PV Gap

Carl Said:

What are three reasons why solar energy is not completely converted to chemical energy by primary consumers?

We Answered:

Primary consumers are herbivorous animals like deer, rabbit etc. They cannot convert solar energy directly into chemical energy.

If you are asking about the conversion taking place in plants, which are called as producers, major part of the solar energy is reflected back and not absorbed. Even then absorbed, some percentage is converted to heat and only the remaining is converted to chemical energy.

This is governed by the second law of thermodynamics. According to this law, no form of energy can be converted into some other form without loss. Or No energy conversion in universe is 100% efficient.

Dawn Said:

When solar energy is available in abundance why we rely on oil and other alternative?

We Answered:

Solar energy is (or was) very expensive, yes. That is changing. current costs versus long term power production are falling, however. At present, the cost is borderline.

However, solar energy alone is not a complete answer. First of all, for the production of electricity, it has some problems. The main one, of course, is tha tit doesn't work at night. You either need a storage system (batteries) or an alternative source when it's dark or cloudy.

There are alternatives which, combined with solar energy, can replace coal. Wind, existing hydroelectric systems, nuclear energy, and tidal power are some of them.

Myy point is, don't fall into thhe trap of fixating on a single all-encompassing cure-all technology. We need a mix of technologies. That's true today--we use coal, oil, nuclear, hydroelectric, and other sources--a mix of technologies to provide our energy needs. We need to change themix--eliminating fossil fuels and incorporating new technologies to replace those fossil fuels. There is no simple solution.

Now-as to oil--it is used primarily for transportation. In some ways it is ideal: its easy to store and the fuel stores the energy, whichis released when it's burned.

There are alternatives. The one I think the most practical is to use electric cars. Current technology makes electric cars with performance and adequate range possible at prices comparable to gas-powered cars (once they are produced in large numbers as gas-powered cars are). That's acutally a solved problem. What we do not have is a way of producing the electricity to power all those cars (without buring oil or coal, which defeats the purpose) at present. For that--go back to the first part of this post.

But we also do not have a practical infrastructure to deliver that electricity to a fleet of 150 millioncars (in the US). That is not a trivial problem. Think of what it takes to deliver a gallon of gas from an oil well to your car. Here's the sequence. Oil well to pipeline (hundreds of miles) to refinery to another pipeline to atanker truck to an gas storage tank under a gas station and then a pump to take the gas out o fthe tank and deliver it to your car.

And remember, you need tha tinfrastructure so comprehensive that it blankets an entire CONTINENT.

You will need the samme for electric cars (or any other alternative).

I don't mean to discourage you--this is doable. We DID do jsut that in the early 20th century to make our current system of gs-driven cars possible. But that took decades--and a hellava lot of engineering and research.

But--as to your question--we wil get solar power on a large scale in the foreseeable future. But we will need a lot more. It's a complex problem--and a big one.

Ricky Said:

Why solar energy is not widely used as alternative fuel to stop global warming?

We Answered:

it is because solar panels can't supply too much energy. right now, cars and other devices are needed to be powered by more efficient energy sources. solar panels are not quite efficient when huge energies are needed. so far, solar panels are used in devices that only requires small energy. besides, solar panels are expensive so it is not yet considered as the best alternative

Sidney Said:

why solar energy application is not widely used inspite of?

We Answered:

There is no advantage when it comes to meeting consumer need during higher demand times. Solar (i.e. photovoltaic-converters) can only 'supply' electrical power at the same rate that it can 'receive' solar/light power. As a power company, there's no economical way you can increase production to meet increased demand. Since it's 'simple' like that, there is the 'illusion' of an advantage. You as a consumer would have to find a way to store that electricity produced in the daytime, to get you through the night. Same way with wind turbines and the like. Unless you can make Mother Nature 'blow/shine/flow/whatever a little harder" so you can convert a little more power at-will, those applications will never completely replace present systems.

Contrast that to coal-fired plants, which can simply burn more fuel to produce more electricity, coal gets the real 'cost and simplicity' advantages. But we're talking about reduced carbon output so...

As for nuclear, modern plants do not have more 'risks' to operate than any other enterprise. Forget about Chernobyl, the Soviets and their Ukranian cohorts didn't know what they were doing in the first place; we in the West wouldn't even consider the same type of cooling material that they used. They used graphite, which is a flammable metal once you get it hot enough and that's what did them in (on top of bad safety and accident-prevention procedures). We use water, so the compounded risk of core meltdown is way lower. Our Navy has been nuclear-powered for years, with Zero accidents/incidents related to their power source. They're proof that the risks are quite manageable.

Nuclear plants increase electrical output by putting more fuel rods into play. That translates into more heat for their steam turbines, which then can spin more to produce more electricity as needed. It's because of all that is why nuclear is the only other viable carbon-reduced alternative.

Patricia Said:

Please!Tell me why solar energy is considered to be the poor-man's choice in electricity in Morocco?

We Answered:

I do not believe it is the poor-man's choice. I think it would be everyone's choice here if they could afford to purchase it.
It is becoming more and more common here (far more common than in the U.S. per capita in my opinion-not an official poll :-p ). Like Nomadic most people I encounter who don't have it want it. The wealthiest neighborhood in Agadir not a villa is without it. We live right in the center of Agadir in a building that is a bit tall by Agadir standard and I can see many of them on houses in the surrounding neighborhoods.
The units that are most common and can be used on a house or villa up to 350 square meters costs about $1000 with installation. I think that is a pretty good price compared to USA (correct me if I am wrong).
We don't use one for our apartment because it is a co-op building and our association doesn't want the roof looking like the typical Moroccan roof top full off dozens of dishes (there are 2 established for everyones use) or solar units. Personally, my husband and I would completely support it but that is another story.
We are not the poor man nor the rich man but we are having it installed on the beach house, (there isn't electricity ran out there yet, lol) but we would of done it even if there was electricity run out there.
I have never noticed any government offices with it but I never really gave it any attention...I'll have to do that.
Government subsidies!?!?! Wouldn't that be nice.....oh a little dream world :-p It would be so great if everyone could use solar energy, I think here the poorest people are likely concerned with getting other things before they would purchase a solar power unit.