Xref: utzoo sci.energy:3720 sci.electronics:16715 sci.physics:16223
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!uunet!optilink!cramer
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.electronics,sci.physics
Subject: Re: solar cells
Message-ID: <5173@optilink.UUCP>
Date: 5 Jan 91 20:51:08 GMT
References: <1990Dec17.190857.16559@engin.umich.edu> <37448@cup.portal.com> <1755@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 57

In article <1755@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>, andrewt@cs.su.oz (Andrew Taylor) writes:
> 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?

I didn't say that I knew for sure that there was no net energy
production -- but read the other posting I made discussing what 
happened when I submitted a written request for information on
this subject.

I'm suspicious that the tax credits have unintentionally hidden
net energy loss, because energy is expensive.

> 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.

It used to mentioned as a problem on tours of Solar One.  During
duststorms, they turn all the mirrors parallel to the ground --
of course, there's not much of a loss of power, because the 
dust reduces light significantly.

Also, they have lots of electric motors moving those mirrors
to track the Sun.  How much electricity?  I was told while I
was there in the early 1980s that they FINALLY were producing
more electricity than they were using.

> 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"

I'm sure they can be valuable tests -- I'm suspicious that these
projects may be inappropriate uses of solar power.  (There are
some very appropriate uses, by the way -- but it's much harder
to figure out how to turn them into boondoggle engineering
welfare projects like Solar One).

-- 
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!