Xref: utzoo sci.energy:3700 sci.electronics:16669 sci.physics:16186 sci.space:26788
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.space
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (Brian or James)
Subject: Re: solar cells
Message-ID: <1991Jan4.151705.13119@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <37448@cup.portal.com> <1991Jan2.015717.23554@amd.com> <37487@cup.portal.com> <88637@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <37550@cup.portal.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 15:17:05 GMT
Lines: 21

In article <37550@cup.portal.com> Ordania-DM@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes) writes:

	(tons of RTG and nuclear power stuff deleted)

>>	And another possible difficulty with solar cells -- how much
>>energy does it take to make them? They would not be too good if the
>>amount of energy needed to make them was only equal to their output
>>for several years of running. Has that question ever been addressed?
>
>  If the energy is free, who cares how much it took to make them?

	*Sigh* Let's say that a solar cell takes 10 arbitrary energy
units to make. Let's say it produces 9 AEU during its life. That means
every time you install one, the net cost to the power production system 
is one AEU. Things that use up more of a resource than they produce do
not, on the whole, make good sources for that resource.

	It's reasoning like Mr. Hughes' that gives the anti-nuclear
folks a bad name.

							James Nicoll