NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/energy/5541

Text File | 1992-11-18 | 1.9 KB | 41 lines

Newsgroups: sci.energy
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!yuma!longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu!kk881595
From: [e-mail] (kevin knappmiller)
Subject: Re: Renewable Energy - solar
Sender: [e-mail] (News Account)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:27:20 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: princeton.lance.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College
Lines: 27

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:


|> Actually, all the approaches listed, with the exception of geothermal,
|> *are* solar energy. And *all* have better efficiency than *direct* solar.
|> However, the *most* efficient collectors of solar energy remain *plants*.
|> Burning plants, freshly dead, or concentrated under tons of rocks for
|> eons, is still the most efficient use of solar energy. And there is very
|> little capital cost involved with setting up the "plants."  :-)
|>

I wonder what you mean by efficient.  If one considers the
solar energy hitting a leaf, photosynthesis converting that energy,
the plant forming cellulose from that energy, that cellulose
being collected by humans, then burned to produce heat, that heat
converted to work that is then converted to electricity as
the system, do you really claim that this is more efficient
than even the worst photovoltaic cell?  If one added the
additional processes involved in converting the plant to
fossil fuel then the "efficiency" would be even worse.

Kevin Knappmiller
Solar Lab
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO  80523
[phone]
[e-mail]