Xref: utzoo sci.energy:3667 sci.electronics:16589 sci.physics:16137
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!portal!cup.portal.com!Ordania-DM
From: Ordania-DM@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.electronics,sci.physics
Subject: Re: solar cells
Message-ID: <37448@cup.portal.com>
Date: 1 Jan 91 02:59:36 GMT
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>
  <1990Dec31.220520.27738@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 43


  A lot of people having been talking about the cost of solar power versus
alternatives...those opposed to solar power as uneconomical are, perhaps,
not looking at the complete picture.  Solar power is probably bext compared
to Nuclear power in terms of "manufacture" of the energy output.
  Nuclear power: fuel is dug from the ground, processed (slag is put aside
to be buried), used to generate energy, remains of fuel are buried.
  Solar power: no digging, no processing, energy is converted from 
sunlight, no remains.

  Under the absolute worst case scenario a solar cell will last forever as
its own waste product.  Presumably it won't contain harmful substances
that can get into water supplies, the air, etc.  Now, if it does contain 
some harmful substance, then we should recycle it.
  Under the absolute best case scenario nuclear waste is with us for 
thousands of years.  Nuclear waste gives off radiation while it decays,
sufficient radiation to kill things nearby, and enough to poison the 
air/water/earth/etc nearby.

  Am I missing something here?  Sure, producing nuclear energy is cheap,
but what are the hidden costs incurred in disposal?  In accidents?
Compare the *TRUE* total costs and Solar energy looks like it is free.

  The comparison is not identical when fossil fuels are substituted for
Nuclear but there are still hidden costs - global warming, acid rain,
oil spills, etc.

  The only technologies that compare favorably (in economic terms) are 
dams, energy plants on water, wind, and solar.  These all have hidden costs
in regard to the environment, but they are (effectively) unlimited sources
of energy that create no "unnatural" pollution.  Carbon monoxide, dioxide,
and the sulfur compounds are "natural" pollution, but not when we are
measuring our "natural" pollution in terms of TONS.  Nuclear waste is not
a natural pollution.

  In addition, Solar (and theoretically Solar-Wind :) power can be generated
off-planet.  Now, we were talking about the economical aspects of oil
& nuclear?  The biggest cost in alternative energy is the startup cost.
The biggest cost in oil is the continuing requirement for it.  And the
biggest cost for nuclear is the disposal (regardless of what the cost of
transportation of the waste is, we will, eventually, pay the full cost).

Charles_K_Hughes@cup.portal.com