[kulahan]

No they don’t. They remain subsidized. Solar surpassed fossil fuels in efficiency ages ago, and I don’t even LIKE solar. Fossil fuels have no redeeming qualities in the major energy sectors anymore, aside from ONE: the plants are VERY cheap to build.

[otterley]

Solar farms are even cheaper to build!

[benj111]

Surely the redeeming feature is that they are already here...

[kulahan]

I thought the same thing, but actually, no. Fossil fuel plants are expensive to run. "That they are already here" is an argument for plants which are more advanced and thus, much more expensive to build, but much cheaper to maintain.

[askvictor]

Which fossil fuel plants are cheap to build? Cheap compared to what?

[colechristensen]

>solar surpassed fossil fuels in efficiency

What does this even mean? What inputs and outputs are you comparing to get an apples-to-apples comparison between efficiency between fossil fuels and solar?

[kulahan]

It's talking about the economic inputs required to create a unit of energy. Literally all you have to fathom is "can we add up what it takes to make a watt of energy from coal, vs. from solar power vs. some other plant, amortized over the lifetime of said plant?"

[hunterpayne]

"Solar surpassed fossil fuels in efficiency ages ago"

You are going to have to explain this. Because there is no measurement of efficiency in which solar PV in Minnesota in efficient in any way. To produce a watt of electricity using natural gas actually produces less CO2 than a watt from solar that far north. So it isn't even more environmentally friendly. And its far more expensive. It uses far more energy. So I have no idea at all what you are referring to. Cap Ex perhaps or cap cost...if that's what you mean, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[defrost]

> to produce a watt of electricity using natural gas actually produces less CO2 than a watt from solar that far north.

For the next watt, you need more natural gas which co-releases more CO2 .. or you can just use the same solar panel again - with its fixed up front CO2 cost already "paid for"

Over 25 or 30 years a panel keeps producing w/out additional CO2 release, during that same period natural gas extraction and consumption continue releasing CO2.

[lebuffon]

And when we begin coupling solar to cheap sodium ion battery banks it gets very interesting. Sodium ion will even be compatible with a Minnesota winter!

[icehawk]

> To produce a watt of electricity using natural gas actually produces less CO2 than a watt from solar that far north

What about the watt after that? I still got the solar panel for that next watt, and with natural gas I have... well I don't have anything, I need more natural gas!

[benj111]

What the bloody hell are you taking about. Minnesota is further south than the UK. Southern Minnesota is the same latitude as the Mediterranean coast.

Learn some facts before spouting bs.

[hunterpayne]

The UK is in the same boat as Minnesota for solar PV. There isn't a solar panel in the UK that will ever make more power than it took to produce.

[benj111]

It takes 1 to 3 years to offset the energy used to manufacture a solar panel.

The only situation where you would have a point is micro wind generation, and that's basically no longer a thing because it doesn't work.

[otterley]

You keep getting downvoted because nearly everything you say is not only factually incorrect but contradicts common sense.

If you want people to take you seriously, start linking to facts and analyses by credible sources or showing your math.

[serf]

>There isn't a solar panel in the UK that will ever make more power than it took to produce.

You're clearly and provably wrong, and looking at your comments shows me lots of clearly and provably wrong statements, and almost every single one of them pertains to energy.

..so I presume you have a dog in this race.