>> >> Unfortunately that's a very narrow view. Two major points: >> >> 1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to electricity, it >> takes >> more energy to create solar panels than they produce. >> >> 2) Solar panels have nasty stuff in them too. They cause issues in >> both >> production and waste. >> >> > er.. I didn't think I said PV arrays, I said solar energy. > Concentrating > the sunlight into a heat source > to run a turbine or stirling engine is more efficient, and for a large > generating system would be more > practical. A nuclear generation plant and a concentrated solar > generation plant have two main > differences: (1) during the night, no electricity can be generated at > the solar plant; and (2) no hazardous > waste is generated, EVER. Aside from that, the very same workers are > needed by both types of plants. > The solar plant would cost much less initially than the nuke plant, > its > fuel costs are almost zero; and > maintanence would be much less. > > I have a client who builds steel buildings. He uses tracking solar PV > arrays and batteries to run his entire > business- even some spot welding machines. He's been in business for > several years, and never bought > a dime's worth of power from the local utility; in fact, no power > lines > are even routed to his yard. > Yes, we are in Tucson, AZ- and we have a LOT of sun. > > OK, I'll bite. I have heard that PV array yarn before. I'd sure > like to > find out where that comes from. > Fill me in. From what I have seen, your statements are unsupportable. > > --Bob A > Would your client be willing to talk to me about his experience with solar energy ? I would love to do an article about cost /benefit including maintenance costs operating costs and his back up plan in case the sun does not come up ( see David Hume ). Hey I was just kidding about that last part. CC 720 222 1309 Denver , CO -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist