Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Just on the bent of getting your facts straight.
Do you want to through in some research and links on why solar doesn't produce enough net energy for its costs?
Do you know the EROEI metric? Solar PV returns about 20 to 1 in primary energy equivalent. In secondary energy, electricity modern solar cells return about 10 to 1.
Do you know what synthetic crude returns? About 6 or 7 to 1.
If solar was such a financial loser as you're saying it is then show me some real numbers. I've provided you with many, that solar installations are expanding rapidly and their levelized cost is approaching that of conventional (subsidized) coal generation.
You have provided vague verbiage.
Please expand.
|
You might get farther if you stopped pouting and stomping your feet any time someone dared not to take you at your word.
It is fascinating to me that you continue to focus on the solar as a financial loser argument when the majority of Locke's argument was the upstream environmental costs. Given how hardcore of an environmentalist you seem to paint yourself as being, it is rather interesting to see you continually ignore the elephant in the room to focus on the mouse.
However, responding to one of your sets of figures, I would appreciate it if you show your work with respects to your EROEI figures. Because most of what I am finding online suggests "oil and gas" at >11-15 for Canada (depending on whether you look at conventional only, or include oil sands), up to over 30 for other jurisdictions that still have easily extractable oil. You, of course, specifically noted "synthetic crude", which is obviously different. And knowing you, that specific usage was not accidental. The various tables I have seen put solar pv in wide ranges noting anywhere from 3.5 to 12, though the most common forms of solar pv used today trend toward the high end of that range.