According to this, "after mounting in an open field or on a roof the EPBT [energy apayback time] will be 11.5 or 8.3 years respectively, [...] well short of the likely system lifetime of 30 years." Of course as measured under Sydney conditions.
I recognize the fact that under some circumstances (good weather, low power grid availability), PV panels are both power- and energy-economically more efficient. However, to seriously compete with other sources, solar panels require a lot of space per capita (about 62m2) and good weather conditions, preferably desert area. Even if the effects of permanent solar valleys on ecology and the riscs of the highly toxic mass-production (the arsenic and aluminium) are ignored, and the payback problem was just part of a nuclear power lobby, no one has proved that it is just a myth.
As this discussion has been held before, I will just quote that "the cost of the module is fixed at it's resale value and all the resources used to make it are included in that cost. If the target installation needs low power and the cost to bring in that power from a grid is greater than the cost of equal PV, then the PV solution costs less over it's operational lifetime than the cost to manufacture that PV. Should PV be installed in an area where there is cheap, reliable, and abundant electricty already produced, then the cost of a module over it's lifetime is greater than the resources used to make it. When discussing the cost of photovoltaics, or any power source for that matter, the hidden factor that needs to be considered is the CONTEXT OF INSTALLATION."
Solar energy can power your home even during overcast, so that shouldn't matter for those living in Michigan or wherever. However, besides the fact that Intel isn't doing so well recently, solar panel fabrication costs more energy than they provide before breaking down, so solar panels aren't the way to go if the environment or global heating is your concern. They may be however when we want to prevent economic wars like Iraq, as Nobel prize winner recently said.
Slashdot Mirror
According to this, "after mounting in an open field or on a roof the EPBT [energy apayback time] will be 11.5 or 8.3 years respectively, [...] well short of the likely system lifetime of 30 years." Of course as measured under Sydney conditions.
I recognize the fact that under some circumstances (good weather, low power grid availability), PV panels are both power- and energy-economically more efficient. However, to seriously compete with other sources, solar panels require a lot of space per capita (about 62m2) and good weather conditions, preferably desert area. Even if the effects of permanent solar valleys on ecology and the riscs of the highly toxic mass-production (the arsenic and aluminium) are ignored, and the payback problem was just part of a nuclear power lobby, no one has proved that it is just a myth.
As this discussion has been held before, I will just quote that "the cost of the module is fixed at it's resale value and all the resources used to make it are included in that cost. If the target installation needs low power and the cost to bring in that power from a grid is greater than the cost of equal PV, then the PV solution costs less over it's operational lifetime than the cost to manufacture that PV. Should PV be installed in an area where there is cheap, reliable, and abundant electricty already produced, then the cost of a module over it's lifetime is greater than the resources used to make it. When discussing the cost of photovoltaics, or any power source for that matter, the hidden factor that needs to be considered is the CONTEXT OF INSTALLATION."
Solar energy can power your home even during overcast, so that shouldn't matter for those living in Michigan or wherever. However, besides the fact that Intel isn't doing so well recently, solar panel fabrication costs more energy than they provide before breaking down, so solar panels aren't the way to go if the environment or global heating is your concern. They may be however when we want to prevent economic wars like Iraq, as Nobel prize winner recently said.