11 ms·

"Looking at the bulk of the research, it’s more likely that solar panels, over their lifetime, generate 10-15 times as much energy as it takes to produce them a

"Looking at the bulk of the research, it’s more likely that solar panels, over their lifetime, generate 10-15 times as much energy as it takes to produce them and their associated hardware. That number may be as high as 25. And it’s rising over time." http://rameznaam.com/2015/06/04/whats-the-eroi-of-solar/ http://rameznaam.com/2015/06/04/whats-the-eroi-of-solar/

maoistinquisitr 9y ago
These claims are based on simplistic spread sheet models. We have REAL WORLD DATA. The real world experience throughout europe and the USA shows net losses. I repeat: if it worked the plants would be profitable and they would be going up without tax subsidies. Do you dispute this? Does the legal environment somehow prevent entrepreneurs throughout the western world from selling solar power into the grid?
- bufferoverflow 9y ago
  Nothing prevents anybody from selling solar power. Lots of solar farms are live and many more are being built. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta... (note how the biggest ones are all new)
- telchar 9y ago
  If you think tax subsidies have anything to do with EROI (i.e. EROEI) you are very confused. This is calculated on the basis of Wh/Wh. Simple dimensional analysis shows that $ doesn't show up at all in the calculation. Of course tax subsidies are useful to bootstrap on a $ cost basis, but with current costs and rate of falling costs even that will soon become unnecessary (let's get rid of fossil fuel subsidies to make this "real world data" comparison fair though).
  - maoistinquisitr 9y ago
    Cash flows are in fact a reasonable proxy for energy in many cases. Manually tallying up the uses of energy and materials is a handwaving exercise at best, but net losses of cash in the energy industry indicate with certainty that you not yielding net energy to society as an enterprise.
- chimmy_chonga 9y ago
  > they would be going up without tax subsidies. They don't even build Walmarts without tax subsidies these days.
- politician 9y ago
  Can you review this [1] and ELI5 why solar seems to work in China, but the Sun doesn't shine enough to make the economics work in the west according to your research? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China
- Brakenshire 9y ago
  > I repeat: if it worked the plants would be profitable and they would be going up without tax subsidies Right, so on that basis these bids below the grid rate indicate that they now work?
  - ams6110 9y ago
    Bids are speculations. Bidders are very frequently unable to actually deliver. See pretty much any highway project ever.
    - Brakenshire 9y ago
      Agreed on that.
- dtech 9y ago
  Can you link real world data? Are externalities (CO2 output) taken into considerations in your unsourced REAL WORLD DATA!!~!
- rconti 9y ago
  I would have bought a house without a tax subsidy. But there is one, so I'm sure as hell taking it.
- the_why_of_y 9y ago
  > if it worked the plants would be profitable and they would be going up without tax subsidies. No, it's the other way around: fossil fuels are subsidized by governments to the tune of $4.8 trillion a year, so solar needs to be subsidized as well to be able to compete. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
There's also the fundamental mistake that not all energy is equal. Energy in the form of electricity is far more useful than energy in other forms as it can be used directly. With other forms it will generally need to be converted first, with massive efficiency losses which are ignored by EROEI proponents. So for example while oil might be said to have an EROEI of 14.5, it loses 80% of that when used for the common purpose of turning a cars wheels, giving only a 2.9. generally those who quote EROEI numbers would claim this makes industrial society a literal impossibility.
- maoistinquisitr 9y ago
  All analysis I've seen indicates pretty much the opposite. Electricity is way less useful than diesel fuel. Our civilization critically runs on diesel and no one has figured out an even theoretically viable way to substitute in batteries where diesel is used in logistics, resource extraction, and pumping.

maoistinquisitr 9y ago

These claims are based on simplistic spread sheet models. We have REAL WORLD DATA. The real world experience throughout europe and the USA shows net losses. I repeat: if it worked the plants would be profitable and they would be going up without tax subsidies. Do you dispute this? Does the legal environment somehow prevent entrepreneurs throughout the western world from selling solar power into the grid?

bufferoverflow 9y ago
Nothing prevents anybody from selling solar power. Lots of solar farms are live and many more are being built. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta... (note how the biggest ones are all new)
telchar 9y ago
If you think tax subsidies have anything to do with EROI (i.e. EROEI) you are very confused. This is calculated on the basis of Wh/Wh. Simple dimensional analysis shows that $ doesn't show up at all in the calculation. Of course tax subsidies are useful to bootstrap on a $ cost basis, but with current costs and rate of falling costs even that will soon become unnecessary (let's get rid of fossil fuel subsidies to make this "real world data" comparison fair though).
- maoistinquisitr 9y ago
  Cash flows are in fact a reasonable proxy for energy in many cases. Manually tallying up the uses of energy and materials is a handwaving exercise at best, but net losses of cash in the energy industry indicate with certainty that you not yielding net energy to society as an enterprise.
chimmy_chonga 9y ago
> they would be going up without tax subsidies. They don't even build Walmarts without tax subsidies these days.
politician 9y ago
Can you review this [1] and ELI5 why solar seems to work in China, but the Sun doesn't shine enough to make the economics work in the west according to your research? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China
Brakenshire 9y ago
> I repeat: if it worked the plants would be profitable and they would be going up without tax subsidies Right, so on that basis these bids below the grid rate indicate that they now work?
- ams6110 9y ago
  Bids are speculations. Bidders are very frequently unable to actually deliver. See pretty much any highway project ever.
  - Brakenshire 9y ago
    Agreed on that.
dtech 9y ago
Can you link real world data? Are externalities (CO2 output) taken into considerations in your unsourced REAL WORLD DATA!!~!
rconti 9y ago
I would have bought a house without a tax subsidy. But there is one, so I'm sure as hell taking it.
the_why_of_y 9y ago
> if it worked the plants would be profitable and they would be going up without tax subsidies. No, it's the other way around: fossil fuels are subsidized by governments to the tune of $4.8 trillion a year, so solar needs to be subsidized as well to be able to compete. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

There's also the fundamental mistake that not all energy is equal. Energy in the form of electricity is far more useful than energy in other forms as it can be used directly. With other forms it will generally need to be converted first, with massive efficiency losses which are ignored by EROEI proponents. So for example while oil might be said to have an EROEI of 14.5, it loses 80% of that when used for the common purpose of turning a cars wheels, giving only a 2.9. generally those who quote EROEI numbers would claim this makes industrial society a literal impossibility.

maoistinquisitr 9y ago
All analysis I've seen indicates pretty much the opposite. Electricity is way less useful than diesel fuel. Our civilization critically runs on diesel and no one has figured out an even theoretically viable way to substitute in batteries where diesel is used in logistics, resource extraction, and pumping.