3 ms·
> That claim is obviously absurd. If solar power now is cheaper than fossils then it’ll be cheaper to make them with solar energy going forward It would be abs
by alexey-salmin 2y ago
> That claim is obviously absurd. If solar power now is cheaper than fossils then it’ll be cheaper to make them with solar energy going forward
It would be absurd if your statement "solar is cheaper than fossils" was correct in a general sense but it's not. It may be true in a limited set of countries like US or Germany but it's not where the solar panels are actually produced. They are produced in China where this statement doesn't hold.
The fact of physics is that energy ROI (how much kWh you can produce by spending one kWh) of coal cycle is much higher than ROI of solar panels. Solar panels can still make sense as long as the ROI is greater than one but they cannot be cheaper than coal unless you cheat (import panels from a country with much cheaper electricity).
- oezi 2y agoYour logic only works if manufacturing of solar panels is an energy intensive tasks, which it isn't. The total energy expenditure of manufacturing, shipping and installing solar panels is recouped after operating the solar panel for roughly a year. Solar panels are now cheaper than coal because you need to dig up coal and bring it to the power plant, which costs more than the 4cents per kwh which LCOE solar now costs.
- alexey-salmin 2y agoIt is energy intensive. Studies I saw give 2 to 8 years to offset the PV alone, not counting inverters and the rest. One case of a heavy hail during that time and a panel becomes a net energy loss, a pure damage to the environment. > Solar panels are now cheaper than coal because you need to dig up coal and bring it to the power plant, which costs more than the 4cents per kwh which LCOE solar now costs. You're taking again the LCOE of solar produced from coal. Digging up coal and bringing it to the plant requires very little energy.