Could solar power be utilized and substitute coal in the 19th century?












14












$begingroup$


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.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    yesterday






  • 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
    yesterday








  • 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
    yesterday






  • 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
    11 hours ago
















14












$begingroup$


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.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    yesterday






  • 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
    yesterday








  • 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
    yesterday






  • 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
    11 hours ago














14












14








14


2



$begingroup$


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.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









Peter Mortensen

24116




24116










asked 2 days ago









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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    yesterday






  • 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
    yesterday








  • 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
    yesterday






  • 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
    11 hours ago














  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    yesterday






  • 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
    yesterday








  • 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
    yesterday






  • 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
    11 hours ago








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
2 days ago




$begingroup$
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
2 days ago




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
yesterday




$begingroup$
"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
yesterday




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
yesterday






$begingroup$
@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
yesterday






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
yesterday




$begingroup$
@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
yesterday




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
11 hours ago




$begingroup$
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
11 hours ago










10 Answers
10






active

oldest

votes


















37












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    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
    23 hours ago





















17












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Robin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$









  • 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
    yesterday



















9












$begingroup$

Egypt 1912



Frank Shuman's design



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






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Chuck Ramirez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I'd upvote this ten times if I could!
    $endgroup$
    – nigel222
    16 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    They tried that setup again in the early noughties, it has the advantage of simplicity but there are better options now.
    $endgroup$
    – Separatrix
    15 hours ago



















6












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 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
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @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
    18 hours ago





















4












$begingroup$

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






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    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
    yesterday






  • 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
    yesterday






  • 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
    yesterday






  • 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
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Wood burning locomotives prove it was done.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian Drummond
    yesterday



















3












$begingroup$

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).




enter image description here



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.




enter image description here



Sadly for the inventor, coal was and is far cheaper especially since it can be burned 24/7 for power when you need it.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    2












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Boat mills were common from the middle ages up until the end of the 19th century - lowtechmagazine.com/2010/11/…
      $endgroup$
      – Algy Taylor
      11 hours ago





















    1












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @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
      yesterday



















    0












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      @Mark Yep. We needed semiconductors. That is a better point.
      $endgroup$
      – mathreadler
      14 hours ago



















    0












    $begingroup$

    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%.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      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
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      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









      37












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        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
        23 hours ago


















      37












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        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
        23 hours ago
















      37












      37








      37





      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      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.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited yesterday









      Peter Mortensen

      24116




      24116










      answered 2 days ago









      cmastercmaster

      3,812916




      3,812916












      • $begingroup$
        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
        23 hours ago




















      • $begingroup$
        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
        23 hours ago


















      $begingroup$
      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
      23 hours ago






      $begingroup$
      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
      23 hours ago













      17












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Robin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$









      • 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
        yesterday
















      17












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Robin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$









      • 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
        yesterday














      17












      17








      17





      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Robin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$



      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.







      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Robin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer






      New contributor




      Robin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      answered yesterday









      RobinRobin

      2792




      2792




      New contributor




      Robin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Robin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Robin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.








      • 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
        yesterday














      • 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
        yesterday








      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
      yesterday




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday











      9












      $begingroup$

      Egypt 1912



      Frank Shuman's design



      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






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Chuck Ramirez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        I'd upvote this ten times if I could!
        $endgroup$
        – nigel222
        16 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        They tried that setup again in the early noughties, it has the advantage of simplicity but there are better options now.
        $endgroup$
        – Separatrix
        15 hours ago
















      9












      $begingroup$

      Egypt 1912



      Frank Shuman's design



      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






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Chuck Ramirez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        I'd upvote this ten times if I could!
        $endgroup$
        – nigel222
        16 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        They tried that setup again in the early noughties, it has the advantage of simplicity but there are better options now.
        $endgroup$
        – Separatrix
        15 hours ago














      9












      9








      9





      $begingroup$

      Egypt 1912



      Frank Shuman's design



      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






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Chuck Ramirez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$



      Egypt 1912



      Frank Shuman's design



      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







      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Chuck Ramirez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer






      New contributor




      Chuck Ramirez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      answered yesterday









      Chuck RamirezChuck Ramirez

      3015




      3015




      New contributor




      Chuck Ramirez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Chuck Ramirez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Chuck Ramirez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      • $begingroup$
        I'd upvote this ten times if I could!
        $endgroup$
        – nigel222
        16 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        They tried that setup again in the early noughties, it has the advantage of simplicity but there are better options now.
        $endgroup$
        – Separatrix
        15 hours ago


















      • $begingroup$
        I'd upvote this ten times if I could!
        $endgroup$
        – nigel222
        16 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        They tried that setup again in the early noughties, it has the advantage of simplicity but there are better options now.
        $endgroup$
        – Separatrix
        15 hours ago
















      $begingroup$
      I'd upvote this ten times if I could!
      $endgroup$
      – nigel222
      16 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      I'd upvote this ten times if I could!
      $endgroup$
      – nigel222
      16 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      They tried that setup again in the early noughties, it has the advantage of simplicity but there are better options now.
      $endgroup$
      – Separatrix
      15 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      They tried that setup again in the early noughties, it has the advantage of simplicity but there are better options now.
      $endgroup$
      – Separatrix
      15 hours ago











      6












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 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
        yesterday










      • $begingroup$
        @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
        18 hours ago


















      6












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 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
        yesterday










      • $begingroup$
        @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
        18 hours ago
















      6












      6








      6





      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      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.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited yesterday

























      answered yesterday









      Ville NiemiVille Niemi

      34.6k260119




      34.6k260119








      • 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
        yesterday










      • $begingroup$
        @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
        18 hours ago
















      • 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
        yesterday










      • $begingroup$
        @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
        18 hours ago










      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
      yesterday




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday












      $begingroup$
      @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
      18 hours ago






      $begingroup$
      @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
      18 hours ago













      4












      $begingroup$

      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






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        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
        yesterday






      • 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
        yesterday






      • 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
        yesterday






      • 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
        yesterday










      • $begingroup$
        Wood burning locomotives prove it was done.
        $endgroup$
        – Brian Drummond
        yesterday
















      4












      $begingroup$

      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






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        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
        yesterday






      • 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
        yesterday






      • 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
        yesterday






      • 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
        yesterday










      • $begingroup$
        Wood burning locomotives prove it was done.
        $endgroup$
        – Brian Drummond
        yesterday














      4












      4








      4





      $begingroup$

      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






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      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







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 2 days ago









      GeronimoGeronimo

      99439




      99439












      • $begingroup$
        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
        yesterday






      • 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
        yesterday






      • 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
        yesterday






      • 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
        yesterday










      • $begingroup$
        Wood burning locomotives prove it was done.
        $endgroup$
        – Brian Drummond
        yesterday


















      • $begingroup$
        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
        yesterday






      • 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
        yesterday






      • 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
        yesterday






      • 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
        yesterday










      • $begingroup$
        Wood burning locomotives prove it was done.
        $endgroup$
        – Brian Drummond
        yesterday
















      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday




      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
      yesterday




      $begingroup$
      @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
      yesterday




      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
      yesterday




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday




      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
      yesterday




      $begingroup$
      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
      yesterday












      $begingroup$
      Wood burning locomotives prove it was done.
      $endgroup$
      – Brian Drummond
      yesterday




      $begingroup$
      Wood burning locomotives prove it was done.
      $endgroup$
      – Brian Drummond
      yesterday











      3












      $begingroup$

      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).




      enter image description here



      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.




      enter image description here



      Sadly for the inventor, coal was and is far cheaper especially since it can be burned 24/7 for power when you need it.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        3












        $begingroup$

        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).




        enter image description here



        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.




        enter image description here



        Sadly for the inventor, coal was and is far cheaper especially since it can be burned 24/7 for power when you need it.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          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).




          enter image description here



          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.




          enter image description here



          Sadly for the inventor, coal was and is far cheaper especially since it can be burned 24/7 for power when you need it.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          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).




          enter image description here



          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.




          enter image description here



          Sadly for the inventor, coal was and is far cheaper especially since it can be burned 24/7 for power when you need it.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 23 hours ago









          ThucydidesThucydides

          82.4k679246




          82.4k679246























              2












              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Boat mills were common from the middle ages up until the end of the 19th century - lowtechmagazine.com/2010/11/…
                $endgroup$
                – Algy Taylor
                11 hours ago


















              2












              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Boat mills were common from the middle ages up until the end of the 19th century - lowtechmagazine.com/2010/11/…
                $endgroup$
                – Algy Taylor
                11 hours ago
















              2












              2








              2





              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              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.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 14 hours ago









              Steve MatthewsSteve Matthews

              1993




              1993












              • $begingroup$
                Boat mills were common from the middle ages up until the end of the 19th century - lowtechmagazine.com/2010/11/…
                $endgroup$
                – Algy Taylor
                11 hours ago




















              • $begingroup$
                Boat mills were common from the middle ages up until the end of the 19th century - lowtechmagazine.com/2010/11/…
                $endgroup$
                – Algy Taylor
                11 hours ago


















              $begingroup$
              Boat mills were common from the middle ages up until the end of the 19th century - lowtechmagazine.com/2010/11/…
              $endgroup$
              – Algy Taylor
              11 hours ago






              $begingroup$
              Boat mills were common from the middle ages up until the end of the 19th century - lowtechmagazine.com/2010/11/…
              $endgroup$
              – Algy Taylor
              11 hours ago













              1












              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                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
                yesterday










              • $begingroup$
                @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
                yesterday
















              1












              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                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
                yesterday










              • $begingroup$
                @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
                yesterday














              1












              1








              1





              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              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.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered yesterday









              WillkWillk

              115k27216479




              115k27216479












              • $begingroup$
                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
                yesterday










              • $begingroup$
                @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
                yesterday


















              • $begingroup$
                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
                yesterday










              • $begingroup$
                @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
                yesterday
















              $begingroup$
              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
              yesterday




              $begingroup$
              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
              yesterday












              $begingroup$
              @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
              yesterday




              $begingroup$
              @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
              yesterday











              0












              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                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
                yesterday












              • $begingroup$
                @Mark Yep. We needed semiconductors. That is a better point.
                $endgroup$
                – mathreadler
                14 hours ago
















              0












              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                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
                yesterday












              • $begingroup$
                @Mark Yep. We needed semiconductors. That is a better point.
                $endgroup$
                – mathreadler
                14 hours ago














              0












              0








              0





              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              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.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered yesterday









              mathreadlermathreadler

              28827




              28827












              • $begingroup$
                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
                yesterday












              • $begingroup$
                @Mark Yep. We needed semiconductors. That is a better point.
                $endgroup$
                – mathreadler
                14 hours ago


















              • $begingroup$
                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
                yesterday












              • $begingroup$
                @Mark Yep. We needed semiconductors. That is a better point.
                $endgroup$
                – mathreadler
                14 hours ago
















              $begingroup$
              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
              yesterday






              $begingroup$
              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
              yesterday














              $begingroup$
              @Mark Yep. We needed semiconductors. That is a better point.
              $endgroup$
              – mathreadler
              14 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              @Mark Yep. We needed semiconductors. That is a better point.
              $endgroup$
              – mathreadler
              14 hours ago











              0












              $begingroup$

              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%.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                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%.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  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%.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  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%.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 16 hours ago









                  nigel222nigel222

                  8,8411226




                  8,8411226






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      數位音樂下載

                      When can things happen in Etherscan, such as the picture below?

                      格利澤436b