Could solar power be utilized and substitute coal in the 19th century?Could a 19th century setting support horse-propelled non-steampunk tanks?Could a 19th century space gun be of any use today in space exploration?How do I defend an island nation from attackers with 15th century technology?What would the industrial age be like without oil and coal?Logistics of manned Europa exploration?What would a steam locomotive look like if steam power became yet again the main type used in rail transportation?Post apocalyptic science based storyHow to combat magic as science?“Magic” diamonds for fuel?Could people of the 14th century create an inline engine for use in aircraft and vehicles?
A team managed by my peer is close to melting down
Why didn't the people of King's Landing riot when the Great Sept of Baelor was destroyed?
Changing the PK column of a data extension without completely recreating it
Why did the Death Eaters wait to reopen the Chamber of Secrets?
In The Incredibles 2, why does Screenslaver's name use a pun on something that doesn't exist in the 1950s pastiche?
About the paper by Buekenhout, Delandtsheer, Doyen, Kleidman, Liebeck and Saxl
Do Veracrypt encrypted volumes have any kind of brute force protection?
What did the 8086 (and 8088) do upon encountering an illegal instruction?
Do they make "karaoke" versions of concertos for solo practice?
In American Politics, why is the Justice Department under the President?
ISP is not hashing the password I log in with online. Should I take any action?
Print "N NE E SE S SW W NW"
What plausible reason could I give for my FTL drive only working in space
How can powerful telekinesis avoid violating Newton's 3rd Law?
Nth term of Van Eck Sequence
Was the Lonely Mountain, where Smaug lived, a volcano?
How can I find out about the game world without meta-influencing it?
Can you open the door or die? v2
Is fission/fusion to iron the most efficient way to convert mass to energy?
What is the language spoken in Babylon?
Simple log rotation script
What publication claimed that Michael Jackson died in a nuclear holocaust?
I am caught when I was about to steal some candies
How do I type a hyphen in iOS 12?
Could solar power be utilized and substitute coal in the 19th century?
Could a 19th century setting support horse-propelled non-steampunk tanks?Could a 19th century space gun be of any use today in space exploration?How do I defend an island nation from attackers with 15th century technology?What would the industrial age be like without oil and coal?Logistics of manned Europa exploration?What would a steam locomotive look like if steam power became yet again the main type used in rail transportation?Post apocalyptic science based storyHow to combat magic as science?“Magic” diamonds for fuel?Could people of the 14th century create an inline engine for use in aircraft and vehicles?
$begingroup$
Would it be possible for a nation with 19th century to very early 20th century technology and history and hot desert climate to utilize solar power for electrical generation as a substitute for coal or replace the use of coal in any other way?
There is not an abundance of national coal, however, rivers and ocean could allow for importation of coal.
technology hard-science steampunk
edited Mar 25 at 5:47
Peter Mortensen
24516
asked Mar 24 at 21:04
Echo61505Echo61505
14119
$endgroup$
|
show 12 more comments
$begingroup$
Would it be possible for a nation with 19th century to very early 20th century technology and history and hot desert climate to utilize solar power for electrical generation as a substitute for coal or replace the use of coal in any other way?
There is not an abundance of national coal, however, rivers and ocean could allow for importation of coal.
technology hard-science steampunk
edited Mar 25 at 5:47
Peter Mortensen
24516
asked Mar 24 at 21:04
Echo61505Echo61505
14119
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Not in the way you asked the question, absolutely not. If it wasn't done back then, it can't be done with 19th century technology, that would be a paradox. But I assume you dont mean literally 19th century technology but something else? Perhaps instead of asking this question, describe what you want to do first and then tell us the exact part, details are king here, that you are unsure about or don't know how to do.
$endgroup$
– Raditz_35
Mar 24 at 21:17
4
$begingroup$
"If it wasn't done back then, it can't be done" it might or it might not be possible, but this alone is not enough to decide. Many things are possible but aren't done because cheaper alternatives exist.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Mar 25 at 7:17
1
$begingroup$
@Eth By that logic, isn't basically all energy from the sun in some way? Your point is interesting on its own but is not salient or relevant to this question in any way...
$endgroup$
– only_pro
Mar 25 at 17:20
2
$begingroup$
@AlexP: The first battery was actually created in 1794, so 19th century people could have stored the solar power to use at night.
$endgroup$
– Keven M
Mar 25 at 18:32
1
$begingroup$
That's getting into grammar and English though, or maybe alien theory. Who's to say that alien races don't coincidentally call their star Sol also? Besides, in any translation dictionary between Earth language and Alien language, whatever the alien word it would still translate into Sun or Earth in human language. Isn't semantics fun? 😋
$endgroup$
– Keven M
Mar 26 at 14:05
|
show 12 more comments
$begingroup$
Would it be possible for a nation with 19th century to very early 20th century technology and history and hot desert climate to utilize solar power for electrical generation as a substitute for coal or replace the use of coal in any other way?
There is not an abundance of national coal, however, rivers and ocean could allow for importation of coal.
technology hard-science steampunk
edited Mar 25 at 5:47
Peter Mortensen
24516
asked Mar 24 at 21:04
Echo61505Echo61505
14119
$endgroup$
Would it be possible for a nation with 19th century to very early 20th century technology and history and hot desert climate to utilize solar power for electrical generation as a substitute for coal or replace the use of coal in any other way?
There is not an abundance of national coal, however, rivers and ocean could allow for importation of coal.
technology hard-science steampunk
technology hard-science steampunk
edited Mar 25 at 5:47
Peter Mortensen
24516
asked Mar 24 at 21:04
Echo61505Echo61505
14119
edited Mar 25 at 5:47
Peter Mortensen
24516
asked Mar 24 at 21:04
Echo61505Echo61505
14119
edited Mar 25 at 5:47
Peter Mortensen
24516
edited Mar 25 at 5:47
Peter Mortensen
24516
edited Mar 25 at 5:47
Peter Mortensen
24516
24516
asked Mar 24 at 21:04
Echo61505Echo61505
14119
asked Mar 24 at 21:04
Echo61505Echo61505
14119
asked Mar 24 at 21:04
Echo61505Echo61505
14119
14119
3
$begingroup$
Not in the way you asked the question, absolutely not. If it wasn't done back then, it can't be done with 19th century technology, that would be a paradox. But I assume you dont mean literally 19th century technology but something else? Perhaps instead of asking this question, describe what you want to do first and then tell us the exact part, details are king here, that you are unsure about or don't know how to do.
$endgroup$
– Raditz_35
Mar 24 at 21:17
4
$begingroup$
"If it wasn't done back then, it can't be done" it might or it might not be possible, but this alone is not enough to decide. Many things are possible but aren't done because cheaper alternatives exist.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Mar 25 at 7:17
1
$begingroup$
@Eth By that logic, isn't basically all energy from the sun in some way? Your point is interesting on its own but is not salient or relevant to this question in any way...
$endgroup$
– only_pro
Mar 25 at 17:20
2
$begingroup$
@AlexP: The first battery was actually created in 1794, so 19th century people could have stored the solar power to use at night.
$endgroup$
– Keven M
Mar 25 at 18:32
1
$begingroup$
That's getting into grammar and English though, or maybe alien theory. Who's to say that alien races don't coincidentally call their star Sol also? Besides, in any translation dictionary between Earth language and Alien language, whatever the alien word it would still translate into Sun or Earth in human language. Isn't semantics fun? 😋
$endgroup$
– Keven M
Mar 26 at 14:05
|
show 12 more comments
3
$begingroup$
Not in the way you asked the question, absolutely not. If it wasn't done back then, it can't be done with 19th century technology, that would be a paradox. But I assume you dont mean literally 19th century technology but something else? Perhaps instead of asking this question, describe what you want to do first and then tell us the exact part, details are king here, that you are unsure about or don't know how to do.
$endgroup$
– Raditz_35
Mar 24 at 21:17
4
$begingroup$
"If it wasn't done back then, it can't be done" it might or it might not be possible, but this alone is not enough to decide. Many things are possible but aren't done because cheaper alternatives exist.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Mar 25 at 7:17
1
$begingroup$
@Eth By that logic, isn't basically all energy from the sun in some way? Your point is interesting on its own but is not salient or relevant to this question in any way...
$endgroup$
– only_pro
Mar 25 at 17:20
2
$begingroup$
@AlexP: The first battery was actually created in 1794, so 19th century people could have stored the solar power to use at night.
$endgroup$
– Keven M
Mar 25 at 18:32
1
$begingroup$
That's getting into grammar and English though, or maybe alien theory. Who's to say that alien races don't coincidentally call their star Sol also? Besides, in any translation dictionary between Earth language and Alien language, whatever the alien word it would still translate into Sun or Earth in human language. Isn't semantics fun? 😋
$endgroup$
– Keven M
Mar 26 at 14:05
3
3
$begingroup$
Not in the way you asked the question, absolutely not. If it wasn't done back then, it can't be done with 19th century technology, that would be a paradox. But I assume you dont mean literally 19th century technology but something else? Perhaps instead of asking this question, describe what you want to do first and then tell us the exact part, details are king here, that you are unsure about or don't know how to do.
$endgroup$
– Raditz_35
Mar 24 at 21:17
$begingroup$
Not in the way you asked the question, absolutely not. If it wasn't done back then, it can't be done with 19th century technology, that would be a paradox. But I assume you dont mean literally 19th century technology but something else? Perhaps instead of asking this question, describe what you want to do first and then tell us the exact part, details are king here, that you are unsure about or don't know how to do.
$endgroup$
– Raditz_35
Mar 24 at 21:17
4
4
$begingroup$
"If it wasn't done back then, it can't be done" it might or it might not be possible, but this alone is not enough to decide. Many things are possible but aren't done because cheaper alternatives exist.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Mar 25 at 7:17
$begingroup$
"If it wasn't done back then, it can't be done" it might or it might not be possible, but this alone is not enough to decide. Many things are possible but aren't done because cheaper alternatives exist.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Mar 25 at 7:17
1
1
$begingroup$
@Eth By that logic, isn't basically all energy from the sun in some way? Your point is interesting on its own but is not salient or relevant to this question in any way...
$endgroup$
– only_pro
Mar 25 at 17:20
$begingroup$
@Eth By that logic, isn't basically all energy from the sun in some way? Your point is interesting on its own but is not salient or relevant to this question in any way...
$endgroup$
– only_pro
Mar 25 at 17:20
2
2
$begingroup$
@AlexP: The first battery was actually created in 1794, so 19th century people could have stored the solar power to use at night.
$endgroup$
– Keven M
Mar 25 at 18:32
$begingroup$
@AlexP: The first battery was actually created in 1794, so 19th century people could have stored the solar power to use at night.
$endgroup$
– Keven M
Mar 25 at 18:32
1
1
$begingroup$
That's getting into grammar and English though, or maybe alien theory. Who's to say that alien races don't coincidentally call their star Sol also? Besides, in any translation dictionary between Earth language and Alien language, whatever the alien word it would still translate into Sun or Earth in human language. Isn't semantics fun? 😋
$endgroup$
– Keven M
Mar 26 at 14:05
$begingroup$
That's getting into grammar and English though, or maybe alien theory. Who's to say that alien races don't coincidentally call their star Sol also? Besides, in any translation dictionary between Earth language and Alien language, whatever the alien word it would still translate into Sun or Earth in human language. Isn't semantics fun? 😋
$endgroup$
– Keven M
Mar 26 at 14:05
|
show 12 more comments
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes, they could. You "just" need a large mirror to concentrate sunlight on a boiler to produce the steam. Power plants that use this principle are in use today: Ivanpah Solar Power Facility
The first problem you have is with economy. Burning coal is just way too cheap if you have it available, and it's much easier to get a few megawatts of heat out of burning coal than it is to get the same amount of heat from mirrors. Simply because you need about one square meter of mirror for each kilowatt of sunlight you want to collect, and the mirror needs to be continuously adjusted to the sun. A single man shoveling coal into an engine produces much, much more than just a single kilowatt of heat...
You can offset the economy problem by making coal hard-to-get in your country.
However, the second problem remains: Efficiency. Early steam engines were brutally inefficient, turning only 1% or 2% (Watt's optimized version!) of the heat into actual mechanical work. So, if you have a giant 10x10 m mirror ($100 m^2$), you only get 1 kW or 2 kW of usable power output. Anything that requires more energy than that quickly becomes infeasible to power with the many, enormous mirrors you need, which all require man-power to adjust to the sun continuously.
Of course, you can offset this by a) allowing close to modern steam turbines, and b) fancy clockworks that automagically adjust the mirrors. Nevertheless, it remains difficult to get the power from the power plants to where it's actually needed.
edited Mar 25 at 6:00
Peter Mortensen
24516
answered Mar 24 at 21:42
cmastercmaster
3,9521016
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation about solar power at night, lights, other power needs, storing power, and more has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Monica Cellio♦
Mar 26 at 2:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If they have a lot of desert space, perhaps they could build solar updrift towers? It's basically a large area covered by a greenhouse roof and a high chimney in the middle. The energy output is proportional to the area times the chimney height.
They were invented in 1896, so they use only technology available at that time.
answered Mar 25 at 13:11
RobinRobin
2892
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Solar updraft towers were proposed in 1896 (and 1931, and the late 1400s, and probably many other times). In 1896, they could certainly build the tower, but the turbine to extract power from the air movement would need to wait until about the 1910s, when aerodynamic research started producing reasonably efficient propellers.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 20:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Egypt 1912
It actually happened:
Shuman built the world’s first solar thermal power station in Maadi, Egypt (1912-1913). Shuman’s plant used parabolic troughs to power a 60-70 horsepower engine that pumped 6,000 gallons of water per minute from the Nile River to adjacent cotton fields. His system included a number of technological improvements, including absorption plates with dual panes separated by a one-inch air space. Although the outbreak of World War I and the discovery of cheap oil in the 1930s discouraged the advancement of solar energy, Shuman’s vision and basic design were resurrected in the 1970s with a new wave of interest in solar thermal energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Shuman
answered Mar 25 at 21:49
Chuck RamirezChuck Ramirez
4409
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'd upvote this ten times if I could!
$endgroup$
– nigel222
Mar 26 at 9:16
$begingroup$
They tried that setup again in the early noughties, it has the advantage of simplicity but there are better options now.
$endgroup$
– Separatrix
Mar 26 at 10:04
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can run a generator on an open-cycle hot air engine. This is a heat engine that gets energy from the expansion of air when it heats up.
The major issue is getting cold intake air. You can use a ground-coupled heat exchanger for that. Specifically a thermal labyrinth. The air is drawn thru a long path underground and cools in the process, basically.
Heating up the air is depressingly simple in a desert. Just have some some structure made of metal above ground where sun can shine on it and it can change heat with the local air. If you have mirrors you can focus the sunlight for much higher temperatures. Solar cooking ovens are a thing so the mirror and design wouldn't need to be that good. For a more serious design you can use a parabolic through.
For the viability of all this the best comparison is probably ocean thermal energy conversion.
The very good news is that the conception and early tests are pretty much in the desired time frame, so somebody coming up with the idea of adapting it to a desert would be viable. Thermal labyrinths are ancient technology and heat engines were largely invented during the 19th century, so that all works as well.
The good news is that OTEC has been tested and it does actually work, so the desert version would probably as well. How well is bit hard to say since the working fluids and many other details differ. The differences kind of balance out but you'd have to do actual numbers to know how well and that would require an actual design. Maybe an actual physical experiment at significant scale even.
The bad news is that OTEC never has made a breakthrough. It never really succeeded in competing with coal and oil. And the desert version would probably be more problematic. While this proposal basically uses the entire desert for capturing the solar energy and so solves some of the density problems of other types of solar power, it still cannot compete with coal on density and thermal labyrinth would be more upfront work than pumping up cold sea water as in OTEC. So the economic potential would be limited.
That said in this time frame cheap labor might be more accessible than imported fuels. Or the government might simply worry about being dependent on imported coal in case of a war. Or about maintaining the logistics of transporting the fuel.
And there are uses other than electricity where this might work better. This system already pumps both cold and hot air, so it would only need some valves and thermostats to give you a self powered air conditioning system. In a hot desert that is not nothing.
Likewise something like irrigation by pumping up ground water would be better fit than electricity generation. A farmer might be happier with spending time to build a thermal labyrinth than with spending money to buy coal or oil and intermittent and low density works fine for irrigation.
So the actual answer would be split. Utilize, yes. Replace coal, no.
answered Mar 25 at 8:02
Ville NiemiVille Niemi
37.5k262128
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
OTEC has never made a breakthrough because it's trying to extract energy from an extremely diffuse heat source with a very low temperature gradient. It might be possible with modern technology. With the lower efficiency of 1800s technology, there's not a chance it would work.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 20:16
$begingroup$
@Mark It has been possible since the beginning, competitive with coal (or oil or nuclear or solar or wind or...) not so much. The problem is not being able to produce energy, it is being able to produce energy cheap enough to be of any value. That is where the low gradient really hurts as it directly cuts down watts per dollar. But you are right about 1880s. First OTEC mentioned that produced energy was from 1930. So this would definitely be early 1900s option. Or probably, there is no mention of anyone trying before either.
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
Mar 26 at 6:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No. Coal works as power source because it is solar energy, concentrated, in a convenient form (rocks). Solar power is simply too disperse to be a power source to early, inefficient, steam machines
answered Mar 24 at 23:44
GeronimoGeronimo
1,406414
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
In steel smelting we still haven't managed to replace coal, and it will take a while until we can do so at scale. The technology is known for quite some time, yet at industrial scale, you can't beat coal respectively coke when it comes to steel production.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
Mar 25 at 16:47
5
$begingroup$
@DohnJoe: That's not just an energy thing as a chemistry thing. Steel is chiefly made from iron, but it contains a sizable amount of carbon from the coke. And the iron ore smelting needs to remove the oxygen from iron oxide, which is done by turning it into carbon oxide - again, with the carbon supplied by coal.
$endgroup$
– MSalters
Mar 25 at 16:51
1
$begingroup$
Yes, you can strip the oxygen from the iron ore using hydrogen, or provide the carbon by alternative sources, e.g. methane from natural gas. Yet, on industrial scale, coke is the dominant reduction agent. So, in the country the OP is building, steel, or the coal used for making steel, needs to be imported.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
Mar 25 at 16:56
1
$begingroup$
For iron you can use charcoal. You need a lot less if your energy production uses solar already. Also, it's a (slowly) renewable resource. An added benefit would be some resistance to rusting.
$endgroup$
– Nyos
Mar 25 at 18:30
$begingroup$
Wood burning locomotives prove it was done.
$endgroup$
– Brian Drummond
Mar 25 at 21:06
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
A Frenchman named Augustan Mouchot demonstrated solar powered steam engines in 1866.
Augustin Mouchot taught secondary school mathematics from 1852-1871, during which time he embarked on a series of experiments in the conversion of solar energy into useful work. His proof-of-concept designs were so successful that he obtained support from the French government to pursue the research full-time. His work was inspired and informed by that of Horace-Bénédict de Saussure (who had constructed the first successful solar oven in 1767) and Claude Pouillet (who invented the Pyrheliometer in 1838).
Augustin Mouchot’s Solar Concentrator at the Universal Exhibition in Paris, 1878. (source)
Mouchot worked on his most ambitious device in the sunny conditions of French Algeria and brought it back for demonstration at the Universal Exhibition in Paris of 1878. There he won the Gold Medal, impressing the judges with the production of ice from the power of the sun.
Sadly for the inventor, coal was and is far cheaper especially since it can be burned 24/7 for power when you need it.
answered Mar 26 at 2:47
ThucydidesThucydides
83.1k680252
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is another viable alternative for coal which was in use during the 19th Century which you've already confirmed exists within your question; rivers.
Many machines of this period were powered by water wheels. If they have rivers and an ocean, there is no need to reinvent the wheel by creating some sort of elaborate solar powered system. This would meet the second part of your question; replace coal in some other way.
answered Mar 26 at 11:43
Steve MatthewsSteve Matthews
43726
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Boat mills were common from the middle ages up until the end of the 19th century - lowtechmagazine.com/2010/11/…
$endgroup$
– Algy Taylor
Mar 26 at 14:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your people could use wood gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas
Wood gas is a syngas fuel which can be used as a fuel for furnaces,
stoves and vehicles in place of gasoline, diesel or other fuels.
During the production process biomass or other carbon-containing
materials are gasified within the oxygen-limited environment of a wood
gas generator to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide. These gases can
then be burnt as a fuel within an oxygen rich environment to produce
carbon dioxide, water and heat.
Your people would be using solar power (as per OP) because they would grow crops to use as feedstock for the gasifier - maybe canary grass or tamarisks or whatever hardy plant they can grow in the harsh lands where they live. Or maybe they have ag waste from whatever they grow as food. Or river weeds.
Wood gasifiers are actually quite omnivorous - wood is fine and so is grass, rubber, dung, dead fish or anything with carbon in it. Anything you can do with natural gas you can do with wood gas.
answered Mar 25 at 23:31
WillkWillk
125k30232524
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So should we be considering wind, water or bicycles/handcranks with this question? Wind is solar and humans and animals use chemical stores from possibly variable plants.
$endgroup$
– Echo61505
Mar 26 at 0:24
$begingroup$
@Echo62505 - I like your hand cranks scheme but you could spruce it up some. Possibly hip cranks, powered by pelvic motions? Post it and you have my vote!
$endgroup$
– Willk
Mar 26 at 0:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm not even going to try to compete with Chuck Ramirez's superbly researched answer, but nobody has yet mentioned the Stirling Engine which dates back to the early 1800s and was far more efficient than primitive steam turbines. It's also a perfect match to concentrated solar power: just use that to heat the "hot end".
The problems with tracking the sun using clockwork and cams mentioned in other answers would remain to be solved.
There was a company trying to develop Stirling engines mounted at the focus of parabolic dishes for direct generation of power (IIRC in the 1990s). There were problems getting the oil lubrication of the engine to work at all possible orientations, and then the whole concept got overtaken by solid-state solar panels. Although it might still be more efficient, area-for-area. Sterling engines can be over 40% efficient, a mirror better than 90%.
answered Mar 26 at 9:31
nigel222nigel222
8,9671226
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You already have some good ideas of things they could have used. Optics with big lens or mirror to boil water and connect steam engine to electric generator for example.
Modern solar power In terms of PhotoVoltaics (PV panels as we have on houses, camper vans et.c.) it would probably not have been possible as the photoelectric effect was understood just at start of 1900s. In fact in the very same famous paper that gave Einstein the Nobel prize.
answered Mar 25 at 22:44
mathreadlermathreadler
29827
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Solar panels use the photovoltaic effect (discovered in 1839) rather than the photoelectric effect (discovered in 1887). Still wouldn't work, because the materials for making a practical solar panel didn't become available until the 1950s.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 23:22
$begingroup$
@Mark Yep. We needed semiconductors. That is a better point.
$endgroup$
– mathreadler
Mar 26 at 11:16
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142249%2fcould-solar-power-be-utilized-and-substitute-coal-in-the-19th-century%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes, they could. You "just" need a large mirror to concentrate sunlight on a boiler to produce the steam. Power plants that use this principle are in use today: Ivanpah Solar Power Facility
The first problem you have is with economy. Burning coal is just way too cheap if you have it available, and it's much easier to get a few megawatts of heat out of burning coal than it is to get the same amount of heat from mirrors. Simply because you need about one square meter of mirror for each kilowatt of sunlight you want to collect, and the mirror needs to be continuously adjusted to the sun. A single man shoveling coal into an engine produces much, much more than just a single kilowatt of heat...
You can offset the economy problem by making coal hard-to-get in your country.
However, the second problem remains: Efficiency. Early steam engines were brutally inefficient, turning only 1% or 2% (Watt's optimized version!) of the heat into actual mechanical work. So, if you have a giant 10x10 m mirror ($100 m^2$), you only get 1 kW or 2 kW of usable power output. Anything that requires more energy than that quickly becomes infeasible to power with the many, enormous mirrors you need, which all require man-power to adjust to the sun continuously.
Of course, you can offset this by a) allowing close to modern steam turbines, and b) fancy clockworks that automagically adjust the mirrors. Nevertheless, it remains difficult to get the power from the power plants to where it's actually needed.
edited Mar 25 at 6:00
Peter Mortensen
24516
answered Mar 24 at 21:42
cmastercmaster
3,9521016
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation about solar power at night, lights, other power needs, storing power, and more has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Monica Cellio♦
Mar 26 at 2:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, they could. You "just" need a large mirror to concentrate sunlight on a boiler to produce the steam. Power plants that use this principle are in use today: Ivanpah Solar Power Facility
The first problem you have is with economy. Burning coal is just way too cheap if you have it available, and it's much easier to get a few megawatts of heat out of burning coal than it is to get the same amount of heat from mirrors. Simply because you need about one square meter of mirror for each kilowatt of sunlight you want to collect, and the mirror needs to be continuously adjusted to the sun. A single man shoveling coal into an engine produces much, much more than just a single kilowatt of heat...
You can offset the economy problem by making coal hard-to-get in your country.
However, the second problem remains: Efficiency. Early steam engines were brutally inefficient, turning only 1% or 2% (Watt's optimized version!) of the heat into actual mechanical work. So, if you have a giant 10x10 m mirror ($100 m^2$), you only get 1 kW or 2 kW of usable power output. Anything that requires more energy than that quickly becomes infeasible to power with the many, enormous mirrors you need, which all require man-power to adjust to the sun continuously.
Of course, you can offset this by a) allowing close to modern steam turbines, and b) fancy clockworks that automagically adjust the mirrors. Nevertheless, it remains difficult to get the power from the power plants to where it's actually needed.
edited Mar 25 at 6:00
Peter Mortensen
24516
answered Mar 24 at 21:42
cmastercmaster
3,9521016
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation about solar power at night, lights, other power needs, storing power, and more has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Monica Cellio♦
Mar 26 at 2:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, they could. You "just" need a large mirror to concentrate sunlight on a boiler to produce the steam. Power plants that use this principle are in use today: Ivanpah Solar Power Facility
The first problem you have is with economy. Burning coal is just way too cheap if you have it available, and it's much easier to get a few megawatts of heat out of burning coal than it is to get the same amount of heat from mirrors. Simply because you need about one square meter of mirror for each kilowatt of sunlight you want to collect, and the mirror needs to be continuously adjusted to the sun. A single man shoveling coal into an engine produces much, much more than just a single kilowatt of heat...
You can offset the economy problem by making coal hard-to-get in your country.
However, the second problem remains: Efficiency. Early steam engines were brutally inefficient, turning only 1% or 2% (Watt's optimized version!) of the heat into actual mechanical work. So, if you have a giant 10x10 m mirror ($100 m^2$), you only get 1 kW or 2 kW of usable power output. Anything that requires more energy than that quickly becomes infeasible to power with the many, enormous mirrors you need, which all require man-power to adjust to the sun continuously.
Of course, you can offset this by a) allowing close to modern steam turbines, and b) fancy clockworks that automagically adjust the mirrors. Nevertheless, it remains difficult to get the power from the power plants to where it's actually needed.
edited Mar 25 at 6:00
Peter Mortensen
24516
answered Mar 24 at 21:42
cmastercmaster
3,9521016
$endgroup$
Yes, they could. You "just" need a large mirror to concentrate sunlight on a boiler to produce the steam. Power plants that use this principle are in use today: Ivanpah Solar Power Facility
The first problem you have is with economy. Burning coal is just way too cheap if you have it available, and it's much easier to get a few megawatts of heat out of burning coal than it is to get the same amount of heat from mirrors. Simply because you need about one square meter of mirror for each kilowatt of sunlight you want to collect, and the mirror needs to be continuously adjusted to the sun. A single man shoveling coal into an engine produces much, much more than just a single kilowatt of heat...
You can offset the economy problem by making coal hard-to-get in your country.
However, the second problem remains: Efficiency. Early steam engines were brutally inefficient, turning only 1% or 2% (Watt's optimized version!) of the heat into actual mechanical work. So, if you have a giant 10x10 m mirror ($100 m^2$), you only get 1 kW or 2 kW of usable power output. Anything that requires more energy than that quickly becomes infeasible to power with the many, enormous mirrors you need, which all require man-power to adjust to the sun continuously.
Of course, you can offset this by a) allowing close to modern steam turbines, and b) fancy clockworks that automagically adjust the mirrors. Nevertheless, it remains difficult to get the power from the power plants to where it's actually needed.
edited Mar 25 at 6:00
Peter Mortensen
24516
answered Mar 24 at 21:42
cmastercmaster
3,9521016
edited Mar 25 at 6:00
Peter Mortensen
24516
edited Mar 25 at 6:00
Peter Mortensen
24516
edited Mar 25 at 6:00
Peter Mortensen
24516
24516
answered Mar 24 at 21:42
cmastercmaster
3,9521016
answered Mar 24 at 21:42
cmastercmaster
3,9521016
answered Mar 24 at 21:42
cmastercmaster
3,9521016
3,9521016
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation about solar power at night, lights, other power needs, storing power, and more has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Monica Cellio♦
Mar 26 at 2:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation about solar power at night, lights, other power needs, storing power, and more has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Monica Cellio♦
Mar 26 at 2:00
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation about solar power at night, lights, other power needs, storing power, and more has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Monica Cellio♦
Mar 26 at 2:00
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation about solar power at night, lights, other power needs, storing power, and more has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Monica Cellio♦
Mar 26 at 2:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If they have a lot of desert space, perhaps they could build solar updrift towers? It's basically a large area covered by a greenhouse roof and a high chimney in the middle. The energy output is proportional to the area times the chimney height.
They were invented in 1896, so they use only technology available at that time.
answered Mar 25 at 13:11
RobinRobin
2892
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Solar updraft towers were proposed in 1896 (and 1931, and the late 1400s, and probably many other times). In 1896, they could certainly build the tower, but the turbine to extract power from the air movement would need to wait until about the 1910s, when aerodynamic research started producing reasonably efficient propellers.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 20:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If they have a lot of desert space, perhaps they could build solar updrift towers? It's basically a large area covered by a greenhouse roof and a high chimney in the middle. The energy output is proportional to the area times the chimney height.
They were invented in 1896, so they use only technology available at that time.
answered Mar 25 at 13:11
RobinRobin
2892
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Solar updraft towers were proposed in 1896 (and 1931, and the late 1400s, and probably many other times). In 1896, they could certainly build the tower, but the turbine to extract power from the air movement would need to wait until about the 1910s, when aerodynamic research started producing reasonably efficient propellers.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 20:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If they have a lot of desert space, perhaps they could build solar updrift towers? It's basically a large area covered by a greenhouse roof and a high chimney in the middle. The energy output is proportional to the area times the chimney height.
They were invented in 1896, so they use only technology available at that time.
answered Mar 25 at 13:11
RobinRobin
2892
$endgroup$
If they have a lot of desert space, perhaps they could build solar updrift towers? It's basically a large area covered by a greenhouse roof and a high chimney in the middle. The energy output is proportional to the area times the chimney height.
They were invented in 1896, so they use only technology available at that time.
answered Mar 25 at 13:11
RobinRobin
2892
answered Mar 25 at 13:11
RobinRobin
2892
answered Mar 25 at 13:11
RobinRobin
2892
answered Mar 25 at 13:11
RobinRobin
2892
2892
1
$begingroup$
Solar updraft towers were proposed in 1896 (and 1931, and the late 1400s, and probably many other times). In 1896, they could certainly build the tower, but the turbine to extract power from the air movement would need to wait until about the 1910s, when aerodynamic research started producing reasonably efficient propellers.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 20:11
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Solar updraft towers were proposed in 1896 (and 1931, and the late 1400s, and probably many other times). In 1896, they could certainly build the tower, but the turbine to extract power from the air movement would need to wait until about the 1910s, when aerodynamic research started producing reasonably efficient propellers.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 20:11
1
1
$begingroup$
Solar updraft towers were proposed in 1896 (and 1931, and the late 1400s, and probably many other times). In 1896, they could certainly build the tower, but the turbine to extract power from the air movement would need to wait until about the 1910s, when aerodynamic research started producing reasonably efficient propellers.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 20:11
$begingroup$
Solar updraft towers were proposed in 1896 (and 1931, and the late 1400s, and probably many other times). In 1896, they could certainly build the tower, but the turbine to extract power from the air movement would need to wait until about the 1910s, when aerodynamic research started producing reasonably efficient propellers.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 20:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Egypt 1912
It actually happened:
Shuman built the world’s first solar thermal power station in Maadi, Egypt (1912-1913). Shuman’s plant used parabolic troughs to power a 60-70 horsepower engine that pumped 6,000 gallons of water per minute from the Nile River to adjacent cotton fields. His system included a number of technological improvements, including absorption plates with dual panes separated by a one-inch air space. Although the outbreak of World War I and the discovery of cheap oil in the 1930s discouraged the advancement of solar energy, Shuman’s vision and basic design were resurrected in the 1970s with a new wave of interest in solar thermal energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Shuman
answered Mar 25 at 21:49
Chuck RamirezChuck Ramirez
4409
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'd upvote this ten times if I could!
$endgroup$
– nigel222
Mar 26 at 9:16
$begingroup$
They tried that setup again in the early noughties, it has the advantage of simplicity but there are better options now.
$endgroup$
– Separatrix
Mar 26 at 10:04
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Egypt 1912
It actually happened:
Shuman built the world’s first solar thermal power station in Maadi, Egypt (1912-1913). Shuman’s plant used parabolic troughs to power a 60-70 horsepower engine that pumped 6,000 gallons of water per minute from the Nile River to adjacent cotton fields. His system included a number of technological improvements, including absorption plates with dual panes separated by a one-inch air space. Although the outbreak of World War I and the discovery of cheap oil in the 1930s discouraged the advancement of solar energy, Shuman’s vision and basic design were resurrected in the 1970s with a new wave of interest in solar thermal energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Shuman
answered Mar 25 at 21:49
Chuck RamirezChuck Ramirez
4409
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'd upvote this ten times if I could!
$endgroup$
– nigel222
Mar 26 at 9:16
$begingroup$
They tried that setup again in the early noughties, it has the advantage of simplicity but there are better options now.
$endgroup$
– Separatrix
Mar 26 at 10:04
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Egypt 1912
It actually happened:
Shuman built the world’s first solar thermal power station in Maadi, Egypt (1912-1913). Shuman’s plant used parabolic troughs to power a 60-70 horsepower engine that pumped 6,000 gallons of water per minute from the Nile River to adjacent cotton fields. His system included a number of technological improvements, including absorption plates with dual panes separated by a one-inch air space. Although the outbreak of World War I and the discovery of cheap oil in the 1930s discouraged the advancement of solar energy, Shuman’s vision and basic design were resurrected in the 1970s with a new wave of interest in solar thermal energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Shuman
answered Mar 25 at 21:49
Chuck RamirezChuck Ramirez
4409
$endgroup$
Egypt 1912
It actually happened:
Shuman built the world’s first solar thermal power station in Maadi, Egypt (1912-1913). Shuman’s plant used parabolic troughs to power a 60-70 horsepower engine that pumped 6,000 gallons of water per minute from the Nile River to adjacent cotton fields. His system included a number of technological improvements, including absorption plates with dual panes separated by a one-inch air space. Although the outbreak of World War I and the discovery of cheap oil in the 1930s discouraged the advancement of solar energy, Shuman’s vision and basic design were resurrected in the 1970s with a new wave of interest in solar thermal energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Shuman
answered Mar 25 at 21:49
Chuck RamirezChuck Ramirez
4409
answered Mar 25 at 21:49
Chuck RamirezChuck Ramirez
4409
answered Mar 25 at 21:49
Chuck RamirezChuck Ramirez
4409
answered Mar 25 at 21:49
Chuck RamirezChuck Ramirez
4409
4409
$begingroup$
I'd upvote this ten times if I could!
$endgroup$
– nigel222
Mar 26 at 9:16
$begingroup$
They tried that setup again in the early noughties, it has the advantage of simplicity but there are better options now.
$endgroup$
– Separatrix
Mar 26 at 10:04
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'd upvote this ten times if I could!
$endgroup$
– nigel222
Mar 26 at 9:16
$begingroup$
They tried that setup again in the early noughties, it has the advantage of simplicity but there are better options now.
$endgroup$
– Separatrix
Mar 26 at 10:04
$begingroup$
I'd upvote this ten times if I could!
$endgroup$
– nigel222
Mar 26 at 9:16
$begingroup$
I'd upvote this ten times if I could!
$endgroup$
– nigel222
Mar 26 at 9:16
$begingroup$
They tried that setup again in the early noughties, it has the advantage of simplicity but there are better options now.
$endgroup$
– Separatrix
Mar 26 at 10:04
$begingroup$
They tried that setup again in the early noughties, it has the advantage of simplicity but there are better options now.
$endgroup$
– Separatrix
Mar 26 at 10:04
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can run a generator on an open-cycle hot air engine. This is a heat engine that gets energy from the expansion of air when it heats up.
The major issue is getting cold intake air. You can use a ground-coupled heat exchanger for that. Specifically a thermal labyrinth. The air is drawn thru a long path underground and cools in the process, basically.
Heating up the air is depressingly simple in a desert. Just have some some structure made of metal above ground where sun can shine on it and it can change heat with the local air. If you have mirrors you can focus the sunlight for much higher temperatures. Solar cooking ovens are a thing so the mirror and design wouldn't need to be that good. For a more serious design you can use a parabolic through.
For the viability of all this the best comparison is probably ocean thermal energy conversion.
The very good news is that the conception and early tests are pretty much in the desired time frame, so somebody coming up with the idea of adapting it to a desert would be viable. Thermal labyrinths are ancient technology and heat engines were largely invented during the 19th century, so that all works as well.
The good news is that OTEC has been tested and it does actually work, so the desert version would probably as well. How well is bit hard to say since the working fluids and many other details differ. The differences kind of balance out but you'd have to do actual numbers to know how well and that would require an actual design. Maybe an actual physical experiment at significant scale even.
The bad news is that OTEC never has made a breakthrough. It never really succeeded in competing with coal and oil. And the desert version would probably be more problematic. While this proposal basically uses the entire desert for capturing the solar energy and so solves some of the density problems of other types of solar power, it still cannot compete with coal on density and thermal labyrinth would be more upfront work than pumping up cold sea water as in OTEC. So the economic potential would be limited.
That said in this time frame cheap labor might be more accessible than imported fuels. Or the government might simply worry about being dependent on imported coal in case of a war. Or about maintaining the logistics of transporting the fuel.
And there are uses other than electricity where this might work better. This system already pumps both cold and hot air, so it would only need some valves and thermostats to give you a self powered air conditioning system. In a hot desert that is not nothing.
Likewise something like irrigation by pumping up ground water would be better fit than electricity generation. A farmer might be happier with spending time to build a thermal labyrinth than with spending money to buy coal or oil and intermittent and low density works fine for irrigation.
So the actual answer would be split. Utilize, yes. Replace coal, no.
answered Mar 25 at 8:02
Ville NiemiVille Niemi
37.5k262128
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
OTEC has never made a breakthrough because it's trying to extract energy from an extremely diffuse heat source with a very low temperature gradient. It might be possible with modern technology. With the lower efficiency of 1800s technology, there's not a chance it would work.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 20:16
$begingroup$
@Mark It has been possible since the beginning, competitive with coal (or oil or nuclear or solar or wind or...) not so much. The problem is not being able to produce energy, it is being able to produce energy cheap enough to be of any value. That is where the low gradient really hurts as it directly cuts down watts per dollar. But you are right about 1880s. First OTEC mentioned that produced energy was from 1930. So this would definitely be early 1900s option. Or probably, there is no mention of anyone trying before either.
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
Mar 26 at 6:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can run a generator on an open-cycle hot air engine. This is a heat engine that gets energy from the expansion of air when it heats up.
The major issue is getting cold intake air. You can use a ground-coupled heat exchanger for that. Specifically a thermal labyrinth. The air is drawn thru a long path underground and cools in the process, basically.
Heating up the air is depressingly simple in a desert. Just have some some structure made of metal above ground where sun can shine on it and it can change heat with the local air. If you have mirrors you can focus the sunlight for much higher temperatures. Solar cooking ovens are a thing so the mirror and design wouldn't need to be that good. For a more serious design you can use a parabolic through.
For the viability of all this the best comparison is probably ocean thermal energy conversion.
The very good news is that the conception and early tests are pretty much in the desired time frame, so somebody coming up with the idea of adapting it to a desert would be viable. Thermal labyrinths are ancient technology and heat engines were largely invented during the 19th century, so that all works as well.
The good news is that OTEC has been tested and it does actually work, so the desert version would probably as well. How well is bit hard to say since the working fluids and many other details differ. The differences kind of balance out but you'd have to do actual numbers to know how well and that would require an actual design. Maybe an actual physical experiment at significant scale even.
The bad news is that OTEC never has made a breakthrough. It never really succeeded in competing with coal and oil. And the desert version would probably be more problematic. While this proposal basically uses the entire desert for capturing the solar energy and so solves some of the density problems of other types of solar power, it still cannot compete with coal on density and thermal labyrinth would be more upfront work than pumping up cold sea water as in OTEC. So the economic potential would be limited.
That said in this time frame cheap labor might be more accessible than imported fuels. Or the government might simply worry about being dependent on imported coal in case of a war. Or about maintaining the logistics of transporting the fuel.
And there are uses other than electricity where this might work better. This system already pumps both cold and hot air, so it would only need some valves and thermostats to give you a self powered air conditioning system. In a hot desert that is not nothing.
Likewise something like irrigation by pumping up ground water would be better fit than electricity generation. A farmer might be happier with spending time to build a thermal labyrinth than with spending money to buy coal or oil and intermittent and low density works fine for irrigation.
So the actual answer would be split. Utilize, yes. Replace coal, no.
answered Mar 25 at 8:02
Ville NiemiVille Niemi
37.5k262128
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
OTEC has never made a breakthrough because it's trying to extract energy from an extremely diffuse heat source with a very low temperature gradient. It might be possible with modern technology. With the lower efficiency of 1800s technology, there's not a chance it would work.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 20:16
$begingroup$
@Mark It has been possible since the beginning, competitive with coal (or oil or nuclear or solar or wind or...) not so much. The problem is not being able to produce energy, it is being able to produce energy cheap enough to be of any value. That is where the low gradient really hurts as it directly cuts down watts per dollar. But you are right about 1880s. First OTEC mentioned that produced energy was from 1930. So this would definitely be early 1900s option. Or probably, there is no mention of anyone trying before either.
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
Mar 26 at 6:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can run a generator on an open-cycle hot air engine. This is a heat engine that gets energy from the expansion of air when it heats up.
The major issue is getting cold intake air. You can use a ground-coupled heat exchanger for that. Specifically a thermal labyrinth. The air is drawn thru a long path underground and cools in the process, basically.
Heating up the air is depressingly simple in a desert. Just have some some structure made of metal above ground where sun can shine on it and it can change heat with the local air. If you have mirrors you can focus the sunlight for much higher temperatures. Solar cooking ovens are a thing so the mirror and design wouldn't need to be that good. For a more serious design you can use a parabolic through.
For the viability of all this the best comparison is probably ocean thermal energy conversion.
The very good news is that the conception and early tests are pretty much in the desired time frame, so somebody coming up with the idea of adapting it to a desert would be viable. Thermal labyrinths are ancient technology and heat engines were largely invented during the 19th century, so that all works as well.
The good news is that OTEC has been tested and it does actually work, so the desert version would probably as well. How well is bit hard to say since the working fluids and many other details differ. The differences kind of balance out but you'd have to do actual numbers to know how well and that would require an actual design. Maybe an actual physical experiment at significant scale even.
The bad news is that OTEC never has made a breakthrough. It never really succeeded in competing with coal and oil. And the desert version would probably be more problematic. While this proposal basically uses the entire desert for capturing the solar energy and so solves some of the density problems of other types of solar power, it still cannot compete with coal on density and thermal labyrinth would be more upfront work than pumping up cold sea water as in OTEC. So the economic potential would be limited.
That said in this time frame cheap labor might be more accessible than imported fuels. Or the government might simply worry about being dependent on imported coal in case of a war. Or about maintaining the logistics of transporting the fuel.
And there are uses other than electricity where this might work better. This system already pumps both cold and hot air, so it would only need some valves and thermostats to give you a self powered air conditioning system. In a hot desert that is not nothing.
Likewise something like irrigation by pumping up ground water would be better fit than electricity generation. A farmer might be happier with spending time to build a thermal labyrinth than with spending money to buy coal or oil and intermittent and low density works fine for irrigation.
So the actual answer would be split. Utilize, yes. Replace coal, no.
answered Mar 25 at 8:02
Ville NiemiVille Niemi
37.5k262128
$endgroup$
You can run a generator on an open-cycle hot air engine. This is a heat engine that gets energy from the expansion of air when it heats up.
The major issue is getting cold intake air. You can use a ground-coupled heat exchanger for that. Specifically a thermal labyrinth. The air is drawn thru a long path underground and cools in the process, basically.
Heating up the air is depressingly simple in a desert. Just have some some structure made of metal above ground where sun can shine on it and it can change heat with the local air. If you have mirrors you can focus the sunlight for much higher temperatures. Solar cooking ovens are a thing so the mirror and design wouldn't need to be that good. For a more serious design you can use a parabolic through.
For the viability of all this the best comparison is probably ocean thermal energy conversion.
The very good news is that the conception and early tests are pretty much in the desired time frame, so somebody coming up with the idea of adapting it to a desert would be viable. Thermal labyrinths are ancient technology and heat engines were largely invented during the 19th century, so that all works as well.
The good news is that OTEC has been tested and it does actually work, so the desert version would probably as well. How well is bit hard to say since the working fluids and many other details differ. The differences kind of balance out but you'd have to do actual numbers to know how well and that would require an actual design. Maybe an actual physical experiment at significant scale even.
The bad news is that OTEC never has made a breakthrough. It never really succeeded in competing with coal and oil. And the desert version would probably be more problematic. While this proposal basically uses the entire desert for capturing the solar energy and so solves some of the density problems of other types of solar power, it still cannot compete with coal on density and thermal labyrinth would be more upfront work than pumping up cold sea water as in OTEC. So the economic potential would be limited.
That said in this time frame cheap labor might be more accessible than imported fuels. Or the government might simply worry about being dependent on imported coal in case of a war. Or about maintaining the logistics of transporting the fuel.
And there are uses other than electricity where this might work better. This system already pumps both cold and hot air, so it would only need some valves and thermostats to give you a self powered air conditioning system. In a hot desert that is not nothing.
Likewise something like irrigation by pumping up ground water would be better fit than electricity generation. A farmer might be happier with spending time to build a thermal labyrinth than with spending money to buy coal or oil and intermittent and low density works fine for irrigation.
So the actual answer would be split. Utilize, yes. Replace coal, no.
answered Mar 25 at 8:02
Ville NiemiVille Niemi
37.5k262128
edited Mar 25 at 8:32
answered Mar 25 at 8:02
Ville NiemiVille Niemi
37.5k262128
answered Mar 25 at 8:02
Ville NiemiVille Niemi
37.5k262128
answered Mar 25 at 8:02
Ville NiemiVille Niemi
37.5k262128
37.5k262128
1
$begingroup$
OTEC has never made a breakthrough because it's trying to extract energy from an extremely diffuse heat source with a very low temperature gradient. It might be possible with modern technology. With the lower efficiency of 1800s technology, there's not a chance it would work.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 20:16
$begingroup$
@Mark It has been possible since the beginning, competitive with coal (or oil or nuclear or solar or wind or...) not so much. The problem is not being able to produce energy, it is being able to produce energy cheap enough to be of any value. That is where the low gradient really hurts as it directly cuts down watts per dollar. But you are right about 1880s. First OTEC mentioned that produced energy was from 1930. So this would definitely be early 1900s option. Or probably, there is no mention of anyone trying before either.
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
Mar 26 at 6:57
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
OTEC has never made a breakthrough because it's trying to extract energy from an extremely diffuse heat source with a very low temperature gradient. It might be possible with modern technology. With the lower efficiency of 1800s technology, there's not a chance it would work.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 20:16
$begingroup$
@Mark It has been possible since the beginning, competitive with coal (or oil or nuclear or solar or wind or...) not so much. The problem is not being able to produce energy, it is being able to produce energy cheap enough to be of any value. That is where the low gradient really hurts as it directly cuts down watts per dollar. But you are right about 1880s. First OTEC mentioned that produced energy was from 1930. So this would definitely be early 1900s option. Or probably, there is no mention of anyone trying before either.
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
Mar 26 at 6:57
1
1
$begingroup$
OTEC has never made a breakthrough because it's trying to extract energy from an extremely diffuse heat source with a very low temperature gradient. It might be possible with modern technology. With the lower efficiency of 1800s technology, there's not a chance it would work.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 20:16
$begingroup$
OTEC has never made a breakthrough because it's trying to extract energy from an extremely diffuse heat source with a very low temperature gradient. It might be possible with modern technology. With the lower efficiency of 1800s technology, there's not a chance it would work.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 20:16
$begingroup$
@Mark It has been possible since the beginning, competitive with coal (or oil or nuclear or solar or wind or...) not so much. The problem is not being able to produce energy, it is being able to produce energy cheap enough to be of any value. That is where the low gradient really hurts as it directly cuts down watts per dollar. But you are right about 1880s. First OTEC mentioned that produced energy was from 1930. So this would definitely be early 1900s option. Or probably, there is no mention of anyone trying before either.
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
Mar 26 at 6:57
$begingroup$
@Mark It has been possible since the beginning, competitive with coal (or oil or nuclear or solar or wind or...) not so much. The problem is not being able to produce energy, it is being able to produce energy cheap enough to be of any value. That is where the low gradient really hurts as it directly cuts down watts per dollar. But you are right about 1880s. First OTEC mentioned that produced energy was from 1930. So this would definitely be early 1900s option. Or probably, there is no mention of anyone trying before either.
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
Mar 26 at 6:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No. Coal works as power source because it is solar energy, concentrated, in a convenient form (rocks). Solar power is simply too disperse to be a power source to early, inefficient, steam machines
answered Mar 24 at 23:44
GeronimoGeronimo
1,406414
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
In steel smelting we still haven't managed to replace coal, and it will take a while until we can do so at scale. The technology is known for quite some time, yet at industrial scale, you can't beat coal respectively coke when it comes to steel production.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
Mar 25 at 16:47
5
$begingroup$
@DohnJoe: That's not just an energy thing as a chemistry thing. Steel is chiefly made from iron, but it contains a sizable amount of carbon from the coke. And the iron ore smelting needs to remove the oxygen from iron oxide, which is done by turning it into carbon oxide - again, with the carbon supplied by coal.
$endgroup$
– MSalters
Mar 25 at 16:51
1
$begingroup$
Yes, you can strip the oxygen from the iron ore using hydrogen, or provide the carbon by alternative sources, e.g. methane from natural gas. Yet, on industrial scale, coke is the dominant reduction agent. So, in the country the OP is building, steel, or the coal used for making steel, needs to be imported.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
Mar 25 at 16:56
1
$begingroup$
For iron you can use charcoal. You need a lot less if your energy production uses solar already. Also, it's a (slowly) renewable resource. An added benefit would be some resistance to rusting.
$endgroup$
– Nyos
Mar 25 at 18:30
$begingroup$
Wood burning locomotives prove it was done.
$endgroup$
– Brian Drummond
Mar 25 at 21:06
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
No. Coal works as power source because it is solar energy, concentrated, in a convenient form (rocks). Solar power is simply too disperse to be a power source to early, inefficient, steam machines
answered Mar 24 at 23:44
GeronimoGeronimo
1,406414
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
In steel smelting we still haven't managed to replace coal, and it will take a while until we can do so at scale. The technology is known for quite some time, yet at industrial scale, you can't beat coal respectively coke when it comes to steel production.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
Mar 25 at 16:47
5
$begingroup$
@DohnJoe: That's not just an energy thing as a chemistry thing. Steel is chiefly made from iron, but it contains a sizable amount of carbon from the coke. And the iron ore smelting needs to remove the oxygen from iron oxide, which is done by turning it into carbon oxide - again, with the carbon supplied by coal.
$endgroup$
– MSalters
Mar 25 at 16:51
1
$begingroup$
Yes, you can strip the oxygen from the iron ore using hydrogen, or provide the carbon by alternative sources, e.g. methane from natural gas. Yet, on industrial scale, coke is the dominant reduction agent. So, in the country the OP is building, steel, or the coal used for making steel, needs to be imported.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
Mar 25 at 16:56
1
$begingroup$
For iron you can use charcoal. You need a lot less if your energy production uses solar already. Also, it's a (slowly) renewable resource. An added benefit would be some resistance to rusting.
$endgroup$
– Nyos
Mar 25 at 18:30
$begingroup$
Wood burning locomotives prove it was done.
$endgroup$
– Brian Drummond
Mar 25 at 21:06
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
No. Coal works as power source because it is solar energy, concentrated, in a convenient form (rocks). Solar power is simply too disperse to be a power source to early, inefficient, steam machines
answered Mar 24 at 23:44
GeronimoGeronimo
1,406414
$endgroup$
No. Coal works as power source because it is solar energy, concentrated, in a convenient form (rocks). Solar power is simply too disperse to be a power source to early, inefficient, steam machines
answered Mar 24 at 23:44
GeronimoGeronimo
1,406414
answered Mar 24 at 23:44
GeronimoGeronimo
1,406414
answered Mar 24 at 23:44
GeronimoGeronimo
1,406414
answered Mar 24 at 23:44
GeronimoGeronimo
1,406414
1,406414
$begingroup$
In steel smelting we still haven't managed to replace coal, and it will take a while until we can do so at scale. The technology is known for quite some time, yet at industrial scale, you can't beat coal respectively coke when it comes to steel production.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
Mar 25 at 16:47
5
$begingroup$
@DohnJoe: That's not just an energy thing as a chemistry thing. Steel is chiefly made from iron, but it contains a sizable amount of carbon from the coke. And the iron ore smelting needs to remove the oxygen from iron oxide, which is done by turning it into carbon oxide - again, with the carbon supplied by coal.
$endgroup$
– MSalters
Mar 25 at 16:51
1
$begingroup$
Yes, you can strip the oxygen from the iron ore using hydrogen, or provide the carbon by alternative sources, e.g. methane from natural gas. Yet, on industrial scale, coke is the dominant reduction agent. So, in the country the OP is building, steel, or the coal used for making steel, needs to be imported.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
Mar 25 at 16:56
1
$begingroup$
For iron you can use charcoal. You need a lot less if your energy production uses solar already. Also, it's a (slowly) renewable resource. An added benefit would be some resistance to rusting.
$endgroup$
– Nyos
Mar 25 at 18:30
$begingroup$
Wood burning locomotives prove it was done.
$endgroup$
– Brian Drummond
Mar 25 at 21:06
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
In steel smelting we still haven't managed to replace coal, and it will take a while until we can do so at scale. The technology is known for quite some time, yet at industrial scale, you can't beat coal respectively coke when it comes to steel production.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
Mar 25 at 16:47
5
$begingroup$
@DohnJoe: That's not just an energy thing as a chemistry thing. Steel is chiefly made from iron, but it contains a sizable amount of carbon from the coke. And the iron ore smelting needs to remove the oxygen from iron oxide, which is done by turning it into carbon oxide - again, with the carbon supplied by coal.
$endgroup$
– MSalters
Mar 25 at 16:51
1
$begingroup$
Yes, you can strip the oxygen from the iron ore using hydrogen, or provide the carbon by alternative sources, e.g. methane from natural gas. Yet, on industrial scale, coke is the dominant reduction agent. So, in the country the OP is building, steel, or the coal used for making steel, needs to be imported.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
Mar 25 at 16:56
1
$begingroup$
For iron you can use charcoal. You need a lot less if your energy production uses solar already. Also, it's a (slowly) renewable resource. An added benefit would be some resistance to rusting.
$endgroup$
– Nyos
Mar 25 at 18:30
$begingroup$
Wood burning locomotives prove it was done.
$endgroup$
– Brian Drummond
Mar 25 at 21:06
$begingroup$
In steel smelting we still haven't managed to replace coal, and it will take a while until we can do so at scale. The technology is known for quite some time, yet at industrial scale, you can't beat coal respectively coke when it comes to steel production.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
Mar 25 at 16:47
$begingroup$
In steel smelting we still haven't managed to replace coal, and it will take a while until we can do so at scale. The technology is known for quite some time, yet at industrial scale, you can't beat coal respectively coke when it comes to steel production.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
Mar 25 at 16:47
5
5
$begingroup$
@DohnJoe: That's not just an energy thing as a chemistry thing. Steel is chiefly made from iron, but it contains a sizable amount of carbon from the coke. And the iron ore smelting needs to remove the oxygen from iron oxide, which is done by turning it into carbon oxide - again, with the carbon supplied by coal.
$endgroup$
– MSalters
Mar 25 at 16:51
$begingroup$
@DohnJoe: That's not just an energy thing as a chemistry thing. Steel is chiefly made from iron, but it contains a sizable amount of carbon from the coke. And the iron ore smelting needs to remove the oxygen from iron oxide, which is done by turning it into carbon oxide - again, with the carbon supplied by coal.
$endgroup$
– MSalters
Mar 25 at 16:51
1
1
$begingroup$
Yes, you can strip the oxygen from the iron ore using hydrogen, or provide the carbon by alternative sources, e.g. methane from natural gas. Yet, on industrial scale, coke is the dominant reduction agent. So, in the country the OP is building, steel, or the coal used for making steel, needs to be imported.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
Mar 25 at 16:56
$begingroup$
Yes, you can strip the oxygen from the iron ore using hydrogen, or provide the carbon by alternative sources, e.g. methane from natural gas. Yet, on industrial scale, coke is the dominant reduction agent. So, in the country the OP is building, steel, or the coal used for making steel, needs to be imported.
$endgroup$
– Dohn Joe
Mar 25 at 16:56
1
1
$begingroup$
For iron you can use charcoal. You need a lot less if your energy production uses solar already. Also, it's a (slowly) renewable resource. An added benefit would be some resistance to rusting.
$endgroup$
– Nyos
Mar 25 at 18:30
$begingroup$
For iron you can use charcoal. You need a lot less if your energy production uses solar already. Also, it's a (slowly) renewable resource. An added benefit would be some resistance to rusting.
$endgroup$
– Nyos
Mar 25 at 18:30
$begingroup$
Wood burning locomotives prove it was done.
$endgroup$
– Brian Drummond
Mar 25 at 21:06
$begingroup$
Wood burning locomotives prove it was done.
$endgroup$
– Brian Drummond
Mar 25 at 21:06
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
A Frenchman named Augustan Mouchot demonstrated solar powered steam engines in 1866.
Augustin Mouchot taught secondary school mathematics from 1852-1871, during which time he embarked on a series of experiments in the conversion of solar energy into useful work. His proof-of-concept designs were so successful that he obtained support from the French government to pursue the research full-time. His work was inspired and informed by that of Horace-Bénédict de Saussure (who had constructed the first successful solar oven in 1767) and Claude Pouillet (who invented the Pyrheliometer in 1838).
Augustin Mouchot’s Solar Concentrator at the Universal Exhibition in Paris, 1878. (source)
Mouchot worked on his most ambitious device in the sunny conditions of French Algeria and brought it back for demonstration at the Universal Exhibition in Paris of 1878. There he won the Gold Medal, impressing the judges with the production of ice from the power of the sun.
Sadly for the inventor, coal was and is far cheaper especially since it can be burned 24/7 for power when you need it.
answered Mar 26 at 2:47
ThucydidesThucydides
83.1k680252
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A Frenchman named Augustan Mouchot demonstrated solar powered steam engines in 1866.
Augustin Mouchot taught secondary school mathematics from 1852-1871, during which time he embarked on a series of experiments in the conversion of solar energy into useful work. His proof-of-concept designs were so successful that he obtained support from the French government to pursue the research full-time. His work was inspired and informed by that of Horace-Bénédict de Saussure (who had constructed the first successful solar oven in 1767) and Claude Pouillet (who invented the Pyrheliometer in 1838).
Augustin Mouchot’s Solar Concentrator at the Universal Exhibition in Paris, 1878. (source)
Mouchot worked on his most ambitious device in the sunny conditions of French Algeria and brought it back for demonstration at the Universal Exhibition in Paris of 1878. There he won the Gold Medal, impressing the judges with the production of ice from the power of the sun.
Sadly for the inventor, coal was and is far cheaper especially since it can be burned 24/7 for power when you need it.
answered Mar 26 at 2:47
ThucydidesThucydides
83.1k680252
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A Frenchman named Augustan Mouchot demonstrated solar powered steam engines in 1866.
Augustin Mouchot taught secondary school mathematics from 1852-1871, during which time he embarked on a series of experiments in the conversion of solar energy into useful work. His proof-of-concept designs were so successful that he obtained support from the French government to pursue the research full-time. His work was inspired and informed by that of Horace-Bénédict de Saussure (who had constructed the first successful solar oven in 1767) and Claude Pouillet (who invented the Pyrheliometer in 1838).
Augustin Mouchot’s Solar Concentrator at the Universal Exhibition in Paris, 1878. (source)
Mouchot worked on his most ambitious device in the sunny conditions of French Algeria and brought it back for demonstration at the Universal Exhibition in Paris of 1878. There he won the Gold Medal, impressing the judges with the production of ice from the power of the sun.
Sadly for the inventor, coal was and is far cheaper especially since it can be burned 24/7 for power when you need it.
answered Mar 26 at 2:47
ThucydidesThucydides
83.1k680252
$endgroup$
A Frenchman named Augustan Mouchot demonstrated solar powered steam engines in 1866.
Augustin Mouchot taught secondary school mathematics from 1852-1871, during which time he embarked on a series of experiments in the conversion of solar energy into useful work. His proof-of-concept designs were so successful that he obtained support from the French government to pursue the research full-time. His work was inspired and informed by that of Horace-Bénédict de Saussure (who had constructed the first successful solar oven in 1767) and Claude Pouillet (who invented the Pyrheliometer in 1838).
Augustin Mouchot’s Solar Concentrator at the Universal Exhibition in Paris, 1878. (source)
Mouchot worked on his most ambitious device in the sunny conditions of French Algeria and brought it back for demonstration at the Universal Exhibition in Paris of 1878. There he won the Gold Medal, impressing the judges with the production of ice from the power of the sun.
Sadly for the inventor, coal was and is far cheaper especially since it can be burned 24/7 for power when you need it.
answered Mar 26 at 2:47
ThucydidesThucydides
83.1k680252
answered Mar 26 at 2:47
ThucydidesThucydides
83.1k680252
answered Mar 26 at 2:47
ThucydidesThucydides
83.1k680252
answered Mar 26 at 2:47
ThucydidesThucydides
83.1k680252
83.1k680252
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is another viable alternative for coal which was in use during the 19th Century which you've already confirmed exists within your question; rivers.
Many machines of this period were powered by water wheels. If they have rivers and an ocean, there is no need to reinvent the wheel by creating some sort of elaborate solar powered system. This would meet the second part of your question; replace coal in some other way.
answered Mar 26 at 11:43
Steve MatthewsSteve Matthews
43726
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Boat mills were common from the middle ages up until the end of the 19th century - lowtechmagazine.com/2010/11/…
$endgroup$
– Algy Taylor
Mar 26 at 14:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is another viable alternative for coal which was in use during the 19th Century which you've already confirmed exists within your question; rivers.
Many machines of this period were powered by water wheels. If they have rivers and an ocean, there is no need to reinvent the wheel by creating some sort of elaborate solar powered system. This would meet the second part of your question; replace coal in some other way.
answered Mar 26 at 11:43
Steve MatthewsSteve Matthews
43726
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Boat mills were common from the middle ages up until the end of the 19th century - lowtechmagazine.com/2010/11/…
$endgroup$
– Algy Taylor
Mar 26 at 14:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is another viable alternative for coal which was in use during the 19th Century which you've already confirmed exists within your question; rivers.
Many machines of this period were powered by water wheels. If they have rivers and an ocean, there is no need to reinvent the wheel by creating some sort of elaborate solar powered system. This would meet the second part of your question; replace coal in some other way.
answered Mar 26 at 11:43
Steve MatthewsSteve Matthews
43726
$endgroup$
There is another viable alternative for coal which was in use during the 19th Century which you've already confirmed exists within your question; rivers.
Many machines of this period were powered by water wheels. If they have rivers and an ocean, there is no need to reinvent the wheel by creating some sort of elaborate solar powered system. This would meet the second part of your question; replace coal in some other way.
answered Mar 26 at 11:43
Steve MatthewsSteve Matthews
43726
answered Mar 26 at 11:43
Steve MatthewsSteve Matthews
43726
answered Mar 26 at 11:43
Steve MatthewsSteve Matthews
43726
answered Mar 26 at 11:43
Steve MatthewsSteve Matthews
43726
43726
$begingroup$
Boat mills were common from the middle ages up until the end of the 19th century - lowtechmagazine.com/2010/11/…
$endgroup$
– Algy Taylor
Mar 26 at 14:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Boat mills were common from the middle ages up until the end of the 19th century - lowtechmagazine.com/2010/11/…
$endgroup$
– Algy Taylor
Mar 26 at 14:39
$begingroup$
Boat mills were common from the middle ages up until the end of the 19th century - lowtechmagazine.com/2010/11/…
$endgroup$
– Algy Taylor
Mar 26 at 14:39
$begingroup$
Boat mills were common from the middle ages up until the end of the 19th century - lowtechmagazine.com/2010/11/…
$endgroup$
– Algy Taylor
Mar 26 at 14:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your people could use wood gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas
Wood gas is a syngas fuel which can be used as a fuel for furnaces,
stoves and vehicles in place of gasoline, diesel or other fuels.
During the production process biomass or other carbon-containing
materials are gasified within the oxygen-limited environment of a wood
gas generator to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide. These gases can
then be burnt as a fuel within an oxygen rich environment to produce
carbon dioxide, water and heat.
Your people would be using solar power (as per OP) because they would grow crops to use as feedstock for the gasifier - maybe canary grass or tamarisks or whatever hardy plant they can grow in the harsh lands where they live. Or maybe they have ag waste from whatever they grow as food. Or river weeds.
Wood gasifiers are actually quite omnivorous - wood is fine and so is grass, rubber, dung, dead fish or anything with carbon in it. Anything you can do with natural gas you can do with wood gas.
answered Mar 25 at 23:31
WillkWillk
125k30232524
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So should we be considering wind, water or bicycles/handcranks with this question? Wind is solar and humans and animals use chemical stores from possibly variable plants.
$endgroup$
– Echo61505
Mar 26 at 0:24
$begingroup$
@Echo62505 - I like your hand cranks scheme but you could spruce it up some. Possibly hip cranks, powered by pelvic motions? Post it and you have my vote!
$endgroup$
– Willk
Mar 26 at 0:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your people could use wood gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas
Wood gas is a syngas fuel which can be used as a fuel for furnaces,
stoves and vehicles in place of gasoline, diesel or other fuels.
During the production process biomass or other carbon-containing
materials are gasified within the oxygen-limited environment of a wood
gas generator to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide. These gases can
then be burnt as a fuel within an oxygen rich environment to produce
carbon dioxide, water and heat.
Your people would be using solar power (as per OP) because they would grow crops to use as feedstock for the gasifier - maybe canary grass or tamarisks or whatever hardy plant they can grow in the harsh lands where they live. Or maybe they have ag waste from whatever they grow as food. Or river weeds.
Wood gasifiers are actually quite omnivorous - wood is fine and so is grass, rubber, dung, dead fish or anything with carbon in it. Anything you can do with natural gas you can do with wood gas.
answered Mar 25 at 23:31
WillkWillk
125k30232524
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So should we be considering wind, water or bicycles/handcranks with this question? Wind is solar and humans and animals use chemical stores from possibly variable plants.
$endgroup$
– Echo61505
Mar 26 at 0:24
$begingroup$
@Echo62505 - I like your hand cranks scheme but you could spruce it up some. Possibly hip cranks, powered by pelvic motions? Post it and you have my vote!
$endgroup$
– Willk
Mar 26 at 0:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your people could use wood gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas
Wood gas is a syngas fuel which can be used as a fuel for furnaces,
stoves and vehicles in place of gasoline, diesel or other fuels.
During the production process biomass or other carbon-containing
materials are gasified within the oxygen-limited environment of a wood
gas generator to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide. These gases can
then be burnt as a fuel within an oxygen rich environment to produce
carbon dioxide, water and heat.
Your people would be using solar power (as per OP) because they would grow crops to use as feedstock for the gasifier - maybe canary grass or tamarisks or whatever hardy plant they can grow in the harsh lands where they live. Or maybe they have ag waste from whatever they grow as food. Or river weeds.
Wood gasifiers are actually quite omnivorous - wood is fine and so is grass, rubber, dung, dead fish or anything with carbon in it. Anything you can do with natural gas you can do with wood gas.
answered Mar 25 at 23:31
WillkWillk
125k30232524
$endgroup$
Your people could use wood gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas
Wood gas is a syngas fuel which can be used as a fuel for furnaces,
stoves and vehicles in place of gasoline, diesel or other fuels.
During the production process biomass or other carbon-containing
materials are gasified within the oxygen-limited environment of a wood
gas generator to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide. These gases can
then be burnt as a fuel within an oxygen rich environment to produce
carbon dioxide, water and heat.
Your people would be using solar power (as per OP) because they would grow crops to use as feedstock for the gasifier - maybe canary grass or tamarisks or whatever hardy plant they can grow in the harsh lands where they live. Or maybe they have ag waste from whatever they grow as food. Or river weeds.
Wood gasifiers are actually quite omnivorous - wood is fine and so is grass, rubber, dung, dead fish or anything with carbon in it. Anything you can do with natural gas you can do with wood gas.
answered Mar 25 at 23:31
WillkWillk
125k30232524
answered Mar 25 at 23:31
WillkWillk
125k30232524
answered Mar 25 at 23:31
WillkWillk
125k30232524
answered Mar 25 at 23:31
WillkWillk
125k30232524
125k30232524
$begingroup$
So should we be considering wind, water or bicycles/handcranks with this question? Wind is solar and humans and animals use chemical stores from possibly variable plants.
$endgroup$
– Echo61505
Mar 26 at 0:24
$begingroup$
@Echo62505 - I like your hand cranks scheme but you could spruce it up some. Possibly hip cranks, powered by pelvic motions? Post it and you have my vote!
$endgroup$
– Willk
Mar 26 at 0:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So should we be considering wind, water or bicycles/handcranks with this question? Wind is solar and humans and animals use chemical stores from possibly variable plants.
$endgroup$
– Echo61505
Mar 26 at 0:24
$begingroup$
@Echo62505 - I like your hand cranks scheme but you could spruce it up some. Possibly hip cranks, powered by pelvic motions? Post it and you have my vote!
$endgroup$
– Willk
Mar 26 at 0:39
$begingroup$
So should we be considering wind, water or bicycles/handcranks with this question? Wind is solar and humans and animals use chemical stores from possibly variable plants.
$endgroup$
– Echo61505
Mar 26 at 0:24
$begingroup$
So should we be considering wind, water or bicycles/handcranks with this question? Wind is solar and humans and animals use chemical stores from possibly variable plants.
$endgroup$
– Echo61505
Mar 26 at 0:24
$begingroup$
@Echo62505 - I like your hand cranks scheme but you could spruce it up some. Possibly hip cranks, powered by pelvic motions? Post it and you have my vote!
$endgroup$
– Willk
Mar 26 at 0:39
$begingroup$
@Echo62505 - I like your hand cranks scheme but you could spruce it up some. Possibly hip cranks, powered by pelvic motions? Post it and you have my vote!
$endgroup$
– Willk
Mar 26 at 0:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm not even going to try to compete with Chuck Ramirez's superbly researched answer, but nobody has yet mentioned the Stirling Engine which dates back to the early 1800s and was far more efficient than primitive steam turbines. It's also a perfect match to concentrated solar power: just use that to heat the "hot end".
The problems with tracking the sun using clockwork and cams mentioned in other answers would remain to be solved.
There was a company trying to develop Stirling engines mounted at the focus of parabolic dishes for direct generation of power (IIRC in the 1990s). There were problems getting the oil lubrication of the engine to work at all possible orientations, and then the whole concept got overtaken by solid-state solar panels. Although it might still be more efficient, area-for-area. Sterling engines can be over 40% efficient, a mirror better than 90%.
answered Mar 26 at 9:31
nigel222nigel222
8,9671226
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm not even going to try to compete with Chuck Ramirez's superbly researched answer, but nobody has yet mentioned the Stirling Engine which dates back to the early 1800s and was far more efficient than primitive steam turbines. It's also a perfect match to concentrated solar power: just use that to heat the "hot end".
The problems with tracking the sun using clockwork and cams mentioned in other answers would remain to be solved.
There was a company trying to develop Stirling engines mounted at the focus of parabolic dishes for direct generation of power (IIRC in the 1990s). There were problems getting the oil lubrication of the engine to work at all possible orientations, and then the whole concept got overtaken by solid-state solar panels. Although it might still be more efficient, area-for-area. Sterling engines can be over 40% efficient, a mirror better than 90%.
answered Mar 26 at 9:31
nigel222nigel222
8,9671226
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm not even going to try to compete with Chuck Ramirez's superbly researched answer, but nobody has yet mentioned the Stirling Engine which dates back to the early 1800s and was far more efficient than primitive steam turbines. It's also a perfect match to concentrated solar power: just use that to heat the "hot end".
The problems with tracking the sun using clockwork and cams mentioned in other answers would remain to be solved.
There was a company trying to develop Stirling engines mounted at the focus of parabolic dishes for direct generation of power (IIRC in the 1990s). There were problems getting the oil lubrication of the engine to work at all possible orientations, and then the whole concept got overtaken by solid-state solar panels. Although it might still be more efficient, area-for-area. Sterling engines can be over 40% efficient, a mirror better than 90%.
answered Mar 26 at 9:31
nigel222nigel222
8,9671226
$endgroup$
I'm not even going to try to compete with Chuck Ramirez's superbly researched answer, but nobody has yet mentioned the Stirling Engine which dates back to the early 1800s and was far more efficient than primitive steam turbines. It's also a perfect match to concentrated solar power: just use that to heat the "hot end".
The problems with tracking the sun using clockwork and cams mentioned in other answers would remain to be solved.
There was a company trying to develop Stirling engines mounted at the focus of parabolic dishes for direct generation of power (IIRC in the 1990s). There were problems getting the oil lubrication of the engine to work at all possible orientations, and then the whole concept got overtaken by solid-state solar panels. Although it might still be more efficient, area-for-area. Sterling engines can be over 40% efficient, a mirror better than 90%.
answered Mar 26 at 9:31
nigel222nigel222
8,9671226
answered Mar 26 at 9:31
nigel222nigel222
8,9671226
answered Mar 26 at 9:31
nigel222nigel222
8,9671226
answered Mar 26 at 9:31
nigel222nigel222
8,9671226
8,9671226
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You already have some good ideas of things they could have used. Optics with big lens or mirror to boil water and connect steam engine to electric generator for example.
Modern solar power In terms of PhotoVoltaics (PV panels as we have on houses, camper vans et.c.) it would probably not have been possible as the photoelectric effect was understood just at start of 1900s. In fact in the very same famous paper that gave Einstein the Nobel prize.
answered Mar 25 at 22:44
mathreadlermathreadler
29827
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Solar panels use the photovoltaic effect (discovered in 1839) rather than the photoelectric effect (discovered in 1887). Still wouldn't work, because the materials for making a practical solar panel didn't become available until the 1950s.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 23:22
$begingroup$
@Mark Yep. We needed semiconductors. That is a better point.
$endgroup$
– mathreadler
Mar 26 at 11:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You already have some good ideas of things they could have used. Optics with big lens or mirror to boil water and connect steam engine to electric generator for example.
Modern solar power In terms of PhotoVoltaics (PV panels as we have on houses, camper vans et.c.) it would probably not have been possible as the photoelectric effect was understood just at start of 1900s. In fact in the very same famous paper that gave Einstein the Nobel prize.
answered Mar 25 at 22:44
mathreadlermathreadler
29827
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Solar panels use the photovoltaic effect (discovered in 1839) rather than the photoelectric effect (discovered in 1887). Still wouldn't work, because the materials for making a practical solar panel didn't become available until the 1950s.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 23:22
$begingroup$
@Mark Yep. We needed semiconductors. That is a better point.
$endgroup$
– mathreadler
Mar 26 at 11:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You already have some good ideas of things they could have used. Optics with big lens or mirror to boil water and connect steam engine to electric generator for example.
Modern solar power In terms of PhotoVoltaics (PV panels as we have on houses, camper vans et.c.) it would probably not have been possible as the photoelectric effect was understood just at start of 1900s. In fact in the very same famous paper that gave Einstein the Nobel prize.
answered Mar 25 at 22:44
mathreadlermathreadler
29827
$endgroup$
You already have some good ideas of things they could have used. Optics with big lens or mirror to boil water and connect steam engine to electric generator for example.
Modern solar power In terms of PhotoVoltaics (PV panels as we have on houses, camper vans et.c.) it would probably not have been possible as the photoelectric effect was understood just at start of 1900s. In fact in the very same famous paper that gave Einstein the Nobel prize.
answered Mar 25 at 22:44
mathreadlermathreadler
29827
answered Mar 25 at 22:44
mathreadlermathreadler
29827
answered Mar 25 at 22:44
mathreadlermathreadler
29827
answered Mar 25 at 22:44
mathreadlermathreadler
29827
29827
$begingroup$
Solar panels use the photovoltaic effect (discovered in 1839) rather than the photoelectric effect (discovered in 1887). Still wouldn't work, because the materials for making a practical solar panel didn't become available until the 1950s.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 23:22
$begingroup$
@Mark Yep. We needed semiconductors. That is a better point.
$endgroup$
– mathreadler
Mar 26 at 11:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Solar panels use the photovoltaic effect (discovered in 1839) rather than the photoelectric effect (discovered in 1887). Still wouldn't work, because the materials for making a practical solar panel didn't become available until the 1950s.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 23:22
$begingroup$
@Mark Yep. We needed semiconductors. That is a better point.
$endgroup$
– mathreadler
Mar 26 at 11:16
$begingroup$
Solar panels use the photovoltaic effect (discovered in 1839) rather than the photoelectric effect (discovered in 1887). Still wouldn't work, because the materials for making a practical solar panel didn't become available until the 1950s.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 23:22
$begingroup$
Solar panels use the photovoltaic effect (discovered in 1839) rather than the photoelectric effect (discovered in 1887). Still wouldn't work, because the materials for making a practical solar panel didn't become available until the 1950s.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 23:22
$begingroup$
@Mark Yep. We needed semiconductors. That is a better point.
$endgroup$
– mathreadler
Mar 26 at 11:16
$begingroup$
@Mark Yep. We needed semiconductors. That is a better point.
$endgroup$
– mathreadler
Mar 26 at 11:16
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142249%2fcould-solar-power-be-utilized-and-substitute-coal-in-the-19th-century%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
Not in the way you asked the question, absolutely not. If it wasn't done back then, it can't be done with 19th century technology, that would be a paradox. But I assume you dont mean literally 19th century technology but something else? Perhaps instead of asking this question, describe what you want to do first and then tell us the exact part, details are king here, that you are unsure about or don't know how to do.
$endgroup$
– Raditz_35
Mar 24 at 21:17
4
$begingroup$
"If it wasn't done back then, it can't be done" it might or it might not be possible, but this alone is not enough to decide. Many things are possible but aren't done because cheaper alternatives exist.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Mar 25 at 7:17
1
$begingroup$
@Eth By that logic, isn't basically all energy from the sun in some way? Your point is interesting on its own but is not salient or relevant to this question in any way...
$endgroup$
– only_pro
Mar 25 at 17:20
2
$begingroup$
@AlexP: The first battery was actually created in 1794, so 19th century people could have stored the solar power to use at night.
$endgroup$
– Keven M
Mar 25 at 18:32
1
$begingroup$
That's getting into grammar and English though, or maybe alien theory. Who's to say that alien races don't coincidentally call their star Sol also? Besides, in any translation dictionary between Earth language and Alien language, whatever the alien word it would still translate into Sun or Earth in human language. Isn't semantics fun? 😋
$endgroup$
– Keven M
Mar 26 at 14:05