Augusta, Maine, April 21, 2005--

To promote Blue Link, an affordable, new solar power system, a ceremony was held in the capitol of Maine for a program called The Citizen's Solar Challenge. "A group of people got together and bought a Blue Link [unit]," explained Naota Inoue, one of Blue Link's inventors. "They told the governor of Maine that they would like to donate it to the state house as long as the governor would put out a Solar Governor's Challenge to the rest of the country.

"At 11:00 am today we had this plug-in ceremony with Governor Baldacci accepting the Citizen's Solar Challenge and putting out the Governor's Solar Challenge. About five TV stations showed up, and my grandson switched [on] the Blue Link."

Unlike other solar systems, whose costs can exceed ,500, Blue Link can be purchased for ,650, is pre-wired, pre-tested and with an ETL (test lab) listing to UL (test lab) standards as an appliance, and can be installed quickly. A Blue Link 480 unit provides on average 10% of a home's electricity. (See: www.BlueLinkSolar.net)

The solar device is simply plugged into a home's electric socket, and instead of drawing out power, it feeds power into the fuse box. Also, according to Inoue, if a house is vacant on a sunny day and all the appliances are turned off, the solar panels will cause the electric meter to go backwards, giving credit to the home owner and providing electricity to the grid.

Although the retail price of a Blue Link 480 is ,650, Californians can pay as little as ,250 thanks to state rebates, and some cities, including Yucaipa, offer additional rebates. A representative of Blue Link believes that the city of San Diego may soon be offering rebates as well.

Meanwhile, on the east coast, Inoue said that Baldacci's Governor's Solar Challenge may be accepted by John Lynch, governor of New Hampshire. Thus, "we have a group of people in New Hampshire who are willing to donate [a Blue Link unit] to the New Hampshire state capitol," he said.

Inoue tried to contact Arnold Schwarzenegger about participating in the Governor's Solar Challenge, but apparently the politician could not be reached.

"Although California has been a leader in the solar rebate program," continued Inoue, "offering 0 million to promote solar during past five years, 12,500 systems have been installed. This is a relatively low participation for the rebate program because the upfront cost for the end user has been very high. Blue Link attempts to get a larger participation by lowering upfront cost by 60%.

"What we need is for the government to actually walk the talk by doing installation, and this does not have to cost the state anything when Blue Link is donated to the state capitol building." To this end (i.e., instigating another Governor's Solar Challenge in California), Inoue hopes to find donors in the Golden State.

Paragraph three should have said that most solar systems exceed ,000, not ,500. Sorry about the mistake.

Californians can now buy a Blue Link 480 unit for slightly over ,000, says the company. This is due to recent federal tax breaks.

at $ 2,000 for only supplying 10 percent of the electricity that's $ 20,000 to be fully solar - do the quoted $ 15,000 systems only supply 10 percent as well or ALL the home's power to be *fully* solar ?

not really a bargain - besides it's simply impossible to run much power through a 15 or 20 amp branch as the outlet, wiring and circuit breaker won't handle it..

that's like trying to start your car using the cigarette lighter socket...

also the circuit required to synchronize with the existing AC power to run the meter backwards add's additional cost - a cost that weighs against the puny amount of power the inverter supplies compared to inverters much larger (whole house sized)



and since when is advertising allowed by IMC charter ?

"10 percent of a house's electricity, or About 500 watts, said Donohoe"

Not much power at all - I consider it a ripoff for the price v power

I have a single light bulb in my ceiling fixture that's 300 Watts - so it couldn't even run that and say one computer (CRT monitor alone draws around 100 Watts plus the CPU plus peripherals which along with that bulb would exceed the "480"s ability)

the real problem though is that it takes a lot of energy to make solar cells - energy that comes from greenhouse gas producing fossil fuels or worse nuclear

the only really enviromentally friendly form of solar energy is solar heating..

solar cell panels take too much energy to produce and are too expensive plus are subject to damage from rain and hail

offer cheap, enviromentally friendly and durable solar cells - let's see an AD for that

Not that cheap, but it does convert solar energy into usable chemical energy.

The theme of the movie is difficult for adults. There are bad children in the world. They come from bad parents, they're not created by emulation, but rather the parents "produce them", much like chocolate is produced in a factory. The factory is populated by miniature people named oomphaloopas that remind the listener at intervals of Dahl's moral points: Too much TV is bad for children, books should be read instead, and children need to adhere to an ethical code of some sort in order to grow up strong.



But lets sweep those inconvenient good points under the rug and insted demonize the movie by focusing on any/all bad themes or values we can imagine or come up with.



Now that advertising is welcome here -



collectablies are available for about -5 (Starting bids) each and can be obtained through eBay.

And here's where to buy Wonka Everlasting Everlasting Gobstoppers - another exploitative invention, candy made for kids with very little pocket change - what an evil idea !



http://shop.store.yahoo.com/candydepot/woevgo.html

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/candydepot/index.html

Solar cells of this day and age are expensive and not too awfully effective per dollar, or per square foot either. To run an average home, you need at least 3000 watts per hour, selling back the excess to the grid when you don't use it all, and buying it back when your usage exceeds your output. That output would just about even you out for the year where you wouldn't owe or be owed by the electric company. The space needed to produce 3000 watts per hour is about 500 square feet of open space.

I don't know if the pollution factor is as notable as you mentioned, but if you can keep the panels from harm, they would be good for at least 10 years...maybe more. That may or may not offset the costs of making them. I guess it all depends on how many more people jam into any given area and start driving up the need, and thus the price of store bought electricity. If it goes the way of oil, maybe panels will end up quite a bargain after all.

But 10 % seems more like an attempt to appease the environmentalists, or charter another tax program that will just end up being payed doubly by citizens in the long run, moreso than weaning yourself from an energy habit.

they take silicon dioxide (usually white sand) and melt it then purify it - this takes a lot of energy alone

then they strip the oxygen to produce pure silicon - a bunch more energy there

then it has to be kept molten for days to weeks while a crystal is very slowly grown and drawn out of the melt

more energy

then it has to be sliced (which wastes much of it) into very thin wafers

these wafers are polished then put in a vacuum furnace where metals are vaporized and diffused/deposited into the wafers, then silver electrodes are deposited on them

all these steps take a huge amount of energy

the question becomes whether they last long enough outdoors to ever even pay back the energy put into making them (much less give back *far more*)

what I've found as an early pioneer in utilizing them is that water seeps into them and ruins them - silicone rubber peels away and the seals break allowing water in, epoxy cracks and yellows allowing water in, plastic cracks, spalls and yellows, becomes brittle, glass breaks in hail storms

it's very hard to keep them safe & dry while exposed outdoors in the sun while allowing sunlight through to them for very long..

if they don't last many years they never pay back the energy it took to manufacturer them

the energy comes from fossil fuels or nuclear - the steels and exotic metals used to build nuclear power plants not to mention refining the uranium ore are also derived from fossil fuel so nuclear is a real nightmare when the total cost to the enviroment is considered - with radioactive waste to deal with too

solar cells take too much energy to produce, don't pay it back in typical lifetimes AND are expensive

they are only good for small scale speciality uses like aerospace and remote low power applications

trying to market them for wide scale mass public use is a fraud and a sham designed only to enrich the seller - this example of 480 Watts for ,000 to $ 5,000 is REALLLY a sham and the $ 15,000 figure is deceptive as it applies to whole house power levels - 10 times or more power where this tiny puny EXPENSIVE "plug & play" product is actually *even more expensive - not less* for the same amount of power. The deceptive advertising alone should ring alarm bells in a potential buyer's mind...

How scams and frauds get posted and not hidden when they are clearly ADVERTISMENTS SELLING A COMMERCIAL PRODUCT much less deceptive frauds and scams is beyond me as IMC is supposed to have a strict policy of no advertising - once this commercial is allowed the floodgates are opened for others

I can just see myself blocking ad's & pop-ups on THIS site now like I do for so many others

I have special relaxed rules for this site - allow cookies, no ad filtering, etc *because it isn't needed here* - one of the very few places on the 'net that remains pure and free from the "pollution" of advertising.

it would be a shame if this changed and this thread is the first step in that direction..

they take silicon dioxide (usually white sand) and melt it then purify it - this takes a lot of

energy alone

then they strip the oxygen to produce pure silicon - a bunch more energy there

then it has to be kept molten for days to weeks while a crystal is very slowly grown and drawn

out of the melt

more energy

then it has to be sliced (which wastes much of it) into very thin wafers

these wafers are polished then put in a vacuum furnace where metals are vaporized and

diffused/deposited into the wafers, then silver electrodes are deposited on them

all these steps take a huge amount of energy

the question becomes whether they last long enough outdoors to ever even pay back the energy put

into making them (much less give back *far more*)

what I've found as an early pioneer in utilizing them is that water seeps into them and ruins

them - silicone rubber peels away and the seals break allowing water in, epoxy cracks and

yellows allowing water in, plastic cracks, spalls and yellows, becomes brittle, glass breaks in

hail storms

it's very hard to keep them safe & dry while exposed outdoors in the sun while allowing sunlight

through to them for very long..

if they don't last many years they never pay back the energy it took to manufacturer them

the energy comes from fossil fuels or nuclear - the steels and exotic metals used to build

nuclear power plants not to mention refining the uranium ore are also derived from fossil fuel

so nuclear is a real nightmare when the total cost to the enviroment is considered - with

radioactive waste to deal with too

solar cells take too much energy to produce, don't pay it back in typical lifetimes AND are

expensive

they are only good for small scale speciality uses like aerospace and remote low power

applications

trying to market them for wide scale mass public use is a fraud and a sham designed only to

enrich the seller - this example of 480 Watts for ,000 to $ 5,000 is REALLLY a sham and the $

15,000 figure is deceptive as it applies to whole house power levels - 10 times or more power

where this tiny puny EXPENSIVE "plug & play" product is actually *even more expensive - not

less* for the same amount of power. The deceptive advertising alone should ring alarm bells in

a potential buyer's mind...

How scams and frauds get posted and not hidden when they are clearly ADVERTISMENTS SELLING A

COMMERCIAL PRODUCT much less deceptive frauds and scams is beyond me as IMC is supposed to have

a strict policy of no advertising - once this commercial is allowed the floodgates are opened

for others

I can just see myself blocking ad's & pop-ups on THIS site now like I do for so many others

I have special relaxed rules for this site - allow cookies, no ad filtering, etc *because it

isn't needed here* - one of the very few places on the 'net that remains pure and free from the

"pollution" of advertising.

it would be a shame if this changed and this thread is the first step in that direction..

There was a solr panel manufacturer next to me here in sacramento. I toured the place when they shut it down and saw many ovens like you mentioned, and a lot of glass polishing, cutting, cleaning etc equipment. This company made thin film panels. The landlord gave me all the ones left on the roof when they booted the tenant out, but I still haven't been able to make use of them. So many projects, so little money.

That pollution thing is interesting though. I know they had some air reclaim equipment in there, plus water recycling stuff. But I never saw anything marked haz mat except some basic cleaning products.

The only thing that kept this company afloat was tax and rate payer subsidies. Quite a shame really. The cost per watt is grossly understated when they refuse to factor in the cost of administering programs like that. To say nothing of the tax and rates themselves.

But then what else would we expect from the state legislature?

I have to go to work but I saw this as I'm getting ready

The pollution is in the energy used to make them - electricity, fossil fuels, not local pollution or toxins in the plant itself although some greenhouse gas chemicals are used as well

solar cells are 90 % the same as integrated circuits but while dozens to thousands of chips are produced from the wafer, a solar cell is only a single to a few devices from all the energy put into the silicon - chips can be mighty useful in many ways and the small size is worth the energy/pollution but solar cells are not as they fail to even pay back the energy it took to make them (the large surface area v the cost compared to chips)

there are different types of solar cells and some are cheaper to make than other's but none are actually enviromentally friendly - some are just more unfriendly than others..

wind energy and solar heating are good

if you focus the sun onto solar cells with mirrors (with cooling behind them - solar heat there too) you can do pretty well, but mirrors need aiming and cleaning..

Hex, you seem to know a lot about solar power, but I question the validity of your statements. You say that it's impossible for the level of power being discussed to enter an external outlet, but I've seen it done with this system here in Los Angeles and have heard of it being done in several other places. And as far as I know, Blue Link is functioning at the state building in Augusta, Maine.

Do you have any experience using one yourself, or have you witnessed one in use? If not, I know where you can examine one. My contact information is at the top of the article.

I know a person who's done quite a bit of innovative designs for diverse systems used by millions of people, who was interested in buying a Blue Link, but there wasn't adequate space at their home. (I have to get that person's permission before using their name.)

Blue Link, by the way, has been written about in newspapers. (I'll post the publication names as soon as I dig them up.) There are also online stories about the Solar Challenge that took place in Maine last April. Those publications didn't seem to regard Blue Link as a "fraud."

Getting back to your technical observations, an electric meter can run backwards without modifications, but the newer digital meters cannot. However, a utility company will replace it with an old model, free of charge, if asked.

Nobody that I know of has proposed powering an entire house with Blue Link systems. That's not what they were designed for. Since Blue Links have no storage batteries, which would allow them to provide energy at night, an array of Blue Link systems--IF they could all be plugged in and placed in range of the sun--would at most provide 50% of a home's power.

The idea with this system is that by making solar power cheaper, more people can use it. Right now, only a few people can afford it. The more people use solar (even limited amounts), the more coal plants can be shut down. Also, if Blue Link were to become a common sight, the public would become more familiar with solar power. That, generally, is not going to happen vis-a-vis energy corporations or politicians. If so, it would have happened by now.

It's true that solar systems require oil in their production, but if solar energy is as polluting as you say, why did Peter Camejo of the Green Party offer to pay to have the KPFK building converted to solar power? Do you know something he doesn't? Also, Germany and Japan don't seem to regard solar energy as polluting.

I could research the other points you made, but given the flaws of the statements just mentioned, I don't think that would be a good use of my time.

The intent of the article was to introduce a type of solar system that's significantly different from the others. There are articles on LA Indy Media about biodiesel that are uncritical. However, unlike biodiesel, the Blue Link format only has one provider. Thus, the article seems one-sided. I personally would be jubulant if competing companies were causing variations of Blue Link to be ubiquitous. That would spell the end of coal plants. However, that's not the case.

I would rather see larger solar systems installed rather than smaller ones. I put a lot of time and energy into trying to help the Million Solar Roofs Bill pass in California. Had it passed and had Schwarzenegger signed it (which he indicated he would NOT do because of new clauses that were added), I wouldn't feel as strongly about Blue Link.

To be honest, I think it may be too late to do anything about global warming. However, it would be foolish to assume that and to just give up, which apparently is your answer. I didn't see anything constructive in your remarks (unless it was drowned out by your ranting).

> the level of power being discussed to enter an external outlet

that amount - 480. Watts yes, actually for a 15 amp branch 1,750 Watts, for 20 amps, 2,340 Watts

but a house requires up to 20,000 Watts (peak) so this unit is puny - it's stretching it to even say 10 % (I would say 3 %)



> Those publications didn't seem to regard Blue Link as a "fraud."



it's a fraud in two ways ;

1.) the price PER WATT isn't better (actually worse) than the quoted typical whole-house systems so it's deceptive to claim it's "affordable"

2.) 10 % (3 % by my requirements) is but a drop in the bucket - that's not enough to matter



why spend thousands of dollars on something too small to matter ?



any tax subsidies simply means other people are shelling out for it so the only real benificery is the company selling them..

.

> an electric meter can run backwards without modifications

I didn't say they couldn't



.

> an array of Blue Link systems--IF they could all be plugged in and placed in range of the sun--would at most provide 50% of a home's power.

see - that's admitting yourself they are not viable, too expensive, doesn't provide continuous power a home needs...

.

> (wide scale solar) not going to happen vis-a-vis energy corporations or politicians. If so, it would have happened by now.



wrong - it hasn't happened for the reason I already pointed out - too expensive, too much energy used in manufacturing them and oil too cheap, and it won't happen either for the first 2 reasons

a trickle of power less than half the time for thousands of dollars is NOT "affordable"



> why did Peter Camejo of the Green Party offer to pay to have the KPFK building converted to solar power? Do you know something he doesn't? Also, Germany and Japan don't seem to regard solar energy as polluting.

I said mass production on a wide scale, a single building isn't wide scale, also Germany and Japan do get most of thier power from conventional sources - with NUCLEAR being the worst.

Your logic is circular in several ways. This system is nothing but an expensive feel good toy - it doesn't supply enough power to matter, it's actually MORE expensive per Watt than a whole house system, it has no storage for continuous power like the "$ 15,000 system" it attempts to compare to, and you refute technical arguments based on mis or non understanding what I said to begin with.

The specifications tell the story.

If you're depending on people not understanding them in order to sell this idea, I hate to burst your bubble but I (as I stated) started using solar cells in 1976 and have long experience with them, not to mention work extensively in electronics, design, invent, repair, build and impliment circuits and systems. I also went to the company's website and checked it out before posting my first reply. (that's the first thing I do is collect technical details when the subject involves technology as I have a natural curiosity of all things electrical especially)

I can design and build my own solar system including the inverter and power controller *but I know better as it's a waste of time & money*

which is why I posted

I have backup power and do have several inverters and converters I designed and built myself (not very complicated compared to what they power - what I built them for)





> To be honest, I think it may be too late to do anything about global warming. However, it would be foolish to assume that and to just give up, which apparently is your answer.



WRONG - I suggested solar heat, wind energy and concentrated solar electricity - solar cells would be fine if you concentrated much more sunlight on them and provided heat sinking - which gives solar heat as well.



You really should look into just how much energy it takes to manufacture solar cells - the answer lies there - don't take my word for it.

I 've been thinking of ways to better seal them from the elements, and the cheapest ways to protect them (tempered glass) - if they can be sealed and protected long enough (> 10 years) they would repay the energy it took to make them.

People are also working on other types of solar cells, I've seen some that are made out of copper sheet coated with chemicals (much cheaper, much less energy involved in making them but they aren't as efficient as silicon cells which translates into the surface area problem noted above)

plastic solar cells are being developed as well - they look promising !

It's just that *silicon* cells are not good due to the energy put into making them.

As oil runs out people will be forced to switch to alternatives one way or another.

Silicon is not the answer - it's not even a step in the right direction..

Large area flexible cheap and easy to make solar cells are the future - combined with solar heat (which can be converted to electricity) and wind...



that's why even in my first post I said ;

offer cheap, enviromentally friendly and durable solar cells

- because I know about them already

http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvpayback.htm

Can Solar Cells Ever Recapture the Energy Invested in their Manufacture?

Richard Corkish

Photovoltaics Special Research Centre

University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052 Australia

from Solar Progress

(Australia and New Zealand Solar Energy Society)

vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 16-17 (1997)]



We first consider their results for monocrystalline silicon cells. For the 1989 situation they estimated that an input of 20.5 megaWatt hours (MWh) of conventional energy was required to produce each peak kilowatt* (kWp) of photovoltaic power station capacity, leading to a payback period of approximately 86 months. Under the 1994 conditions the embodied energy was found to be reduced to 12.2 MWh/kWp and the payback period to approximately 51 months. With polycrystalline technology the production energy was 20.0 MWh/kWp and the payback period was 84 months in 1989.



the bluelink requires ~ 10 MWH to make just the solar cells alone (which doesn't even include the controller, inverter and enclosure)



here's the new plastic solar cells they're working on ;

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/03/28_solar.html

Cheap, plastic solar cells may be on the horizon, thanks to new technology developed by UC Berkeley, LBNL chemists

28 March 2002

By Bob Sanders, Media Relations

Berkeley - University of California, Berkeley, chemists have found a way to make cheap plastic solar cells flexible enough to paint onto any surface and potentially able to provide electricity for wearable electronics or other low-power devices.

The group's first crude solar cells have achieved efficiencies of 1.7 percent, far less than the 10 percent efficiencies of today's standard commercial photovoltaics. The best solar cells, which are very expensive semiconductor laminates, convert, at most, 35 percent of the sun's energy into electricity.



see - you don't have to take my word for it;

googled ;

plastic+solar+cells

silicon+solar+cells+energy+used+to+manufacture

you haver factor in how long the panels get used. They last basically forever. Sooner or later they will make back the investment. After that, it's all gravy.

that's the main point I brought up - water seeps into them and ruins them - or - they are damaged by hail

(in the winter water gets into tiny cracks and freezes and expands making the cracks bigger until the seal is broken)

silicone rubber - water causes the rubber to peel away, epoxy fails - the sunlight degrades it and it becomes brittle and cracks, glass - hail cracks and shatters it

The desert, areas without freezing rains, better sealing methods (I'm thinking tempered glass shallow inverted pans with a natural drip edge, maybe have the cells in clear oil which could be changed or topped up, maybe coat the cells with clear plastic as a second layer of protection, maybe have them in a greenhouse as a double barrier from the elements)

they can be protected and last virtually forever, but the one's I've seen over the years don't - even a tiny amount of water ruins them (electricity water and metal - not a good combination)

sunlight over time degrades most any transparent material excepting glass, even so-called "UV blocking" plastic eventually fails.

but the other point was lost - the surface area needed to run a home when clouds and night are factored in becomes more than most people have - especially in cities

wind power often is more viable - which is why you see wind farms pretty commonly but rarely see solar farms

also, concentrating the sun with mirrors is far cheaper than the same surface area in silicon plus you get solar heat as well.

Existing silicon cells are ok for small scale uses like a transmitter in a remote location but for whole house power they are too expensive and take too much space

I'm simply waiting for better cheaper solar cells...

Gotta go with Hex on this one,

At least for the time being. We have solar cells scattering all over the city at present, but the only thing that makes them affordable is someone else helping out. The taxpayers. Sure it would be cheaper to do this large scale, but not necessarily cheap enough when all is said and done. And the fragility factor is way more than understated. The earthquake factor alone would be devastating if every house had some on the troof here in California. I lived next to a solar manufacturer here in Sacramento for some years, and I can tell you that they were in constant possession of broken panels that were returned by the utility. By the crate, there were at least 10 a week coming and then being tossed into the dumpster. Some were labeled wind damaged, some shipping. Also, the birds and other critter drop stuff on them, dust, wind blown leaves, etc. need to be kept clean or they inhibit the efficiency. At cal Expo alone, the monumental task of maintaining them probably outweighs any savings in energy. Those things are just too easy of a target for vandals to be practical without plenty of protection.

But most of all, all the work they do is during the sunlight. about half the time on earth, yet we live 24/7 these days. We have to find another way.

I will use the panels I have somehow, but I doubt I would ever have purchased an entire system up front. Especially so without going on the government dole for it

Hex,

I regret the late reply. I've been overwhelmed lately and exhausted after participating in in peace vigils for over seven hours this weekend. I am taking your key points seriously and doing further research on them despite the confrontatonal tone of our last exchange. As one who hopes to create a culture of peace, I regret the part that I, at least, played a part in it.

Mind you, I haven't come to any conclusions, but I think your points are worth further investigation, and I'll post whatever I learn.

If you look at other stories I've posted here, I think you'll find that I can be critical, even of people whose side I am on, such as the anti-war movement.

Regarding the longevity and resilience of the solar panels, these ones have a warranty of 25 years, and the inverters 10 years. This, of course, raises the question of the warranties' value since there's no guarantee that the company will be around that long. Perhaps the warranties are provided by the companies that actually make the panels and inverters (Blue Link does not make them), but the question needs to be asked. Sunnyboy makes the inverters; I was told who makes the panels, and am looking for it in my notes.

I believe I could also arrange to let anyone who wants to, examine some of the panels, which are in use here in L.A. on a Blue Link system. This offer would be good to people, whether or not they are skeptical. I have to be somewhat cautious only beause the system is at a residence, and I have to respect those people's privacy. I'll also need some assurance that a visitor isn't going there to case the place.

My next response will probably not appear right away as my research is and will be time-consuming. Please keep an eye on the comments section of LA Indy Media.

would be interesting - to see if they have figured out better ways to seal them from the rain

there's one huge difference - I'm from up north where we get freezing weather

it's the winter that's really hard on them..

California isn't a severe enviroment.. Alaska would be.

Once solar cells are cheaper and made of plastic the story would be much better.

One last detail worth mentioning is that silicon cells are very thin and brittle like glass which doesn't lend itself well to high winds and hail.

See if you can find out whether they use plastic or glass and if so tempered, remembering more expensive materials impact on the cost

inverters and other electronics are of no concern - excepting the cost v power output

the last issue is the price per Watt and the percentage of a home's power needs such a small system provides - bigger blue links would be nice, matter of fact a range of models up to 20 times that size, and plug in power backup modules (batteries) although existing general purpose UPS units will do as well..

I'm sorry for my delay in responding. I spoke again with Naoto Inoue, the interviewee in the above-article, regarding these issues. Blue Link uses British/Beyond Petroleum (BP) panels that are crystalline. He says that crystalline products tend to last longer than thin-film technology. He cited tests by Sandia Labs and the National Renewable Energy Labs.

Again, the Blue Link panels are warrantied for 25 years. I did a Google search on "solar," "panels," and "warranty" and found that many panels have warranties for 20 or more years.

In an earlier post, Hex says that a solar panel must last 10 or more years to make up for the energy required to fabricate it. BP claims that it takes two-and-a-half years. In any case, it appears that they last long enough to make up for the energy that goes into making them.

As far as resistance to rain and other harsh weather, one of Blue Link's coinventors lives up north, where it snows and rains a lot, and has not had problems with wear or leakage in the 18 or so months they've been set up. This person was one of the first to install Blue Link. I can ask if there's been photo documentation.

Another person on this board raised the issue of earthquakes. Blue Link is intended to be ground-based or placed on flat roofs. (It can be installed on a sloping roof, but that would entail the installation of a special platform.) According to Inoue, the added weight of a Blue Link on one's roof is about two pounds per square foot.

And yes, solar energy is subsidized (vis-a-vis government rebates), but so too is gas, nuclear, and coal.

http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvpayback.htm

"Can Solar Cells Ever Recapture the Energy Invested in their Manufacture?

Richard Corkish

Photovoltaics Special Research Centre

University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052 Australia

from Solar Progress

(Australia and New Zealand Solar Energy Society)

vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 16-17 (1997)] "



the data (not the study) is late 80's - early 90's, things have improved a bit since then, in some ways -

(I studied them mid 70's to 80's)

"so too is gas, nuclear, and coal"

yes but they don't claim to be good for the enviroment or a solution to our energy woes

admitting they're poly then saying they last *longer* isn't very reassuring since that's mainly the type I've seen fail over the years, besides they still take huge amounts of energy to produce - at today's prices too not like 30 years ago when gasoline was 29 cents a gallon (here where I live natural gas is 4 X's the price it was just a few years ago and electricity is 3 X's higher - it's now around 12.4 cents a KWH when a few years ago it was only 4 to 5 cents)

the energy situation here is getting much worse, more quickly than I thought it would..

that same energy is what's used to create the solar cells, making them an even worse return on the investment, not better, as poly/mono silicon technology hasn't improved over the years but energy costs have went up by an order of magnitude

only new types (flexible, cheaper, plastic, organic) can offset this - any company pushing silicon as a solution isn't really helping anyone or anything other than thier own bottom line. this was true 20-30 years ago and is 10 times more true today

The wind is a far more damaging force on a yearly basis. A sizable earthquake is a problem all right, and once the panels are broken they are pretty much useless, unlike a broken gas line which can be repaired with materials within your grasp. By far though, the majority of panels that I saw on returned boxes come through that facility were labeled "wind damage".

Also, the fact that the taxpayers get shafted with subsidized gas and electric is hardly a reason to willingly stick our necks in stock for another during its infancy. You know the old saying....

(Whack!)

Thank you sir, may I have another?

Out of curiosity, what did you mean when you wrote the headline in your last post: "Hex says" - more like "Hex quotes"