Crystal ball time...

"the web is near certain to totally choke on its own vomit within a very few weeks" ???

I think I'd be putting bets a little further out, Don. :-)

Serious question:

Don, why do you continuously discredit PV and other alternative energy sources based on economic cost of energy rather than net energy yield arguments? Money is just a unit of measure for a non-physical thing. "Market value" if you will. Energy is a real physical entity that obeys the laws of nature.

It would seem, and a lot of folks into the subject of the rising energy problems, peak oil, etc. think that the primary issue determining the viability of any energy producing technology is net energy yield or EROEI.

If the EROEI of PV is reasonably greater than unity, then they are a net energy producer regardless of whether the economic calculations indicate otherwise.

Thus, it would be the economics and financial accounting that needs to be adjusted.

Your thoughts about this would be of interest.

I continue to discredit because net energy yield is an OUTRIGHT LIE.

There is ALWAYS a direct correspondence betwen dollars and energy.

When you enter into a net metering agreement with your local utility you CONTRACTUALLY AGREE that a present dime IS a present kilowatt hour and vice versa.

You can thus measure EXACTLY the same thing using EITHER dimes or kilowatt hours.

The FULLY BURDENED ECONOMIC COST of any alternate energy scheme is all that matters in the long run.

If your installation costs three cents per day and only generates two cents per day, you have a net energy sink. The longer you run it, the more energy you destroy. (There is, of course, a two position switch on the panel. In position #1 you destroy a lot of energy. In position #2, you destroy even more.)

"Time to energy breakeven" or "Net energy yield" is a COMPLETELY BOGUS wet dream by proponents who refuse to admit they have gotten suckered into a gasoline destroying net energy sink when properly full burden accounted.

The true energy cost of nearly all subsidies and tax breaks, of course, is something like TRIPLE their face value in net energy destruction.

At present, on a conventional silicon pv home installation, the cost of the synchronous inverter ALONE often consumes more than ALL of the electricity fed through it in amortization costs.

Absolute proof of this is that not one utility anyplace anywhere is capable of using conventional silicon pv solar for avoided cost peaking totally free of subsidies, credits, or greenniePR.

See

Don't waste your time, Don.

Tree hugging leftist weenyism is a religion, not a science.

...Jim Thompson

What is wrong with you? Do you think you can dismiss a question simply because of the *assumed* political inclinations of a participant?

This has nothing to do with that. And you are a liberal according to my definition.

But if you want to talk about the physics, and you think with your superior knowledge of engineering which you think makes you have superior knowledge of all things, then tell me this:

Petroleum -- you know, the black gooey politically rough and tumble manly "let's kill 'em all" conservative energy source...

Tell me if EROEI matters or not? If we spend 1.5 barrels of energy equivalent, ie 8.85*10^9 J to produce 1 barrel ie 5.9*10^9 J (1), but that barrel is produced for a profit, does that serve as a source of energy or not?

Note 1: I am not saying that is presently the case, though it will be soon enough.

But if Don's really a Guru, we can likewise discount his sermons.

Anyway, his analysis of the economics of PV is based on a short-sighted assumption of energy prices fixed at today's unrealistically low levels and on stalled technological progress in PV. When the oil runs out (or when global environmental catastrophe hits) and energy costs head for the stratosphere, the up-front costs of planning for solar PV will look like a good investment.

-- Joe Legris

Since that investment probably won't happen, I have a suspicion that some centuries from now there's going to be an awful lot of nuclear reactors back in the U.S...

Whether you like it or not, Don Lancaster is dead-on factual.

Wannabees can't defy the laws of physics AND economics.

...Jim Thompson

An overdose of neocon brain soap. ;-)

Cheers! Rich