[oclug] [OT] Solar / Renewable Power Generation

[Brad Barnett]

On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:59:33 -0400 (EDT)
"David F. Skoll" <dfs at roaringpenguin.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Brad Barnett wrote:
> 
> > As to the aforementioned study named by David, I would be very
> > hesitant to look at anything negative about alternate power systems. 
> > This doesn't mean it is incorrect, but we are all aware of the intense
> > campaign against alternate power systems.
> 
> It wasn't a study.  It was just a remark that photovoltaic cells are
> incredibly inefficient and take years to pay back the energy spent in
> their creation.  Nothing very controversial there.
> 
> --
> David.
> 

Sure there is. ;)  I want to see the figures that back this up.  As far as
I am concerned this is just what I am talking about.  Who did the initial
study or paper that backs this up?  What exactly did they factor into the
cost of constructing a solar cell.  How were the cells used in order to
recoup the power lost?  What type of cell were they using in their
calculations?  What type of production process was used when creating the
cells.  When was the initial study done and how have things changed in
solar cell production methods since then.

I am sure that if the study (and it was one, or a paper, of course) that
backs this up is slanted pro or con alternate energy.  After all, very few
political studies aren't.  Was this study paid for by the friends of oil
and natural gas, or by the friends of the environment?

You have to be a little more ... cynical when looking that these things.