Replies

I wonder if this might put another nail in the coffin of current solor technology. If something that big can't product enough to run the entire plant is it worth it? Alternate sources of engery is a cool concept but when you factor in the cost and materials to produce it I am reminded of Rube Goldberg. If something could be developed cheap and efficient it might have a chance. Otherwise it's another neat idea that goes no where.

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

The most efficient uses of solar energy are: 1. South facing windows, and 2. Hot water heaters on the rooftops.

The project described in the article seems to be an enormous waste of money!

I think that if this system is like most it is only 10 to 15% efficient. Berkley Cal (Uhg!) is working on a new type of crystal doping system that could bring the efficiency up past 60%. The new system is based on the work done by a Japanese scientist who made the blue diode possible.

In order to get the full spectrum of light you had to dope crystals with other compounds, this makes them unstable. The new process has promise to make it easier and cheaper to manufacture.

I am in no way an environmentalist, but I have great respect for our scientist working on technology to help the environment. I don't like using tax dollars to fund individuals buying this stuff, but I do like it when they use their own money.

It is the rich who drive technological development and make it available cheaply for the rest of us. When the refrigerator was invented it was very expensive and only a few could afford them, but that drove the technology further and made it eventually available to everyone.

I believe some government funding is appropriate in the scientific development of such programs, not for individual purchase mind you, just for development. I don't think the progress we made so far in solar cells ( a Nasa development) would have come this far without government sponsorship, there simply was not a need. Space agencies that originally developed it could get along quite well with what they had (other than weight considerations), and the U.S. energy needs have got along quite well with other (although somewhat more polluting) technologies.

I think that once the technology becomes both efficient and cheap it will win out. Nobody will want to use a polluting energy source when a cheaper, more efficient, and cleaner source is available.