Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!tektronix!reed!psu-cs!omepd!omssw1!sdp
From: sdp@omssw1.UUCP (Scott Peterson)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Thermoelectric Generators & Solar Cells
Message-ID: <231@omssw1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Mar-87 14:51:09 EST
Article-I.D.: omssw1.231
Posted: Tue Mar 17 14:51:09 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Mar-87 05:34:43 EST
References: <24300001@silver> <3086@watdcsu.UUCP> <351@netxcom.UUCP> <25706@rochester.ARPA> <212@rlvd.UUCP>
Reply-To: sdp@omssw1.UUCP (Scott Peterson)
Organization: Intel. Hillsboro, Oregon
Lines: 19

In article <212@rlvd.UUCP> msp@rlvc.UUCP (Mike S Parsons) writes:
>In article <25706@rochester.ARPA> ken@rochester.UUCP (SKY) writes:
>>Remember heat is a low grade form of energy. If you have sunshine, it
>>is better to convert directly, using solar cells.
>>
>I would be most interested in info on:
> ...
>2) The current cost per kW of commercial (ie. power station) scale solar 
>   generation.

I remember hearing somewhere that it takes more energy to manufacture
a solar cell than it can produce (or rather, convert) over its practical
lifetime (say, a decade).

Maybe the thermopile has some short term advantage?

-- 

Scott Peterson, Intel Corp., Hillsboro, OR, ...!tektronix!ogcvax!omssw1!sdp