English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

9 answers

From an environmental point of view it seems to me that spending the money on offsetting the carbon emitted by the power supplier might be a better option. I am thinking here of a scheme which has been promoted here in the UK
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7021250
The price quoted is £20 to offset 4 tonnes of carbon or approx $9.50 per tonne of carbon to offset.

If your power supplier used natural gas (Calorific Value 51.9MJ/kg, 75% carbon, generating efficiency 50%) you might get 5MWh for every tonne of carbon emitted.

The $10,000 spent on the solar panel would buy 2,000 tonnes of carbon offset on the BP scheme or 10,000 MWh of electricity from the supplier with carbon offset. The solar panels would take over 4,000 years at 2,250 kWh per year to catch up on carbon neutrality grounds.

2006-08-26 00:27:19 · answer #1 · answered by Robert A 5 · 1 0

I am not sure what your question mean...
A photovoltaic solar panel produces electrical energy from the Sun (both from the visible and invisible radiation.
"to make one"?
The making of solar panels is a lengthy and expensive process, so the answer is probably "no", since the total amount of energy spent to MAKE a solar panel is much less than the output energy of the solar panel.
However, the amount of energy spent to MAKE the panel is a one-off expenditure, while the panel will output little energy, but for a very long time. If the panel lasts long enough, the total energy output of the panel will definitely outway the amount of energy spent... in making it!

2006-08-25 22:58:25 · answer #2 · answered by just "JR" 7 · 1 0

A good question. I think so, but the manufacturing process is not cheap. I have a friend who has a solar power plant; it is rated at 1.8 kW, produces somewhere around 2250 kWh/year, and at typical retail would cost about $10,000 (installation extra). Various subsidies have reduced the cost basis significantly, but it is still rather expensive power.

2006-08-25 19:42:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I didn' t got what you were saying ,.,but what ever is ,.,the solar panel is very much expensive and also sensitive too, so that's why it is use very rare ,.,and it does not capable to make huge much energy

2006-08-25 19:42:05 · answer #4 · answered by RAMBO 3 · 0 0

Create Home Solar Power : http://Solar.eudko.com/?Uer

2017-04-01 12:40:42 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

solar is one of the best power. but panel is too costly in future we have no other option. in south india there are two solar based power plants.

2006-08-25 20:28:45 · answer #6 · answered by amu 1 · 0 0

Yes, of course. Otherwise they would never be produced.

Unfortunately, they still cost almost twice as much as energy from oil.

2006-08-25 19:44:51 · answer #7 · answered by yadayada 2 · 0 0

I think i cost much to produce more power.pls check
http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_solar.html

2006-08-29 12:47:09 · answer #8 · answered by Shahid 7 · 0 0

I feel dumb...

2006-08-25 19:40:13 · answer #9 · answered by Confused 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers