Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"Mary Fisher" writes:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
Not much. In spite of much research, their efficiency has
only doubled in the ~50 years since they were invented, and
almost none of that was recently
If the research you read was differnt would you be persuaded?

Not sure that's a sensible question. I've kept an eye on
the research to see if there's anything on the horizon.
The research is largely irrelevent though -- it's how they
perform now that governs if I would be persuaded now. The
lack of progress is disappointing, but I'm aware it's not
for want of trying -- lots has been done and it's had
serious money behind it from areas such as the space
industry and energy industry, something which other
renewable sources really struggle for.

If they were more efficient or significantly cheaper, I
might be persuaded. They don't even need to payback from
my perspective -- remember I said I'm geeky and do try
things out for the sake of it, but they need to be
significantly more attractive in some aspect before I
would do so.

You only have to do the overall maths for watts per square meter to
discover that in THIS country, they haven't a hope of ever doing more
than a few tenths of a percent of the winter energy needs.

Sure they can on a sunny day, net you a tankful of hot water. So could
doing two hours exercise on a treadmill hooked up to a generator in all
likelihood.