98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
05-14-2007, 01:29 PM
#351
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Will Honea <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote:
> XS11E wrote:
>> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary
>> cost of generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar
>> panels but the *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels.
>> Dollars don't enter into the equation at all.
>>
>> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime
>> but requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing
>> proposition, and that's what I've heard (although the numbers I
>> just made up for reference.)
>>
>> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on
>> similar projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in
>> manufacturing techniques since but who knows?
>>
>> That's what I'm trying to find out.....
>
> Well, the end-user price of any device is a fairly decent measure
> of the energy used to produce it
Actually, it's not related at all. See Bob Officer's post, he says:
"I have two PV cells that are 45 years old (bought from Edmund
Scientific's) and still producing power.
the cost of those two cells were $10. 45 years ago. they are still
producing power. the cost per cell has dropped and those same cells
now sell for about $1.75"
The energy required to make the cells hasn't changed in 45 years nor
has the amount of energy they'll produce. The monetary price has
changed as more are produced the individual price goes down.
The energy used to produce a product isn't related to the cost of the
product at all, look at fluctuations in gasoline over the last few
weeks, the energy required to produce it hasn't changed, the price is
market driven as are all prices.
The problem is this, people always think in terms of monetary cost and
that's wrong where "green" is concerned. Think of a coal fired
generating station suppling energy to your house and to a factory
making solar panels. Your house requires X amount of energy to run
your TV, PC, etc. over it's lifetime.
If the coal fired plant uses 2X energy to supply your house and the
solar panel requires 3X energy to make, you get the solar panel and
don't have any more electric bill, you saved a fortune and it's GREAT
for you, the consumer but it's BAD for the ecology because your house
has now used MORE energy, consumed more of the planet's resources, etc.
The reverse would be true if the solar panel cost 1.5X to manufacture,
then it would be good for you, the consumer, and good for the ecology
as well.
Things aren't as simple as they sound but there is one simple rule to
follow, ecologists are almost always wrong because they do not
understand the problem and frequently do much more harm than good.
The "inconvenient truth" is that nobody really has a handle on the
ecology problems and any action taken is as likely to make things worse
as it is to make them better.
> XS11E wrote:
>> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary
>> cost of generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar
>> panels but the *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels.
>> Dollars don't enter into the equation at all.
>>
>> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime
>> but requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing
>> proposition, and that's what I've heard (although the numbers I
>> just made up for reference.)
>>
>> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on
>> similar projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in
>> manufacturing techniques since but who knows?
>>
>> That's what I'm trying to find out.....
>
> Well, the end-user price of any device is a fairly decent measure
> of the energy used to produce it
Actually, it's not related at all. See Bob Officer's post, he says:
"I have two PV cells that are 45 years old (bought from Edmund
Scientific's) and still producing power.
the cost of those two cells were $10. 45 years ago. they are still
producing power. the cost per cell has dropped and those same cells
now sell for about $1.75"
The energy required to make the cells hasn't changed in 45 years nor
has the amount of energy they'll produce. The monetary price has
changed as more are produced the individual price goes down.
The energy used to produce a product isn't related to the cost of the
product at all, look at fluctuations in gasoline over the last few
weeks, the energy required to produce it hasn't changed, the price is
market driven as are all prices.
The problem is this, people always think in terms of monetary cost and
that's wrong where "green" is concerned. Think of a coal fired
generating station suppling energy to your house and to a factory
making solar panels. Your house requires X amount of energy to run
your TV, PC, etc. over it's lifetime.
If the coal fired plant uses 2X energy to supply your house and the
solar panel requires 3X energy to make, you get the solar panel and
don't have any more electric bill, you saved a fortune and it's GREAT
for you, the consumer but it's BAD for the ecology because your house
has now used MORE energy, consumed more of the planet's resources, etc.
The reverse would be true if the solar panel cost 1.5X to manufacture,
then it would be good for you, the consumer, and good for the ecology
as well.
Things aren't as simple as they sound but there is one simple rule to
follow, ecologists are almost always wrong because they do not
understand the problem and frequently do much more harm than good.
The "inconvenient truth" is that nobody really has a handle on the
ecology problems and any action taken is as likely to make things worse
as it is to make them better.
05-14-2007, 01:29 PM
#352
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Will Honea <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote:
> XS11E wrote:
>> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary
>> cost of generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar
>> panels but the *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels.
>> Dollars don't enter into the equation at all.
>>
>> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime
>> but requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing
>> proposition, and that's what I've heard (although the numbers I
>> just made up for reference.)
>>
>> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on
>> similar projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in
>> manufacturing techniques since but who knows?
>>
>> That's what I'm trying to find out.....
>
> Well, the end-user price of any device is a fairly decent measure
> of the energy used to produce it
Actually, it's not related at all. See Bob Officer's post, he says:
"I have two PV cells that are 45 years old (bought from Edmund
Scientific's) and still producing power.
the cost of those two cells were $10. 45 years ago. they are still
producing power. the cost per cell has dropped and those same cells
now sell for about $1.75"
The energy required to make the cells hasn't changed in 45 years nor
has the amount of energy they'll produce. The monetary price has
changed as more are produced the individual price goes down.
The energy used to produce a product isn't related to the cost of the
product at all, look at fluctuations in gasoline over the last few
weeks, the energy required to produce it hasn't changed, the price is
market driven as are all prices.
The problem is this, people always think in terms of monetary cost and
that's wrong where "green" is concerned. Think of a coal fired
generating station suppling energy to your house and to a factory
making solar panels. Your house requires X amount of energy to run
your TV, PC, etc. over it's lifetime.
If the coal fired plant uses 2X energy to supply your house and the
solar panel requires 3X energy to make, you get the solar panel and
don't have any more electric bill, you saved a fortune and it's GREAT
for you, the consumer but it's BAD for the ecology because your house
has now used MORE energy, consumed more of the planet's resources, etc.
The reverse would be true if the solar panel cost 1.5X to manufacture,
then it would be good for you, the consumer, and good for the ecology
as well.
Things aren't as simple as they sound but there is one simple rule to
follow, ecologists are almost always wrong because they do not
understand the problem and frequently do much more harm than good.
The "inconvenient truth" is that nobody really has a handle on the
ecology problems and any action taken is as likely to make things worse
as it is to make them better.
> XS11E wrote:
>> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary
>> cost of generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar
>> panels but the *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels.
>> Dollars don't enter into the equation at all.
>>
>> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime
>> but requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing
>> proposition, and that's what I've heard (although the numbers I
>> just made up for reference.)
>>
>> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on
>> similar projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in
>> manufacturing techniques since but who knows?
>>
>> That's what I'm trying to find out.....
>
> Well, the end-user price of any device is a fairly decent measure
> of the energy used to produce it
Actually, it's not related at all. See Bob Officer's post, he says:
"I have two PV cells that are 45 years old (bought from Edmund
Scientific's) and still producing power.
the cost of those two cells were $10. 45 years ago. they are still
producing power. the cost per cell has dropped and those same cells
now sell for about $1.75"
The energy required to make the cells hasn't changed in 45 years nor
has the amount of energy they'll produce. The monetary price has
changed as more are produced the individual price goes down.
The energy used to produce a product isn't related to the cost of the
product at all, look at fluctuations in gasoline over the last few
weeks, the energy required to produce it hasn't changed, the price is
market driven as are all prices.
The problem is this, people always think in terms of monetary cost and
that's wrong where "green" is concerned. Think of a coal fired
generating station suppling energy to your house and to a factory
making solar panels. Your house requires X amount of energy to run
your TV, PC, etc. over it's lifetime.
If the coal fired plant uses 2X energy to supply your house and the
solar panel requires 3X energy to make, you get the solar panel and
don't have any more electric bill, you saved a fortune and it's GREAT
for you, the consumer but it's BAD for the ecology because your house
has now used MORE energy, consumed more of the planet's resources, etc.
The reverse would be true if the solar panel cost 1.5X to manufacture,
then it would be good for you, the consumer, and good for the ecology
as well.
Things aren't as simple as they sound but there is one simple rule to
follow, ecologists are almost always wrong because they do not
understand the problem and frequently do much more harm than good.
The "inconvenient truth" is that nobody really has a handle on the
ecology problems and any action taken is as likely to make things worse
as it is to make them better.
05-14-2007, 01:29 PM
#353
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Will Honea <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote:
> XS11E wrote:
>> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary
>> cost of generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar
>> panels but the *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels.
>> Dollars don't enter into the equation at all.
>>
>> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime
>> but requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing
>> proposition, and that's what I've heard (although the numbers I
>> just made up for reference.)
>>
>> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on
>> similar projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in
>> manufacturing techniques since but who knows?
>>
>> That's what I'm trying to find out.....
>
> Well, the end-user price of any device is a fairly decent measure
> of the energy used to produce it
Actually, it's not related at all. See Bob Officer's post, he says:
"I have two PV cells that are 45 years old (bought from Edmund
Scientific's) and still producing power.
the cost of those two cells were $10. 45 years ago. they are still
producing power. the cost per cell has dropped and those same cells
now sell for about $1.75"
The energy required to make the cells hasn't changed in 45 years nor
has the amount of energy they'll produce. The monetary price has
changed as more are produced the individual price goes down.
The energy used to produce a product isn't related to the cost of the
product at all, look at fluctuations in gasoline over the last few
weeks, the energy required to produce it hasn't changed, the price is
market driven as are all prices.
The problem is this, people always think in terms of monetary cost and
that's wrong where "green" is concerned. Think of a coal fired
generating station suppling energy to your house and to a factory
making solar panels. Your house requires X amount of energy to run
your TV, PC, etc. over it's lifetime.
If the coal fired plant uses 2X energy to supply your house and the
solar panel requires 3X energy to make, you get the solar panel and
don't have any more electric bill, you saved a fortune and it's GREAT
for you, the consumer but it's BAD for the ecology because your house
has now used MORE energy, consumed more of the planet's resources, etc.
The reverse would be true if the solar panel cost 1.5X to manufacture,
then it would be good for you, the consumer, and good for the ecology
as well.
Things aren't as simple as they sound but there is one simple rule to
follow, ecologists are almost always wrong because they do not
understand the problem and frequently do much more harm than good.
The "inconvenient truth" is that nobody really has a handle on the
ecology problems and any action taken is as likely to make things worse
as it is to make them better.
> XS11E wrote:
>> Thanks, but neither address the issue which isn't the monetary
>> cost of generating electricity, comparing conventional vs. solar
>> panels but the *ENERGY* cost of manufacturing the solar panels.
>> Dollars don't enter into the equation at all.
>>
>> IE, if a solar panel can generate 1 MegaWatt during it's lifetime
>> but requires 1.2 MegaWatt to manufacture, it's a losing
>> proposition, and that's what I've heard (although the numbers I
>> just made up for reference.)
>>
>> The information came from an engineer working for Motorola on
>> similar projects at the time. I'm sure there are improvements in
>> manufacturing techniques since but who knows?
>>
>> That's what I'm trying to find out.....
>
> Well, the end-user price of any device is a fairly decent measure
> of the energy used to produce it
Actually, it's not related at all. See Bob Officer's post, he says:
"I have two PV cells that are 45 years old (bought from Edmund
Scientific's) and still producing power.
the cost of those two cells were $10. 45 years ago. they are still
producing power. the cost per cell has dropped and those same cells
now sell for about $1.75"
The energy required to make the cells hasn't changed in 45 years nor
has the amount of energy they'll produce. The monetary price has
changed as more are produced the individual price goes down.
The energy used to produce a product isn't related to the cost of the
product at all, look at fluctuations in gasoline over the last few
weeks, the energy required to produce it hasn't changed, the price is
market driven as are all prices.
The problem is this, people always think in terms of monetary cost and
that's wrong where "green" is concerned. Think of a coal fired
generating station suppling energy to your house and to a factory
making solar panels. Your house requires X amount of energy to run
your TV, PC, etc. over it's lifetime.
If the coal fired plant uses 2X energy to supply your house and the
solar panel requires 3X energy to make, you get the solar panel and
don't have any more electric bill, you saved a fortune and it's GREAT
for you, the consumer but it's BAD for the ecology because your house
has now used MORE energy, consumed more of the planet's resources, etc.
The reverse would be true if the solar panel cost 1.5X to manufacture,
then it would be good for you, the consumer, and good for the ecology
as well.
Things aren't as simple as they sound but there is one simple rule to
follow, ecologists are almost always wrong because they do not
understand the problem and frequently do much more harm than good.
The "inconvenient truth" is that nobody really has a handle on the
ecology problems and any action taken is as likely to make things worse
as it is to make them better.
05-14-2007, 08:55 PM
#354
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Hi Earle,
And they had a pass to travel in the diamond lane, that's until the
California Transportation discovered they only are capable of fifty five
miles an hour, totally pissing off ever car that use the car pool lane
legally.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message
news:46478e71$0$28270$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om
> I don't know either but this is the sort of thing that one hears about the
> batteries and electronics in hybrid cars. In Albuquerque you can park for
> free in city parking if you have one. That would almost make it worth
> driving one.
>
> Earle
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
And they had a pass to travel in the diamond lane, that's until the
California Transportation discovered they only are capable of fifty five
miles an hour, totally pissing off ever car that use the car pool lane
legally.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message
news:46478e71$0$28270$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om
> I don't know either but this is the sort of thing that one hears about the
> batteries and electronics in hybrid cars. In Albuquerque you can park for
> free in city parking if you have one. That would almost make it worth
> driving one.
>
> Earle
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
05-14-2007, 08:55 PM
#355
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Hi Earle,
And they had a pass to travel in the diamond lane, that's until the
California Transportation discovered they only are capable of fifty five
miles an hour, totally pissing off ever car that use the car pool lane
legally.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message
news:46478e71$0$28270$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om
> I don't know either but this is the sort of thing that one hears about the
> batteries and electronics in hybrid cars. In Albuquerque you can park for
> free in city parking if you have one. That would almost make it worth
> driving one.
>
> Earle
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
And they had a pass to travel in the diamond lane, that's until the
California Transportation discovered they only are capable of fifty five
miles an hour, totally pissing off ever car that use the car pool lane
legally.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message
news:46478e71$0$28270$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om
> I don't know either but this is the sort of thing that one hears about the
> batteries and electronics in hybrid cars. In Albuquerque you can park for
> free in city parking if you have one. That would almost make it worth
> driving one.
>
> Earle
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
05-14-2007, 08:55 PM
#356
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Hi Earle,
And they had a pass to travel in the diamond lane, that's until the
California Transportation discovered they only are capable of fifty five
miles an hour, totally pissing off ever car that use the car pool lane
legally.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message
news:46478e71$0$28270$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om
> I don't know either but this is the sort of thing that one hears about the
> batteries and electronics in hybrid cars. In Albuquerque you can park for
> free in city parking if you have one. That would almost make it worth
> driving one.
>
> Earle
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
And they had a pass to travel in the diamond lane, that's until the
California Transportation discovered they only are capable of fifty five
miles an hour, totally pissing off ever car that use the car pool lane
legally.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message
news:46478e71$0$28270$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om
> I don't know either but this is the sort of thing that one hears about the
> batteries and electronics in hybrid cars. In Albuquerque you can park for
> free in city parking if you have one. That would almost make it worth
> driving one.
>
> Earle
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
05-14-2007, 08:55 PM
#357
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Hi Earle,
And they had a pass to travel in the diamond lane, that's until the
California Transportation discovered they only are capable of fifty five
miles an hour, totally pissing off ever car that use the car pool lane
legally.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message
news:46478e71$0$28270$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om
> I don't know either but this is the sort of thing that one hears about the
> batteries and electronics in hybrid cars. In Albuquerque you can park for
> free in city parking if you have one. That would almost make it worth
> driving one.
>
> Earle
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
And they had a pass to travel in the diamond lane, that's until the
California Transportation discovered they only are capable of fifty five
miles an hour, totally pissing off ever car that use the car pool lane
legally.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message
news:46478e71$0$28270$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om
> I don't know either but this is the sort of thing that one hears about the
> batteries and electronics in hybrid cars. In Albuquerque you can park for
> free in city parking if you have one. That would almost make it worth
> driving one.
>
> Earle
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
05-14-2007, 09:18 PM
#358
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Curiosity is killing me, what do you power with a mili watt?
Oh, look you may buy a iPod charger for a hundred bucks:
http://www.earthtechproducts.com/p7....hannelid=NEXTA Geez,
I'd better up plug those chargers from my walls. <ROTFLMAO>
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:6q3g43t1sfanjso6brfqb8kcpc3236lmc2@4ax.com
>
> I have two PV cells that are 45 years old (bought from Edmund
> Scientific's) and still producing power.
> the cost of those two cells were $10. 45 years ago. they are still
> producing power. the cost per cell has dropped and those same cells
> now sell for about $1.75
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Oh, look you may buy a iPod charger for a hundred bucks:
http://www.earthtechproducts.com/p7....hannelid=NEXTA Geez,
I'd better up plug those chargers from my walls. <ROTFLMAO>
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:6q3g43t1sfanjso6brfqb8kcpc3236lmc2@4ax.com
>
> I have two PV cells that are 45 years old (bought from Edmund
> Scientific's) and still producing power.
> the cost of those two cells were $10. 45 years ago. they are still
> producing power. the cost per cell has dropped and those same cells
> now sell for about $1.75
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
05-14-2007, 09:18 PM
#359
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Curiosity is killing me, what do you power with a mili watt?
Oh, look you may buy a iPod charger for a hundred bucks:
http://www.earthtechproducts.com/p7....hannelid=NEXTA Geez,
I'd better up plug those chargers from my walls. <ROTFLMAO>
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:6q3g43t1sfanjso6brfqb8kcpc3236lmc2@4ax.com
>
> I have two PV cells that are 45 years old (bought from Edmund
> Scientific's) and still producing power.
> the cost of those two cells were $10. 45 years ago. they are still
> producing power. the cost per cell has dropped and those same cells
> now sell for about $1.75
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Oh, look you may buy a iPod charger for a hundred bucks:
http://www.earthtechproducts.com/p7....hannelid=NEXTA Geez,
I'd better up plug those chargers from my walls. <ROTFLMAO>
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:6q3g43t1sfanjso6brfqb8kcpc3236lmc2@4ax.com
>
> I have two PV cells that are 45 years old (bought from Edmund
> Scientific's) and still producing power.
> the cost of those two cells were $10. 45 years ago. they are still
> producing power. the cost per cell has dropped and those same cells
> now sell for about $1.75
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
05-14-2007, 09:18 PM
#360
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Curiosity is killing me, what do you power with a mili watt?
Oh, look you may buy a iPod charger for a hundred bucks:
http://www.earthtechproducts.com/p7....hannelid=NEXTA Geez,
I'd better up plug those chargers from my walls. <ROTFLMAO>
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:6q3g43t1sfanjso6brfqb8kcpc3236lmc2@4ax.com
>
> I have two PV cells that are 45 years old (bought from Edmund
> Scientific's) and still producing power.
> the cost of those two cells were $10. 45 years ago. they are still
> producing power. the cost per cell has dropped and those same cells
> now sell for about $1.75
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Oh, look you may buy a iPod charger for a hundred bucks:
http://www.earthtechproducts.com/p7....hannelid=NEXTA Geez,
I'd better up plug those chargers from my walls. <ROTFLMAO>
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
news:6q3g43t1sfanjso6brfqb8kcpc3236lmc2@4ax.com
>
> I have two PV cells that are 45 years old (bought from Edmund
> Scientific's) and still producing power.
> the cost of those two cells were $10. 45 years ago. they are still
> producing power. the cost per cell has dropped and those same cells
> now sell for about $1.75
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
