Well i’ve had a good look for some information to support your claim Bret, but so far nothing. Everthing i’ve read on the EROI of PV Solar is positive and varies from 2 – 15 Years. Given panels last 25 years, its all good.

Now given your based in SA (I think), I’m wondering if your refering to Origin Energy’s Sliver PV Solar technology. Because this is a new argument all together and yes i’d agree that Sliver will take a while before it makes any positive gains.

“And your nuts if you think I’d give you any commercial sensitive”

I’ve been called worse , I don’t need the full commercial info just the numbers to back your claim.

“IMHO Solar is one of the best renewable technologies available.”
I totally agree!

But I do note that infact you have not successfully argued against the fact that Solar Panels do not give a positive return on their embodied energy. Long term solar is going to playa large part in our energy needs, but it does not yet payback as you claim.

And your nuts if you think I’d give you any commercial sensitive information.

Which has an impact on the energy used because? Don’t see how this differs from most manufacturing processing!

“- Ignores the energy cost to make the machinery and equipment.”

Bret, if you applied that to making a slice of bread i’m sure its footprint would be about 20 tonnes! We should only focus on running costs for now, otherwise we’ll be here for ever! Try appying that to theory to Oil! You would have to include the computers, the software production costs, the paper bla bla bla just to cover the process to find potential oil fields. Let alone drilling & extraction. And once your there you have to continue the process because Oil is a limited resource.

“- Ignores the environmental aspects of the chemical waste disposal.”

Once again, your inital argument was energy not chemical waste, even McDonalds us chemicals to clean up. How is that disposed of?

“- Ignores the Admin overheads (takes into account only the fabrication facility overheads)”

Same as above, we should only focus on operational energy consumption.

“- And the biggie: Bases all the calculations on the entire process using solar power to make solar power”

Which is the currently trend even google are entering the solar market, and making claims of the carbon footprint per search.

“Mate, have a look at a business plan from a solar facility (oh sorry you probably can’t).”

Cool, provide your information Bret, i will be happy to read.

“long way to go before it is genuinely environmentally”
I doubt anything we do will be truely good for the enviroment, all we can do is minimise impact, and reduce emissions. IMHO Solar is one of the best renewable technologies available.

However, it falls far short of being realistic and accurate:
- Ignores the labor intensiveness of the processes and the staff movements required.
- Ignores the energy cost to make the machinery and equipment.
- Ignores the environmental aspects of the chemical waste disposal.
- Ignores the Admin overheads (takes into account only the fabrication facility overheads)

- And the biggie: Bases all the calculations on the entire process using solar power to make solar power, and clearly there is a massive “lag” in that being the case.

Mate, have a look at a business plan from a solar facility (oh sorry you probably can’t). The only BS here is that document, sorry this is SOLAR energy not SNOW jobs.

That document is now over 4 years old and none of thier predicted futre trends have come to pass.

Sorry, but as good as solar power is, it has a long way to go before it is genuinely environmentally and commercially brilliant.