Xref: utzoo sci.energy:3712 sci.electronics:16699 sci.physics:16210
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool2.mu.edu!uunet!littlei!intelhf!agora!markb
From: markb@agora.rain.com (Mark Biggar)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.electronics,sci.physics
Subject: Re: solar cells
Message-ID: <1991Jan4.032214.12798@agora.rain.com>
Date: 4 Jan 91 03:22:14 GMT
References: <37448@cup.portal.com> <1991Jan2.015717.23554@amd.com> <37487@cup.portal.com>
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Lines: 16

In article <37487@cup.portal.com> Ordania-DM@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes) writes:
>>why are chemical poisons, which last forever, more acceptable than
>  Chemical "poisons" can be broken down using current technology.
>>nuclear ones, which decay away? They are both invisible. They have both
>>been used to kill people.
>  Nuclear poisons can't be broken down by us.  They will decay over time,
>but since we can break down chemical poisons it makes no sense whatsoever
>to create nuclear ones.

But, where does the energy to break down those poisons come from.  I wouldn't
be supprised if the energy to break down the toxins produced by solar cell
manufacture to completely safe stuff (remember CO2 and Methane are both
greehouse gases) is some large precent of the total lifetime power output
of the solar cells.
--
Mark Biggar