3 ms·

Interesting chart, but it does not seem to consider the cost of the installation, just the fuel, or it seems to assume a very long amortization period for nucle

by csours 6y ago

Interesting chart, but it does not seem to consider the cost of the installation, just the fuel, or it seems to assume a very long amortization period for nuclear/fossil fuel generation plants. With wind and solar, all you have is the plant. There's no EROEI on the fuel because there is no energy investment in the fuel for wind and solar.

H8crilA 6y ago
For a very long time solar panels would cost more energy to manufacture than they would output through their lifetime. This is no longer the case, but the amortization period is still large. Fuel is not the problem. The power plants are the problem.
- csours 6y ago
  They show the payoff period Germany and in Southern Europe. I wonder what the payoff period is in Texas.
  - H8crilA 6y ago
    It's probably better, but don't forget that this is inherently a global problem. Scotland is running 100% renewable - so what, who cares? Not only it's not enough (the country is small), they also import a lot of goods with manufacturing energy footprints that released co2 elsewhere. Even if the US switches to 100% renewable the problem is far from solved. Look at the population pyramid of Nigeria, for example. Those people will want homes (cement, steel) and cars and flights.
    - csours 6y ago
      I think I understand where you're coming from, but I would say 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'. Grand jumps in capability rarely (if ever) happen in the real world. Gradual change can feel like a capitulation, but it's often the safest and best overall. If you try to force huge change and fail or things go wrong or the system is deficient in some way, there can be a big backlash. The CO2 released in production and deployment of solar cells is regrettable, but as soon as that solar cell comes online it starts displacing fossil fuel.

3 ms·

Interesting chart, but it does not seem to consider the cost of the installation, just the fuel, or it seems to assume a very long amortization period for nucle

by csours 6y ago

H8crilA 6y ago
For a very long time solar panels would cost more energy to manufacture than they would output through their lifetime. This is no longer the case, but the amortization period is still large. Fuel is not the problem. The power plants are the problem.
- csours 6y ago
  They show the payoff period Germany and in Southern Europe. I wonder what the payoff period is in Texas.
  - H8crilA 6y ago
    It's probably better, but don't forget that this is inherently a global problem. Scotland is running 100% renewable - so what, who cares? Not only it's not enough (the country is small), they also import a lot of goods with manufacturing energy footprints that released co2 elsewhere. Even if the US switches to 100% renewable the problem is far from solved. Look at the population pyramid of Nigeria, for example. Those people will want homes (cement, steel) and cars and flights.
    - csours 6y ago
      I think I understand where you're coming from, but I would say 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'. Grand jumps in capability rarely (if ever) happen in the real world. Gradual change can feel like a capitulation, but it's often the safest and best overall. If you try to force huge change and fail or things go wrong or the system is deficient in some way, there can be a big backlash. The CO2 released in production and deployment of solar cells is regrettable, but as soon as that solar cell comes online it starts displacing fossil fuel.