Why solar energy application is not widely used inspite of?

Question

various cost advantages and simplicity?only nuclear energy which is risk prone is widely talked about?

Answer 1

It's very slow, and many parts of the world think the sun is just a rumor. Be a tough sell in Maine.

Answer 2

at this point in time solar panels are not as efficient as they need to be, and they are not as cost effective as they need to be. this is changing however and in the next few years when a couple more generations of solar panels have been developed, solar energy will become quite viable.

Answer 3

One reason is that Nuclear energy plants produce a lot of energy in  a small location.  Say 1,000 megaWatts.  Sources like nuclear, oil, coal and natural gas plants all sell their electricity to the grid and make up to varying degrees (depending on where you live) almost all of where your electricity comes from.  Solar panels need a LOT of acreage to produce the same amount of energy.  So the solar model is "distributed generation".  You put panels on your roof and generate electricity directly.  That means you have to pay thousands of dollars up front, and it will take years of generation before you have "made up" your cost, even if you have good solar resources (sunny climate).

Answer 4

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.