I just wish these things were available on a small scale for homes. But steam generation is not to be played with, unfortunately.
I am not thrilled that a bankrupt state gets involved in these things, but that is California's problem as long as they don't come crawling to the rest of the country to bail them out.
But politics aside, we could use more innovative electrical generation. Since the King will not let us use coal, and congress has made sure we keep the Middle East rich, the un-taxed sun seems a good place to go.
Too bad the ocean is so hard on equipment, as there is a lot of energy stored there from the sun and moon!
TJ, I, too am surprised that California hasn't mandated that commercial roofs will use solar energy. But I'm even more surprised that Arizona, Utah and New Mexico haven't done so. I believe their desert areas get more usable sunlight hours per year than we do here in the golden state.
Ann, a 25% reduction of cost in a primary part is a great thing. It is not clear from the article how big the 275kW unit is. A medium size coal plant typically puts out 400 - 500 mega watts of power. A typical nuclear factilty about 900 - 1,000 MW. So, that would be about 1,400 of these units to replace a medium size coal plant. Of course, the coal plant puts out that energy all the time, on demand. So, while this technology is interesting and useful as an augmentation, in areas with lots of sun, I wonder if it is economically viable.
Although plastics make up only about 11% of all US municipal solid waste, many are actually more energy-dense than coal. Converting these non-recycled plastics into energy with existing technologies could reduce US coal consumption, as well as boost domestic energy reserves, says a new study.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.