
Donna asks…
Hi,
I want to install solar panels at home with 1-2 KW capacity. We get plenty of sunlight for 9 hours a day and have ample space for the panels. How much would it cost?
Would that be sufficient to five 500 KW per month? Our monthly consumption is around 1500 KW so to start with 500 is good enough.
Thanks in advance.
I live in India, and we get good amount of sun light from 9am to 6pm in summers and 10am to 5pm in winters.
Can you people also tell me how efficient are these solar panels? I mean if we put a 1KW panel in full sunlight for 5 hours, will it give 5KW energy or like if its 80% efficient will it give 4KW…
Thanks

If you average 9 hours per day of peak equivalent sunlight, and we assume that there are 30 days in a month,
9 h/day x 30 days x 1 kW = 270 kWh for a 1 kW array
and double that for a 2 kW array.
If you are in the US, do be aware that there is no state in the country that even comes close to 9 hours peak sunlight per day.
In Honolulu, due to high rebates and cost of electricity, you can get such a system put on at basically no cost, but you then pay the solar company for the electricity generated, at a rate that is generally lower than your normal bill. Or you can buy the system outright, and it will pay back in an average of 4 years.
As a reference, our house is in San Jose, California, and it takes 3 kW of panels to produce 500 kWh per month, about equal to our electricity usage.
With recent drops in panel prices, the cost of a system is now heavily influenced by installation cost. The best thing is to check with some local installers and get free quotes.

Charles asks…
I live in a tri-level home approximately 1400 square feet. I use around 3000 kwh a month and spend 400-500 a month on my electric (only) bill. I figure If Im going to be spending that much anyway, I might as well help the environment and get the tax credit. If you can give me the average cost to add the panels to my home, how many panels I may need, and the average cost savings on an electric bill I would truly appreciate it.

Go here first:
http://www.dsireusa.org/
They have state by state listings for renewable energy. Then contact your local electric provider and ask them who is licensed by them to do solar installs. You cannot legally do a solar grid-tie yourself.
It’s a long term investment, but thin-film solar has come down to $ 1 a watt, so it’s much quicker to get a payback than it was 2 years ago.
You cannot run a/c on solar, it takes too much power. Your 400-500/month bill it probably from heating/cooling cost.
Going direct solar water heating will save you money very quick. Most places encourage it now.
Your utility should also have state sponsored energy conservation programs like energy audits and free or cheap added insulation that would help you cut your bill.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Tesla fans won’t like it, but at age 165, Edison is winning the current wars. I, for one, welcome our new direct current overlords.

William asks…
i was watching “fabulous life of..” on vh1 and it was showing how a lot of famous people are putting big dollars into hybrid cars, and solar panel for their homes to help the environment. and people like angelina jolie go to other counties to help out. well with our energy crisis in the world and here in the us, i wonder why celebs don’t buy wind turbines. iv heard people can purchase their own wind turbines to produce their own electricity and sometimes the electric company’s end up having to owe them money. if celebs/billionaires helped out the country by supplying some of these energy efficient wind turbines they could actually make money off of it and help with the energy crisis. sounds like a good idea huh..?

Why don’t you help it? You could turn lights off when you are not in the room, or re-use shopping bags or cut down shower time. Yet you can’t be bothered. Millionaires are just like you.

Mary asks…
Im not gonna be naive and think that every single architect is perfect and not greedy enough to go ahead with this plan but here it is. People are weak. They dont really care about the environment or about the future of the earth because what people want today is everything fast and soon. A consumer lifestyle cannot be eplaced just as easy as that so why not educate them by taking a lead?
With the states of the world creating new ways of allowing pollution to invade the planet and governments creating conditions which are completely curruptible and easy to manipulate in order to build irresponsibly why not create a country within a country?
Lets say me as a architect buy a large plot of land. By large I mean about 1000 hectare land. A plot of land with little vegetation and a small stream of water and some natural geological features. Now I commence to prepare the land. I start introducing indegenous vegetation from a national and microclimatic level. Re-introduce species which would thrive and were or are common of the area. But not just a little. A lot. And also in a intelligent way. Then I start building services. I include a natural rain water dam and allow the raining season to come and fill that up. I include a small waste treatment plant to allow to cater for all the future structures to be built. I include a solid waste compacting facility and a landfill to make some fertilizer from the future organic waste that will be produced. Thinking ahead Ill already be making money by selling the fertillizer and sell the compacted plastic and metal to recyler companies for plastic and metal to blast steel furnaces as well as glass to glass factories. I personally worked with people who deal with these comapnies. So from our waste wed have a bit of money coming in. In alternative energies Id include a total of 50 windmills and 200 solar panels or more. I understand it is a lot of money to get them all once but I dont need them all at once. I can buy a few to cater for a certain number of population but as the population increases so does the alternative energy. Id buy energy batteries large enough to be hooked to a small mini transformer station and wed have our energy problem solved. A pipeline will be supplied to every plot of land where future homes will be built and that leads to a reservoir where downfall from rain will be collect straight from the roof of future homes and into the reservoir. This reservoir will be our clean water supply where it will be treated and then reticulated to all the homes. There will be 3 water towers on the highest locations of the estate and the water from the reservoir will be pumped up every week and then reticulated to the homes via natural gravity. There will be also a network by the local authority but thats only a alternative in case of dire need. Same applies for electricity.
Now once that is done I start dividing the plots and here is the main part of the idea. I f you give way too much freedom to people they start doing mistakes and the complete opposite for good. So rules would have to be implemented in order to avoid that.
1 You are not allowed to change any vegetation on your plot or the common areas of the estate.
2 Absolutely no littering.
3 You are allowed to build your own residence or have it built by another architect or by us in such a way where it will not affect the vegetation on your space and that it is built to minimize waste of energy. Also in such a way where the rainwater from the roof will be directly transported to the rainwater pipeline.
4 Any vehicles or machinery which seemingly or by order of appearance are emitting large amounts of co2 due to engine failure or any other reason are not allowed within the estate and a fine will be issued in the case of such.
5 Fishing in the lake can be done on season and catch and realease only.
6 Pay your contribution for the upkeep of the solar panels water treatment plants etc etc.
You see all these rules came out of my head now and I also understand taht this will cost ridiculous amounts of money but i assure you it can all be done. Also the market targeted at first may be for those who are economically at ease but the main target is for normal guys with little money but with time green apartments for bachelors and small familes can be built and with properly educating people they may enjoy and be used to living more ecologically and more in balance with the world around them. But the most important thing is to have a adminstration that will not look the other way and have people build whatever thing they think they can build or else. Please give me tips or comments on this idea. I came up with this after I watched 2 films last night. Home. And The Experiment. The idea that the human being can automatically change from being a civillized being to some thoughtless animal struck me and it made feel desperate as a student architect and a man.
Id also like to listen to ideas. Thanks guys.

That’s awesome,you should do that whatever that is

Mark asks…
Liberals are so damn fake that I would rather be a toad than to be a Liberal. Lets be for real here there is no alternative energy out there that is 100% clean. Batteries are full of acid and you need to burn coal or use nuclear energy to produce electricity. Please don’t mention solar panels cause they are still in the developing stage and its going to take many years before we get one that works decent.
Meanwhile we do have a great alternative energy that produces very little CO2 and everyone is embracing it except the Liberals. You can’t just jump into electrical energy when it isn’t ready so something in between is perfect. With Natural Gas we can reduce pollution by more than half within a few years. Everyone is embracing it too and GE the one working with windmills and solar panels agrees with me. That is why they don’t want to work in America. ITS BECAUSE OF THE LIBERALS THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT.
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/07/general-electric-looks-for-clarity-on-energy-policy-from-congress-white-house/
General Electric, a leading producer of gas-turbines and wind power, wants Congress and the Obama administration to pass a clear energy policy that sets green standards while recognizing natural gas’ importance as a backbone to alternative energy plants, a leading GE executive said Thursday.
The company, which is headquartered in Fairfield, Conn., recently unveiled plans for a “FlexEfficiency” power plant pairs with wind and solar energy but relies on natural gas to ensure that power needs are met even when wind or sun conditions are poor for energy production.
Paul Browning, President and CEO of GE Thermal Products, spoke Thursday about the future of FlexEfficiency technology in the United States.
Paul Browning, president and CEO of GE Thermal Products, headquartered in Schenectady, N.Y., said at a meeting with reporters that the mix will allow for a record 61-percent fuel efficiency — meaning 61 percent of fuel burned is turned into useful energy. That’s 15 percentage points better than existing flexible, gas-fired power technology. He said in the past, plants have allowed either efficiency or flexibility, but never both at this level.
But he said it could be hard to attract investors to the technology in the United States, because the country lacks clear-cut laws that encourage clean energy use and allow companies to know whether they can recoup their investment after they buy into the efficient but initially expensive plants
He said the European 20-20-20 policy, which mandates the use of 20 percent alternative fuels, a 20 percent increase in energy efficiency and a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, creates a much better environment for the technology.
“That’s a very clear thing for a business like mine to plan around,” he said. “When you look at the U.S., where is the analog to that?”
“It’s hard for companies to make those long-term bets,” he said.
Browning also said GE’s new technology relies on natural gas, and the company wants to encourage a U.S. policy that recognizes the fuel’s importance to the future of alternative-energy plants.

Well most liberals i hear about don’t like nuclear power(i do frankly) but asside from that if it can be demonstrated that a form of power generation is less impactful on the environment i’ll support it. Ultimately though i think the form of energy we should use depends on the region you are talking about. Electricity is electricity weather you get it from natural gas, nuclear energy, solar, etc. The main questions are ones of side effects, efficiency, and availability, and output.

George asks…
Dear Mr Smith,
I am writing to you about the concerns I have over how environmentally friendly our school actually is. I understand and respect that great improvements have been made to this situation in recent years. However, I am confident that even so, greater changes are still achievable! In my opinion it will takes the entire school’s efforts to achieve the advances I have in my mind, yet with your help, and the school’s support, I think this would be a reachable milestone.
Firstly, the idea of making a school the centre of a child’s understanding of how to live an environmentally friendly life has always been a controversial topic. One reason for this is that schools run by the government also rely on the government’s money to build a positive educational atmosphere. And as I am sure you realise, making any building environmentally friendly can be an expensive process. Despite this, without question, a survey I carried out shows that the majority of parents look to send their children to a school which will succeed to build their character in a positive and educated manner, which includes their understanding of how to care for their environment, for both themselves and future generations.
Thus, it would be of great importance that the ways in which we choose to carry out reaching these milestones stands to be economically friendly, especially considering the current economic state of our country. Some would argue that this would not be possible and neither would it make sense to spend the government’s money on working towards such a target. However, a well known fact is that an environmentally friendly school costs up top 80% less to run. Meaning, in the long run it would pay for itself; something you could only imagine at the moment. This would be our main motive for reaching the standards we would be aiming to achieve.
Another opinion on the topic is that whilst involving all students with making decisions about how and why we should make these changes, the school would be enlightening the children’s future by giving them an insight on finances, political subjects and most importantly teamwork. Surely you agree? For instance, during the process we could encourage the children to figure ways of raising money. You could also run workshops at which the students are educated on the politics of the subject, the sciences involved and evidence of how it has worked for other schools.
This would easily help cover certain areas of the current curriculum which I am sure you realise is found to be bit of a bore by the students when taught in a typical classroom way. You would easily have parents telling you and your teachers about how their child has suddenly become so much more interested in what they are learning at school. And we all know that learning through what is found to be fun is a much more effective way to educate children.
Overall, I think that you can achieve being the head teacher of a school which is publically seen as a very environmentally friendly school. Through the development of wind turbines, solar panels and cells, and water collection you can educate the children in an interesting manner whilst teaching them to be motivated as a team. Finding ways to raise money would mean it would be seen as a more economically friendly scheme by not just the student’s parents but also the community in the whole. Now it is up to you to make decisions on how you will make your school a better place to be.
Yours sincerely,
Miss Bolton
Forgot to mention, this is an answer I have written for an English language exam question. So any opinions on how to improve it would be of great help as I am revising for an exam I have in about 3 weeks time.
Thanks.

Sounds perfect. Go ahead.

Ruth asks…
I’ve read some articles and from what I have understood it’s more of being an environmentally concerned country, which I question a lot most of the time for how American people go about their living everyday. But anyway, would it be possible that we Americans should start using solar energy, (from what I’ve read, they’re coming out with these affordable solar panels) and when time comes that that energy won’t be available, then that’s when we would resort to oil. etc.. things that aren’t really good for the environment. And plus too, what I don’t understand is, we don’t drill for the sake of environment, yet, the way most people here lives, there’s always plastics involved even in the very most minor things, clothings, furnitures (especially the plastic ones) and etc… are more like ‘quickie’ disposable ones.. and the sad thing is, not all towns and ctities participate in those recycling programs (with those giant blue bins).
I’m just a very ordinary person, trying to comprehend what’s goin on..so any meaningful answers, I appreciate very much!

Seriously. I have asked myself that question too: why not temporarily drill here in the U.S. To stimulate the economy again? Think about it: a lower cost of oil will mean a lower cost for EVERY American consumer.
But WAIT. NO. We can’t do that because the environmental wackos would rather save the salmon instead of the crippling U.S. Economy.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Daniel asks…

Solar panels absorb energy from the sun and then converts it to energy that you can use. Its obviously a renewable source, so its very good for the enviorment! Unfortunately theyre expensive and there arent many of them.

William asks…
I would like to do energy audits of homes and businesses and figure out how much energy they use and in what ways they could reduce energy output. Also I would like to install the things that I suggest, such as solar panels and solar water heaters, etc. I would like to work for myself. What kind of career would this be called and what kind of education would I have to get?

This would be called a low end, non-skilled job. People who do this work for solar panel dealers, and are typically trained on the job. It’s not much above minimum wage, and the only decent career path is in someday owning your own business.
For that, a business degree would suit you better than any tech degree.
An AS in electronics would prepare you for the job you described.
Did I mention that it’s a low end, low paid job, with not much future?

Richard asks…
im looking into the cost and benefit of having a solar panel system to aid my business. wondering if anyone out there can tell me basic information on how they work and how i would decide on what kind to buy, and where to buy them? any information or links to information would be much appreciated!! thank you very much!

You need to talk with people who are already knowledgable in the field, and in the business of designing systems for a specific set of location, conditions, applications, and goals. Government incentives make a big difference in evaluating choices. Those vary widely by country and even state within country.

Susan asks…
Here’s a link to Obama’s energy plan: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf
Here’s what I think:
Whilst I am sure Obama wants CLEAN, SAFE energy,
I am far from certain the people are going to get it.
There is no such thing as “safe nuclear power…”
Obama should offer incentives to industry so they develop handy, efficient alternative energy production and storage kits, using a wise combination of solar (especially for hot countries) (round cells / collectors embedded in roofs, walls… not panels) (note: solar work on day-light), wind (i.e. mini-turbines, with paddles, not blades), and water power (EG. water wheels fitted in mains pipes) – there is plenty of profit to be made selling these and the savings made by not investing in a new grid will more than cover incentive payments.
This way, domestic and business users will be self-sufficient and the USA will have Energy Security i.e. nobody will suffer power cuts
EG. during ice storms, flooding…
Investment in solar technology really needs to be stepped up hugely.
If we find the perfect way to a) create light b) use photons to generate electricity c) store that power – all our transport needs will be solved.
That energy source could also take us to Mars and beyond.
So instead of politicians concentrating on how to keep fossil-fuel suppliers in the money, and protecting that, whilst ignoring market needs, Obama should prepare the USA
(and the rest of the world)
for the new generation of transport which does not require the carrying of flammable / explosive fuel, which is very heavy…
(More FREE info. my website: http://www.the-alternative.org.uk Chapter 6:Energy / Alternative)
http://www.physorg.com/news111670954.html
E.F.Hutton: I strongly disagree with your answer. We do get electricity from light – that is how solar works.
And I repeat, nuclear power is NOT safe. “If the public knew the facts and if they were allowed to chose between nuclear power stations and candles, they would chose candles.”

I really disagree with the above poster. It’s always productive to search and try new methods to solving our problems. It’s how science works. We may invest a great deal of time and effort into a single promising approach only to have it fail in the end. But then we’d know more and can better prepare a new one.
My only complaint is that Obama seems determined for our renewable energy sources to be developed here. There are actually two very promising energy plans being done in the UK and Canada atm. One involves tides and the other man made tornadoes. It made not be made in America but good ideas are good ideas regardless of where they come from.
Fuels for cars do need to be reliable and rather set as they require massive amounts of infrastructure. But what the above poster fails at realizing is that what is needed is a better way to produce electricity. If we can do that in a cleaner fashion it’s much easier to make use of cars that can use existing and proven technology.

Michael asks…
I’m working on a small project where I can connect low voltage/watts equipment using an inverter connected directly to my solar panels. I know you can connect them directly to each other but what is the power ratio to run the inverter and its load….meaning. If i want to run a 100 watt 12V inverter, what solar panel(wattage/amps/voltage) do i need. How much amps/voltage do i need from the solar panels to make the inverter work, with and without load?

Normally it is not connected directly because the voltage and current output from the panel is fluctuating as it is entirely dependent on the sun’s rays.
So the solar panel is therefore connected via a “Charge Controller” to a 12V lead acid battery to charge it.
The battery is then connected to the inverter.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Plausible questions about fracking impacts that so far have not been publicly addressed