Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!udel!berryh
From: berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: solar cells
Message-ID: <40564@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 3 Jan 91 20:42:52 GMT
References: <1990Dec29.063939.20478@zoo.toronto.edu> <40313@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <1990Dec31.215646.27617@zoo.toronto.edu>
Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 25
Nntp-Posting-Host: huey.udel.edu

In article <1990Dec31.215646.27617@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <40313@nigel.ee.udel.edu> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes:
>>>Oh yes there is:  the cell.  There is a common misconception that
>>>semiconductor devices ought to be eternal; it is not true.  There are
>>>a variety of failure mechanisms...
>>
>>Of all of your points, I least understand the significance of this one.
>
>The significance is simply that the cell lifetime, replacement cost, and
>disposal must be figured into the costs, instead of being quietly ignored.

I have never seen these figures for nuclear (or more appropriate to the
current area of application, small diesel).  If this exercise was intended
to be a economic comparison between technologies, why not keep the
rules consistent.

As has been pointed out, lifetimes for cells other than amorphous Si
are longer than just about any technology with moving parts that you
would like to name.

BTW, just who is it that ever said that any energy technology was eternal?
--
							      John Berryhill
							    143 King William
							    Newark, DE 19711