Solar Energy

Using low-end, i.e. cheap, solar panels, based on existing technology, how much energy can be generated by adding solar panels to the total length of the Alaskan Pipeline? And if possible, how does that compare with the energy of the oil being pumped through the pipe. Not sure what the light cycle is along the pipe.

Probably very little, it’s at such a high latitude. Anchorage gets way less than half the annual sunlight that LA does, for example:
http://www.solarpanelsplus.com/solar-insolation-levels/

The trans-Alaska pipeline is about 800 miles long. Let’s assume you could fit 1.5 metres wide of panels all along the pipeline, and the efficiency of these panels is 10% (First Solar CdTe are the cheapest, and 8-10% efficient modules. Silicon is more expensive but generally higher efficiency).

The surface area is 1.9 million square metres, which will receive an average of 4 million kWh/day at Anchorage levels of sunlight, or make 0.4 million kWh/day of electricity (ofc, lots more in summer than in winter!)

0.4 million kWh is the energy content of about 2,300 barrels of oil.

However, you must remember that here you’ve accounted for the efficiency of the solar panels but not the efficiency of the oil. If you burn the oil in a car engine, you’ll average 12-20% efficiency in general (and that’s not accounting for the energy needed to dig up, process & distribute the oil or make the solar panels). Assuming you’re using the oil to drive, it’s equivalent to about 10,000 barrels of oil per day, or 3.65m a year.

Is this technology being kept from the public ? why is the cost so high ? In a time of energy problems and environmental concerns ,it would seem that solar energy is the way to go . Solar energy seems to be used by someone who is rich enough not to be all that concerned about high utilities cost . Companies who are in that business, would make a lots more money with the increase in the number of homes using that technology. I am wondering if some out side forces are working to keep that technology out of the hands of the average consumers .
What Iam concerned about it the use of this technology where it makes sense to use it .In Texas we don’t have that much of a problem with snow .I think that solar power used along with what we get from the power grid would lower the cost of energy in times when it is put to greater use ,which is the summer time .
bob,this question is asked inorder to get input from others. If it is their opinion ,I want that too .It is not a matter of if they are lieing ,it is just of question of what they think . We,as Americans ,need to chill out a little bit . We all ,have been so worked up about politics in this country ,that it carry’s over to other parts of out lives ,if we are not careful . I thank you for your answer .

Hi!
It doesn,t have to be expensive to convert to green power. You can build a solar panel for less than 200$. The information in how to do is available on the net, (se my source). We all just should do something about it.

like wind-energy propellor things or solar panels for the house, or even for the workplace
Someone please tell me about them, don’t just answer Yes or No.

yes

All is takes is vacant waste land some place, and nobody will make good on the technology. We could produce a lot of electricity with it.

there are many thing to argue,,,,,,,,
cost
area
roof consideration and many more
but the main thing is that what is the effect on our environment,,,,, these are following

Lead & Sulphuric Acid

If you have an off grid residential solar power system then chances are pretty good that you have a bank of deep cycle, lead acid batteries.

Most solar power systems come with a substantial warranty on the solar panels – 20 to 25 years in some cases. The same, unfortunately, is not true of the battery bank that is necessary for an off grid system. Batteries will need to be replaced, on average, every 5 years, at considerable expense. (Expect to pay at least $100 USD per battery, and way up from there) The more batteries your bank consists of, the more money it’ll cost you. A diligent lead acid battery maintenance schedule will keep these costs as minimal as possible.

A lead acid battery’s contents of both lead and sulphuric acid are toxic to the environment’s air, soil and water and is highly poisonous to marine life. Improperly managed, these can lead to a serious environmental disadvantage of solar energy use

Also, lead has been found to be a seroius health risk to children. .

The good news is that 98% of the materials in dead lead batteries are recoverable when recycled.

The best defense for your pocketbook and for the environment is getting the longest life possible out of your batteries and then to retire them to a recyling facility at the end of their life. There are facilities in place to recycle batteries and some very successful methods to as much as triple your battery life.

Keeping your batteries in good health keeps them out of the landfill. Following some healthy battery tips will ensure that your batteries enjoy a long life full of… electrifying experiences.

Cadmium

Cadmium is a nasty substance that can have serious health impacts. Known to be a carcinogenic agent and worse. Used in some semi conductive applications (like solar cells) the cadmium poses no health risk while contained within the cell.

A highly carcinogenic substance that poses a variety of serious health risks depending on length and method of exposure (inhalation, ingestion or absorption).

Attention to appropriate disposal methods and access to disposal facilities will be necessary, when it comes time to dispose of these materials to prevent them from leaching into soil and ground waters. More about cadmium.

more about this…………
http://www.solarpowerathome.com/disadvantage-of-solar-energy.html

If you know of any books or articles on this specific topic could you let me know. Thanks!

Though I’m just passing through and am merely going to comment, the World Wars actually helped speed up and expand technological innovation. I mean the reason why Einstein and many other scientists were busily trying to build a nuclear bomb was because they wanted to get it done before the Germans did. Advancements in aircraft, sensors and everything similar was to put one group above another group.

Hi if anyone was is a solar expert of some sort, can you please help me and answer my interview questions? Its for a project and I need to interview someone with some sort of general knowledge of Solar power and technology

My Questions are:

Q1. What is it like working and putting together Solar equipment for people who are starting to go “green” and looking to save some money?

Q2.What are some of the benefits when working with a Solar company?

Q3.Are there any dangers when working with Solar equipment?

Q4. Do you think most of America will switch from Grid-tied energy and go to more eco-friendly solar power by the next decade?

Q5. What are your thoughts on solar energy and the effect it has on global warming?

Q6. Do you currently own any solar equipment of your own?

Q7. How often do you go out and set up solar equipment for other customers?

Q8. Do you like working with a solar company? What do you like about it?

Q9. How much money does solar power save you?

Q10. What are other benefits can you gain from using solar energy?

I’m not what you’re looking for, but maybe I can help a little? I’m doing a physics Masters in cadmium telluride solar cells. I work with a group of research scientists.

Q1: I don’t make panels for people. We build small ones in labs using different techniques and then test them to try and work out how to make them more efficient, so companies can help people ‘go green’ more cheaply later on :p the physics is very interesting & challenging though.

Q2: I work in a university, so I’m still a student. That’s fun!

Q3: Most solar equipment has very little danger, but we work with cadmium telluride, which is toxic. We have stringent safety procedures, although we only use tiny amounts (15g of the stuff coats about a square metre – the solar panels are very thin, about 5-thousandths of a millimetre).

Q4: No. It will take several decades; but I’m convinced that during the next decade some techs will become cost competitive in the US. We need to develop alternatives; porphyrin dye solar cells, copper-zinc-tin-sulphur cells or organics before we can provide countries worth of power.

Q5: It’s clean and can produce huge amounts of power without taking up much land like wind power does. You still need backup or energy storage, but it’s going to be very sensible in sunny places. I’ve calculated the heat flow changes and solar panels reduce global warming.

Q6: I have a solar charger for my phone and battery equipment that I was given as a gift & I use on camping etc. I wouldn’t buy any for a few years yet though: I live in northern England!

Q7: I don’t set it up for other people. I test cells pretty much every week though. With some periods of programming & writing in between.

Q8: I like being a student and researching something that other people haven’t done yet. The challenge of the unknown is great.

Q9: Zero, right now :p

Q10: Right now it’s too expensive, but in future it will be cheaper than grid power, and cleaner. Less air pollution = better health. Less global warming and insulation from price shocks when petrol and gas prices shoot up.

Only 80 billion(roughly 10% of the "Stimulus" bill) was spent on renewable energy. Nothing is being done to develop said technologies. More of the bill was spent on pork and earmarks than was spent on infrastructure and energy, two of our biggest needs. We can supply enough power to meet 100% of our needs through Solar energy. The technology is out there already. Why are we not doing this? Does this give an open window for a Republican to come in and propose better solutions for energy independence and clean energy?

ANYTHING with Obummer’s name on it is questionable.

Say we had a green president, green administration instead of the current one, and they had taken half a trillion dollars and put it into solar.

Say every building had its own independent energy supply that would protect us when a terrorist attack happens as a result of mass murder for oil / cash. How many energy systems would that money have covered?

Say every new car was being built with solar technology…not hydrogen or other fuel resulting in daily costs to every citizen that would go to the wealthy stockholders instead of gas costs currently going to wealthy stockholders). How many cars do you suppose that money would have built, and how much more developed would the technology be by now?
hyspeed_games: That wasn’t my question. I asked, "How developed would solar technology be by now?"

First we have a planet, then we have sexist-free forums.

Hi,

Good question..

and YES it would be highly developed with all the money pumped into it.. unfortunately.. Bush and his cronies would not make money out of solar the way they make money out of oil.. so it was preferred to invade Iraq , concoct a load of lies.. and try steal its oil.. than actually develop your own technology to solve your own self made problems.. and lets face it.. Iraq has nothing to do with the fact Americans are the greediest over-consumers of rubbish on this planet.. but sadly.. they paid the price for it.. because they got the oil Americans need to produce more junk..

Its our most abundant resource and it creates life instead of destroying it.
Big Oil and Big Coal were at one point VERY EXPENSIVE and then lowered in price when it became common and popular. Yet the pollution from both is at the very least bad for mankinds lives.
PVC cells come from Silicon which is the 2nd most prevalent resource on earth. The technology is NOT NEW. Its actually over 40 years old.
It can be put literally anywhere as it has nothing to do with temperature.
Sunlight is sunlight.
Many countries where there is less sun do not need solar PVC energy. Iceland where it is dark 3 months out of the year depend on geothermal and hydroelectric energy to power 100% of the country.
Hydroelectric,Wind,Nuclear and Geothermal energy can provide all the energy the USA needs in the evening hours.
A solar PVC system 3 times the size of Rhode Island can power the entire USA during the day. This easily fits in empty areas of Utah,Arizona and Nevada.
And there is room for more !!
Batteries are not needed as I described. The power would go directly into the grid after conversion thru an inverter.
We already displace much more area thru refineries, coal plants, natural gas plants, oil platforms and oil fields than solar installations would take up. No pollutants would come from the installations that would need MINIMAL MAINTENANCE compared to oil and coal installations.
Even on cloudy days we still receive a massive amount of sunlight. We would not be taking anything like oil or coal as a resource. Over 95% of sunlight is already wasted.

You make an important point. The sun energy powers solar cells and drives the wind and waves.
A new solar power cell claimed an energy conversion efficiency of 42%, gasoline motors have a lower efficiency. Solar power cells can be placed on top of homes, deserts, carports, hangars, garages, etc. At the current price of oil they are already the most cost-effective -and the price of oil will continue to increase, thanks to our "friends and enemies."

MIT is developing a floating windmill which would allow thousands of huge windmills (each 5 MW) all over the oceans most too far to provide power with a cable.
To collect the energy they could use the electricity, and highly pure water, to make Hydrogen. The same ships that collect the hydrogen would bring the highly purified water.
These windmills are designed to survive storms but can be driven to other locations to avoid one or avoid bird routes.
Their total power capacity could, eventually, exceed that of oil and nuclear power combined.

Is solar energy technology considered to be in this category and also what is the history behind this new technology.

Examples of recycled building materials are:

Bricks cleaned up and re-used
Roof Tiles
Windows (sometimes if they have good thermal insulation)
All concrete and stone items are frequently ground up on site and then added to cement and sand mixes to replace aggegate (used as foundations)
Old floor boards can be sanded and polished up to be re-used.

Solar panels are usually manufactured from silicon based parts with plastic overlays etc. I have never heard of these materials coming from recycled building items. I guess that you might mount a solar panel on the roof of a house with old wooden beams from a roof or floor?

Solar panels have been known about for many years but their efficiency has been very poor and the cost of construction is so far greater than annual energy savings that they were generally not worth having. Over the last 5 years however there have been some major advances using exotic chemicals which allow solar panels to be just about viable in hot countries with most days having full sunshine. If the cost of manufacture continues to drop then they are going to become more and more viable..
If your idea of using recycled building materials becomes reality then this will help to spread the technology even further. At this moment I still can not see how to use recycled materials though.