Scratch

they're overpriced because they're trendy

I always assumed it's because of the high cost of the material used to make it (some silicon thingy?), I'm pretty sure the price is the only reason solar panels still aren't too widespread, here in Chile at least.

they're overpriced because they're expensive to make

rufflebee wrote:

coolstuff wrote:

rufflebee wrote:

they're overpriced because they're trendy

I don't think that's true. I think they're overpriced because by nature, photovoltaic cells are pricey with the manufacturing alone. With bare electronic parts like solar panels, which aren't exactly a "consumer" product, trendiness doesn't count so much as manufacturing value.

they're priced high because they're expensive to make

they're overpriced because they're trendy

Since when have solar panels been trendy? Sure, they're trendy as far as far as energy sources go, but when was the last time you told somebody you had a photovoltaic cell and they started thinking of you as cool?

In my opinion, power generators can't really be trendy as they're not exactly a huge consumer product.

They cost 20x more than they will ever save on energy. 

I'd get a miniature nuclear reactor in my house if I were you. 

illusionist wrote:

They cost 20x more than they will ever save on energy. 

I'd get a miniature nuclear reactor in my house if I were you. 

+1945

nuclear power FTW. People are so afraid because of japan, but its really the most green, efficient form of energy. sure, there's radioactivity, but one fuel rod lasts 5 years, and produces energy worth multiple tons of coal worth of energy. What we need now, is to find out how to safely produce energy from the depleted uranium.

illusionist wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

illusionist wrote:

They cost 20x more than they will ever save on energy. 

I'd get a miniature nuclear reactor in my house if I were you. 

+1945

nuclear power FTW. People are so afraid because of japan, but its really the most green, efficient form of energy. sure, there's radioactivity, but one fuel rod lasts 5 years, and produces energy worth multiple tons of coal worth of energy. What we need now, is to find out how to safely produce energy from the depleted uranium.

One uranium pellet produces more energy than...

200 truckloads of oil
30 trainloads of coal
50 wind turbines running at 30mph for a month
100 square yards of solar collectors in direct sunlight for two months (not at night!)

...?

It is 100% SAFE

unless

-earthquake (don't build a plant on a fault line! duh!)
-extreme operator error
-sabotage

exactly. no pollution at all. they had backups, but they were a generator (destroyed) and a backup battery which only lasted a couple hours. the earthquake itself didnt destroy it.

illusionist wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

illusionist wrote:

They cost 20x more than they will ever save on energy. 

I'd get a miniature nuclear reactor in my house if I were you. 

+1945

nuclear power FTW. People are so afraid because of japan, but its really the most green, efficient form of energy. sure, there's radioactivity, but one fuel rod lasts 5 years, and produces energy worth multiple tons of coal worth of energy. What we need now, is to find out how to safely produce energy from the depleted uranium.

One uranium pellet produces more energy than...

200 truckloads of oil
30 trainloads of coal
50 wind turbines running at 30mph for a month
100 square yards of solar collectors in direct sunlight for two months (not at night!)

...?

It is 100% SAFE

unless

-earthquake (don't build a plant on a fault line! duh!)
-extreme operator error
-sabotage

Nice to know someone knows what they are talking about. I wanna nuclear reactor for Christmas santa. What's that? NO I don't want the one in Japan.

What kind of essay is this?

Next essay:
WHY DO YOU THINK PANCAKES ARE EDIBLE?

16Skittles wrote:

illusionist wrote:

They cost 20x more than they will ever save on energy. 

I'd get a miniature nuclear reactor in my house if I were you. 

+1945

nuclear power FTW. People are so afraid because of japan, but its really the most green, efficient form of energy. sure, there's radioactivity, but one fuel rod lasts 5 years, and produces energy worth multiple tons of coal worth of energy. What we need now, is to find out how to safely produce energy from the depleted uranium.

While uranium is a lovely source of energy and yes, it is green (I'd like to point out Canada has the safest reactors out there), it does produce a lot of radioactive waste that we have no way of disposing of for thousands of years, and we have to keep cool to prevent radioactivity. If humanity were to die out in a hundred years, our power plants would go out, our uranium would get warm, out concrete basins would eventually die off, and bam, the Earth is dead.

IMHO, the safest and most effective form of energy is wind.

coolstuff wrote:

rufflebee wrote:

they're overpriced because they're trendy

I don't think that's true. I think they're overpriced because by nature, photovoltaic cells are pricey with the manufacturing alone. With bare electronic parts like solar panels, which aren't exactly a "consumer" product, trendiness doesn't count so much as manufacturing value.

We discussed this in science - the problems with solar panels are that they're expensive to begin with, and while operating it is essentially free, they're quite delicate. My school payed a LOOOOT of money to get solar panels installed and they broke within a year. After I think six years, they just sit there, completely useless. My school is the biggest in the city and the solar panels span the entire roof, so it's not like this was a small investment.

Well, now I can stalk you even more, I know what school you go to.

Its very sad that they are overpriced, as it is a great way to save energy and be kind to the envirornment. I think they are overpriced because of the economy right now.