When you leave out boundaries, everything ends up with an EROEI of unity. That is because you count societal energy use as contributing to energy production.
This type of study can tell us if a particular build out rate is technically feasible or not. Your approach can't do that. It can say if we should continue the production tax credit or not as a means of carrying out a clean energy policy.
Since running cost is pretty much fuel cost, and since less fuel is used then yes, they will have lower running costs. It is upsetting to the fuel based plants to be used less since their revenue stream is reduced, but it is also extended in time since they don't wear out as quickly.
They account for the energy required for maintaining it, so they need to know how long it will be maintained. I guess that part and the recycling part are "pay ahead" rather than payback.
You missed a key word in the title: "energy." What is the energy payback time? So, how much energy went into making the steel and the blades and the generator windings? It is different from money.
No, it is the embodied energy. It takes energy to turn ore into steel or to make the windings of a generator. Energy payback time is a consideration for how quickly a new energy source can build out. If, like WWII, we were to concentrate very hard on a task, the task of replacing our energy system quickly, if we all froze in the dark for half a year, we'd be finished using wind turbines. With current solar, we'd need a year and a half. Obviously, there are other things that would be hold ups, but the payback time is a hard limit.
CdTe panels have been in this range for a while. It is expected that crystaline silicon will get there by 2020 for a central European site.
"The photovoltaic (PV) market is experiencing vigorous growth, whereas prices are dropping rapidly. This growth has in large part been possible through public support, deserved for its promise to produce electricity at a low cost to the environment. It is therefore important to monitor and minimize environmental impacts associated with PV technologies. In this work, we forecast the environmental performance of crystalline silicon technologies in 2020, the year in which electricity from PV is anticipated to be competitive with wholesale electricity costs all across Europe. Our forecasts are based on technological scenario development and a prospective life cycle assessment with a thorough uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. We estimate that the energy payback time at an in-plane irradiation of 1700kWh/(m2year) of crystalline silicon modules can be reduced to below 0.5years by 2020, which is less than half of the current energy payback time. "
Maps showing anomalies for summer heat in the paper "Perception of climate change" by Hansen et al. show Sweden as having led a charmed existence so far. http://www.pnas.org/content/10...
The US Northwest and Mid-Atlantic, A region around the Urals and China have been fortunate thus far as well.
The main input is electricity. Upstate NY has access to power from Hydro Quebec. With an energy payback time approaching 0.5 years, they may supplement that with solar as well. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Ah, I see one element of your confusion. You claim the crop insurance payout method changes in 2014. The evidence for climate damage caused increases in payouts comes prior to that. You have confused apples for oranges.
You might want to read that link again. 80% of 2012 crop insurance payouts were owing to climate damage. You do not seem ready to provide evidence for your claim, you just assert it. That makes it likely that you are confused in some way.
Slashdot Mirror
When you leave out boundaries, everything ends up with an EROEI of unity. That is because you count societal energy use as contributing to energy production.
This type of study can tell us if a particular build out rate is technically feasible or not. Your approach can't do that. It can say if we should continue the production tax credit or not as a means of carrying out a clean energy policy.
Since running cost is pretty much fuel cost, and since less fuel is used then yes, they will have lower running costs. It is upsetting to the fuel based plants to be used less since their revenue stream is reduced, but it is also extended in time since they don't wear out as quickly.
They account for the energy required for maintaining it, so they need to know how long it will be maintained. I guess that part and the recycling part are "pay ahead" rather than payback.
RTFA
You missed a key word in the title: "energy." What is the energy payback time? So, how much energy went into making the steel and the blades and the generator windings? It is different from money.
The price of electricity is falling in Germany owing to renewable energy. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... They like wind power.
No, it is the embodied energy. It takes energy to turn ore into steel or to make the windings of a generator. Energy payback time is a consideration for how quickly a new energy source can build out. If, like WWII, we were to concentrate very hard on a task, the task of replacing our energy system quickly, if we all froze in the dark for half a year, we'd be finished using wind turbines. With current solar, we'd need a year and a half. Obviously, there are other things that would be hold ups, but the payback time is a hard limit.
The study is peer reviewed. http://www.inderscience.com/in...
CdTe panels have been in this range for a while. It is expected that crystaline silicon will get there by 2020 for a central European site.
"The photovoltaic (PV) market is experiencing vigorous growth, whereas prices are dropping rapidly. This growth has in large part been possible through public support, deserved for its promise to produce electricity at a low cost to the environment. It is therefore important to monitor and minimize environmental impacts associated with PV technologies. In this work, we forecast the environmental performance of crystalline silicon technologies in 2020, the year in which electricity from PV is anticipated to be competitive with wholesale electricity costs all across Europe. Our forecasts are based on technological scenario development and a prospective life cycle assessment with a thorough uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. We estimate that the energy payback time at an in-plane irradiation of 1700kWh/(m2year) of crystalline silicon modules can be reduced to below 0.5years by 2020, which is less than half of the current energy payback time. "
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pip.2363/abstract
Bjorn Lomborg Is Part Of The Koch Network — And Cashing In: http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
That's what the saunas are for.
Maps showing anomalies for summer heat in the paper "Perception of climate change" by Hansen et al. show Sweden as having led a charmed existence so far. http://www.pnas.org/content/10...
The US Northwest and Mid-Atlantic, A region around the Urals and China have been fortunate thus far as well.
I wonder if going rogue on Kyoto is hurting Canada in this area?
The main input is electricity. Upstate NY has access to power from Hydro Quebec. With an energy payback time approaching 0.5 years, they may supplement that with solar as well. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
It's full of stars.
We've already done that several times: WWI, WWII, Ozone Layer....
Look at Spain, France and Italy.
The EU is cutting emissions. China is increasing emissions. There is a difference.
Certainly, do you?
That's fine. You don't like facts but like to make things up. We know how to read your comments.
In 2012, China ranked above 3 Annex I countries in per capita emissions. http://www.pbl.nl/sites/defaul...
You may be working with old data. China came in around 32nd in 2009 and has probably moved up since then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Thought I had done this. You can get there from the link I provided but it is not direct. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/...
Ah, I see one element of your confusion. You claim the crop insurance payout method changes in 2014. The evidence for climate damage caused increases in payouts comes prior to that. You have confused apples for oranges.
You might want to read that link again. 80% of 2012 crop insurance payouts were owing to climate damage. You do not seem ready to provide evidence for your claim, you just assert it. That makes it likely that you are confused in some way.