979172)
    Issued 1 year ago, this patent describes this system in great detail. I am doubtful it can work. The electric current out of the hot end of the device is less than or equal to the current in to the cold end (since the H circulates and each passage thru either side consumes or generates one electron). To create more electric power out than goes in, the proton exchange membrane would have to create significantly higher voltages at high temperature than at low temperature. But I believe the membrane voltage is pretty much limited to the ionization potential of H, and that is not going to change significantly over temperature). Lonnie Johnson sort of weasel-words around this in column 4 lines 30-50 of the patent body. This glossing over of detail is, to me, the most damning evidence (I am a PhD physicist with 89 issued US patents).
  • Leapfrogging! (Score:5, Informative)

    by StefanJ ( 88986 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2008 @11:22PM (#21979270) Homepage Journal
    It's a popular concept in some circles: [worldchanging.com] Use affordable high-tech devices to let folks in the developing world have a better life.

    An example are cell phones. They've brought connectivity to folks in even isolated villages who could not dream of getting a land line.

    Or the "life straw," a simple, cheap, but high-tech gadget that filters the filth and germs from streams. It's literally a straw.

    Or a simple solar-charged LED light. Hang it outside your hut in the day, bring it in at night so the kids can study or mom can make extra money doing piecework.

    A sturdy, self-contained solar electrical generator could act as an adjunct for a decentralized high-tech low-budget infrastructure. You'd use it to charge cell phones, XO Laptops (and their adult equivalent), and so on.
  • Re:And... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Alpha830RulZ ( 939527 ) on Thursday January 10, 2008 @12:27AM (#21979828)
    You beat me to it. The Seattle Tacoma metro area has some 3 million people in it, and most of them are served with rain run off from several river systems. Most of our power is hydro as well, also fed by rain. The same is true for Portland Or, which has close to 1M people in the metro area. Vancouver BC would be another example.
  • Kalina cycle (Score:3, Informative)

    by ScottBob ( 244972 ) on Thursday January 10, 2008 @04:56AM (#21981280)
    If a power-plant turbine had useful exhaust steam, they would already be using it to turn another turbine I expect.

    They are, with what's called a "bottoming cycle" that uses the steam that exits the low pressure turbine to heat a mixture of ammonia and water that boils below the boiling point of water alone, thus raising the working pressure enough to turn an additional turbine. This bottoming cycle is also known as the Kalina cycle, and is in use at combined cycle gas turbine plants (where the hot exhaust from a gas turbine is used to make steam to run another turbine).
  • Re:You cycle it (Score:3, Informative)

    by CodeBuster ( 516420 ) on Thursday January 10, 2008 @12:49PM (#21985592)
    The hydrogen in these prototype vehicles is either burned directly in internal combustion OR it is converted back to water in a fuel cell cycle, but either way the hydrogen does not stay free for long, it is used in relatively short order after refueling. The difference between the engines that you are talking about and the engines like the Stirling and the one discussed in TFA is that the former are open-cycle whereas the Stirling and TFA engine are closed cycle. (i.e. the working fluid or gas never leaves the confines of the engine...it is sealed inside). In such cases long term storage of the gas or working fluid becomes an issue whereas it is generally NOT an issue in most open cycle engines like the petroleum fueled engines that we use in most of our terrestrial vehicles (i.e. they burn fuel from the tank fast enough that evaporation is not an issue except when the vehicle sits fueled for an extended period AND they use air from the atmosphere to combust with the fuel which is then expelled back out into the environment - open cycle).

    Another problem with hydrogen gas is that it tends to corrode and embrittle metals and other materials that are used to contain it (i.e. metal tanks, piping, etc) to the point where containment may eventually be compromised, particularly if high pressures and heat are involved.

The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.

Working...