Solar panels use energy to create, and have a finite lifespan. If energy is generated but not used, it makes the average lifetime efficiency decrease. This does result in wasted energy.
Almost every innovation along the way to amazingly cheap solar has involved wasting more energy.
Note, I said amazingly cheap, not efficient. We have more efficient solar options but they're in the lab waiting for a breakthrough to make them cheaper or being replaced in the market with options that waste more and cost less per useful watt delivered.
The Economist did a whole issue recently about how amazing solar is and how it is changing the world but they've been mildly climate skeptical for years platforming frauds like Bjorn Lomberg and it still leaks through in their writing, even if they've switched to "solar being too cheap is bad" from "solar is too expensive to help".
Solar is competing against systems that pay for their fuel directly and which still turn two thirds of it to waste heat.
This is only true if the “generated but not utilized energy” is larger than the “total generated and utilized energy” + “total energy to create the panel”. Of courses, this is totally implausible as the lifespan of a typical panel is between 15-20y, and this is enough time for the inequality to turn good for using a panel.
Understood, and I agree. We could make this argument about other utilities too, e.g. mains water vs having your own water tank, public transport vs private cars. I guess municipal water supplies don't face the same 'existential' crisis, but public transport certainly has suffered with the rise of private car ownership, irrespective of the benefits that the latter has bought to individuals.
The electricity is switched off. If the system is fancy, maybe it's on a lower duty cycle. The panels just sit there, rotting, wasting their embodied energy.
> This is like saying, "I bought a car and don't drive it." -- which people do.
Well, it is, but in the same sense, if you own a car for a long time and don't drive much, your per-km costs end up high (due to car components wearing out from age rather than mileage) and your essentially fixed costs (insurance, etc.) end up proportionally greater compared to truly variable (gasoline, etc.) costs.
And if you really don't drive much, you get additional problems; the typical recommendation is to drive a car a minimum of a continuous 20 minutes every couple weeks.
Note, I said amazingly cheap, not efficient. We have more efficient solar options but they're in the lab waiting for a breakthrough to make them cheaper or being replaced in the market with options that waste more and cost less per useful watt delivered.
The Economist did a whole issue recently about how amazing solar is and how it is changing the world but they've been mildly climate skeptical for years platforming frauds like Bjorn Lomberg and it still leaks through in their writing, even if they've switched to "solar being too cheap is bad" from "solar is too expensive to help".
Solar is competing against systems that pay for their fuel directly and which still turn two thirds of it to waste heat.