Xref: utzoo sci.energy:3719 sci.electronics:16714 sci.physics:16222 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!optilink!cramer From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.electronics,sci.physics Subject: Re: solar cells Message-ID: <5172@optilink.UUCP> Date: 5 Jan 91 20:44:48 GMT References: <1990Dec17.190857.16559@engin.umich.edu> <37547@cup.portal.com> Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA Lines: 82 In article <37547@cup.portal.com>, Ordania-DM@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes) writes: > >In article <37448@cup.portal.com>, Ordania-DM@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes) # # writes: # ## 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. This is a semantic game. There are no ongoing costs to use solar power (at least in solar cells), but there are substantial manufacturing costs. Also, the batteries required to make solar power useful other than during the peak hours of sunlight don't have the lifetime of the solar cells. # #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. Sorry, but I left a written question at Solar One asking them what sort of energy analysis they had done to make sure that they were actually a net producer energy of energy -- and the response said that they didn't know if it was a net producer or not. # #aluminizing mirrors is VERY energy intensive). # # I believe you, I think flat glass with a silver coating, or even stainless # steel would be cheaper. Silver isn't as an energy intensive -- except that it tarnishes quickly, and rapidly loses reflectivity. Stainless steel might be a good choice, but it also has problems with abrasion reducing reflectivity also. Unfortunately, places with lots of sunlight are also frequently places with duststorms. (Hint: this is causal, not correlation). # #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 I'm willing to talk about them, but the postings on this subject show a lack of willingness to really understand that solar power isn't a freebie. There is much the same irrational enthusiasm for the wonders of solar power that used to be present in the pro-nuclear literature. -- 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. You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!