[TEMPLATE]Renewable Energy[/TEMPLATE]
[TEMPLATE]Equipment & Tools[/TEMPLATE]
[TEMPLATE]home improvement store[/TEMPLATE]
Alternative Energy Sources - Solar And Wind Power
Author: Taylor Michael
For many people a combination of solar and wind power will help them drastically cut, or eliminate completely, their utility bills.
Many people have the mistaken belief that installing wind turbines or solar panels will cost thousands of dollars and will be an ugly eyesore in their yards or on their roofs.
That is simply not the case anymore. The truth is that due to advances in the technology involved in converting solar power and wind power into electricity, panels and turbines are now smaller and more efficient than ever.
Wind turbines are probably a better choice for more people since more areas have a steady supply of wind than those that have a steady supply of sunny days.
You also have to keep in mind that even a sunny day will have night. That means no matter how much sun you get at least half of every day you won't be generating any electricity.
Anyone can easily and inexpensively build their own turbines or solar panels for just a few hundred dollars and several hours of time.
All the parts you need are readily available at any hardware or home improvement store. You can buy easy to follow plans at your local bookstore or online.
Millions of people worldwide are starting to take advantage of the energy efficiency of wind and solar power. They are recognizing that by providing their own energy they are freeing themselves from never ending price hikes and power outages due to storms.
The added benefit is the positive impact you will have on the environment by using less of the harmful fossil fuels and more of the green alternative energy sources.
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/diy-articles/alternative-energy-sources-solar-and-wind-power-1432761.html
About the Author
Learn how to make your own power at home using solar and wind energy to eliminate your energy bills now. Click Here to find out how
[TEMPLATE]amazon search[/TEMPLATE]
What are you the disadvantages and problems with wind, solor, and water energy sources?
I am writing a paper for my college writing class on an issue in the United States. I need different peoples perspectives.
That should say solar above.
I am writing a paper for my college writing class on an issue in the United States. I need different peoples perspectives.
What percentage of energy sources does the world use of each? coal, wind etc?
I need to make/find a graph on these 5 energy sources: Coal, Oil, Wind, Solar, and Nuclear
Does anyone have a link to the percentages or else a graph! please!
Would replacing all our fossil-energy sources with solar and wind power be practical?
All have some advantages and disadvantages.
Would it make sense to abandon all our current fossil fuel power sources and replace them with windmills and solar panels? Would we see a major decrease in CO2 levels as a result?
How many joules of energy are used per capita that are generated through non-wind sources?
The total residential usage of electricity per capita in the Fort Collins, CO area is approximately 3.5 mega Watt hours (http://www.larimer.org/compass/electricity_env_use.htm#Chart2). As of 2004, 2.35% of that electricity was being generated through wind energy.
How many joules of energy are used per capita that are generated through non-wind sources?
What is the share of renewable energy sources (wind, solar and hydropower) in the world’s energy supply?
OK so we have 3.5 Megawatt hours.
which is 3,500,000 watt*hours
1 watt-hour is 1 joule per second, times 3600 seconds, equals 3600 joules used.
Therefore 3.5 MW hours is 12,600,000,000 joules used
97.65 % of that is 12,303,900,000 joules used per capita of energy generated from non-wind sources
You could express your answer as 12,303,900 kilojoules,
or about 12,304 Megajoules
try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_consumption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Energy_consumption.png
.
34.5%
My personal opinion of each of these alternative energy is both positive and negative.
Solar power is something I personally would like to embrace, but because I do not own the building the I live in, there is no chance for me to utilize any form of solar energy other than what comes through the windows and grows my house plants. I have used solar for powering my field camps for over a decade, but those areas are miles from any other source of electricity and I only use it for powering a sat-phone, a computer, and a couple of light bulbs for the few hours of battery capacity that I recharge each day with the solar. My local electric utility gets less than1% of its electricity from solar, and obviously this only works during the day.
On a larger scale I think solar is going to grow, but will never be capable of supplying the full energy needs for my community. I’d like to see solar installed on every rooftop, but how realistic is that? At today’s costs that would run almost $40,000 per house, and we would still need the infrastructure for delivering other types of electricity during peak demand and during the night. I could afford the $40,000, but I know that 90% of the people in my community cannot afford that. Since my electric bill presently is only about $400 per year, I would NEVER recover the cost of installing solar unless I could sell the electricity it generates, and presently that is not possible due to government regulation. Contrary to popular belief, I expect the cost of solar to rise in the near future as a result of the relationship between solar manufacturing processes and the price of oil. Higher oil prices may possibly increase the cost of solar power equipment.
One of the issues I am constantly frustrated with about solar is that many solar and alternative energy proponents believe that it is somehow going to replace oil. It won’t and can’t. First of all, making solar panels is so expensive precisely because of the huge amounts of energy consumed in manufacturing. Estimates run between 4 and 20 years for energy recovery (not cost) or energy break-even for solar cells using today’s technology. Solar is currently market restricted due to lack of silicon in the grades needed to make solar cells. The solar industry competes with the computer chip industry for this high-priced commodity. Interestingly, several of the largest manufacturers of solar cells happen to be oil companies. Most large oil companies have already begun the transition to being energy companies that build and supply energy infrastructure, whether it be wind power, solar power, geothermal power, or biomass. The current popular political concept that taxing oil companies to generate money for alternative energy is good is very likely to seriously impede the growth of alternative energy rather than hasten it, as the oil companies have more capability in terms of engineering and resources to implement alternative energy than any other industry. In one case, an oil company is the largest contractor installing large-scale solar energy installations in existence in the United States.
http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=4260
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=shellsolar
http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/geothermal/
Wind power is something else I would be happy to embrace on a personal level, yet again, because I do not own a home, I can’t do this. My local utility generates 3% of my electric supply from wind. In an interesting example of my previous point, most of that wind energy comes from wind farms installed, built, and run by an oil company. I have seen instances where well-intentioned people have tried to install wind, and were denied permits due to neighbor complaints about the noise and visual impact. No one seems to like wind power if they can see it. My own community lives within sight of about a dozen offshore oil rigs that would make excellent platforms for generating wind energy, yet most of the very environmentally-minded members of my community are fighting hard to have those oil rigs destroyed (one of these oil rigs is now the home of a new wave-power generation laboratory). The environmental community seems to be schizophrenic on issues like this, where they support it as long as it doesn’t affect them in any way. No one seems to be willing to accept that there will have to be sacrifices in life-style and aesthetics in order to use alternative energy sources, especially wind.
Hydropower has long been controversial because it impacts very special environments such as rivers and canyons by flooding them, and has caused problems for many species of migrating fish. I’ve seen first hand the downstream impact in places like the Grand Canyon, where the upstream hydropower has changed the bank environment and changed habitats. The California population of migratory fish like salmon has almost been completly wiped out, down to 6% of levels 60 years ago, much of it by dam construction. http://www.calalive.org/news/newsletters/?p=37
I don’t know the answer. I tend to accept that because society wants to live the way we do, the price we have to pay for this is the temporary (in geologic time) damage to these environments. My own electric utility gets 8% of my power from hydroelectric. I don’t see solar as a replacement for hydroelectric because I don’t consider the desert environment that might end up covered with solar panels to be any less precious than that of places like Glenn Canyon, although many would disagree with me. I simply think that those who haven’t experienced the desert don’t understand what diversity of life there is in most deserts (the oldest organism in the word lives in a desert: http://www.ourwindowonnature.com/2007/05/06/the-oldest-living-tree-is-a-bush/
What I am saying, is that I still prefer hydroelectric power over solar, mostly because the economics are so much in favor of hydroelectric.
One energy source that is too often overlooked that has great potential to supply large amounts of energy is geothermal. Much of the US is now embracing local installation of geothermal heat pumps, which are a viable, affordable method of supplying energy to individual dwellings. These systems simply take advantage of the fact that the ground temperature a few feet below the surface tends to reflect average temperature about 6 months behind the current season, so in winter it is a source of heat, and in summer it can act as a heat sink for disposal of heat (air conditioning). These installations cost much less than solar or wind, and can supply just as much energy.
http://www.geoexchange.org/
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/
Other exciting geothermal applications that deserve more attention are small commercially sized plants that generate electricity from wells drilled only a few thousand feet deep. In places like Nevada, where there is a high geothermal gradient, it is possible to drill a well, install a small electrical power plant, and hook it up to the grid, generating carbon-free electricity. This technology was first developed back in the 1980′s and the only reason it is not used more is that electricity from competing sources is so cheap they have trouble making money with it.
Another type of geothermal that shows high potential is the utilization of depleted oil and gas wells for a similar application. The temperature at the bottom of most oil wells is often several hundred degrees, making it possible to generate steam either directly or indirectly using a geothermal loop. I think that this source of energy shows promise, unless it is killed by the anti-oil sentiment of today’s political rhetoric.
http://www.smu.edu/geothermal/
Meanwhile, my own assessment and opinion, as someone who is involved in the energy industry, is that the most realistic and most viable solution to reducing carbon-output from power generation is that we have to use natural gas. Unlike oil, natural gas supplies are likely to last us for up to a century before we begin to see depletion. Natural gas emits less carbon dioxide than any other hydrocarbon. As natural gas technology allows us to use LPG (liquefied gas) and CNG (compressed gas) as fuel for vehicles we can begin replacing gasoline with it. If used for power generation, the carbon dioxide generated could be reinjected into the same underground reservoirs that the methane (natural gas) comes from. My local bus company already burns CNG in most of its buses. My regional airport uses CNG to power most of its ground operations vehicles. My local electric company generates 48% of my electricity from natural gas. I’m looking forward to the day I can put a natural gas tank in my car, as many have already done in other countries. I powered a Volkswagen van with LPG 30 years ago. I would gladly spend a few thousand dollars to retrofit to natural gas, while I have no interest in either corn-ethanol or soy-biodiesel because both of these are already have huge negative impacts on both our environment (land use/deforestation) and food supply. Yet at present, it is still impractical because of the distance I would have to travel to fill up my tank. This is actually the only “alternative” energy I could actually use, as the others are all impossible for me to use because they allow me no control over the supply of my own energy. That is probably the most frustrating part of energy issues for most people.
No, it is not possible nor practical.
Reasons:
1. Solar only gives you power during the day, if the sun is out. The more cloud cover you have the less solar production you get.
2. Snow cover on solar panels stops all solar production. Dust and dirt on your solar panels reduces production.
3. Wind energy from windmills/wind farms depends on weather patterns for good production.
4. Wind and solar energy production can not match the load for energy use.
5. At current costs and values, if you do NOT have a subsidy, wind and solar project have a 20 – 30 year simple payback. Life of those projects is often less than 20 – 30 years thus the life cycle cost is a negative, not a positive.
According to NASA, Dr. Hathaway, we could be headed into a new Dalton Minimum. that would mean global cooling not global warming. If you believe in AGW, then you might want to start lobbying for MORE CO2, not less.
EDIT:
Solar Panel Ratings approx 100 W per sq yd
2.5 Million Mega watts = 2.5 x 10^10 sq yd of solar panels
2.5 x 10^10 sq yd = 3,097,600 sq mi
Now you generally rate thee panels at 80% for production. Standard system design offset. So you need to divide that number by 0.8
Solar Panel area = 3,872,000 sq miles
To get a constant generation of 2,500,000 mega watts, you will need to make this area still alrger allowing for weather dust snow etc.
So you have an area approximately 2,000 miles by 2,000 miles. covered 100% by solar collection panels. This does not leave much room in the lower 48 for farms, forests, cities, homes, rivers, lakes…
My source? I design and install these systems.