David Hobby wrote:
>
> Robert Seeberger wrote:
> ...
> > > > One way to make solar cells more efficient is to find a material
> > that
> > > > will capture energy from a large portion of the spectrum of
> > > > sunlight -- from infrared to visible light to ultraviolet.
> > > >
> > > I don't think this is _the_ problem for groundhogs. The problem
> > > is [or was?] that the cost to assemble a solar cells is higher
> > > than the cost of the energy it produces. So it's economically
> > > viable to put solar cells in satellites, but nothing else.
> > >
> >
> > I don't think that is true anymore. You can see solar cells in
> > applications out on the street these days. A good example is the
> > "School Zone" flashers (Hush Ronn! <G>) where using a solar panel to
> > charge a battery is almost universal around here.
>
> Satellites, flashers, what's the difference? If it takes too
> long an extension cord to get power to it, the device should
> make its own.
But some of the flashers I see (and I imagine that at least some of the
flashers Rob sees) are in spots where it wouldn't be that big a deal to
run a power line underground to them. I mean, they're 20 feet from
actual traffic lights, some of them, and *those* are being powered off
the grid. And the ones that aren't that close to actual traffic lights,
I still don't think it would be that big a deal to power them off the
grid -- but there they are, with solar cells on the top.
So maybe the tech is improving to where it's economically viable to put
solar cells on other things.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
