Re: photochemical advance

From: S.J. Van Sickle (
Date: Mon Dec 10 2001 - 14:09:57 MST

On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Mike Lorrey wrote:

> are indeed a 'stupid idea'. Even at the 30% efficiencies of the best man
> made solar panels, this would require that 10% of our arable land be
> occupied by solar collectors, something which I am positive would
> trigger an enormous Luddite/NIMBY backlash so as to make the Inquisition
> seem like mere cliquishness.

But, unlike plants, solar panels do not require arable land. Arable land
is a fraction of total land. And the land "used" for solar cells can be
can be dual use (roof, sidewalk, road, etc.).


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:25 MDT