Xref: utzoo sci.energy:3693 sci.electronics:16661 sci.physics:16177
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!andrewt
From: andrewt@cs.su.oz (Andrew Taylor)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.electronics,sci.physics
Subject: Re: solar cells
Message-ID: <1755@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>
Date: 4 Jan 91 05:20:38 GMT
References: <1990Dec17.190857.16559@engin.umich.edu> <37448@cup.portal.com> <5119@optilink.UUCP>
Sender: news@cluster.cs.su.oz.au
Reply-To: andrewt@cluster.cs.su.oz (Andrew Taylor)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Lines: 26

In article <5119@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 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: 
> aluminizing mirrors is VERY energy intensive).

The latest LUZ plants (by Solar One you presumably mean their first) seem
close to economically competitive without tax credits. Certainly the LUZ people
believe they will be able to be able to build unsubsidised, commercially
competitive plants.

Given this, your claim that there is no net energy production is very
implausible even if energy was a large fraction of their costs.
Have you numbers to back up your claim?

Nothing about mirror degradation by sandstorms is mentioned in [1]. It does
mention  the importance of mirror-washing and the cost-effective techniques
they have developed do this.

At the very least, the Luz plants are not "monstrosities" but
valuable tests of the engineering issues in building solar-thermal plants.

Andrew Taylor

[1] Power Engineering Review August 1989 "Solar Electric Generating Stations"