How many barrels of oil (eq.) are required to manufacture and transport the PV panel?

muskstinks 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Its estimated that a PV panel is co2 neutral aver 2 years.

And the great thing is: this is only if the panel was produced with fossil fuels. So due to increase in green energy everywere, this number goes down too and a PV can easily be used for 15 years and after. After that it might just be more economicly to reinvest in a new set of PV panels while the old ones can be sold and used somewere else.

▲

kstenerud 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The oil payback (in terms of the panel and associated gear) is about 1.5 years, with a 25-30 year lifetime operating window.

This is with today's efficiencies. They are of course improving.

▲

_aavaa_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Less than it takes to manufacture and transports the barrels of oils it replaces.

▲

projektfu 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

About 1/10 or so of the output of the panel, e.g. 1 barrel of input energy making and transporting panels saves 10 barrels in fossil fuel energy. That's a rough number assuming a particular mix of oil based energy and no energy cost to procuring the fossil fuels used in the comparison.

▲

guntars 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you are curious about it, why don’t you go and find the answer and then let us know too, no?

▲

ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s a new account that has posted only pro nuclear and anti solar/wind stuff since its inception.

▲

leonidasrup an hour ago | parent [-]

You are both right and wrong at the same time.

Long time ago when Siemens in Germany was still building nuclear power plants, I was working in the nuclear power plant engineering department. After the year 2022 when the Russia invaded Ukraine, the gas shortages and the following costs hikes renewed my interest energy sector. Why didn't German reverse it's anti-nuclear stance, even with war in Europe?

Was is the general lack of knowledge of physical, technological and economical aspects of energy, both in German population and decision makers?

The political aspect became clearer after reading "Akte Atomausstieg" by Daniel Gräber.

https://www.perlentaucher.de/buch/daniel-graeber/akte-atomau...

Little bit of money from oil and gas industry always helps.

https://correctiv.org/en/latest-stories/2022/10/07/gazprom-l...

https://www.politico.eu/article/robert-habeck-germany-qatar-...

I think solar and wind are interesting technologies, (solar almost magical - turning photons of light inside thin layer of doped silicon into electrons) but by itself insufficient to power modern world. They are intermittent, weather dependent and low density. Yes the sun and wind come free from Sun, the machines that convert the energy, store it and distribute it are not. Minerals have to be mined, machines build, transported, installed and then disposed off.

Recommended reading:

"Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air" by Sir David John Cameron MacKay

https://withouthotair.com/

Books by Vaclav Smil:

Energy and Civilization: A History

Energy Transitions: Global and National Perspectives

How the World Really Works

"Why Nuclear Power Has Been A Flop" - The Gordian Knot of the 21st Century

https://gordianknotbook.com/

There are still big hydrocarbon reserves, gas/oil for atleast 100 years, coal 200 years, at current consumption rates. I fear that, if we don't use the only carbon free high density energy source and cling our hopes to the mirage of renewables, we will transform our atmosphere to hell.

When even the oil and gas giants advertise for renewables, you know that renewables will never replace fossil fuels.

"gas the perfect partner for renewable energies"

https://totalenergies.com/news/news/natural-gas-integral-par...

	▲	pjc50 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The real question is "why are nukemen so desperately against renewables (and therefore by default in favor of fossil fuels)?" The all-nuclear future had its moment in the sun in the 70s and has been comprehensively lapped. Only France came close. > the machines that convert the energy, store it and distribute it are not. Minerals have to be mined, machines build, transported, installed and then disposed off This is of course also a valid argument against nuclear power.

▲

jacknews 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Fewer and fewer, as the whole world electrifies.

▲

Epa095 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The usual carbon payback period for solar panels is 1-4 years.

▲

yenepho 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think (obviously) the OP is implying a net save here.

▲

Fokamul 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's 3rd world country problem, British people (with salary in top places of Europe) must save money!

▲

pch00 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Britain has the 8th-most expensive electricity in the world[1], seems prudent that a Brit would try to be more self-sufficient in terms of generation?

[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-e...

	▲	Fokamul 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ok. On your map, let's say the source is valid, UK has $0.4. I'm from CZ, we have $0.35. UK has more than double median salary, DOUBLE. Which means that in some cities it will be actually more like 2x or 3x smaller. But price of electricity is more or less same in the whole country here. Don't tell me something about expensive electricity and saving money. Because on top of that, let's check affordable housing stats https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/affordabl... Yep, one of the worst in EU, yaay.