A Man Produced As Humanoid Progression: Angels & Demons

I have recently conducting a project paper with my topic about " Should governments use solar energy to replace coal power?". It's a academic essay which has to provide argumentative and rebuttal statements. Challenging with doing this is always on. However, unless you have found something interesting on it, there will be never turns down to stop for finding the facts. I believe peoples around are surely heard about what is solar systems, but to be into more specific, I wish to deliver some messages to the world.

Solar energy technologies have great potential to benefit our nation. They can diversify our energy supply, reduce our dependence on imported fuels, improve the quality of the air we breathe, offset greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulate our economy by creating jobs in the manufacturing and installation of solar energy systems.

Modern human population is hundred percent fossil fuel dependent. Indiscriminate use of fossil fuels since century and half has not only depleted this resource from Earth and made gas prices go sky rocketing but has landed us in the environment mess which we are experiencing right now. Answer to all these problems lies in nature and harnessing the natural sources of energy, such as sun, wind, hydro, and geothermal etc. These resources if harnessed properly can meet all our growing energy needs for generations to come without harming the environment.

Solar energy is light and heat energy from the sun. Solar cells convert sunlight light into electrical energy or heat energy. There is enough solar energy falling on the surface of the earth which can take care of all our energy needs. Solar energy is one the most resourceful sources of energy for the future. One of the reasons for this is that the total energy we receive each year from the sun is around 35,000 times the total energy used by man. However, about 1/3 of this energy is either absorbed by the outer atmosphere or reflected back into space.

Concentrated Solar Energy is the future of Solar Energy Creation: It is endless sea of mirrored troughs concentrate strong sunlight and convert it into 750-degree F thermal energy, which can then be used to create steam for electrical power generation. This is concentrated solar energy. Concentrated solar consists of vacuum tube steel and glass receivers. The parabolic mirrors focus the sun's energy on receiver tubes which absorb the solar radiation. The solar radiation then runs a 80 MW steam turbine.

Pros of replacing coal power to solar energy

In Economic view

Provides superior lighting at least cost

Solar home systems provide the least-cost means of receiving high quality home lighting. While providing brighter lighting, as well as access to radio and television. When low-cost financing is available, monthly payments for a solar home system are often below what a family is currently paying for kerosene, dry-cell batteries, candles, and recharging car batteries.

Creates direct employment opportunities

Local businesses selling and servicing solar home systems provide employment for local residents. Dealers, technicians, and local technicians all can be employed selling and servicing solar home systems.

Conserves foreign exchange

As much as 90% of the export earnings of some developing countries are used to pay for imported oil, most of it for power generation. Capital saved by not building additional large power plants can be used for investment in health, education, economic development, and industry. Expanding solar rural electrification creates jobs and business opportunities based on an appropriate technology in a decentralized marketplace.

In Environment view

Reduces local air pollution

Use of solar electric systems decreases the amount of local air pollution. With a decrease in the amount of kerosene used for lighting, there is a corresponding reduction in the amount of local pollution produced. Solar rural electrification also decreases the amount of electricity needed from small diesel generators.

Offsets greenhouse gases

Photovoltaic systems produce electric power with no carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Carbon emission offset is calculated at approximately 6 tons of CO2 over the twenty-year life of one PV system.

Conserves energy

Solar electricity for the Third World is an effective energy conservation program because it conserves costly conventional power for urban areas, town market centers, and industrial and commercial uses, leaving decentralized PV-generated power to provide the lighting and basic electrical needs of the majority of the developing world's rural populations.

In Health view

Increases effectiveness of health programs

Use of a solar electric lighting systems by rural health centers increases the quality of health care provided. Solar electric systems improve patient diagnoses through brighter task lighting and use of electrically-lit microscopes. Photovoltaics can also power televisions and VCRs to educate health workers and patients about preventative care, medical procedures, and other health care provisions. Finally, solar electric refrigerators have a higher degree of temperature control than kerosene units, leading to lower vaccine spoilage rates, and increased immunization effectiveness.

Improves indoor air quality

Fumes from kerosene lamps in poorly ventilated houses are a serious health problem in much of the world where electric light is unavailable. The World Bank estimates that 780 million women and children breathing kerosene fumes inhale the equivalent of smoke from 2 packs of cigarettes a day.

Reduces kerosene-induced fires

Kerosene lamps are a serious fire hazard in the developing world, killing and maiming tens of thousands of people each year. Kerosene, diesel fuel and gasoline stored for lamps and small generators are also a safety threat, whereas solar electric light is entirely safe.

This is the better alternative for regenerate our electricity in future. Lets try to imagine after the 30yrs or further, green house effect were not taken control. How is going to be with our mother nature earth ? Global warming is not an easy task to take all control, but we human being can choose to slow it down in fact of that.

Angels & Demons? Some might said why this title. And ya. I have recently watched this show. What do I feel about here an actually? Based on it, Robert Langdon had touched something about this in the earlier beginning screen. The questions some how like these which asked by father, do you believe in god?Woell. I'm an academic person, and I don't really understand god. As here it has something make sense to me, I'm a buddhist, and I guess I don't hold it strong as the serious as those peoples in the show, of cause I were followed those ritual and culture being as chinese does. Things here I'm trying to say are I do believe with them, but in reality life I'm actually deal more with facts. Neither they are exisiting or not, at least a person knows what should do and shouldn't, angels or demons is just on your hand to deciding it. So Science or Religion?

It was a excited plot that the director had related the story with high-end technology and unbelievable reseach from those scientists, "Anti-matter". The thing they believe it could be connecting with god. Angels & Demons is a marked improvement over The Da Vinci Code, while Da Vinci was agonizingly painful to experience, Angels & Demons is almost tolerable. It’s like watching televised golf instead of televised cricket. It’s lighter on its feet, less obtuse, and a little more streamlined. It’s not as grimly serious, although it’s still an overwrought thrill-less thriller infused with historical lunacy that gives way too much respect to its source material.

Angels & Demons also benefits by not so directly confronting the Catholic Church. If they’re challenging Catholic ritual, it at least seems mostly benign, except to suggest that, amidst potential successors to the Pope, there’s political ambition afoot or that certain elements of the Church really hate science. The narrative is still heavily shrouded beneath pointless speechifying, but if you can dig beneath all the talking, the plot is fairly straightforward. The Pope is dead, and during that grieving period, the papal conclave has convened to elect a successor. During the interim, Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor) — the pope’s closest associate — is left in charge of the Vatican.

Meanwhile, a group of scientists have created the MacGuffin, a tiny bit of anti-matter that, if it comes into contact with actual matter, can create an explosion large enough to destroy the Vatican. The anti-matter, however, is stolen by the resurfaced Illuminati, an anti-Church secret society that has a history of bad blood with the Vatican. To avenge some three-century old slight, the Illuminati also kidnaps the Preferiti — the four most likely candidates to replace the Pope — and threatens to kill one Cardinal each hour and then, afterwards, allow the anti-matter to detonate and destroy Vatican City.

Professor Robert Langdon (Hanks), a symbologist and expert on The Illuminati, is called to the Vatican and asked to assist in tracking down the hidden locations of the cardinals and the anti-matter. He is assisted by one of the scientists, Vittoria (Ayelet Zurer), who created the anti-matter. A message is left by The Illuminati that offers hidden clues as to the location, which Langdon has to decipher using his expertise in finding bullshit meanings hidden in every fucking artifact in the city and, ultimately, follow the Path of Illumination to locate the Illuminati’s secret meeting place.

The plot holes are too numerous to go into, but the initial logical inconsistency lies in why The Illuminati would even leave clues instead of just killing the four cardinals, blowing up the city, and taking credit for it afterward. Of course, that follows the same bullshit logic that compels bad guys to leave heroes tied up in chairs next to bombs instead of just putting a bullet in their head. It’s hard to take issue with the kind of logical boneheadedness that frames the movie.

But this is what bugged me most about Angels & Demons, an obstacle nearly impossible to overcome in translating this type of book into a movie but one that irritated the hell out of me all the same: Langdon arrives at the Vatican at 7 p.m., right? He’s got five hours to prevent the destruction of the city at midnight, and meanwhile, a cardinal is being killed once every hour. And yet, there is almost no sense of urgency. In nearly every other goddamn scene, Langdon has to stop and explain the historical significance of every motherfucking document, statue, or church he encounters, like Mr. Wizard laboriously explaining to his elementary students the combustive nature of baking soda and vinegar. It may work in the context of the novel, but when the main character is on a time limit and still has to take the time to painstakingly recount the history of The Illuminati or describe the significance of a few statues that had there nethers removed in the 18th century, it starts to get a little MacGruber, if you know what I mean. Just shut up and defuse the bomb already.

While the first 90 minutes is bogged down in the intricacies of Dan Brown’s fictional history, blessedly the last act eschews most of the speechifying and finally gets down to the action-adventure chase. There are enough red herrings to stock the Atlantic Ocean, and Howard — competent as always — gets you right where he wants you before springing his plot turns on you. Ewan McGregor also gets more screen time as the movie wears on, which is fortunate since he’s able to bring some life to an otherwise wilting movie. And some of the plot’s logic starts to come into focus as Howard bends you over to shove his twists up your ass.

Still, Angels & Demons can hardly be described as entertaining. It’s bad Encyclopedia Brown for adults — everything is so meticulously explained, it takes all the air out of any momentum it could’ve otherwise built were it not for the fact that Howard was aiming his movie at an audience of brains addled by Dan Brown, Suze Orman, James Patterson, and whoever else occupies the New York Times’ bestseller list. Granted, Howard does an amazing job of recreating the St. Peters and the Sistine Chapel, the cinematography is, at times, gorgeously glossy, and Hanks does as well as can be expected of an actor who has to spoon feed strained carrots to his audience. But it’s still trash, and if Howard and Hanks could’ve appreciated it for what it was, they might have had a good time with it. As it is, it’s a guilty pleasure without any of the pleasure — like eating a lard sandwich. But I bet that Robert Langdon could explain to you in mind-numbing detail the significance of that lard sandwich before you ate it.