Stirling Westrup writes:
> Of course its cheaper. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to
> develop the mass-production system for silicon chips. Far less has been spent
> ramping up solar cell production. The obvious reason is supply and demand. The
Monocrystalline Si solar cells are intrisically non cost/energy
efficient. I agree about your economies of scale argument,
though. Hopefully, when the solar cells get of ground, they will be
based on thin-film technology, maybe even polymer ("solar cells last
all summer long!").
> world can't seem to get enough bigger and faster CPU's. There is no equivalent
> demand for bigger and better solar cells. If the average person wanted several
Yes, there is. I demand them, now! ;)
> square meters of solar cell, and was willing to discard it every 18 months in
> order to buy a more efficient replacement, then maybe we would start to see
> equivalent production costs.
I would love to see mass-produced high-temperature oxide methane fuel
cells for end home use, for starters.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:06 MDT