Xref: utzoo sci.energy:3669 sci.electronics:16597 sci.physics:16142
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!olivea!oliveb!veritas!amdcad!brahms!phil
From: phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.electronics,sci.physics
Subject: Re: solar cells
Message-ID: <1991Jan2.015717.23554@amd.com>
Date: 2 Jan 91 01:57:17 GMT
References: <1990Dec31.171413.18138@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1990Dec31.220520.27738@zoo.toronto.edu> <37448@cup.portal.com>
Sender: usenet@amd.com (NNTP Posting)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 19

In article <37448@cup.portal.com> Ordania-DM@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes) writes:
|  Solar power: no digging, no processing, energy is converted from 
|sunlight, no remains.

So you must think that solar cells grow on trees.

|  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.

Aside from the fact that you keep ignoring the cost of making solar cells,
why are chemical poisons, which last forever, more acceptable than
nuclear ones, which decay away? They are both invisible. They have both
been used to kill people.


--
Whatever happened to Global Warming? Could we have some Local Warming?