http://euanmearns.com/the-energy-return-of-solar-pv/
>The findings of this single study suggest that deploying solar PV at high latitudes in countries like Germany and the UK is a total waste of time, energy and money. All that is achieved is to raise the price of electricity and destabilise the grid. Defenders of RE and solar will point out that this is a single paper and there are certainly some of the inputs to Ferroni and Hopkirk that are open to debate. But there are reasons to believe that the findings are zeroing in on reality. For example Prieto and Hall found ERoEI for solar PV = 2. Looking only at cloudy, high temperate latitudes will substantially degrade that number.
>And you just need to look at the outputs as shown below. Solar PV produces a dribble in winter and absolutely nothing at the 18:00 peak demand. There is a large financial cost and energy cost to compensate for this that RE enthusiasts dismiss with a wave of the arm.
>Solar only covers 82% of the energy put into making it
True. Even worse, it only reaches that 82% mark after 20 YEARS.
But still, sometimes it's more affordable than grid power.
t. Redneck innawoods living with solar power
>>79711341
Paper doesn't talk about personal costs, it just debunks liberals who say solar is "good for the environment". How ironic that it's actually far worse.
It's almost as if people have been saying this for years now and they were too fucking stupid to listen.
>>79711601
>liberals who say solar is "good for the environment
Liberals are morons.
Most can't wipe their own ass without a 'program'.
Personally, I'm happy for cheap solar power right now. But it isn't really economical, and definitely not sustainable.
It is, however, useful.
>>79711020
the point of the subsidies is to make first world upper class liberals feel good
they're successful in that
>>79713857
>the point of the subsidies is to make first world upper class liberals feel good
Read this again. And, again. And, again.
Liberals don't think. Like women, they feel.
If it FEELS good, it must be good.
I love that I can buy good 100 Watt solar panels for $300 each. I love that they will last for the next 20 years, or more. I love that I can live off grid this cheaply.
Solar, as we know it today is not sustainable. My panels are some of the best you can buy, and they're 17% efficient in power production. Over a 20 year lifespan, they're 83% efficient: that means iver 20 years, they produce 83% of the power needed to produce them.
Still, I get a tax rebate every year for "going green".
kek.
>>79711020
It will recoup over time jackass.
>>79711341
>20 years
You're not thinking far enough ahead. Even if it takes a lifetime to recoup cost it's worth it from that point forward.
>>79711020
Oh hey, what a surprise, I am yet again proven right about everything.
>grid independence
>total waste of time
>>79718728
Yeah, over twenty years, unless it breaks or wears out or becomes obscured or ten billion other things.
>>79718728
Yeah I guess if they last 30 years you'll be net positive. Or you could just skip out on this whole boondoggle and invest in nuclear.
>>79714613
question. when you say 17% power production, is that simply total energy converted from sun to electric power, or is it a measure of total useful energy being used by all your appliances etc...
>went into industrial engineering
>now working for a firm that specializes in better reactor design
>everyone thought nuclear was dead after Fukushima but we're getting more work than ever before
>the next generation of reactor will become the most cost effective and efficient method of power generation in the world
>older reactors indented for Plutonium production slowly going offline
>better fuel processing methods about to come online
>can recover a reusable material from spent fuel rods so they can be used in other specially designed reactors
>all the retards in the renewable energy market are starting to lose profits
>already getting people kissing my ass for a position in my team even though It's not my call who gets hired
>mfw I'm part of an industry bouncing back into life and those refusing to admit it are being left behind
if it only produces 82% over 20 years, how long does an average solar panel last before you need to throw it out and replace it?
>>79711341
>more affordable
>heavily subsidized
lel
>>79711020
Seriously, who ever thought solar power in the UK or Germany made sense? I'll give you ten to one odds those solar manufacturers knew the politicians.
>>79723180
just watch as the resident pro-green cuckolds start to bash you for this post by parroting what they read in the guardian
>>79723286
Depends on their location; subject a panel to heavy wind loads, heavy rain, snow, hail and pretty much any slightly harsh weather, they lose their efficiency incredibly quickly. To make things worse, shielding a panel with glass lowers its efficiency from day one due to the extra material it has to pass though.
>>79723180
Nobody wants your potato-powered reactors
>>79722600
that would be sun to electricity
>>79723709
So basically they're only potentially viable in the desert?
>>79711020
>deploying solar PV at high latitudes in countries like Germany and the UK is a total waste of time, energy and money
So, if you put solar panels where there isn't that much sunlight, you get a small amount of energy. Is this what you are telling me?
Put them in Spain or Portugal and problem solved
>>79724400
Desert conditions are brutal
>>79723286
We have a 20 year warranty on our systems. That includes hardware, panels, and inverter.
If that's any indication
>>79718819
PV cells aren't indestructible nor do they produce the same amount of power over their life.
>>79723180
Only a tard would take anything over nuclear.
But while tards control my cuntry I think I'll get some solar.
>>79724400
tropics also.
>>79714613
>Solar, as we know it today is not sustainable. My panels are some of the best you can buy,
Those panels that you buy today are multiple times more efficient and cheaper than the best you could buy 5 years ago. And that technological trend appears to be on the upswing, panels are getting increasingly cheaper and increasingly better, the judgement call you're making based on 2015 technology will likely be hugely different than 2020 technology.
I guess what humors me the most is that even solar nay-sayers are *using solar* now while bashing it. 5 years ago it was unusable, worthless tech. Now its usable, but will never be a long-term solution. What will you be saying 5 years later?
