[littlestymaar]

Your figures have nothing to do with deploying solar panels in northern US / Europe. These are average numbers, that includes the panels deployed in Arizona or Australia. Solar is a good idea when you put in it the right place (like a desert), but not when you put in in the British Isles or in Denmark, that's the point I'm making.

[stinos]

Fair enough perhaps, but in any case: please you point us to the numbers for that?

Seeing the annual output of a typcial rather small 5kW peak home PV installation in Western Europe or even Denmark, it just seems unlikely that it would not offset whatever emissions it takes during its mining/production/shipment/installation during its lifetime.

[hef19898]

Helsinki is around, judging from looking at a chart on a phone screen, 20-30% more expensive than Munich per kWh produced using solar.. And still, Helsinki still is cheaper by a factor of roughly 2 than the average spot market kWh prices in 2022.

I linked to the source in one of my other comments. Also, Finland installed a ton of solar lasr year, so I guess if someone is doing sometjing someone else claims is impossible, it is possible regardless of what people say and believe.

[littlestymaar]

> Helsinki is around, judging from looking at a chart on a phone screen, 20-30% more expensive than Munich per kWh produced using solar.. And still, Helsinki still is cheaper by a factor of roughly 2 than the average spot market kWh prices in 2022.

The price doesn't have anything to do with the carbon footprint though…

> Also, Finland installed a ton of solar lasr year, so I guess if someone is doing sometjing someone else claims is impossible, it is possible regardless of what people say and believe.

Sure it is possible to install solar in Finland, if you're a politician and you want to do a PR move it's probably even a good idea, but it's not for producing electricity.

[hef19898]

Solar, once installed, has close to zero CO2 emissions (maintenance being the only source). And it is absolutely possible, and done. Not by politicians, but by people investing in the projects. And those expect, and get, returns. Funny, how otherwise reasonable people insist to argue against reality...

Disclaimer: Obviously, installing PV around the arctic circle is better during summer than winter...

[littlestymaar]

> Solar, once installed, has close to zero CO2 emissions

Thanks for this fabulously insightful take. Here's a similar one: “Coal, once burned, has closed to zero CO2 emissions”. I mean, yes, for sure, but that's a bit strange of an analysis isn't it?

> Not by politicians, but by people investing in the projects.

Well, first of all it is also done by politicians. And then “people investing in the project” is also a common sentence when discussing NFTs so I'm not sure how convincing you think it is.

Each euros that goes to solar in Finland and doesn't get to hydro, wind, biomasse or whatever, is wasted. Wasted in terms of energy production, and have a much bigger carbon footprint per kWh, but hey it's trendy (mostly because it makes total sense in California, the cultural center of the Western world).

> Funny, how otherwise reasonable people insist to argue against reality...

Funny indeed.

[hef19898]

Nobody in Europe installs solar because of California... Strabge idea. As is intentionally misunderstanding the fact that electricity out of coal produces CO2, while PV does not.

And regardless of NFTs, people investing in PV, as opposed to me putting one on my roof, expect returns on said investment. These returns come from selling electricity. Of thos equation isn't working, people don't invest. If it does, people invest. And that is proof that solar works out financially. Even in Finland.

Funny as well, how people use the "market" as argument for anything working, only to turn around and totally ignore it if the market confirms something they don't want to believe.

Reality is, Finland becomes a market for solar, believe it or not. That also being the case for utility scale projects, means it is financially viable. Those arw verifiable facts. Now you can choose to ignore them, or not, I don't care. What I care about is HN turning into a olace where people ignore facts and realizy, just to confirm their points. We can do better around here, because if not, there is no point in sticking around here anymore.

[rypskar]

>>right place (like a desert)

The panels are less efficient when it is hot, so at summer Denmark is the right place. They are even using solar on Svalbard [0] with good results 9 months a year

[0]https://nordregioprojects.org/blog/2019/11/28/archipelago-of...

[littlestymaar]

> The panels are less efficient when it is hot, so at summer Denmark is the right place.

Panels are less efficient when hot (which is a problem), but they are even less efficient when the sun is low on the horizon, which is the case even in summer in Denmark, and when there are clouds. These a reason why the most efficient plants aren't actually in Denmark but in Arizona…

> with good results 9 months a year

Nothing in your link allows assessing how good the results are supposed to be. The fact that, without any quantitative elements, you assume the results presented here to be “good” tells a lot about your confirmation bias.