• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Are current renewable energy strategies worth it?

Is Florida retro-active or only for new builds?

Well, Florida codes have been in effect for a long time, I seriously doubt that there is much of anything left that hasn't been brought up to code (its an insurance issue as much as public safety - same with California). In general, in the US it is new construction and "substantive, permanent remodel," but building codes tend to be a mix of commercial interests/standards, federal, state and local codes depending upon type of construction, and jurisdictional dominance. Cleaning up the tangle would in itself bring a big improvement in efficiency and standardization across the commercial/industrial and residential construction codes, designing climate adaptation features into such codes would spread the icing on that cake.
 
Well, Florida codes have been in effect for a long time, I seriously doubt that there is much of anything left that hasn't been brought up to code (its an insurance issue as much as public safety - same with California).

Not really. The strict codes started in 2000 I think. My 1981-built house is mostly unfilled block, had roof shingles attached with staples (until we got a new roof three years ago), has a low-pitch roof with two gable ends, and still has no sheathing on the gable ends - just stucco over lath (I'm planning to box them in this winter). I'm not sure when horizontal garage door bracing became mandatory, but owning vertical braces is still optional and rare, even though it would probably save more homes at a far lower cost than most of the other requirements.

By default, insurance here treats everyone like they have the worst possible home for the year built. You have to get a $50 to $100 third-party windstorm mitigation inspection to get additional discounts.
 
Is Florida retro-active or only for new builds?
Florida has had strict building codes for many decades. The codes do get modified from time to time.(there was a big change in the codes after Andrew) So a hurricane shutter from 30 years ago might not pass standards today. You are not forced to buy new every time the code changes. But by far the vast majority of structures in Florida are pretty hurricane resistant, even under old codes.
 
In Australia afaik you could not get any form of home insurance unless the house was brought to current code - most of which involved anchoring the roof .
I think this only applies in the cyclone prone areas.

But yeah - renewed energy efficient rebuilds would put a lot of people to work, reduce C02 use and bring a hell of a lot of comfort summer and winter.

Yet all the focus is on building more sticks and bricks to feed the speculators.
So Spain and Ireland and other places are no tearing down the empty houses and apartments.

Brilliant apes we are .......not.
 
Not really. The strict codes started in 2000 I think. My 1981-built house is mostly unfilled block, had roof shingles attached with staples (until we got a new roof three years ago), has a low-pitch roof with two gable ends, and still has no sheathing on the gable ends - just stucco over lath (I'm planning to box them in this winter). I'm not sure when horizontal garage door bracing became mandatory, but owning vertical braces is still optional and rare, even though it would probably save more homes at a far lower cost than most of the other requirements.

By default, insurance here treats everyone like they have the worst possible home for the year built. You have to get a $50 to $100 third-party windstorm mitigation inspection to get additional discounts.

Well, it has been 50 years since I lived in Florida, but even then, there were hurricane building construction codes there (and in Houston, where I moved to from Tampa), now the codes have upgraded many times since then, I'm sure. I was not meaning to give the impression that all homes and buildings are up to current standards, but rather that there are very few structures (public or private) that have not had some sort of hurricane resistance measures incorporated into them over the last 50 or so years. It usually takes a few decades for building codes to be fully incorporated into a majority of the buildings in an area with building code changes, unless it is very rapidly growing.
 
Well, it has been 50 years since I lived in Florida, but even then, there were hurricane building construction codes there (and in Houston, where I moved to from Tampa), now the codes have upgraded many times since then, I'm sure. I was not meaning to give the impression that all homes and buildings are up to current standards, but rather that there are very few structures (public or private) that have not had some sort of hurricane resistance measures incorporated into them over the last 50 or so years.

Mine had essentially none when built, except that every other joist is strapped. I don't think even that was required. If they let them use staples on the roof and build unsheathed gable ends, then the codes were not too tough in 1981. Of course most houses that old have new roofs and garage doors, so some things are corrected.

Looking it up, I see that 2002 is when they got serious. But what you say is true for Miami-area counties, and they have been way ahead of the curve.
 
This looks very good....leave to practical Aussie engineers for a fresh approach

Return of the steam engine: cheap storage for solar

By Giles Parkinson on 19 September 2013

A group of Australian engineers have “re-invented” the steam engine and combined it with solar thermal energy to deliver a cheap solar storage solution. What’s more, it works on the distributed level and can operate behind the meter, and is far cheaper than PV combined with batteries.

Not long after Robert Mierisch finished up as director of thermal systems research at the solar thermal energy pioneer Ausra, he took himself to the Smithsonian in Washington, the world’s largest museum complex, to find out everything he could about the Skinner steam engine.

Mierisch was playing on a hunch. Or should that be a conviction. He had worked with solar thermal energy for years, and had been looking for a viable storage solution. He thought he could find the enabler in comparatively ancient technology.

Steam turbines, he reasoned, couldn’t do the job at the scale he had in mind, nor did they have the flexibility required to replace diesel power. But steam engines just might. This is what led him to the Smithsonian and the Skinner Unaflow steam engine, which were used in ships through the 1940s, the last commercial version of the steam engine that had begun at the start of the industrial revolution nearly 200 years earlier.

Now, a unique distributed generation technology with storage, the product of a 4-year collaboration between Mierisch and Steve Bisset, another Australian expat and Silicon Valley entrepreneur, is soon to see the light of day.

Terrajoule, the Redwood City, California-based company they co-founded, will soon bring a demonstration system up to full-power operation, generating 100 kW for 24 hours per day. This is a key milestone toward bringing the solar/steam/storage technology to market within the next 18 months.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/return-of-the-steam-engine-cheap-storage-for-solar-34662
 
Recently finished the book, Sustainable Energy w/o the hot air. He spends a lot of time reviewing our current energy usage vs the theorical max of combined renewable energy techs. The short version, there's no way renewable energy can meet our current energy usage. Nukes, clean coal are probably necessary stop gaps, he perfers nuclear, for polution reasons.

His website:
http://www.withouthotair.com/
 
Trakar

I just don't know enough about the system the article discusses.

me either, like to have some enlightenment on it.
This is the kind of "low tech" scaleable solution that is needed to move forward on a broader scale and notably on a site by site scale that does not require ponderous government mechanisms as nuclear does.
 
Interesting, I guess I just don't know enough about the system the article discusses. I have a hard time seeing that this is more efficient at storing energy than say a flywheel system or using a thermal system that stores energy in molten salt.

Water is a perfect medium to store sunshine as heat for a variety of reasons. First, in terms of BTU/weight unit water = 1, every thing else is a fraction. Everything. And water is usable at temperatures easily achieved by simple technologies or smaller collectors. And as described in the article the water is directly usable as steam rather than pumping it through heat exchangers inside some other hot mass, which might lower the cost/complexity/maintenance issues for other systems.

Storing sunshine in a flywheel wouldn't be very efficient because PV panels are still pretty low efficiency, then you waste energy as heat turning the generator/motor that turns the flywheel, and again as the flywheel turns motion back in to electrons. I think this is called "round trip" efficiency.

Molten salt can store higher temperatures than water, but those temps are really outside the bounds of simple systems. If those temps are available within the design of a system, then sure, you can use it and then pump water through it to create the steam. And the energy density is about half that of water, as shown in my link above. But for large systems with large solar collection, then yeah maybe the higher temps available give engineering advantages that outweigh the losses, costs and complications.

As I understand the idea the point is to use a reciprocating steam engine of advanced design (wiki page on the type), which could be built within the existing industrial base of reciprocating piston combustion engines. Not so simple, I suspect, as yanking the heads off a honda and converting it to steam but still easier engineering and machining than steam turbines, and very easily scaled. You could make an engine about the size of an ordinary portable generator engine, or you could make it the size of a big stationary diesel like the ones hospitals have.

Storing sunshine as heat is a good idea, if you have a way to turn it into electrons. I like the idea of this. Even if your hot tank is below boiler temperature, the idea in the OP article is to run it through some kind of flash boiler using a secondary source of heat (I could see natural gas as a good source for this heat) to raise the temp/pressure to working levels.

In general I like steam and would like to see it come back into wide industrial use. If we hadn't had good gasoline engines to burn a readily available and easy to transport fuel come into play we'd all be driving Stanleys today. In fact, late Stanley Steamers used gasoline as the fuel for their flash tube boilers.

Flywheels scare me, because they require immense RPM to have decent energy density. That means higher technology (metallugy and composites) to build it, complicated systems including magnetic bearings and vacuum pumps to make sure you're not wasting energy, things like that.
 
Last edited:
I would think with current and likely cheap insulating techniques a tank could be kept near to boiling - what is the situation with superheated water anyway.

Surely it would flash to steam with a pressure drop.
 
I would think with current and likely cheap insulating techniques a tank could be kept near to boiling - what is the situation with superheated water anyway.

Surely it would flash to steam with a pressure drop.

Insulating a heat storage tank is dead simples. The stuff they sprayed on the space shuttle tanks to keep the crygenic fuels cold is easy to use. My partner bought a system with disposable tips to use for carved scenery -- great for trees and rocks. The stuff can be sprayed on teh outside of tanks and left exposed to the elements, or painted, or sheathed with heat reflecting materials . . . many options. Or you could put the tank in a hole and backfill with cheap locally available organics. Or you could engineer something that would be the last warm thing in the universe, if you really wanted to.

And if you are just storing hot water and flashheating it right before the boiler you can use pretty much any industrial storage tank on the market or just dig a hole and spray it with concrete then drop a lid on it.

Very scalable, both in size and cost; also modular, because you could upgrade your tanks and swap 'em out without taking the entire system offline.


Yes, water flashes to steam when the pressure drops. The cooling system in your car doesn't boil because it is a pressurized system, but most cars run at over boiling temp for sea level. At my altitude water boils at almost exactly 200f, (which makes it easier to calibrate my cooking thermometers than if it were somewhere between the marks), but the cooling system runs at about 250f, so about 15psi of system pressure keeps it liquid. Take the cap off and your car "boils over." Don't do it. It leaves scars.

Likewise, water will "boil" when exposed to vacuum. Oddly, that "boiling" then leads to freezing. That was the principle behind space suit cooling systems. Water in a leaky box flash-evaporates and freezes, then suit water is routed past the cold part and back to the suit. When the ice melts, more water is exposed to vacuum, then freezes, plugging the holes again. Self regulating.
 
Hmmmm interesting mix...

Solar-Power Device Would Use Heat to Enhance Efficiency
Jan. 19, 2014 — A new approach to harvesting solar energy, developed by MIT researchers, could improve efficiency by using sunlight to heat a high-temperature material whose infrared radiation would then be collected by a conventional photovoltaic cell. This technique could also make it easier to store the energy for later use, the researchers say.

more
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140119142450.htm
 
Water is a perfect medium to store sunshine as heat for a variety of reasons. First, in terms of BTU/weight unit water = 1, every thing else is a fraction. Everything. And water is usable at temperatures easily achieved by simple technologies or smaller collectors. And as described in the article the water is directly usable as steam rather than pumping it through heat exchangers inside some other hot mass, which might lower the cost/complexity/maintenance issues for other systems.

Storing sunshine in a flywheel wouldn't be very efficient because PV panels are still pretty low efficiency, then you waste energy as heat turning the generator/motor that turns the flywheel, and again as the flywheel turns motion back in to electrons. I think this is called "round trip" efficiency.

Molten salt can store higher temperatures than water, but those temps are really outside the bounds of simple systems. If those temps are available within the design of a system, then sure, you can use it and then pump water through it to create the steam. And the energy density is about half that of water, as shown in my link above. But for large systems with large solar collection, then yeah maybe the higher temps available give engineering advantages that outweigh the losses, costs and complications.

As I understand the idea the point is to use a reciprocating steam engine of advanced design (wiki page on the type), which could be built within the existing industrial base of reciprocating piston combustion engines. Not so simple, I suspect, as yanking the heads off a honda and converting it to steam but still easier engineering and machining than steam turbines, and very easily scaled. You could make an engine about the size of an ordinary portable generator engine, or you could make it the size of a big stationary diesel like the ones hospitals have.

Storing sunshine as heat is a good idea, if you have a way to turn it into electrons. I like the idea of this. Even if your hot tank is below boiler temperature, the idea in the OP article is to run it through some kind of flash boiler using a secondary source of heat (I could see natural gas as a good source for this heat) to raise the temp/pressure to working levels.

In general I like steam and would like to see it come back into wide industrial use. If we hadn't had good gasoline engines to burn a readily available and easy to transport fuel come into play we'd all be driving Stanleys today. In fact, late Stanley Steamers used gasoline as the fuel for their flash tube boilers.

Flywheels scare me, because they require immense RPM to have decent energy density. That means higher technology (metallugy and composites) to build it, complicated systems including magnetic bearings and vacuum pumps to make sure you're not wasting energy, things like that.

I'm not arguing against the system, I'm just saying, up front, that I want to see some numbers, because it seems to be a highly conditional/situational assessment, by orders of magnitude from any (probably over)simplified BotE calculation.
 
Going from the book I mentioned, it's very UK centric. The average UK citizen uses ~124 Kilowalts/day/person, you can look at the website to see how he got that number. For the US, it's worse, ~250 kw/d/p.

If you put solar on every roof in the UK at the current 20% efficiency, the theorical max is 5 kWh per day per person given the sunlight intensitity in the UK.

Anyone interested in the subject should take a look at his calculations. He stacks all the consumption and theortical production of the "average" person in the UK. He has a section for each of the well known energy techs.
 
Going from the book I mentioned, it's very UK centric. The average UK citizen uses ~124 Kilowalts/day/person, you can look at the website to see how he got that number. For the US, it's worse, ~250 kw/d/p.

To run the whole country, I presume? 124kwh/day/person is a huge figure for a household.

However I'd agree that solar is of marginal use for the UK.
 
ing from the book I mentioned, it's very UK centric. The average UK citizen uses ~124 Kilowalts/day/person, you can look at the website to see how he got that number. For the US, it's worse, ~250 kw/d/p.
If you put solar on every roof in the UK at the current 20% efficiency, the theorical max is 5 kWh per day per person given the sunlight intensitity in the UK.

are you not mixing your power units.

At the top you are saying kilowatts per day....
Below it's kilowatt hours.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom