[543g43g43]

We won't know what the cost of solar/battery will be in a sustainable energy economy, until someone builds a solar-powered solar panel and battery factory. At the moment, productions costs are heavily (as in, entirely) subsidised by fossil fuels (mostly coal).

[moloch-hai]

Cost of current production is an upper bound. As power costs fall, production costs that depend on that will fall, in lockstep.

Production is not subsidized: factories pay full price for their power.

[543g43g43]

You miss my point. The reason solar is so cheap right now (along with the huge amount of government subsidies) is that the huge amount of energy required to manufacture them is currently done with very cheap coal in China.

>Cost of current production is an upper bound.

Under the current state of the energy economy, maybe. If we had to replace all manufacturing power sources with renewables - absolutely not.

[moloch-hai]

Power from renewables costs less than from coal.

[543g43g43]

Maybe - with government grants, and coal-powered manufacture of all of the associated generation equipment.

That's not very interesting though - what is interesting, which has been my topic of conversation this entire time, is what the energy economy would look like if it were not still fundamentally rooted in fossil fuels.

Given that coal and other fossil fuels are basically free energy - it does not take much at all to get energy from it (ie, set it on fire), it is not physically possible for PV generation to beat that. Therefore, it follows that renewable power will be more expensive than fossil fuel power. I don't see why this is so hard to acknowledge - we are living in a time of unreasonably cheap power, fuelled by several million years worth of stored solar energy. It can't last.

[moloch-hai]

You make the same mistake fission boosters make. Converting heat to electricity is expensive. Solar and wind skip the expensive step, going straight to electricity. Electric power from solar and wind is already much cheaper than coal, without subsidy, for this reason, and because coal has to be dug up and transported. Coal has a high operating cost. Solar and wind have extremely low operating cost, and also very low capital cost, always falling.

Solar and wind, un-subsidized, are the cheapest power the world has ever seen, and their cost is still falling at exponential rate.

[543g43g43]

>Converting heat to electricity is expensive.

And? Most of our power usage is not supplied through electricity. Solar panels are never going to heat my house.

[Schroedingersat]

So the energy that is cheaper than coal and driving operating coal plants out of business will make the cost of producing it go up when the share increases?

These mental gymnastics routines are olympic level.

[543g43g43]

The reason we can ignore the huge manufacturing energy inputs required to make solar panels, is because it's powered by cheap domestic coal in China.

>driving operating coal plants out of business

Any specific ones? The only coal plants I've seen get shut down are because of environmental reasons (or age). Some countries, like Germany and China, are re-opening or building new coal plants.

Talking of mental gymnastics - fundamentally, the energy economy boils down to EROI (energy returned on energy invested). It's just wishful thinking that we can replace energy sources that are basically free (coal, oil, gas), with those that have energy payback periods in the mid-double digits of their expected lifespan (solar).

[Schroedingersat]

Try a new solar panel rather than one from the 90s. Your Shellenberger tripe about EROI went off when the EROI of solar surpassed that of nuclear and EPBT dropped below 18 months (or 6 months in sunny countries). Then it went even more ranc

If you're really worried about it, buy a panel from europe, the polysilicon (90% of the energy) comes from hydro, wind, and nuclear powered countries.

Even if all the money for a solar module went to coal generation at chinese or indian prices and nothing else it would pay back that power in under two years.

If the only activity involved in making PV was to spend the entire system cost on lignite and burn it directly at the mine front, it would *still* produce more energy in its lifetime than putting the coal in a coal plant.

It's absolutely laughable that you think you can keep spouting this ridiculous lie.

[543g43g43]

>the EROI of solar surpassed that of nuclear

Where do you get your numbers from?

>it would pay back that power in under two years.

That's exactly the problem. This is a significant portion of the lifetime output of the panels.

>it would still produce more energy in its lifetime than putting the coal in a coal plant.

I'm not arguing that solar panels are a net negative, as you seem to be implying. I'm arguing that the energy economics of a world fuelled entirely by solar (and other renewable technologies - solar is about the worst for EROI) would look very different to what we have now.

[Schroedingersat]

Crystalline Solar panels have a benchmark lifetime of 30 years and are consistently outperforming predicted degradation rates. None have worn out yet, but the best guess is a median 40 year lifetime. A new panasonic or jinko mono panel installed in india has epbt under 6 months and an eroi around 100.

You're the one making the insane claims. You back them up.

[543g43g43]

>A new panasonic or jinko mono panel installed in india has epbt under 6 months and an eroi around 100.

I certainly haven't made any claims as specific as this without any backup!