>One ton of silicon can produce, on the low end, 750 400 watt panels
how much labor and other resources are needed to fabricate the panels from raw material?

>>16905208
>Solar does not consume more energy than it produces.
Who's claiming it does?

oh look... silicon gives a basic charge with sun light. Better incarcerate people together to help with energy costs. Poor pawns for basic science.

>>16905208
That's milkmaid in every way. You need way more material to produce as the bare silicon and the wattage is at noon on the equator while maintaining 20°C. You have to convert the energy and storage costs are even beyond the clownworld you live in. In fact you can heat your house in summer and light the rooms on that days.

>>16905208
By my estimation the same number of panels cost 6 million tons of coal, 121 gigawatts of energy, and only break even after 67 life times.
And that is on the low end btw.

The best proxy for environmental impact including all of the little inputs like what quantity of toothpicks the laborers use on their lunch break is cost. That's what price signals are. There are externalities that don't get captured, but the income from the electricity generated less the cost of the panels is really the only thing you should have to look at.

File: Screenshot (253).png (222.5 KB)

222.5 KB PNG

>>16905262
put down the crackpipe.
or just stop talking out your ass, you fucking liar.

>>16905266
absurd
people pay 10 times as much for identical products because of a brand label. Oil and Coal have been receiving massive government subsidies for the better part of a century. The amount of money the government spends subsidizing Solar is a miniscule compared to how it spends on fossil fuels.

People over and under value the cost of goods all the time, the market is not an objective reflection of how much energy something consumes and produces, it is a subjective evaluation of worth that is terminally inaccurate and constantly wrong.

>>16905208
don't forget to consider:
>the cost of R&D
>the cost of maintenance
>the cost of the infrastructure and upkeep for researching, maintainence, transport, etc
>opportunity cost of distracting the pursuit what are obviously far more viable alternatives e.g. geothermal, nuclear

>>16905297
those energy costs are negligible compared to the manufacturing costs, and far lower than the same costs of oil and natural gas. Nuclear is a money pitt that results in the proliferation of nuclear weapons and cancer clusters, and geothermal is limited to geologically active regions, which are sparse and not always accessible.

If you were to include all the periphery costs of oil, natural gas, or nuclear, they would be far more expensive than the periphery costs of solar.

>>16905266
how bout we include the costs of coal miners divorce in the cost of coal? Or the CEO's golden parachute in the cost per barrel?

>>16905294
Imagine being on the side of claiming solar panels are a net profit for energy and accusing someone else of being both a liar and a meth addict.

Is this your first day on 4chan?

File: Screenshot (255).png (251.3 KB)

251.3 KB PNG

>>16905257
Industry and Air Conditioning uses power during the day. Reducing the load on our fossil fuel power plants offsets the costs of running them to power our lights at night.

We use more power during the day than we do at night.

Solar is never going to be mainstream because you can't demand power in real time from a solar plant like you can a hydro, coal, or nuclear base plant. This is such a fundamental point that gets lost because most proponents are not even engineers who understand this basic engineering fact. Just a bunch of idealistic scientists and progressive tree huggers who think they can do a napkin calculation on the benefits of solar over anything else all the while assuming that translates nicely into implementation.

>>16905396
>Solar is never going to be mainstream because you can't demand power in real time from a solar plant like you can a hydro, coal, or nuclear base plant.

Grid scale electricity storage is well under way.

File: Building the grid required for the future - Energy Storage.png (830.6 KB)

830.6 KB PNG

>>16905396
Hydro, coal and nuclear are stored energy, ie batteries, not direct power generating devices.
This is such an obvious fundamental point that gets lost in your post which shows you don't understand this basic engineering fact while lecturing people.

If you want to compare PV+battery with fossil fuels, factor in the time it took to build up the amount of energy FF contain. Now take the same time and estimate the energy that could be generated by PV and stored.

>inb4 moving the goal post
Ok, now it's about the engineering viability of the technology, not its intrinsic qualities. Then again, compare PV+battery tech today with FF tech at the same development stage, roughly a century ago (engines efficiency, drilling techniques, refinement processes ...).
Solar power struggles because it is relatively new and going through its growing pains just as any tech.

>>16905208
>One ton of silicon can produce
And how much energy does it cost to create such silicon?

>>16905484
Storage doesn't mean you can demand power whenever you want. Batteries have a limited rate at which they deliver power compared to a hydro plant which can open more gates or a coal/nuclear which can add more fuel or increase steam volume. Batteries can't be relied to do this at any scale, that's why they are only used for emergencies.

>>16905535
I feel you are exaggerating the situation. All other power generations have a cap on what they can produce. This is the same for batteries or anything else. Yes, solar is limited by clouds and day/night. But grid scale storage is truly no different than a power plant. You can absolutely turn up and down to meet demand, within the range. Moreover, setting up a battery storage somewhere is generally much easier than setting up a power plant. You can have many smaller storage batteries operating in parallel to meet demand locally, rather than a few large plants trying to manage lots of shifting demands across different localities, incurring transmission losses all the way.

>>16905535
>>16905539

And to build onto this, this leads to a democratization of power generation as well as more resilient grid structures.

We could see a future with large solar arrays covering the US's sprawling parking lots, with battery storage filling it's dying shopping malls.

>>16905539
Yea, until the grid starts demanding reactive power which again, the battery storage can't do at scale. If you have an example of a grid that runs on battery storage and can consistently deliver reactive power at scale show it, otherwise you are just talking theory.

>>16905544
Like I said, these are things being built, today.

Pumped hydro is a common grid scale technology that's all over the place.

>>16905546
That's not solar and you know what i mean. We are talking about solar/renewables, not general battery storage as your strawman wants to show.

>>16905548
>That's not solar

Pumped Hydro is often powered by solar panels during their peak generation. It's pretty much the first grid scale storage solution. I don't see how you can say electricity that's just stored solar, "isn't solar".

>your strawman

You subhuman trash, you throw that word out like a reflex, without any semantic meaning. You complained that Solar cannot be tuned to meet demand, an old problem that has had a solution:storage. I replied that storage is technology that's been in development for sometime now, since matching generation to demand has been an obvious problem since the tech was first demonstrated. I tell you these technologies are now maturing, not just theory, many have been operating for years, and more are being built and more are being planned.

You refuse to acknowledge you simply repeated something you read years ago, and rather than learn something new, you repeated a logical fallacy you don't even understand the meaning of.

Go throw yourself in a coal burner.

>>16905552
Lmao, are you alright, drink some milk and cool off.

>>16905228
People who consider manufacturing, transportation, and installation labor energy costs.

>>16905556
Well, they're obviously very bad at basic arithmetics, then.

>>16905208
The more solar panels and wind turbines my country, the more expensive the electricity gets.
Explain that, faggot.

>>16905535
Batteries and other grid scale storage solutions are far far more reactive to demand than actual power plants. Both in terms of how quickly they can respond to request for demand and in terms of how much of their power they can release. A hydro plant's typically operate somewhere along the lines of 50% capacity factor. That is to say the maximum increase in power a hydro power plant can deliver is 2x of what ever it's making and it requires them to physically open gates and spin up generators to do that. A battery power facility can go from 0% to 100% with couple relays switching, they are the ultimate form of reactive power precisely because of how fast they can be called upon to deliver power. Fossil fuel plants have similar problems and capacity factors to hydro, you can't just "add more coal" infinitely and expect the power facility to work, you can at a good day double the output and then that's it. Nuclear power plants are by far the worst operating near their maximum capacity continuously thus you can't just ask a nuclear power plan to make more power, it's already making as much or nearly as much as it can almost all the time.
This is obviously true that I have no idea why you would bother making up such a statement.

>>16905666
You don't even know what reactive power is lmao, you think its power used to react to demand, lmao.

>>16905684
The word is used in the context of the power plant reacting to power demand, which is what the post I responded to was talking about and the context which I used the word earlier in my post, not the technical term.

>>16905208
anon, you are giving the anti-solar shillbots too much attention.
as the old internet adage says,
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

>>16905556
you are assuming they are people in the first place. don't. they usually use obvious LLM language and never provide actual evidence for any of their claims.
you can, for example, literally show them prices of solar PV systems + time for ROI, and they won't reply.
also, they claim that solar panels leach to soil, which is bullshit. AFAIU, some PV cells (perovskite) might leach, but those aren't even being sold.
only retards who believe everything they read on the internet fall for their arguments.

>>16905533
12 MWh you illiterate retard
op wrote it in the post

>>16905702
OP most likely starts these threads just to shill anti-solar narratives. It's all pretty thinly veiled all things considering. It's the same way all "anti-flat earth" threads are in actuality started by flat earthers.

>>16905693
A lot of words to say you don't know what you are talking about.

>>16905710
I do know what it means which is why I told you context I used the word reactive because I don't think you speak English AND you don't know what reactive power means if you believe me referring to reactive power as a response to the post I quoted is in any way proper use of the term.

>>16905712
Lmao, no one uses reactive power in that context retard, least of all anyone who knows what it means. Maybe ask chatgpt to do better next time.