Your Questions About Solar Energy Environments

admin answers:

They both have their place, so if you’re planning for a debate, you’ll have to take this into consideration. Your argument should be for solar, but not against complete replacement of nuclear. If you argue the latter, you’re sure to lose, unless your opponents are incompetent.

But to answer your question directly:

– Solar can provide heat directly, without being converted to mechanical motion and then electricity. It is thus more efficient at heating (say) water.

– Solar scales down well, so a single house system can be feasibly installed. A nuclear reactor needs at least an apartment-building load to be feasible. And they would only do that in Russia, because

– Nuclear reactor technology can be used to breed weapons materials. And even if you couldn’t construct an A-bomb, if you could order fuel for your home reactor, a bad person could grind it up into a fine power that would make a hazardous mess when blown up in a public place.

– The nuclear waste and radiation hazard also make nuclear unsuitable for single-home usage. These are not as much of a problem for a centralized plant.

I came accross a new, proven and tested home made wind power system and solar power system which eliminates our electricity bills. It was written by a Renewable energy enthusiasts Michael Harvey the diy called Earth4energy. You can get your copy to save energy and help environment while eliminating your power bills. Get it from here:

http://how-to-build-cheap-solar-energy.blogspot.com/

admin answers:

Without solar energy there would most likely be no life on Earth let alone Australia.

There is an argument that all energy except geothermal and nuclear derives from our Solar source.

As Australia is closer to the ozone depleated South Pole the sunlight there is more intense than in other places in the world. As a result skin cancer rates can be expected to be higher.

You might wish to narrow your question a bit.