Xref: utzoo sci.energy:3691 sci.electronics:16656 sci.physics:16174
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!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: <37547@cup.portal.com>
Date: 4 Jan 91 02:13:36 GMT
References: <1990Dec17.190857.16559@engin.umich.edu>
  <37448@cup.portal.com> <5119@optilink.UUCP>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 70

>In article <37448@cup.portal.com>, Ordania-DM@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes)
> writes:
>> 
>>   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.
>
>WRONG!  Production of solar cells requires significant energy inputs
>for refining and production.  The ONLY use of solar power that can be
>considered to be "free" is proper building design to take advantage
>of differing summer/winter sun angles.  Everything else involves
>some manufacturing costs.  

  No, the energy requires no production costs.  Solar energy is free.  The 
"power plant" or "engine" that converts solar energy into electricity
is where the manufacturing costs come into play.  Since we have those costs
already (nuclear plants, coal/oil plants, power dams, etc) it is reasonable
to lump the cost of solar plants into that same group.  "Light" requires
no refining in order to use it.

>When you find montrosities like Solar One
>near Daggett, CA, with acres of aluminized mirrors focussing sunlight,
>while being degraded by sandstorms, you have clear evidence that some-
>one hasn't looked at the total energy input required.  (Hint: 

  No, you get clear evidence that some twit didn't take into account
the sandstorms.

>aluminizing mirrors is VERY energy intensive).

  I believe you, I think flat glass with a silver coating, or even stainless
steel would be cheaper.

>
>There's a place for solar power -- but most of the reason for
>subsidies to it is because it is NOT cost-effective for most 
>situations.

  This is dependent on how you define "cost-effective".  We are always going
to need energy, and our current mass-production is not truly cost effective.
Fossil fuel usage has a hidden cost.  The oil we burn could bubble forth
from the ground like salt water, and be absolutely free, but we're going
to pay for burning it.  I define cost-effective as startup, maintenance, 
*AND* disposal costs.  Disposal costs are whatever it takes to prevent the
byproducts from polluting the planet.  We can ship nuclear wastes to the sun,
and/or capture all the emission from our engines, but neither of these
alternatives is as cheap as converting to solar.  In general, everyone 
likes to look at & cite the easily seen costs, but nobody talks about
the hidden costs, and those are the greatest of all.


>
>> Charles_K_Hughes@cup.portal.com
>
>
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
>Gun Control: The belief that the government, with its great wisdom and 
>moral superiority, can be trusted with a monopoly on deadly force.

  Aw, c'mon...the U.S. could probably use a good tyranny! :)

>You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

.address above. :)