5 ms·
> they think it gives them 'free' energy and they are being 'green', while ignoring completely the carbon footprint of making that panel in the first place It'
by asgard1024 11y ago
> they think it gives them 'free' energy and they are being 'green', while ignoring completely the carbon footprint of making that panel in the first place
It's a little OT, but do you have some real data to back this up? This argument came up a lot in discussions about light bulbs and fluorescent lamps, but in reality cost of fluorescent lamp is around 1% of its lifetime energy consumption. I highly doubt that solar panels cost more energy to produce than 10% of their lifetime output, even in such poor conditions as England.
- corin_ 11y agoI don't have any knowledge about the efficiency etc. but one possibly relevant note is that sometimes there are government subsidies, so even if there was a situation where it wasn't environmentally better it could still be a financial win for the end user. (I know this scheme was or may still be available in Oxford, I don't know if it was UK-wide or could have been the local council, but I know it wasn't a private company offering the incentives.)
- asgard1024 11y agoActually, I have to correct myself - it looks like most estimates give PV panels EROEI somewhere above 6, which would mean about 15% of produced energy is needed for the production and maintenance of the panel itself. But even then it would probably be net gain. Subsidies etc. are a different matter, because then you're talking about competing with other sources and the strawman argument "it costs more energy to produce than it saves" doesn't work.