Need some simple information about solar energy and power. Do solar panels absorb the suns rays? What are the benefits of solar energy? And other basic information
10 points for best answer.
The panels absorb light from the sun, and convert directly into electricity. They are used in outer space, and remote locations on earth to generate power over long periods of time without maintenance. Anyplace else they are used, they are not cost effective.
To supply a small house with 3600 watts (when the weather is good and the sun shines) costs over $30,000. This isn't enough power to air condition a home or do much of anything else. (It will power 36 100 watt incandescent light bulbs … When the sun is shining and the weather good.)
If you lived up north where no a/c was needed, used propane to heat and run a refrigerator (yes you can refrigerate just using propane as the energy source), used LED lighting, had some deep discharge storage batteries, a back-up propane generator, notebook computer, etc. You might possibly be able to sort of get by with solar cells.
But cost effective? No. And being an engineering to tie it all together and keep running would be helpful.
1. How does it work?
2. What is the cost of this energy source? Daily, yearly? Individual? Home? State? Explain please…
3. Will it's cost be low enough for it to be accessible to everyone?
4. Will it cost more or less than the energy we have now?
5. How can this source be provided to others?
6. How would it effect transportation?
7. Can it work well with other forms of energy?
I just need these questions to be answered. I know it's a lot, but i'd really appriciate it if you could help.
Something you should think of to start with is what are you going to use it for? If it is backup electric power it is the cheapest thing going. It don't need to be connected to any power line and what if the power goes down. With a solar backup system you still have power when every one else is dark.
Do you buy a car because of cost? No you buy a car because you think you look cool driving it. Or maybe because it might help you pick up a girl friend or something. But not because it is lower cost then a motorcycle to run. Solar is the same way. You get it for what it is useful for not because it is cheaper.
So comparing solar to a new car.. New cars are kewl to drive and looks kewl in your drive way. Well it is cool to have solar panels on your house. Makes you look like your are richer and smarter then everyone else. So why do people buy cars being they are not cheap to have.
1. Too much info to place in yahoo answers. I have written over 60 pages on it on my web site and only touch the edge of what you are asking.
2. Again this question is too vage and would require hundreds of pages to answer. What state. Do you want to know cost by which town? Grid electric is higher priced then solar in some states.
3. When the fuel prices and taxes are placed on the current fuel yes solar power will low enough for everyone to afford because the other would cost more. And a lot of people don't care because they rent their home and would not want to buy the panels and haul them around from house to house. It will be the home owner who pays for them.
4. I answered this one above but solar energy will be less then buying other types of fuel because the cost of other fuel will go up. The price of solar will go up but not as fast as the other types.
5. You just go buy it if you want it. It is not something that is being hid from the public. I would be happy to sell you all the solar energy you want. What do you want?
6. Solar is not going to effect transportation much at all. You will run your car from hydrogen.
7. Solar, Wind and Hydro electric power is being used together all the time.
You are asking too much in one question to get good answers. Break it up a lot or just do a search on the internet and read everything you find. There is no 3 easy steps to anything in life and solar is a very very large item. There is more to it then just a light shining on a panel and your running you tv on it. It has limits as well.
You are welcome to check my profile and go to the site listed and read all you want. There are links there to take you to other sites for more information if you need more.
Where can I find information on solar energy?
You can find more information on solar energy for residential purposes here.
What you need to know about solar energyEngadgetThe Earth receives more energy from our sun in about one hour than humans consume in an entire year. That's why solar power was the second leading source of new energy last year, and why companies like Google and IKEA are now in the solar panel …and more »
LYONS, Colo. (AP) — The pristine snow piled high in the northern Colorado mountains is beginning to melt, and officials worry that under the wrong conditions, it could unleash another ugly torrent through towns and farms still scarred by last autumn’s floods.
After a wintry Mother’s Day storm, the snowpack is nearly 150 percent of the mid-May average on the slopes that feed the South Platte River, whose tributaries did some of the worst damage in the September floods.
A heat wave or rainstorm could suddenly accelerate the runoff and send water gushing into flood-damaged streambeds that might not be able to contain it, experts say.
So far, the long-term weather outlook isn’t definitive.
“Fifty-fifty, could be bad, could be good,” said Kevin Klein, director of the Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, which began planning for the runoff almost immediately after September’s flood.
Colorado’s spring runoff normally doesn’t cause floods, even though most of the state’s surface water is collected in a 2-month frenzy of melting snow, said Nolan Doesken, the state climatologist.
But some streambeds in northern Colorado are loaded with tons of sand and gravel swept down by the September floods, so they hold less water and are more likely to overflow, said Treste Huse, a National Weather Service hydrologist.
There’s also some evidence the water table remains high and the ground is still saturated in areas that flooded, experts said. That could send runoff rushing down canyons instead of soaking into the soil, and it could make hillsides more susceptible to landslides and rock fall.
The September floods killed nine people, and a 10th was killed during recovery operations. A storm backed into the mountains from the east and sat for days, pouring out rain that overwhelmed rivers far out on to the state’s eastern plains. Nearly 2,000 homes were damaged or destroyed; total damage was estimated at $2 billion.
It was described as a once-a-century flood or even a once-a-millennium flood, but Klein said researchers are still unsure about where it fits in climate history.
Cleanup and repairs were just getting underway when snow began to fall in the mountains.
In the shallow South Platte valley on the eastern plains, farmers are hoping the runoff doesn’t damage newly repaired irrigation systems.
Irrigation networks that watered as much as 470 square miles were damaged by the flood, said John Stulp, a water policy adviser to Gov. John Hickenlooper. Irrigation has been restored to all but about 30 square miles, Stulp said.
State highway officials have been racing to rebuild U.S. 36, a vital link between Lyons and Estes Park, a town at the entrance to Rocky Mountain National Park. The highway was heavily damaged by the flood. Crews hope to complete the blasting and initial paving by early June, said Amy Ford, a state transportation spokeswoman.
The early runoff is flowing down North St. Vrain Creek in Lyons, a quarry town in the foothills northwest of Denver that was hit hard by the flood. The St. Vrain River destroyed dozens of homes, a trailer park, two town bridges and sections of the only road in and out of the picturesque town of 1,600 framed by sandstone cliffs.
Sandbags line the front walk of Charles Stacy’s recently repaired house near the creek, but Stacy said he isn’t too concerned about the runoff and took the sandbags only because they were free.
“I don’t think it’s going to go,” he said, adding that most of his neighbors aren’t using sandbags.
Pamela Sichel rents a home on the other side of the creek, and although the flood carved away part of the backyard, she said she’s not really worried. The previous tenants cleared out after the house was swamped by the flood, but Sichel was undeterred.
“I thought the odds were in my favor after a 500-year-event,” she said.
Follow Dan Elliott at http://twitter.com/DanElliottAPReblogged 41 minutes ago from www.huffingtonpost.com
Recently, The Economist reported on the concept of floating nuclear power stations suggested by researchers from MIT, the University of Wisconsin, and private industry in a paper presented to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The idea is to locate nuclear reactors on floating platforms constructed similarly to ocean oil rigs and located in areas not subject to the real estate costs, local opposition, and other vulnerabilities of a land-side installation.
Many advantages were noted: the proven construction experience and cost efficiency of such projects built in existing shipyards; the reduction of land-side opposition and regulation; the ease of transport, mooring, maintenance, and access at sea; the transfer of generated power through cables on the ocean floor into the land-side grid; the submergence of the heat intensive core and availability of an infinite volume of passive cooling water requisite to the technology; the consequential diminished need for expensive 24-hour pumps; the purported safety advantage of such a structure in the face of extreme wind and wave, earthquake or tsunami; the ease of service, refueling, decommissioning, and disposal of the nuclear waste–although whether on shore or in the ocean was not made clear.
The Economist article indicated that this was not a new idea, having been previously proposed in the 1960s with a reactor installed on a surplus ship or, in the 1970s, with a plan to construct a 1,200 Megawatt nuclear plant on concrete barges located off the east coast of the United States. This project was scrapped as a result of local opposition, although a specific construction facility was built in Jacksonville, Florida, and never used.
The article goes on to report that, “Rosatom, the Russian state-controlled energy company, is already building a floating nuclear power station. This is the Akademik Lomonosov, a large barge carrying a pair of nuclear reactors capable of together generating up to 70 Megawatts–enough to power a small town. The vessel is due to be completed in 2016 and is said to be the first of many.” The article continues, “Some people believe that the project’s primary mission is to provide power for the expansion of Russia’s oil-and-gas industry in remote areas, including the Arctic.”
This proposal contains several of the usual assumptions about the ocean. First, the belief that because we relocate the potential problem offshore that somehow mitigates its impacts, justifies, decreases concern and regulation, and obviates all the legitimate questions about safety and controls and accidents that characterize the land-side questions about nuclear power. Second, the proposal implies that somehow an accident offshore will mitigate or dilute the consequences of radiation leaking into the air or the water, that by being on the ocean the distribution of health impacts will somehow differ or be less detrimental to human populations within the natural distribution areas, both local and worldwide. Third, that somehow our diminishing faith in complex engineering proposals in ever more critical and challenged conditions (a concern raised by failure after failure on land) will no longer prevent legitimate concerns about the safety of the nuclear industry everywhere. And fourth, that we should somehow accept the idea that such engineering applied without comparable testing, regulation, inspection, safety procedures, and enforceable accountability for clean-up and reparation of resultant disaster is not necessary for an installation at sea.
Even as our engineering becomes more sophisticated there is a parallel loss of faith in engineering based on public awareness of failures, fair or unfair. There is no doubt that we have benefited from such progress, and that technology applied to energy generation no longer based on fossil fuel consumption and its consequence is devoutly to be wished.
One can frequently look to insurance companies for actuarial analyses of new technologies. With regard to coastal flood insurance or offshore installations private premium costs are high for a reason. Companies and governments self-insure for a reason. Ask the residents of Fukushima, Japan, about the value of insurance or the reality of adequate reparation for property, employment, personal loss, and societal dislocation resulting from nuclear accident. If we make such choices, we must do so with the most protections, the highest standards, the highest probability of prevention, the most legitimate consideration of what happens when things go wrong.
Just because the proposal is located in the ocean, presumably out of sight, it must not be out of mind. The reviews and guarantees must be more strict, not less. There is much at stake, not just the health and safety of human life, but the health and safety of a natural system on which the whole earth depends.Reblogged 3 hours ago from www.huffingtonpost.com
According to Bloomberg News last week, crowdfunding solar could become a $5 billion investment vehicle in the next 5 years. This exciting development will connect people who want to invest their money responsibly with solar projects that need financing. SolarCity, the biggest U.S. solar power provider by market value, is getting into the space prReblogged 6 hours ago from www.renewableenergyworld.com
Yesterday the U.S. Department of Commerce announced that it would impose preliminary countervailing duties (CVD) on Chinese-manufactured solar modules in an effort to close the loophole that was created when it imposed initial tariffs on Chinese-manufactured solar cells back in 2012.Reblogged 7 hours ago from www.renewableenergyworld.com
First Published in 1994. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.Reblogged 8 hours ago from www.amazon.com