Xref: utzoo sci.energy:3662 sci.electronics:16578 sci.physics:16128
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.electronics,sci.physics
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: solar cells
Message-ID: <1990Dec31.220520.27738@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <1990Dec17.190857.16559@engin.umich.edu> <1990Dec28.210436.10601@zoo.toronto.edu> <939@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> <1990Dec31.171413.18138@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 22:05:20 GMT

In article <1990Dec31.171413.18138@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (anmar mirza) writes:
>I like Marc's response to your post, he is saying that he is willing to
>try this seemingly less harmful source of power before trying others that
>are known to have deletarious effects.

Better the devil we don't know than the one we do?  Sorry, I do not agree.
We need to take a careful and rational look at the *costs* of both approaches
before deciding.  We know enough about the economics and side effects of
solar power, including *its* deleterious effects, to make rational decisions
about it... and right now, the answer tends to be "uneconomical except in
special circumstances", although it is showing steady improvement and is
worth watching for the future.

>Your post is common of the attitude many of the peoples of this
>country. You already having it fail even before you have tried to make
>it work...

The post I was responding to was typical of the attitudes of many of the
"true believers", who enthusiastically promote their cherished beliefs
while ignoring known costs and problems.  Choices this important should
be based on rational calculation, not "gee, this sounds nifty".
-- 
"The average pointer, statistically,    |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry