Generating Your Own Solar Energy, Is it worth the effort?

Question

Just need to get your opinion if it's worth the hassle setting a solar power generator at home? How do you compute how much money you can save? How do you determine if it's viable? Your detailed and meaningful answers will be very much appreciated.

Thanks

Answer 1

Solar power is not necessarily expensive.

You can actually build a working solar power system for under $200.

You can use this to power things like lights, laptops, TVs and basically anything you have in your home.  

Answer 2

Actually they have developed a photosynthetic chemical that you can simply add as an ingredient to whatever type of building material you are making, meaning the whole roof of your house, and your windows can be solar powered.  However, personally, I think using Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower technology, and updating the building materials for this century would be a lot more practical.  Tesla's wardenclyffe tower was build under the assumption that the world had no electricity.  Having calculated its electrical output, the Wardenclyffe tower, if activated, could generate roughly about 300 or so milirads per household.  I'm not an electrical engineer but I imagine that's not enough, or, it could be too much.

See, when messing with electricity, you have to have ultra precise numbers.  I have never studied or read too much about electrical engineering so I wouldn't know.  In the early days of electrical research, they were all about building big, and well "crank it!  crank it!  crank it!"  What ends up happening is that in the early 20th century, more stuff fried.  As technology progressed, and more things were made with small parts (like a computer for instance), the need for lower voltage output so as to not fry equipment became necessary not to mention environmental concerns.

Tesla's wardenclyffe tower, for safety reasons it sounds like, assuming I'm right, can not be activated.  It would fry every piece of electrical equipment on this planet.  In fact, that technology, could be used as a weapon.  If something like Tesla's wardenclyffe tower were to be activated, it would render the U.S.'s military equipment into little more than hunks of metal.  The planes would fall from the sky, and the ships would be dead in the water.

Electromagnetic pulse weapons are being researched in fact, by the U.S. military precisely for that reason; increasingly, the U.S. does not have a technological edge anymore, everybody, even the poorest "banana republic" has a "modern" army now.  The only way to have an edge, therefore, is with electromagnetic pulse weapons.  See though, Tesla's tower, situated in Long Island New York, operates under the same principles as electromagnetic pulse weapons.  At least, considering that everything is designed to run on wired electricity, and that the technology taps into the earth's magnetic field, if it was indeed activated it would send us all into the dark ages.

Frankly I think the U.S. government is extremely irresponsible for allowing that thing to have access to the public; there is no way to know, another genius like Tesla, hostile to this country, won't go in there, take notes and work on some megalomaniacal scheme or something because, I do not understand like an in deph expert in the field, but I do understand enough physics to tell you, that derelict electrical generator, or rather that thing which turns this whole planet into a generator, is dangerous.  Very dangerous in fact.

It was not dangerous when Tesla built it; because it was his intention, that everybody should have free electricity, from Manhattan, to the Himalayas because believe it or not, that generator can provide electric lighting even for the people in the Himalayas.

Also becuase it uses the earth's magnetic sphere, no environmental danger; one hundred percent clean, no waste of any kind, no dead fish, no dead salmon, in addition to the fact that it can generate greater energy than a nuclear power plant.  And its free.  Okay not completely free, just ultra cheap if everyone on the whole planet, every government had to contribute to the place's maintenance fee.  There would also have to be another one in Japan (yes, Japan).  One in New York, and another in Japan.

Why Japan?  It is almost, precisely, on the other side of the world, relative to New York.  Tesla chose New York, because it is situated in a spot of the globe where it can best tap into the earth's magnetic sphere.  Since Japan is roughly on the same latitude and longitude as New York, it stands to reason that is the other place to put the "spare."  My only problem with that is the earthquakes, not to mention the faultlines; it has been discovered, that places in the world near faultlines, literally have an upswelling of magnetic energy.  So what would that mean for the tower?  It would probably disrupt it.

Until we learn more about Tesla, and take his reasearch a little bit more seriously, even the stuff that seems sci-fi (which it isn't), we are likely to continue suffering unecessarily.  The truth is, Nicola Tesla, nearly a century ago, solved the problem of global warming, and energy, when he created Wardenclyffe tower.  It is easily more efficient than any method known today, be it solar, be it a traditional electrical power plant or coal driven plant, be it wind, or nuclear, its better than all of them for a host of reasons.

If I understood Tesla's logic correctly....  The United States, Russia in the far eastern syberian section on its border with China, Australia and Argentina, are all ideally situated to tap into the earth's magnetic field to provide electricity.  The other country also, is south Africa.  In short all places close to the poles.  You can't build on the pole itself because, in a way, the center of a magnetic field is sort of like the eye of a huricane; very little energy there.  Way up north, close to the poles, the whole reason you see the northern lights is because the electromagnetism up there is so strong it disrupts light waves, as well as doing something to solar radiation.

In my opinion though, I don't think solar energy is practica.  The sun is only up an average of 10 hours a day world wide, if you include the desert h***s.  In Norway I hear, you will not see the sun for weeks, same with Alaska and parts of Russia.  It makes more practical sense to use something that will not run out on us (like nuclear energy or petroleum), that is available 24/7 namely, the earth's magnetic field.  The earths magnetic field will last, according to scientists, billions of years into the future, even when the time comes when the sun will expand and consume the earth.

Tesla held the answer but, hey, leave it to an anglosphere neanderthal to never make it happen.

peace.

Answer 3

The hold system Is very expensive  if it represents a large part of your power. There is another expense that most do not consider. The mount should be engineered for winds of 100 mph. That might not be enough because it is a lot of surface area. To loose $10,000 of panels is rough. The pay out could be 20 years.

Answer 4

it all depends on the price of your power and amount of sunshine, but here is a simple formula.

The $/kilowatt installed for the solar system must be less than:

25 times the cost of your power in $/kw-hr.

SO: if your power is $.15/kw-hr, then you can't pay more than $3.75/Watt

at $.10/kw-hr, $2.5/Watt and $.30 then $7.5/watt

Answer 5

yes solar power is expensive to install. however with rising energy costs it will pay for its self in an average of 12 years after that its free energy. you have to look at the long term and decide what is best for you. How much will electricity cost in 5 years, in 10?

personally i think every household should install photovoltaic cells. however it depends on what you need

Answer 6

Solar hot water almost always pays back in about 4 years, if displacing electric hot water, if you live in a warm climate.

For solar electric, whether you will really save money varies widely by area.

The usual computation is to take the cost of the solar electric system (including panels, mounts, inverter, labor, tax, and fees - but minus tax breaks and incentives)  and assume that the cost will be spread over 25 years.  So if your system ends up costing you $25,000 net, that would be $1000 per year.  You would compare that with your electric bills for a year, and see if it's cheaper.

I've left some things out, such as the cost of money over time, the possible rising price of electricity relative to inflation, and the maintenance cost of replacing the inverter once during the system's lifetime, but the above is the general idea.

The best way to get an idea is to call several professional installers for free quotes.  They will generally run the analysis, and inform you as to how much you could save.  You can compare their answers with each other, and with common sense, and judge for yourself.  Don't rush into anything.