Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (135494)	4/2/2001 3:55:54 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583913

Dear Scumbria: Those panels are made using that toxic arsenic you are so fearful of. How much is in Colorado water? How toxic is the manufacture of silicon wafers? They look nice from the outside, but they are dirty polluters as your environmentalist buddies say. How much power do they produce? Probably less than 1MW in full noon time sunlight. More like less than 100 MWH a month all told. California would need at least 14 billion just to make up the current shortfall alone using solar cells in perfect weather and that does not take into account such things as land, transmission facilities, taxes, infrastructure, interest, waste, etc, and the fact that in summertime, more than 4 or 5 times that amount would be needed just this year alone. Are California ratepayers willing to fork over an additional 20 cents per KWH for it? IMHO, no way! They are moaning about a charge of only 3 cents a KWH just to fix it now as being a disaster! If solar is such a good deal, why aren't you putting it in your house for both heat and light? Thought so! Pete