Hi Don, I have no idea about the DDS. I was on your site the other day, looking for numbers as they pertain to solar energy. (last update in 2008) There was some sentiment here (SED), that the price of panels had fallen enough in recent years as to make solar competitive. Various sites have various numbers that make this look true. (at least for sunny climes.)
The best present peak panel watt pricing is 49 cents, which is just under DOUBLE the net energy value demanded for renewability and sustainability. At least in parts of Arizona.
Not one net watthour of pv solar has EVER been produced.
But this price level is now insanely and frustratingly close compared to before. Analysis at
Thus, a solar panel STILL remains a net energy gasoline destroying sink, but is clearly emerging as a highly useful method of stealing subsidy dollars and greenie pr.
The first pv net energy breakeven can be expected around eight years after the price consistently hits an unsubsidized twenty five cents per peak panel watt. For actually hitting the magic number will obviously cause zillions of fresh dollars and their equivalent kilowatt hours to be thrown into the problem.
Pricing has been staggering around lately, but the magic number should be hit maybe in three years or so. Just given learning curves and such without any stunning new developments.
There are quite a few PV solar farms that inject millions of kilowatt hours into various grids.
The logic that says their production uses up more kilowatt hours than they ever generate does seem to be flawed. I've seen denialist shills claim that anything that fails to produce seven times as much energy as it cost to ma nufacture it isn't compatible with our current return on investment regime, which is a rather different claim.
says that current solar cells have a payback time of 6.4 years. Since they have a life-time of about 20 years, it looks like a good investment.
Not so much an analysis as a string of assertions.
An implausible assertion, but one that you do tend to find on denialist web
-sites, which are all subsidised by the fossil carbon extraction industry.
This isn't remotely true. Photovoltaic solar power has all sorts of applica tion in remote places, where shipping in diesel fuel gets very expensive.
The first application was for generating electric power on satellites in or bit, which is obviously an extreme case. Remote cell-phone towers are close r to home
As photovoltaic cells are manufactured in larger volumes the numbers of spe cialised applications where they become the cheapest solution goes up rapid ly.
Hitting the point where they generated power appreciably more cheaply than coal-fired power stations obviously opens up the largest possible market, b ut we've already got close enough to it makes pv solar farms attractive for remote communities, where the relatively small scale of pv solar farms mak es it sensible to build one close to the community, to save the power lost in long transmission lines from a remote coal-fired power station (at least during the day when the sun is shining).
Germany geared up to make ten times the then world market in solar cells a few years ago, in the justified expectation that this would let them halve the manufacturing cost and grow the market enough to let them sell all the cells that they made. More recently China pulled exactly the same trick.
Prices haven't been "staggering around". They've been manipulated by large capital investments, big enough to change the nature of the market, and mak e pv solar cells attractive to people who'd previously found them too expen sive.