Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PamW

(1,825 posts)
13. Agreed.
Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:59 PM
Feb 2012

But the whole concept really only works if you can put a sufficiently cheap PV material on the cylinders.
=============================

Yes - if you take it to the limit and had free solar cells; then "wasting" solar cells by pointing them in the wrong direction wouldn't matter.

The problem is, the cost of the cells is one of the major costs, if not THE major cost.

The economics of solar power are such that solar just doesn't have the "free energy" ( that's in the thermodynamic sense ) to throw away efficiency per unit area.

PamW

and "VERY POOR" design. PamW Feb 2012 #1
I have never seen anyone get so many things so wrong so consistently. kristopher Feb 2012 #4
My understanding is that both are indeed true ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2012 #5
Support your "understanding" kristopher Feb 2012 #6
For Heaven's sake.... PamW Feb 2012 #7
Your description is inapt and your hyperbole is inept. kristopher Feb 2012 #9
Post removed Post removed Feb 2012 #11
For what it's worth caraher Feb 2012 #12
Agreed. PamW Feb 2012 #13
I've warned you. PamW Feb 2012 #8
You need to stop this Pam. kristopher Feb 2012 #10
Post removed Post removed Feb 2012 #14
What horseshit jpak Feb 2012 #15
So let me get this straight caraher Feb 2012 #16
Wow! That's one for the history books! bananas Feb 2012 #17
No solar for you jpak Feb 2012 #18
Interesting spin on the data, sounds like WSJ viewpoint saras Feb 2012 #2
Two current solar projects on the Carrizo Plain - pinto Feb 2012 #3
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Why Did Leading Solar Pan...»Reply #13