Well, of course. But sort of obvious.
"The bottom line is also this: What is the cost in dollars as well as the toxic input to create this more efficient energy?"
Also of course.
"So far, all the so-called 'green energy' producers are not so 'green' at the front of their construction. And, nobody is thinking or speaking about that. I read articles where those companies are failing at a fairly rapid rate because without subsidies the energy they produce costs well above the market-price.
Other than solar cells, which use a lot of toxic precursors in the cells, the rest of the pack should be about the same as current tech. Solid oxide fuel cells are just another ceramic, and ceramics have been around for a LONG time, and a huge variety of types are produced in large quantities.
I did a quick search, and the info I find says that SOFC are the least cost per 100KW of any of the new technologies. Given the innocuous nature of their emissions (water and CO2) and their much higher efficiency, they are probably the best way to use our burgeoning natural gas reserves.
One of the really nice features of SOFC is that they are "scalable". If you need a bigger installation, stack up more small units.
So, how large would the ‘stack’ of fuel cells have to be to generate the electricity needs of New York City, for instance?